Unfortunately, Tony Robbins is a co-owner of LAFC. Well, they don't play until 2018, so maybe he can help.
Postmatch Toronto
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
- Status
Unfortunately, Tony Robbins is a co-owner of LAFC. Well, they don't play until 2018, so maybe he can help.
Not sure why
NickA made this claim and why you are repeating it. I haven't heard anyone here say that a 0-0 draw would be advantageous for us.
Yeah, I was watching the game and around the 65' started to think WTF good does a 0-0 tie do for us because we still must win at home to advance (I don't consider it possible to end 0-0 at home)?!?! I had no problem playing for a tie provided we had an away goal, but surely CFG has a statistician on staff that could explain the problems of a 0-0 away result before PV launched his battle plan??? All our firepower and it was misused - just like Operation MarketGarden - what a total shitshow.Not sure why
And then it looked like Harrison was going to emulate Frank with a kneed ball into the net only to not get enough power behind it.... that would have been the ultimate smash/grab heist.... alas, the British squire needs a tad bit more training from the Master before he can knock it it with unconventional body parts.
One goal - glimmer of hope
Two goals - now we have a game
Three goals - start chewing fingernails because we STILL go out if Toronto scores
Four goals - finally start to believe that they could do it
Of course, this all assumes that Toronto does not score at any point. Toronto scores, and it's "thanks boys, great season, see you next year."
NYCFC has shut the opposing team out twice in 17 home games this year - a 0-0 against Chicago and 2-0 win against RBNY. Yikes.
I want to be optimistic, but only once in league history has a team lost 2-0 on the road and come back to win. The stat about it happening twice doesn't count because in one instance the team would have lost on away goals.
This. I never understand while people think a 0-0 bunker is great as the away team in the first leg. It basically means you must either 1) win the next game outright or 2) be defensively perfect AGAIN because if the other team scores, you go out with any tie other than 0-0. A 1-1 tie or 2-2 tie on the road is a fantastic result. Go out and try to score.
Before the game I was thinking about the results that I would take if offered. The without hesitation threshold was 2-2, the common sense you take it threshold was 1-1. (With that said, if someone would have asked me at half time what I would take, given the lineup, bookings, tactics, and game flow, I would have taken 0-0 and played to win at home.)
I understand PV's thinking somewhat but he still total "Kreis-ed" this game for us.
We played well defensively for 86 minutes but like others have said we do not have the skill to pull that off for 90. Brillant and Chanot did great but you cant expect miracles putting them under pressure for 90 minutes.
I get the loss of Pirlo forced a change in the lineup but you have McNamara who is really closer to a Midfielder than a Winger anyway, you have Mix (another story), and you have Lampard. No reason to start Mikey. None. His job is to close games but Bravo does that marginally better anyway. Why 2 subpar CDMs who cant distribute?
I think part of the strategy was to get Bradley and Altidore(?) a yellow so they miss the second leg. Too bad that didnt work out. Thus we got nothing at all from this loss.
Lot of stupid long shots, (RJ) lot of dribbling aimlessly when we should have passed (Harrison, RJ) lot of bad subs/tactics (PV).
I dont get subbing off Villa. 20 minutes to rest on the bench wont make a difference for the second leg. We needed him to the last second to squeeze something, anything, out. He could of linked up with Lamps.
Im scared PV will pull another Kreis and think we lost since Lurch was in goal and not Saunders and then revert back to Saunders for the second leg. Just like Kreis thinking we lost games because Grabavoy only played 75 minutes and not a full 90. God are we regressing.
Mendoza is so fucking goofy. He is like a cartoon character with his exaggerated facial explanations and antics.
We played well defensively for 86 minutes but like others have said we do not have the skill to pull that off for 90. Brillant and Chanot did great but you cant expect miracles putting them under pressure for 90 minutes.
I get the loss of Pirlo forced a change in the lineup but you have McNamara who is really closer to a Midfielder than a Winger anyway, you have Mix (another story), and you have Lampard. No reason to start Mikey. None. His job is to close games but Bravo does that marginally better anyway. Why 2 subpar CDMs who cant distribute?
I think part of the strategy was to get Bradley and Altidore(?) a yellow so they miss the second leg. Too bad that didnt work out. Thus we got nothing at all from this loss.
Lot of stupid long shots, (RJ) lot of dribbling aimlessly when we should have passed (Harrison, RJ) lot of bad subs/tactics (PV).
I dont get subbing off Villa. 20 minutes to rest on the bench wont make a difference for the second leg. We needed him to the last second to squeeze something, anything, out. He could of linked up with Lamps.
Im scared PV will pull another Kreis and think we lost since Lurch was in goal and not Saunders and then revert back to Saunders for the second leg. Just like Kreis thinking we lost games because Grabavoy only played 75 minutes and not a full 90. God are we regressing.
Mendoza is so fucking goofy. He is like a cartoon character with his exaggerated facial explanations and antics.
Last edited:
I had the same thought regarding PV blaming Lurch and going with Saunders. I really really really hope he wasn't watching with blinders on because Lurch made zero mistakes except for that one lateral clearance that went out for a throw in. Saunders would have given up 2 other goals earlier on and our season would officially be over.
Weird, nitpicky side note (I have too much pent up to actually make a full, coherent reaction post):
We had some corners in this game. I think we had like 4. These corners were some of the only chances we had all game to put the ball in the box and hope to steal a goal. Pirlo was not playing, so someone else had to take them. While Villa was in the game, he was taking them. Once he came off, Lampard was taking them. In Villa and even more so in Lampard, you have the two best targets to pop one in on a lucky bounce. Instead, we pulled them out of the box all together. Are you telling me our wingers are so bad at crossing they can't put one in the box from a corner?
We had some corners in this game. I think we had like 4. These corners were some of the only chances we had all game to put the ball in the box and hope to steal a goal. Pirlo was not playing, so someone else had to take them. While Villa was in the game, he was taking them. Once he came off, Lampard was taking them. In Villa and even more so in Lampard, you have the two best targets to pop one in on a lucky bounce. Instead, we pulled them out of the box all together. Are you telling me our wingers are so bad at crossing they can't put one in the box from a corner?
This confirms the impression I was left with from last night which is that on the rare occasion we were able to get the ball into their half, it basically went nowhere or one of our players on the wing was double or triple teamed off the ball. No one could get a decent cross in. There was nothing going through the middle.
One of the first away games I have been to where the players did not even walk over to the supporters after, especially a game that entailed longer travel than some of the usual destinations folks make it to. A few just kind of clapped from midfield and then headed to the locker room. To his credit, Johansen noticed where we were and I think tried to motion to some of the other players but every one else seemed disinterested
edit: my recollection of players not coming over is contradicted by this video
Last edited:
This perfectly sums up our attack yesterday.
I was thinking 3-1 or 3-2 was likely and hoping for 2-2. That'll teach me to be optimistic.
Not sure why
I haven't heard me say that anyone else said that either, but since you want to call me out...a 0-0 draw is better than a 0-2 loss. Only a dope would prefer a loss to a draw or a draw to a win.
Besides...I was rhetorically speaking about hindsight.
Taking Villa out because he wasn't getting good service.... Maybe take out the people that are servicing. It worked a bit better with Khiry because Khiry was able to hold up and win some of the long balls played to him. But thats not our game. We shouldn't have been playing that game. But we did play it and it didn't work.
Oh I agree 100%. I said that right after the game. But it didn't work and when you look at the match we showed 0 desire to win and he deserves all the criticism he's getting here because of it. I think even if it was a draw we would have said its not the best result but at least we didn't concede. Much smaller hill to climb at 0-0 than at 0-2. We have a mountain to climb now.
After the initial 2 questions about Mikey, he seems to answer a question about Lurch saying he was happy with the decision.
- Status
Similar threads
