yes but you miss the point. first of all cancela was having an ok (better than smith) game. but subbing smith does not chance the style and point of attack. besides, smith might benifit from a shift to direct balls played in. cancela/the revs doesn't start controling the middfield if endozien subs for smith. so subbin smith for endozien doesn't actually change the game. it just takes smith off the field. the sub wasn't a referuendum on any player's contribution, more of a change in tactic. a different look. are you saying that you don't like the tactic? or that you think cancela is better than smith. the latter is obvious. we can all agree there. everyone 'baffeled' by the sub seems to ignore (or not address) the tactical changes, and focus on the 'latin mystique" that is seemingly the key to success? i also don't belive cancela is a threat to score. especially when, as noted, he wasn't getting good looks at the ball - and certainly not from distance, with his weak shot. smith is just as likely (or unlikely) to score when needed. in fact - jay heaps is more of a threat.
I guess my question is this: do you really think we controlled the game better through the midfield when Cancela came out?? I don't think so. We reverted even more to 'long ball' than ever. I completely disagree with the statement about taking Pepe out when we are behind. He is clearly not very defensive oriented: hence it makes sense when we are ahead in the second half to sub out Pepe. However, given his offensive creativity and posession ability it makes sense to have him in there when we are ahead or tied. I also disagree with the statement that Cancela doesn't make the players around him better. He created or helped create many of our dangerous opportunities in the first half. This conversation has been had before by many of us. We'll see how it evolves between Nicol and Cancela.
i think you are missing the point. your assesment is correct. we didn't posses the ball better with cancela out of the line up. Reverting to longball WAS the plan when cancela came out (sort of a hail mary effort to salvage a point, when all else was failing), and endozian is better suited to work that plan (as is smith for that matter) than cancela is. This change was a result of ineffective use of the little possesion that the revs did have, with cancela out there. did you think we ever really controled the game and possesed the ball, with cancela out there? were we on the offensive, about to score, and dominating before he was pulled? did nicol pull the plug on an effective game plan? I think not. the team wasn't getting it done, so SN tried a different look.
I agree with your point Rev-OKe and that is why I said this is a conversation that will play out between Cancela and Nicol. However, I do disagree with Nicol going to long ball given the matchups out there. I frankly got a bit tired seeing Twellman getting whacked around by Curtin on long balls and I have seen that failed strategy for way too long in the past. I can only imagine Curtin smiling inside everytime he gets another free hit on Taylor. On the questions on whether we were about to score, I would submit that we had the start of at least 4 strong chances to score in the first half. Khano went solo on two of them rather than laying off to an overlapping midfielder on the outside in the box on one of them and missing passing to a 'showing' Twellman on the penalty spot. On the other two, Twellman got into the box around Curtin, but mishit the shot and then Riley got to box and sent in a cross that Smith reacted to WAY too slowly (or was just a bad cross by Riley). Hence, the question in my mind: On these chances who was most responsible for us not scoring? On my scorecard Khano "erred" on three of them, Twellman one. Hence, the question why take out Cancela who helped set up all four...the only real chances I saw in the first half? Obviously Nicol was NOT in agreement with my assessment of what was needed and I'll defer to him - like whether I defer to his judgement or not makes any difference ;-) However, I remain 'baffled' by it.
i agree. yet no shots on goal. both options, long ball and possesion play were not exactly obvious winners.
I understand the point that Nicol may have made a tactical decision to go route 1 soccer. Where is the evidence that Smith is effective in an aerial attack?
Lets just get our starters back from Da Bruce and fill the two empty senior roster slots. Having six or seven senior roster players unavailable for a match is getting a little old.
Would the investment (of possibly taking a loss) of keeping Cancela in and having the bench players utilize the opportunity to play in a full speed, non-reserve match to keep working on the passing/control game? I don't think the change in plan greatly increased our probability of scoring and I don't think reverting to blooter ball helps increase the quality of our bench. But, it was only for the last approx. 30 minutes, who knows. Of course, mostly, I just plain like Cancela and don't understand the season long pattern of subbing him out.
There is none. infact I think he sucks in the air for a guy who is 11ft tall. cancela is 3ft 2in, so he doesn't add much there either.
Re: Gilberto Flores NYT posted a complete salary list a couple days ago: Cancela - $151k Cassio - $60k Brilliant - $28k Keep in mind, with them both, Rev still had the lowest payroll in the league. However, in the next couple years with all the raises the players are likely to get (especially if Rev contend for a title), 'caponomics' may well become a concern (especially if Rev try to keep Clint Dempsey long-term).
talk about baffeling!!! if this was rec league soccer maybe. but not in a first divsion professional league - when you are fighting your division rival for 1st place. you are probably right. right again. but 1-3 pts is worth more than getting bench players a run out. this is the pros. if you are bench player, and your time comes, and you don't take your chances, you may be pushing burgers at mc'ds. you don't get to 'practice' when real games are on the line. thats just reality. there are no 'charity' games or 'mulligans' for the bench players. I like him too. but i find it hard to belive that you can't understand the logical - if not completely textbook and prediciable thought pattern that the rev's coaches have employed. I also think it is ok to question them - i am ambivalent myself about the change in this case... but your reasoning for keeping cancela in, i think, is not in alignment with the reality of pro soccer coaching decsiion making.
I keep hearing this, but I don't believe it for a second. What kind of coach works all pre-season on possession play, preaches it constantly to his team and then in the middle of tough game when the team is struggling tells them to boot it up field and let the two forwards who are small (Twellman) and weak (Smith) fight for it? That's not tactical coaching, that's conceding - and I don't think that's the way Nicol does things. "Rt. 1 soccer" happens when defenders and goalkeepers feel pressured, don't see any "safe" short options and settle for the long pass. What typically happens is that the defense wins the long ball, comes right back on the offensive and the next time the defense wins the ball, they are under even more pressure. This is nothing new. This defense, even with the great addition of Parkhurst, has ALWAYS struggled when they haven't gotten a LOT of help from the midfield. With rookies on the wings, an overmatched Franchino and an uncreative Dorman, the defenders panicked and blasted it forward or played it back to Reis for him to blast it forward more and more as the game went along. They passed for the first 25 minutes of the game. Then they just kicked the rest of the way. "Rt. 1" happens because the defenders (in this case, Heaps, Franchino and Leonard) lack confidence with the ball under pressure. It doesn't happen because the coach tells the team to play bad soccer and go away from their strength.
so you are saying that long ball soccer is always an accident, is never a strategy, and the rev's 'strength' was possesion soccer? sorry, but in the world of getting results, weaker teams ( or teams playing as weakly as the revs did against the fire) often resort to blue collar, counter attacking long ball styles. there are examples of teams that have done this, from mls cups, all the way to the world cup finals. bad soccer??? jogo bonito is dead, unless you wear yellow, you can forget about it. even then, getting a result is more important. to say that nicol is too 'proud' to use a pragmatic strategy to get a result is rediculous. to suggest that nicol 'conceeded', by trying a new look in attemt to win, is contradictory.
No, just my opion form watching the games. He may not score a lot, but be he has prove her can create some, but he can't do it from the pine. I disagree, there is nothing Latina American about the Revs play at all this year. It is straight up EPL, based on a high pressure fast attack set up by one and two touch passing often to the outside for return back into the box in the from of a cross. Revs do not play Possession first attack second as it is common Latina American. If we seam to at times it is because we are trying to kill the game off or there is not a good attacking option at that moment.
No, I'm saying that when your team is particularly poorly-suited to that style of play, it would be defeatist to go in that direction (and undermines the style that Nicol has been very clear about implementing). Twellman only gets beat up by the likes of Curtin when we send long balls forward and Smith (and Edozien) haven't shown the ability to win long balls. It's a strategy that favors the defense and makes no sense unless you have players who are particularly suited to that style (which the Revolution don't). Yes, *maybe* it makes sense if you have Niall Quinn. We don't. And even if it is effective offensively, you are still conceding possession which means you are doomed to defend most of the time - and that's a deathwish with our defense. [In the last 5-10 minutes when you're behind, everything changes because you're basically throwing everyone forward anyway]. Franchino continually had passes intercepted. Heaps looks and looks when he has the ball and then attempts long passes upfield - not because that's the strategy they're using, but because he doesn't have confidence to carry the ball forward of make safe passes in tight spaces. Ditto with Leonard at times. In their defense, who are they supposed to have confidence in delivering the ball to under pressure: Latham, Riley? When they DID get the ball to Cancela, he handled it well. Dorman usually doesn't cough it up, but also rarely makes a creative pass to spring an attack.
Just wanted to point out that in ASN's longer than usual rambling about Colorado's efforts to make improvements to their side, there's no mention of Cancela or any trade within MLS for that matter.