DC Postmatch

[mgarbowski]

I'm not a big formation guy as you're probably figured by now since I rarely discuss it. But I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about it and analysing it today because so much of the comments here didn't square with what my formation analysis has been this season.
That is, a lot has been made of the switch from 4 back to 3 back. And that confused me because it has seemed to me we've been playing a sort of pseudo-3-man backline before yesterday. Mata spends a lot of time going forward, and White does so not that much. Even though Mata does track back we were often left before yesterday with a de facto back line of Callens left, Chanot center, and White right. So I was befuddled why so many seem to think a real 3-man back line was such a big deal.
After studying the heatmaps, comparing yesterday to the SJ game, and watching parts of the DC game over, am I right that the big difference is mostly Mata not tracking back, and the effect this had on our midfield->forward rather than what happened at the back? I'm not going to post all the images but this is what I saw.

ETA this Para: First, the maps seemed to confirm what I thought I saw previously. The SJ map shows Callens on the left touchline a lot, Chanot center, and White on the right.

Mata rarely went back yesterday. The effect on the back was minimal. Callens played very similar to the SJ game, and oddly, if anything, he went forward a little more yesterday than against SJ. But his left/right spacing was similar to the SJ game. Chanot drifted a bit right compared to SJ where he was more truly in the center, possibly because he trusts Brillant less than White but that's a personnel issue not formation. Brillant stayed back more than White but nobody thought our attack relied on Ethan's runs so that's not a big deal. This did leave Jack staying forward more than he did against SJ where he spent a bit more time on the defensive half of the field, but that shouldn't hurt us.
The big change is Wallace, and I will post just his maps. Here he is against SJ:

And here he is against DC:

Basically with Mata going up all the time Wallace had no home and wandered all over the damn place.

The other big difference I see is Ring. Against SJ his map covers the whole field. Against DC he focused on the back right, which could be covering for Brillant but could also be him getting displaced by Mata.

Anyway, that's what I think I've figured out. But I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm more posting to ask if those who really focus on this stuff and commented on the formation change agree or if I'm still missing something.

 

[Seven]

Was Villa injured or something? Just didn't see the usual hustle from him yesterday. Guy still gets a goal though, because David Villa. Anyway, feel like the front three did a poorer job of defending, which put us under pressure.

Definitely thought the same, more so in the first half. Second half I thought he started hustling again, and going back to get the ball, but I spent a lot of the first half yelling at him to run.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

I'm not a big formation guy as you're probably figured by now since I rarely discuss it. But I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about it and analysing it today because so much of the comments here didn't square with what my formation analysis has been this season.
That is, a lot has been made of the switch from 4 back to 3 back. And that confused me because it has seemed to me we've been playing a sort of pseudo-3-man backline before yesterday. Mata spends a lot of time going forward, and White does so not that much. Even though Mata does track back we were often left before yesterday with a de facto back line of Callens left, Chanot center, and White right. So I was befuddled why so many seem to think a real 3-man back line was such a big deal.
After studying the heatmaps, comparing yesterday to the SJ game, and watching parts of the DC game over, am I right that the big difference is mostly Mata not tracking back, and the effect this had on our midfield->forward rather than what happened at the back? I'm not going to post all the images but this is what I saw.

ETA this Para: First, the maps seemed to confirm what I thought I saw previously. The SJ map shows Callens on the left touchline a lot, Chanot center, and White on the right.

Mata rarely went back yesterday. The effect on the back was minimal. Callens played very similar to the SJ game, and oddly, if anything, he went forward a little more yesterday than against SJ. But his left/right spacing was similar to the SJ game. Chanot drifted a bit right compared to SJ where he was more truly in the center, possibly because he trusts Brillant less than White but that's a personnel issue not formation. Brillant stayed back more than White but nobody thought our attack relied on Ethan's runs so that's not a big deal. This did leave Jack staying forward more than he did against SJ where he spent a bit more time on the defensive half of the field, but that shouldn't hurt us.
The big change is Wallace, and I will post just his maps. Here he is against SJ:
View attachment 6864
And here he is against DC:
View attachment 6865
Basically with Mata going up all the time Wallace had no home and wandered all over the damn place.

The other big difference I see is Ring. Against SJ his map covers the whole field. Against DC he focused on the back right, which could be covering for Brillant but could also be him getting displaced by Mata.

Anyway, that's what I think I've figured out. But I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm more posting to ask if those who really focus on this stuff and commented on the formation change agree or if I'm still missing something.

I feel like you just did the research to prove my earlier long post (where relevant). Nice to know that my eyes weren't lying this time.

 

[SoupInNYC]

Brillant had a very poor game, and you could tell it was his first game all season. The missed backpass and losing Acosta behind him on the second goal were inexcusable. He just doesn't fit this team.

I'm hearing a lot of shitting on Brillant on the boards. Now he was absolute trash yesterday, but I really don't think he is as bad as people are making him out to be on a regular basis.

Also, on the second goal, I don't put that on Brillant. To me, TMac should have stayed with Acosta and instead just decided to guard grass. No clue what he was thinking there.

 

[mgarbowski]

I feel like you just did the research to prove my earlier long post (where relevant). Nice to know that my eyes weren't lying this time.

I don't think I understood your post until I did the research so it worked out.

 

[Ulrich]

I'm not a big formation guy as you're probably figured by now since I rarely discuss it. But I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about it and analysing it today because so much of the comments here didn't square with what my formation analysis has been this season.
That is, a lot has been made of the switch from 4 back to 3 back. And that confused me because it has seemed to me we've been playing a sort of pseudo-3-man backline before yesterday. Mata spends a lot of time going forward, and White does so not that much. Even though Mata does track back we were often left before yesterday with a de facto back line of Callens left, Chanot center, and White right. So I was befuddled why so many seem to think a real 3-man back line was such a big deal.
After studying the heatmaps, comparing yesterday to the SJ game, and watching parts of the DC game over, am I right that the big difference is mostly Mata not tracking back, and the effect this had on our midfield->forward rather than what happened at the back? I'm not going to post all the images but this is what I saw.

ETA this Para: First, the maps seemed to confirm what I thought I saw previously. The SJ map shows Callens on the left touchline a lot, Chanot center, and White on the right.

Mata rarely went back yesterday. The effect on the back was minimal. Callens played very similar to the SJ game, and oddly, if anything, he went forward a little more yesterday than against SJ. But his left/right spacing was similar to the SJ game. Chanot drifted a bit right compared to SJ where he was more truly in the center, possibly because he trusts Brillant less than White but that's a personnel issue not formation. Brillant stayed back more than White but nobody thought our attack relied on Ethan's runs so that's not a big deal. This did leave Jack staying forward more than he did against SJ where he spent a bit more time on the defensive half of the field, but that shouldn't hurt us.
The big change is Wallace, and I will post just his maps. Here he is against SJ:
View attachment 6864
And here he is against DC:
View attachment 6865
Basically with Mata going up all the time Wallace had no home and wandered all over the damn place.

The other big difference I see is Ring. Against SJ his map covers the whole field. Against DC he focused on the back right, which could be covering for Brillant but could also be him getting displaced by Mata.

Anyway, that's what I think I've figured out. But I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm more posting to ask if those who really focus on this stuff and commented on the formation change agree or if I'm still missing something.

Point of information. As I've mentioned before regarding White, he gets forward minimum 3x/game and those are definite overlapping runs, not simply pushing forward/closing space as a drop-pass for Harrison. Those overlaps (and White is going all out) force the opposing back to make a choice (I.e. Hesitation/separation) that gives Jack a moment to get a first step or dish to White for the cross. Brillant never made an overlapping run which allowed the same dbl-teams to form on Jack that plagued him last year with Hernandez staying motionless.

 

[mgarbowski]

https://twitter.com/x/status/851176227591389185

 

[mgarbowski]

Point of information. As I've mentioned before regarding White, he gets forward minimum 3x/game and those are definite overlapping runs, not simply pushing forward/closing space as a drop-pass for Harrison. Those overlaps (and White is going all out) force the opposing back to make a choice (I.e. Hesitation/separation) that gives Jack a moment to get a first step or dish to White for the cross. Brillant never made an overlapping run which allowed the same dbl-teams to form on Jack that plagued him last year with Hernandez staying motionless.

I appreciate the feedback - and I think you said that before but, again, I couldn't quite grasp it until I went through this exercise.

 

[Ulrich]

I'm hearing a lot of shitting on Brillant on the boards. Now he was absolute trash yesterday, but I really don't think he is as bad as people are making him out to be on a regular basis.

Also, on the second goal, I don't put that on Brillant. To me, TMac should have stayed with Acosta and instead just decided to guard grass. No clue what he was thinking there.

Agree on Brillant. He's not a bad CB, but he's a horrible RB. I'm perfectly content having him sub for either of Chanot or Callens if they're injured or banned. I'm not ok with him playing RB ever again; we have RJ and Gomez that are backups.

And yeah, Tommy was marking Acosta on the initial run, Acosta goes down so Tommy checks out, then Acosta gets up and moves into space while Tommy is still watching the ball. Acosta receives the pass and Tommy is 10 feet away counting clovers in the grass.

 

[ManhattanValley]

I'm hearing a lot of shitting on Brillant on the boards. Now he was absolute trash yesterday, but I really don't think he is as bad as people are making him out to be on a regular basis.

He's an adequate-at-best CB who routinely shits the bed when it matters (Red Bulls, Toronto). Sad to think that he was once seen as 'the answer' at CB.

 

[Max Power]

Agree on Brillant. He's not a bad CB, but he's a horrible RB. I'm perfectly content having him sub for either of Chanot or Callens if they're injured or banned. I'm not ok with him playing RB ever again; we have RJ and Gomez that are backups.

And yeah, Tommy was marking Acosta on the initial run, Acosta goes down so Tommy checks out, then Acosta gets up and moves into space while Tommy is still watching the ball. Acosta receives the pass and Tommy is 10 feet away counting clovers in the grass.

Unfortunately when you are part of the back four when you make a mistake it often results in a goal and the mistake is magnified ten fold. I agree that Brillant is a decent CB but he just seems so uncomfortable at RB. I'm going to assume Ethan White picked up a slight knock in training and they thought he couldn't go the full 90 minutes because otherwise I thought his play in the last few games was enough to keep him in the starting 11.

As far as the second goal goes, at no point in that sequence did Acosta ever go to ground, so I'm not sure what you are talking about there. What I saw was after Acosta passes the ball to Sam, Tommy makes the decision to keep moving toward Sam to close down his left foot in case he cuts it back. Chanot looks over his shoulder and glances back at Acosta but I guess he figures the striker (I believe it was Letoux) is the bigger danger even though Brillant is already marking him. So two guys (Chant and Brillant) stay on LeToux and they leave Acosta unmarked behind them as he ghosts into the box and the ball falls to him on the rebound. We can agree to disagree on who should have picked up Acosta on his secondary run into the box (Chanot and Pirlo were also in the vicinity) but to say that Tommy was standing there counting clovers is just inaccurate. I think the biggest problem we encountered there is that Ring and Harrison unluckily got caught upfield when we got countered, so it left Tommy and Pirlo to try and deal with the most dangerous guy on the field. Acosta is winning that battle 99 time out of 100.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

Unfortunately when you are part of the back four when you make a mistake it often results in a goal and the mistake is magnified ten fold. I agree that Brillant is a decent CB but he just seems so uncomfortable at RB. I'm going to assume Ethan White picked up a slight knock in training and they thought he couldn't go the full 90 minutes because otherwise I thought his play in the last few games was enough to keep him in the starting 11.

As far as the second goal goes, at no point in that sequence did Acosta ever go to ground, so I'm not sure what you are talking about there. What I saw was after Acosta passes the ball to Sam, Tommy makes the decision to keep moving toward Sam to close down his left foot in case he cuts it back. Chanot looks over his shoulder and glances back at Acosta but I guess he figures the striker (I believe it was Letoux) is the bigger danger even though Brillant is already marking him. So two guys (Chant and Brillant) stay on LeToux and they leave Acosta unmarked behind them as he ghosts into the box and the ball falls to him on the rebound. We can agree to disagree on who should have picked up Acosta on his secondary run into the box (Chanot and Pirlo were also in the vicinity) but to say that Tommy was standing there counting clovers is just inaccurate. I think the biggest problem we encountered there is that Ring and Harrison unluckily got caught upfield when we got countered, so it left Tommy and Pirlo to try and deal with the most dangerous guy on the field. Acosta is winning that battle 99 time out of 100.

He didn't stand anywhere. Make no mistake, he jogged lackadaisically away from the play to nowhere in particular.

I blame Brillant more, mind. But Tommy didn't cover himself in glory, and that's a generous description.

(Since i used the word, I'll point it out. who else cringes whenever someone uses "laxadaisical" in spelling and pronunciation? I find it very annoying.)

 

[Midas Mulligan]

one can be lax. One can be lackadaisical.

They are by God not the same.

 

[Ulrich]

Unfortunately when you are part of the back four when you make a mistake it often results in a goal and the mistake is magnified ten fold. I agree that Brillant is a decent CB but he just seems so uncomfortable at RB. I'm going to assume Ethan White picked up a slight knock in training and they thought he couldn't go the full 90 minutes because otherwise I thought his play in the last few games was enough to keep him in the starting 11.

As far as the second goal goes, at no point in that sequence did Acosta ever go to ground, so I'm not sure what you are talking about there. What I saw was after Acosta passes the ball to Sam, Tommy makes the decision to keep moving toward Sam to close down his left foot in case he cuts it back. Chanot looks over his shoulder and glances back at Acosta but I guess he figures the striker (I believe it was Letoux) is the bigger danger even though Brillant is already marking him. So two guys (Chant and Brillant) stay on LeToux and they leave Acosta unmarked behind them as he ghosts into the box and the ball falls to him on the rebound. We can agree to disagree on who should have picked up Acosta on his secondary run into the box (Chanot and Pirlo were also in the vicinity) but to say that Tommy was standing there counting clovers is just inaccurate. I think the biggest problem we encountered there is that Ring and Harrison unluckily got caught upfield when we got countered, so it left Tommy and Pirlo to try and deal with the most dangerous guy on the field. Acosta is winning that battle 99 time out of 100.

My bad, Acosta didn't go to ground, but that doesn't change a thing regarding who's accountable. I just rewatched the video on MLS highlight reel, and Tommy was marking him, ran past him as Acosta passed the ball, Acosta ghosted away while Tommy runs nearly to the end line marking nobody. Acosta scores and Tommy is back there without a single DC player around him. So yeah, he was counting clovers.

 

[Keith Putnam]

Anyway, that's what I think I've figured out.

You're supporting the idea that "a formation is not a tactic". Lining your team up in a formation is not the same thing as establishing how the players are meant to interact.

Vs. DC, clearly PV either told Wallace and Mata to run free and Ring to stay put, or *didn't* tell Wallace and Mata to stay put and Ring to roam, and there's your heat maps regardless of a nominal 3-back or 4-back.

 

[LionNYC]

Our reaction to the lineup...

 

[NYCFCfan]

Can anybody explain why Wallace was in the middle so much like LA's Zardes? He got in good positions but he doesn't seem comfortable receiving the ball as a CF. plays much more fluid as a pure winger.

Vieira wanted him to play there, Mata took over his role and we went with a hybrid three at the back. It you look at the heat maps Matarrita took over for Wallace in that LW role almost perfectly while Wallace

That aside:

Villa was pissed at the state of the pitch, and to be fair it was pretty terrible. There were noticeable patches of dirt on the side closest to the tv cameras.

A question to think about, if Pirlo can't play on these types of fields do you bench him on all non great grass fields going forward? New England, Portland, Vancouver, Seattle, Minnesota (and Atlanta when we move). Do teams try to use this to their advantage?

Finally, lets say that's not the case, he just had a bad game. One of our writers mentioned this and it's a great point that's stuck with me.

If Pirlo isn't helping us defensively when it's tied or we're losing and we take Pirlo out when we're chasing the game, what's his role?

 

[Christopher Jee]

If Pirlo isn't helping us defensively when it's tied or we're losing and we take Pirlo out when we're chasing the game, what's his role?

I think this assumes we aren't trying to attack from the beginning, and also that there is just one way we attack.

It also assumes that he's not helping us defensively (something I've tried to explain a few times - tl;dr possession is a form of defense and defending positionally).

 

[mgarbowski]

A question to think about, if Pirlo can't play on these types of fields do you bench him on all non great grass fields going forward? New England, Portland, Vancouver, Seattle, Minnesota (and Atlanta when we move). Do teams try to use this to their advantage?

Are all those surfaces worse than ours in July/August?

If Pirlo isn't helping us defensively when it's tied or we're losing and we take Pirlo out when we're chasing the game, what's his role?

I'm not convinced he's being removed for those reasons.I think it's to keep him as fresh as possible while getting playing time for TMac, whom PV clearly likes even as he has moved down the chart. Also, did you mean tied or winning?

 

[joe]

Are all those surfaces worse than ours in July/August?



I'm not convinced he's being removed for those reasons.I think it's to keep him as fresh as possible while getting playing time for TMac, whom PV clearly likes even as he has moved down the chart. Also, did you mean tied or winning?

+1 for the signature, just noticed.