MLS - May 10 - Montreal (YS)

[mgarbowski]

After 2 years for Fernandez, 1.5 for Ojeda, and 2 coaches for both, I don’t think there’s any way to distinguish between “the coaches just needed a lot of time to develop them,” and “they were too raw and young for a non-developmental top level league when we got them.”

After all, just a week ago we beat Cincinnati, and we were really good in doing it. Nothing fluky about it.

We won 1-0. Counting the USOC game, we’ve failed to score more than 1 goal in 8 straight games. Half our games ended 1-0 or 0-1. The occasional 1-0 win - even against a good team- doesn’t mean we’re very good, nor does a listless 1-0 loss to a cellar dweller mean we’re terrible. If you play enough 1-0 games you should expect to both win and lose in rough equal measure. Which we’ve done. That’s life as a team that can’t score but plays decent defense with a solid keeper.

I’ll acknowledge progress when the team strings together a number of multi-goal games, (somewhat) regardless of results, as long as the goals were not mostly a result of egregious defensive lapses.

 

[gbservis]

Jansen was asked that in the presser and he began his answer by saying a combination of both, but by the time he finished his answer it sounded a lot more like he was saying it’s the mentality.

I’ve watched it twice, and I’m still not entirely sure what Pascal meant when he answered “both.” The question asked if it was an issue with talent or determination and gameplay. When he said “both,” I think he was referring specifically to determination and gameplay, since those were the only aspects he discussed afterward.

Admitting there’s a talent issue would be a major statement, especially considering these are the players he's going to be stuck with for months. He has to make it work with this group, and up to now, he’s stuck to the company line when it comes to the roster. If, and I don’t think this was the case, but if he did mean to include talent in that “both,” then that’s a significant signal. It would suggest he sees a real talent gap, even if he didn’t say it outright, probably because he can’t.

 

[gbservis]

Anyway, I'm sure Pascal put Perea (whose nickname is indeed Pepe) on the wing in what looked like a 3-2-4-1 in attack to give him some freedom to roam. It worked, too — for about 15 minutes. He looked like a stallion on the loose out there.

But he couldn't sustain it, probably because of our chronic central distribution problem when Keaton isn't available.

Pascal said in the press conference that the plan was to use Perea to create overloads. He was moving all over the place, and I think it was working at first when the defense was trying to track all the motion and overloads. The issue is that the defense quickly figured out Perea can't beat them off the dribble, and Julian can't beat them off the dribble, so we can ignore all this motion and just mark Martinez.

One of the wingers has to be dangerous. Perea or Wolf would both be much more effective in their roles if the winger opposite to them were a dangerous threat that the defense needed to worry about. As long as Fernadez and Ojeda continue to look like sub-USL level players, nothing is going to open up on offense, regardless of who is on the other wing. We are just too easy to defend with those guys on the pitch because it's like playing with 2.5 attackers.

 

[Kenny]

I’ve watched it twice, and I’m still not entirely sure what Pascal meant when he answered “both.” The question asked if it was an issue with talent or determination and gameplay. When he said “both,” I think he was referring specifically to determination and gameplay, since those were the only aspects he discussed afterward.

Admitting there’s a talent issue would be a major statement, especially considering these are the players he's going to be stuck with for months. He has to make it work with this group, and up to now, he’s stuck to the company line when it comes to the roster. If, and I don’t think this was the case, but if he did mean to include talent in that “both,” then that’s a significant signal. It would suggest he sees a real talent gap, even if he didn’t say it outright, probably because he can’t.

You see it all the time in these pressers, and in podcasts, and interviews and all such situations with people answering questions off the cuff, when it is asked "is it A or B" the answer reflexively is "a little of both" because it is a safe answer and one that buys time as the respondent gathers their thoughts for the real response.

 

[KevinJRogers]

We won 1-0. Counting the USOC game, we’ve failed to score more than 1 goal in 8 straight games. Half our games ended 1-0 or 0-1.

No doubt about it, our attack has been feeble at best. And we're about the opposite of what Pascal said he wants: to be consistently good rather than occasionally great.

But we really were good against Cincinatti. And they're leading the conference, even though they're not exactly a scoring juggernaut themselves (they've scored more than two goals just once in league competition this year). They just find a way to win.

Consistently good.

 

[KevinJRogers]

Pascal said in the press conference that the plan was to use Perea to create overloads. He was moving all over the place, and I think it was working at first when the defense was trying to track all the motion and overloads. The issue is that the defense quickly figured out Perea can't beat them off the dribble, and Julian can't beat them off the dribble, so we can ignore all this motion and just mark Martinez.

One of the wingers has to be dangerous. Perea or Wolf would both be much more effective in their roles if the winger opposite to them were a dangerous threat that the defense needed to worry about. As long as Fernadez and Ojeda continue to look like sub-USL level players, nothing is going to open up on offense, regardless of who is on the other wing. We are just too easy to defend with those guys on the pitch because it's like playing with 2.5 attackers.

This is the way I saw it, too. And then when we managed to cut inside a few times from the wing, we couldn't muster a shot on target, which only made them more confident they could just focus on controlling the middle of the pitch.

I really wish Jonny had pulled the trigger from the top of the box when he had the chance rather than offloading to Pepe. One good shot on target from that position would have put a little fear into Montréal. Just one. Anything to make them think we're not so easy to defend.

 

[mgarbowski]

No doubt about it, our attack has been feeble at best. And we're about the opposite of what Pascal said he wants: to be consistently good rather than occasionally great.

But we really were good against Cincinatti. And they're leading the conference, even though they're not exactly a scoring juggernaut themselves (they've scored more than two goals just once in league competition this year). They just find a way to win.

Consistently good.

Mediocre teams will have games like that where they play really well. Even terrible teams have games like that. It means nothing until there's consistency.
It was fair to wonder at the time if the Cincy game might be an early indicator of improvement. Two dismal games later, the answer is it was not. Cincy was an outlier, just a game where we squeezed out a close win that should not have been close.
Change might still come, but it has not yet.

 

[KevinJRogers]

Mediocre teams will have games like that where they play really well. Even terrible teams have games like that. It means nothing until there's consistency.
It was fair to wonder at the time if the Cincy game might be an early indicator of improvement. Two dismal games later, the answer is it was not. Cincy was an outlier, just a game where we squeezed out a close win that should not have been close.
Change might still come, but it has not yet.

Unfortunately, this is true. If we're this dependent on Keaton (or any other individual player) to be at least minimally competitive against a USL side and the weakest side in our conference, we're not very good. Period.

The good news is, had he been available against the Riverhounds and Montréal, we may have seen a significantly better product on the pitch. He can't solve the consistency problems we have at attacking forward, but at least the movement and distribution at midfield is there. We're much more dangerous when he plays.

When he doesn't, we grind to a halt. We're a lot more vulnerable to the counter, too.

 

[CCMore]

I thought O’Neil had a good showing for his first start. I remember a nice give and go in the first half with Perea I believe

 

[gbservis]

I thought O’Neil had a good showing for his first start. I remember a nice give and go in the first half with Perea I believe

Yeah, I thought he looked very solid, calm, and composed on the ball, even in tight spaces. He consistently showed good awareness, knowing when to drop back and offer himself as an outlet when teammates were under pressure. Overall, he played like a seasoned veteran and should be a steadying presence in the midfield. I’m excited to see the kind of partnership he can build with Keaton, even if I’m a bit sad it likely means fewer starts for Shore, who’s always such a joy to watch.

 

[FootyLovin]

I thought O’Neil had a good showing for his first start.

I can't tell if I thought this also or if I just really wanted to think this.

A bit early to tell.