I think the game state affected how both teams played more than usual in this game, or at least in ways that were easier to see. It left me wondering how the end of the game might have been different if we scored the second goal at least 10 minutes earlier. If we scored the go-ahead at 60-70, we probably keep playing possession football, because we don't want to bunker for 20-30 minutes, and we're not wiped from having attacked for 75 straight minutes with no let-up. Colorado probably opens up a bit more, but doesn't go immediately into an attacking frenzy. But as it happened, we scored so late that Colorado had no option but to start attacking every possession like it was the last, and NYCFC could see how close to the end they were and just wanted to hold on.Considering how completely we seemed to control this game, both while we were 11 v 11 and later on, I think the only real downside to our performance is the way we let COL back into the game after Mitrita's goal. They could easily have tied it on Rosenberry's chance, and that would have been embarrassing and unnecessary. Kudos to them for showing heart and determination, but they are such a limited squad that, being 10 v 11, they needed a lot of help from us to even cross the midfield line in possession. And we gave it to them. The fact that we pretty much just stopped playing after the 2-1 is really bad.
The truth is COL bunkered very deep at home, and they had exactly 1 dangerous counter in 81 minutes. They scored, good for them, but that's not an erroneous game plan nor a bad look for our team. I think we imposed our will and obvious superiority for 81 minutes. It is impossible not to lose the ball at some point, and that gave them their one and only chance, and it happened to pit a very quick guy in Lewis against a sub in Ibeagha. No big deal. What should make us really mad and concerned were the last 10 minutes of the game.
Last edited: