As I believe
mgarbowski mentioned, Berget would be the key here (and an effective Medina to a lesser extent).DC - Postmatch
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
mgarbowski mentioned, Berget would be the key here (and an effective Medina to a lesser extent).
I am certainly not going to defend the referee as blameless - he deserves the bulk of the blame in my opinion. But the coach admitted to coaching, so it's a little wrong to claim nothing could be proven. That ref apparently has a reputation for being very strict. I thing a subtle, unofficial warning on the first and third violations would have been the much better approach. But it seems quite obvious to me that Serena lost control in a situation where she should have been able to keep it. She seemed to take the coaching accusation very personally, which is quite hard to understand.
I totally agree with you that an unofficial warning would have been best. Her coach made his admission after the match, not during, so it wasn’t provable during play - it was simply assuming Serena was seeing the gestures. Her coach also also said that the other coach was making hand gestures the entire match too - he said all coaches make gestures.
The point is that the Umpire cannot definitively prove that Serena saw the gestures - the coach is sitting behind others which blocked the view based on the positioning of seats, so it’s debatable if the player can see anything and Serena has said she didn’t cheat, whereas the chair Umpire is in an elevated position making it easier for him to see spectators behind others. For all the umpire knew, or could prove, her coach could have just been explaining strategy to the people next to him - essentially reasonable doubt. A warning to Serena would have allowed her to tell her coach to stop whatever he was doing without assigning blame
I think we are quickly hijacking a thread meant for other things, but I really don't agree with this.
Take it to the Stadium thread. Or maybe New Swag.
D
dummyrun
Guest
Should we get back to depressing reassessments of the D.C. game then?
Last edited by a moderator:
I kinda wish you wouldn't leave it at that. I don't know if you meant it, but in the times we live in, it is hard not to read this as an identitarian stance.
Coaching is against the rules. While it is sometimes not called, she happened to get someone who calls it. Rules are rules. That's warning one no penalty.
She then smashes her racket, inexcusable. That's warning 2 point deduction.
She then wont give it up. I think given the gravity of the situation and the match its in he COULD HAVE let it go but was in no obligation to. Serena didnt wanna give it up about Infraction #1. An infraction that her own coach even admitted to it happening. Whether she saw it or not has no bearing, but she herself said she saw it and that it wasnt coaching. Thats 3 and a game deduction.
Again the ref could have and in my opinion should have given her a break on the 3rd one but at the end of the day it was Serena that did herself in. She let her emotions get the best of her and she paid for it.
I more felt bad for the poor girl who won and faced a crowd of boos by the awful fans. So much so she tried to hide her tears under her hat and then under her towel. She then followed up by apologizing for winning!
Let's take the US Open discussion over here.
http://nycfcforums.com/index.php?threads/us-open-2018.6348/#post-258774
http://nycfcforums.com/index.php?threads/us-open-2018.6348/#post-258774
James Sands and other NYCFC player make MLS Team of the Week for their performances vs. New England and DC
How much does xPG tell you when one team unilaterally concedes possession and is happy to attempt shots <=5? Was that really dominance by NYCFC, or a purposeful decision by DCU?
For that matter, how much does xG tell you under the same conditions, and when the team with possession accumulates multiple low probability shots without generating more than one of high probability? Again, is it NYCFC dominance when NYC is not imposing its will on DC but rather DC choosing to concede possession and lots of low quality shots?
Who controlled whom? Who decided the game would be played that way?
They could have squelched SuitGate by showing footage of JLew in his suit before the game, but, nah.
Social media is part of the conspiracy.
Also, that video reminded me about the national anthem singer. Will anyone disagree if I claim it was the worst, most off-key rendition we have heard in 4 years?
D
dummyrun
Guest
xPG is a non-shot metric. What it tells you is which team's getting touches in dangerous areas. When all the danger is happening in one team's box, I'm pretty comfortable calling that dominance whether or not submission was part of the plan.
I've seen this take from Doyle on Twitter and I honestly have no idea what he's talking about. As far as xG can tell us, a team that has two shots with values of .4 and .1 has the same odds of scoring a goal as a team that has five chances worth .1 each. There's nothing magical about the .4 chance that makes it extra valuable; if there were, the xG model would assign it a higher value to reflect its actual likelihood of scoring.
Single-game advanced stats are imperfect, but in this case I'd say they jibe with what we know: NYCFC controlled the ball in the attacking half and created a few decent looks and a lot of half chances, Hamid made some great saves, and D.C. did absolutely nothing on offense except take advantage of the two seconds where Sean Johnson decided to channel Josh Saunders. Sound about right to you?
Last edited by a moderator:
No one needs this break more than Maxi. He looked like he had nothing left in the tank for this one. This may have been one of the greatest contributors to the lack of cohesion and precision in the final third. We were playing with a quarterback with a dead arm.
The team took 58 shots in 22 games, and according to the metric you value, only 2 of them had more than a minimal likelihood of success. The team used to be better at generating good chances than that. Other teams regularly do better than that. The team has traded quality for volume.
The number might add up to the same but it isn't exactly the same, is it?
Four walks are not the same as a home run and 3 strikeouts, even though they come out to the same number of total bases divided by plate appearances. Situationally, four walks might be better in some games while the home run is preferable in another. Always, a home run guarantees at least one run while walks never do, absent more contextual information. There is also substantial value in never making an out. But it does not wash out to exactly even despite the power percentage being exactly the same.
The same is true here. Contending that 10 .05 shots are the same as one 0.50 shot is silly, IMO. Further, it appears that teams are choosing to force us into this switch.
Bottom line, if we were dominating. If NYCFC were imposing its will on NER and DCU, then we would have seen both a lot of shots and a decent handful of high probability ones in each game. But that did not happen.
Last edited:
