Away - March 29 - Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any (other?) dissenting opinions on whether Mata was culpable? From memory and second watch, the entire team got caught on transition after a free kick. The highlights cut between the free kick and the instant of the throw. I could re-watch it but I feel like we are reading a lot into a bad turnover on a transition which ultimately is an outlier in the data that represents the majority of his play while at left back.

Another way of looking at it - would Sweat / Rocha / replacement level LB have gotten back on that play, given a system which requires full backs to push up the field, and given Chanot's egregious turnover?
Is it disingenuous to posit a “what if” situation, that has no method of answering, versus a play that the result is known?
 
Is it disingenuous to posit a “what if” situation, that has no method of answering, versus a play that the result is known?
It's certainly not disingenuous. I feel like evaluating every player is an exercise in trade-offs. Particularly in MLS. Otherwise everybody has some sort of deficiency vs ideal.
 
It's certainly not disingenuous. I feel like evaluating every player is an exercise in trade-offs. Particularly in MLS. Otherwise everybody has some sort of deficiency vs ideal.
Ok, but how exactly would you evaluate how another player, not on the field, would react in the same situation??? You can guess, but that’s about it. There is a ton more past evidence of Sweat tackling the ball away on a full sprint, so are you going with that? Personally, I’m not gonna speculate if another player would have been as far out of position as Mata, who has a tendency to be caught up field a lot.
 
Ok, but how exactly would you evaluate how another player, not on the field, would react in the same situation??? You can guess, but that’s about it. There is a ton more past evidence of Sweat tackling the ball away on a full sprint, so are you going with that? Personally, I’m not gonna speculate if another player would have been as far out of position as Mata, who has a tendency to be caught up field a lot.
Perhaps evaluate similar situations. And in the meanwhile keep track of how frequently they show up. And if it's too infrequent to be conclusive, consider if this is being overemphasized in the analysis. :shrug:
 
Any (other?) dissenting opinions on whether Mata was culpable? From memory and second watch, the entire team got caught on transition after a free kick. The highlights cut between the free kick and the instant of the throw. I could re-watch it but I feel like we are reading a lot into a bad turnover on a transition which ultimately is an outlier in the data that represents the majority of his play while at left back.

Another way of looking at it - would Sweat / Rocha / replacement level LB have gotten back on that play, given a system which requires full backs to push up the field, and given Chanot's egregious turnover?


A more defensive-minded LB would have been there. One on the same level of our current LB? Probably not. Honestly surprised a defender from the academy isn't being called up, for the sole reason of trying to light a fire under these people's asses. Guess that's what happens when USL level doesn't exist.
 
Any (other?) dissenting opinions on whether Mata was culpable?
A more defensive-minded LB would have been there.
I don't think Mata was culpable and more than Sands was. It was a busted free kick. There were a couple of players back, as is normal for that scenario. Their job is to play safety first while the lines reset. Chanot didn't do that. Instead he tried to play possession straight into the very middle of the field. Horrible decision. People are free to complain about Mata all they want. I don't think that play can be laid at his feet, nor Mitri's.
 
I don't think Mata was culpable and more than Sands was. It was a busted free kick. There were a couple of players back, as is normal for that scenario. Their job is to play safety first while the lines reset. Chanot didn't do that. Instead he tried to play possession straight into the very middle of the field. Horrible decision. People are free to complain about Mata all they want. I don't think that play can be laid at his feet, nor Mitri's.
Nobody has laid it at Mitrita’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnB
Cool, so you agree with everything except for the last two words and punctuation marks? :Joycat:


A more defensive-minded LB would have been there. One on the same level of our current LB? Probably not. Honestly surprised a defender from the academy isn't being called up, for the sole reason of trying to light a fire under these people's asses. Guess that's what happens when USL level doesn't exist.

I think that goal is 93% Chanot. Everything is negligible, simply saying a more defensive minded player may have initially shaded back more than either Sweat or Mata, and I don't personally think Rocha would be able to go 1v1 against Carlos Vela for what I believe are obvious reasons. But should Mata have been there? Probably, but he shouldn't get faulted for a stupid mistake from someone else
 
It's certainly not disingenuous. I feel like evaluating every player is an exercise in trade-offs. Particularly in MLS. Otherwise everybody has some sort of deficiency vs ideal.
As a third-person, uninvolved, wanna-be grammarian, I would say that "disingenuous" has a clear implication of intent to deceive, which I'm guessing is not the case here. Inherent weakness of hypotheticals, but not disingenuous.

<gavel hitting desk sound>.
 
As a third-person, uninvolved, wanna-be grammarian, I would say that "disingenuous" has a clear implication of intent to deceive, which I'm guessing is not the case here. Inherent weakness of hypotheticals, but not disingenuous.

<gavel hitting desk sound>.
True. What's a better way of trying to make the point I was making?
 
There was a comment or two about it. Not blame, just reference.

I think Christopher Jee Christopher Jee made the point. You are fixing on the least relevant tree. The forest is that Chanot failed to play safe.
If you included the reference, out of context no less since he never was blamed, and at the tail end as a dangler, then it was equally relevant otherwise don’t include it.

And as at fault as Chanot was for not chucking it away, Mata was at fault for pushing up without having his man sufficiently covered, free kick or not. When I played in my youth, as an outside back, I was given free reign to attack down the side provided there was coverage behind me. I wasn’t allowed to go forward if our defenders were out-numbered because a counter would leave us exposed to numbers. That’s just common sense.
 
As a third-person, uninvolved, wanna-be grammarian, I would say that "disingenuous" has a clear implication of intent to deceive, which I'm guessing is not the case here. Inherent weakness of hypotheticals, but not disingenuous.

<gavel hitting desk sound>.
Christopher Jee Christopher Jee is trained in the dark arts and it’s in his blood to deceive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.