Did anyone else think both Yellows against Keaton were fairly soft?
second one was soft enough to be sponsored by Charmin.
Did anyone else think both Yellows against Keaton were fairly soft?
Great game to put on an App that no one watches.
Shocking that some of you guys still believe in this team. We’re mediocre and play in a mediocre conference
My thinking too. Second was fairly soft. Not clear to me whether Toledo thought it was rough or was tactical, as it seemed to fall short on both measures. Like you, I thought the first one was a yellow initially. On replay, it was clear that Parks never grabbed the player, only reached out and brushed him and the Chicago player fell immediately - he dove. And while Toledo didn't get a replay, he did get to see it from 20 feet away.Yes. The second was incredibly soft IMO.
The first one I thought was a yellow when I saw it live, but then the slower replay, I then thought it was a very soft yellow. So in that regard, I'm more ok with it since the ref didn't have the luxury of viewing a slower, zoomed-in replay himself.
They waxed two of the best teams in the conference and had a bad game on short rest on the road. They'll be fine. They're still one of the best teams in the league.
Where are our big signing see brought in for depth? What’s that? They don’t play?
Joke
How is that possible if we can’t or don’t rotate?Talles came in injured, they tried to see if he could play through it, and he couldn't. He's young, best to get him right. Santi is off to a slow start, but he's finding his footing. Thiago has been a revelation.
They have one of the best rosters in the league.
How is that possible if we can’t or don’t rotate?
Saying we have the best roster in the league and then also saying we lost because we played too many games in too many days is farcical.
I would tend to agree that saying we have the best roster in the league is a bit much. It strikes me as “homerism”. Seattle recently had like, half the starting 11 in diapers and they won the game (on the road?) The Chicago match would seem to illustrate something NYCFC is lacking whether it’s depth, championship level coaching or a truly championship level starting eleven.
This doesn’t mean I don’t think the team is good, I’m just not sold on it being the best in the league. I am, however, looking forward to having my mind changed.
True. The following are also true, though in the category of things I believe with high certainty but cannot prove:I think often times, sports fans need to identify something wrong as to why their team lost.
IMO, the draw at Chicago was as simple as NYCFC played a poor game. That happens. Every team does it.
I basically agree with this even though I mentioned the Chicago draw in my post. As much as I agree with the “teams have poor games and it’s nothing more than that” sentiment, I think it’s also worth looking at (especially if we are talking about “the best roster”) why a team like NYCFC often fails when there is an opportunity to either win a playoff game or get a win to move up in the standings and place themselves in contention for top dog.I think often times, sports fans need to identify something wrong as to why their team lost.
IMO, the draw at Chicago was as simple as NYCFC played a poor game. That happens. Every team does it.
If you like Innumeracy, I highly recommend The Drunkard’s WalkTrue. The following are also true, though in the category of things I believe with high certainty but cannot prove:
- If you asked all soccer fans whether the sport is subject to a wide variance between who played better and results, I believe you would get a substantial majority who agree. But when those same people analyze individual games, most completely forget this and cannot accept that sometimes bad results just happen to better teams.
- Beyond single game results, fans are even more reluctant to accept "luck" over even tiny samples, even when every statistician in the world agrees that the sample size is small and extremely prone to seemingly irrational results.
- When analyzing play, fans take all good results and goals scored as given, then pick apart the misses to decide how many more their team or player should have scored. If a player scores twice on low percentage shots, fans will still gravely rue the sitter he missed, even if he outscored the percentages as a whole.
- At the same time, once they have decided that their team or a certain player is not as good as it should be, they will come up with reasons why the good results were lucky or outliers and don't count.
- If a team scores in 25 straight games, when the streak ends they will try to come up with reasons why the game that ended the streak is based on some deep, inherent fault, and not something that inevitably happens even to the best teams.
- You can outscore your xG by 4.5 goals in the second half of 2020, then under score by 4 goals in the first half of 2021, and people will explain why the coach (or roster or individual players) get no credit for one but blame for the other (or vice versa depending on their preconceived notion).
- Everyone should read Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos, and not even mostly for sports.
100True. The following are also true, though in the category of things I believe with high certainty but cannot prove:
- If you asked all soccer fans whether the sport is subject to a wide variance between who played better and results, I believe you would get a substantial majority who agree. But when those same people analyze individual games, most completely forget this and cannot accept that sometimes bad results just happen to better teams.
- Beyond single game results, fans are even more reluctant to accept "luck" over even tiny samples, even when every statistician in the world agrees that the sample size is small and extremely prone to seemingly irrational results.
- When analyzing play, fans take all good results and goals scored as given, then pick apart the misses to decide how many more their team or player should have scored. If a player scores twice on low percentage shots, fans will still gravely rue the sitter he missed, even if he outscored the percentages as a whole.
- At the same time, once they have decided that their team or a certain player is not as good as it should be, they will come up with reasons why the good results were lucky or outliers and don't count.
- If a team scores in 25 straight games, when the streak ends they will try to come up with reasons why the game that ended the streak is based on some deep, inherent fault, and not something that inevitably happens even to the best teams.
- You can outscore your xG by 4.5 goals in the second half of 2020, then under score by 4 goals in the first half of 2021, and people will explain why the coach (or roster or individual players) get no credit for one but blame for the other (or vice versa depending on their preconceived notion). In fact, both were largely the result of chance.
- Everyone should read Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos, and not even mostly for sports.