Orlando Postmatch

[21Architect]

NYC played through Ethan fucking White the entire 1st half but -as I sensed would happen before I even opened this thread- it was all Pirlo's fault.

The David Villa goal was friggin beautiful.

All that whining about Pirlo corner kicks and then Maxi does the unimaginable. He manages to kick the ball 90 feet in the air no less than 2 times on corners.

Orlando is a better team than NYC. It sucks to say but you know it's true.

 

[mgarbowski]

It is possible for all of things to be true, yet also unrepresentative of the larger picture.

Which in your view is what, either in this game specifically or theoretically and generally?

This might sound snarky but I'm inquiring earnestly:
Just going off PV's assessment, Orlando won the midfield, played the way it wants (long balls), succeeded at that (winning second balls), generated sufficient chances and finished, while our team did not defend well or take its chances. What is left? That covers forwards, midfield, backline, keepers, and style of play on both sides.
Yes, we won possession and had better passing efficiency, but not in a way -- according to PV -- that allowed us to control the midfield, defend properly, dictate the style of play, or score. I don't see how anyone can say -- based specifically on PV's description -- that Orlando was not better. What larger picture overcomes that?

 

[Midas Mulligan]

Maxi definitely did a better job with the corner kicks




lol

How many dead ball kicks did he take and how many goals? Want to compare that to il Maestro's record there? Pretty sure Maxi could kick them into the stands the rest of the year and still have a better goal/assist rate.

And he moves.

LOL.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

NYC played through Ethan fucking White the entire 1st half but -as I sensed would happen before I even opened this thread- it was all Pirlo's fault.

The David Villa goal was friggin beautiful.

All that whining about Pirlo corner kicks and then Maxi does the unimaginable. He manages to kick the ball 90 feet in the air no less than 2 times on corners.

Orlando is a better team than NYC. It sucks to say but you know it's true.

You offer so much valuable analysis. I really wish you posted more.

LOL.

 

[21Architect]

C'mon, man. You have to admit the Maxi corners were hilarious after months of complaining about Pirlo corners.

I typed lol cause I did lol. Hopefully I didn't offended you. You went for the throat there and crushed my game analysis

I stand by my analysis: Orlando is a better side and we were doomed when we began the match running plays through Ethan White.

Ethan White.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

C'mon, man. You have to admit the Maxi corners were hilarious after months of complaining about Pirlo corners.

I typed lol cause I did lol. Hopefully I didn't offended you. You went for the throat there and crushed my game analysis

I stand by my analysis: Orlando is a better side and we were doomed when we began the match running plays through Ethan White.

Ethan White.

I blame that on Tommy being on the wing. Happened all during preseason. He presents no threat in behind and that side always gets compressed.

Sorry for being harsh. I hate soccer this week.

 

[Christopher Jee]

Which in your view is what, either in this game specifically or theoretically and generally?

This might sound snarky but I'm inquiring earnestly:
Just going off PV's assessment, Orlando won the midfield, played the way it wants (long balls), succeeded at that (winning second balls), generated sufficient chances and finished, while our team did not defend well or take its chances. What is left? That covers forwards, midfield, backline, keepers, and style of play on both sides.
Yes, we won possession and had better passing efficiency, but not in a way -- according to PV -- that allowed us to control the midfield, defend properly, dictate the style of play, or score. I don't see how anyone can say -- based specifically on PV's description -- that Orlando was not better. What larger picture overcomes that?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be flippant. It was too late to be expansive, I've been long-winded on this thread already, and I thought a concise response would be enough to lead on to what I thought was the general viewpoint on this game, which was that we dominated the run of play but were foiled by freakish goalkeeping, poor refereeing and poor defending on isolated key plays.

He says that Nocerino had too many touches to dictate the game - that falls short of saying that they won midfield. He didn't say that we were completely dominated in there or unable to run our own plays through midfield.

He says that we were poor at winning second balls from their long balls - that can be true without talking about the fact that we otherwise controlled possession and forced them to resort to direct play.

He didn't talk about the fact that we managed to work it out to Jack enough times to get dangerous balls in the box, or the amount of time the ball spent in Orlando's half where we had numbers forward, the general dominance of midfield, the superiority in both quality and quantity of our chances or the effect of the referee's influence, or myriad other aspects of the game.

All in all, we created enough chances to win. He was asked, naturally, about specific things we did wrong, and not about specific things we did right, which is how we end up with an article where it sounds like we did nothing right and everything wrong.

 

[mgarbowski]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be flippant. It was too late to be expansive, I've been long-winded on this thread already, and I thought a concise response would be enough to lead on to what I thought was the general viewpoint on this game, which was that we dominated the run of play but were foiled by freakish goalkeeping, poor refereeing and poor defending on isolated key plays.

He says that Nocerino had too many touches to dictate the game - that falls short of saying that they won midfield. He didn't say that we were completely dominated in there or unable to run our own plays through midfield.

He says that we were poor at winning second balls from their long balls - that can be true without talking about the fact that we otherwise controlled possession and forced them to resort to direct play.

He didn't talk about the fact that we managed to work it out to Jack enough times to get dangerous balls in the box, or the amount of time the ball spent in Orlando's half where we had numbers forward, the general dominance of midfield, the superiority in both quality and quantity of our chances or the effect of the referee's influence, or myriad other aspects of the game.

All in all, we created enough chances to win. He was asked, naturally, about specific things we did wrong, and not about specific things we did right, which is how we end up with an article where it sounds like we did nothing right and everything wrong.

Thanks. My answer (to him, not you), is we've dominated the run of play in 7 games according to him, yet we've only won 3. Despite our average 62% possession to date, there has been a 50-50 chance the other team scores first, and generally after that we really turn it on. But not once in those occcasions while chasing the game have we equalized, and once when we scored first Montreal did. We're playing exactly as he says he wants, but not getting results

ETA: we did win against SJ after they scored first..

 

[Midas Mulligan]

We're playing exactly as he says he wants, but not getting results.

https://twitter.com/x/status/856487633551314949

Substitute Orlando where appropriate.

 

[Christopher Jee]

Thanks. My answer (to him, not you), is we've dominated the run of play in 7 games according to him, yet we've only won 3. Despite our average 62% possession to date, there has been a 50-50 chance the other team scores first, and generally after that we really turn it on. But not once in those occcasions while chasing the game have we equalized, and once when we scored first Montreal did. We're playing exactly as he says he wants, but not getting results.

I don't think we're playing exactly as he wants, nor is everything wrong. The difference between "exactly as he wants" and where we've been, minus the DC away game, which was a total cluster, is probably worth close to 2 PPG. Could go deeper but I'm train posting.

 

[Ulrich]

Thanks. My answer (to him, not you), is we've dominated the run of play in 7 games according to him, yet we've only won 3. Despite our average 62% possession to date, there has been a 50-50 chance the other team scores first, and generally after that we really turn it on. But not once in those occcasions while chasing the game have we equalized, and once when we scored first Montreal did. We're playing exactly as he says he wants, but not getting results.

Thus.... we are the stateside version of Arsenal.

 

[Sabo]

Orlando is a better team than I originally thought because of Jonathan Spector -- he is doing to the Lions what Ciman did for Montreal -- turning a bad team into a 4-6 seed playoff team that can be a tough out.

Its not just about possession -- just about every game we played we have had twice as many good scoring chances as our opponents. Sunday was no different. Even the DC game was about even.

Orlando has had fewer chances to score than their opponent in every game I have seen them play this year. They have had a great start getting 5 wins with 8 goals, but if past performance this year is any indication, there is no way Orlando is better than NYCFC over a full season.

 

[roxfontaine]

I stand by my analysis: Orlando is a better (coached) side

Fixed.

 

[roxfontaine]

Thanks. My answer (to him, not you), is we've dominated the run of play in 7 games according to him, yet we've only won 3. Despite our average 62% possession to date, there has been a 50-50 chance the other team scores first, and generally after that we really turn it on. But not once in those occcasions while chasing the game have we equalized, and once when we scored first Montreal did. We're playing exactly as he says he wants, but not getting results

ETA: we did win against SJ after they scored first..

 

[sbrylski]

You know the baseball adage, "everyone wins 50 games and everyone loses 50 games, it's what you do with the other 62?" We can argue all day about why we lost on X and why we won on Y, but in the end...

It all comes down to finishing. We have been quite good at just about everything this year, and we generate a lot of shots (1st in shots on-target per game), but we are 11th in goals per shot and 17th in goals per shot on target. You can't compete for first place if your shots don't go in. Our three losses have all been by just one goal - nothing else matters if you don't finish.

 

[Rimil]

sorry no time to write a review, so i will just plagiarize from the internet.... ah feels like im back in college.

 

[Ulrich]

sorry no time to write a review, so i will just plagiarize from the internet.... ah feels like im back in college.

View attachment 6926

Back in college before spelling/grammar check. Oof!

 

[danger]

https://twitter.com/x/status/856247410049392640

FYI: I didn't realize until listening to Soccer In the City but the Pirlo questions were from Christian Araos

 

[canchon]

You know the baseball adage, "everyone wins 50 games and everyone loses 50 games, it's what you do with the other 62?" We can argue all day about why we lost on X and why we won on Y, but in the end...

It all comes down to finishing. We have been quite good at just about everything this year, and we generate a lot of shots (1st in shots on-target per game), but we are 11th in goals per shot and 17th in goals per shot on target. You can't compete for first place if your shots don't go in. Our three losses have all been by just one goal - nothing else matters if you don't finish.

The reason NYCFC has had a slow start is pure finishing and scoring goals. NYCFC is actually in the top 5 teams in the league in terms of goals allowed (7 goals in 7 games). If NYCFC defends at that rate for the entire season, they would have improved their goals allowed by +23, a massive improvement.

Realistically you would think they should be about 3-4 points better than they are now: give them a W against MTL and a draw in one of the Orlando games, and they are at 13 points. 2-3 more goals at the right time would have done that.

Those stats are really telling. However, if you go by expected goals, for all that "domination", NYCFC had less xG than Orlando in Sunday's game. So their chances aren't that great, although they are getting a lot of them.

 

[Kjbert]

sorry no time to write a review, so i will just plagiarize from the internet.... ah feels like im back in college.

View attachment 6926

That's some remarkable iNet sleuthing