Portland - Postmatch

Why bother?
If you care personally as an intellectual pursuit to distinguish them, OK. But if his production suffers because of his age, I really don't care if it's because he's slow or because he can't play much.

Easy, because a player who's playing but not producing (a Villa who doesn't still have it) hurts his team a lot more than a player who's rotating with someone else (a Villa who doesn't have 2500 minutes in him). This is especially true when the rest weeks are coach's decisions.

If we can count on our best player come playoff time, I'm happy.
 
Last edited:
Easy, because a player who's playing but not producing (a Villa who doesn't still have it) hurts his team a lot more than a player who's rotating with someone else (a Villa who doesn't have 2500 minutes in him). This is especially true when the rest weeks are coach's decisions.

If we can count on our best player come playoff time, I'm happy.
yes, no, maybe.
First, I responded to 2 consecutive posts that said he'll be fine because his ratios are good and both ignored the problem that when the multiplier part of the ratio is low a solid % cannot make up for it. Pointing out the major missing factor shouldn't be dismissed.

Second, I don't necessarily agree that a full quality part time (and randomly available) veteran is better than a full time reduced production veteran. In the former case the coach has less control. The team plays differently when Villa is in than when he is out. I don't think it helps if we keep going random games with him and then without him. It's one thing if he's generally healthy and Vieira wants to give him planed off days just because he's a bit older. But if he continues getting little knocks that mean missing games at unexpected times for the rest of the year, that hurts continuity and flow. And relying on any player with that profile in a playoff league is a very bad risk factor.

I agree the good news is that if he can stay healthy for the next 7-8 months, then the ratios show he'll probably be productive at something close to his recent averages. That is something to hope for.
 
yes, no, maybe.
First, I responded to 2 consecutive posts that said he'll be fine because his ratios are good and both ignored the problem that when the multiplier part of the ratio is low a solid % cannot make up for it. Pointing out the major missing factor shouldn't be dismissed.

Second, I don't necessarily agree that a full quality part time (and randomly available) veteran is better than a full time reduced production veteran. In the former case the coach has less control. The team plays differently when Villa is in than when he is out. I don't think it helps if we keep going random games with him and then without him. It's one thing if he's generally healthy and Vieira wants to give him planed off days just because he's a bit older. But if he continues getting little knocks that mean missing games at unexpected times for the rest of the year, that hurts continuity and flow. And relying on any player with that profile in a playoff league is a very bad risk factor.

I agree the good news is that if he can stay healthy for the next 7-8 months, then the ratios show he'll probably be productive at something close to his recent averages. That is something to hope for.

Not dismissing you at all! The point about continuity is important. It's just distinct from whether our best player is still our best player, which I think is where we started with the question of whether Villa still "has it."

We knew when we agreed to pay a 36-year-old forward $5.6m that he'd be playing limited minutes. We didn't know whether he'd be able to produce during those minutes, and I'm glad we're both optimistic on that count.

The hard question, then, is whether the depth we signed specifically to address the continuity problem "has it." Can Medina, Berget, Isi, and Wallace function as a unit? Can we win games both with and without Villa? There are still some kinks to work out but so far the signs look pretty positive there too.
 
Last edited:
The problem with Ofori is that he doesn't like to tackle or disrupt. His passing was better as an 8 than a 6, but he doesn't crash into people and imposes his physicality like Herrera does, so we lose some bite with him at 8.

This was my main takeaway from the match - Ofori's style of defense is to try to make a tackle or nip the ball away. He never takes the player whereas Herrera generally tries to use his frame to get his shoulder in front of the attacker, shield the ball and move it along. I feel like this is crucial for us when it comes to recycling possession after failed attempts to penetrate the 18. Against Portland, they would recover the ball and work it through our midfield far too quickly, so it was really difficult to sustain pressure and find gaps in their low block. We missed Herrera's physicality but maybe Ofori's better passing (small sample, but 91.7% pass completion vs Herrera's 84.4%) would have been more beneficial with more cunning forward play, or if Ofori was able to be more direct with the ball. Is it still a rust / confidence thing? He's a guy with an interesting skillset, but it's getting harder to see where he fits into our team, and clearer that if one of Ring or Herrera go down, we don't have another physical option to play in there.

I'd love to see Portland's defensive shape from a wider angle, but it felt to me like they were actively pushing us wide, a pretty common 4-4-2 defensive shape. Atletico Madrid do this really well. At that point, our best shot would be to switch the ball quickly, but we were letting ourselves down hard with individual skill issues.

Since Portland were overloading us in wide areas, we needed our central midfielders to pull closer to the lines and help move the ball out of those overloaded areas. This didn't happen, even though we had a spare man in the center. Also, playing through the middle didn't work because Berget and Wallace aren't really clever in and around the box. We needed someone like Medina in the middle to combine with Villa and our midfielders. As I think others have said, having two hard working, high pressing forwards doesn't make sense when your opponent isn't interested in keeping the ball.

Turf isn't an excuse, but we just can't seem to get to grips with the surface at all, and when you combine turf plus congestion, you end up with a game plan that seems horribly effective against us right now.