Is it disingenuous to posit a “what if” situation, that has no method of answering, versus a play that the result is known?
Away - March 29 - Toronto
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
- Status
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.
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:
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 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.
Cool, so you agree with everything except for the last two words and punctuation marks? :Joycat:
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
I agree it wasn’t Mitrita’s fault being a Johnny on the spot forward covering the left back’s attacker.
There was a comment or two about it. Not blame, just reference.
I think
Christopher Jee made the point. You are fixing on the least relevant tree. The forest is that Chanot failed to play safe.
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>.
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.There was a comment or two about it. Not blame, just reference.
I think
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.
Where can I buy this t-shirt? Even better if it has an nycfcforums.com logo on it.
- Status
