In the preview article for this game, I posted that a 3-4-2-1 would be the best option, and I was excited to see that's what the team rolled out with. Given the available personnel and their skill sets, this. was the way to go. As NickG points out, this best suits Santi's game, and Da Costa. And it definitely fit Smith, who can work as an LB, but seems even better as a wing back because he is very offensive minded and skilled in that direction. Back four, no question Fory is way better defensively. It was just awesome to see the team own the midfield and run circles around them. This has to be the way it goes until Antony gets back, or just start Antony up top. That guy has forward chops, too, I'm thinking. (Sidenote: The caveat is that K. Miller starts in this lineup and he made a mistake, obviously, by leaving his feet. He get's beat over the top, yes, because he's ball watching, too. We've seen that before. The main mistake is leaving his feet. It's almost like he's trying too hard to protect the keeper, who had the near post covered because the angle initially was difficult. Let him take that shot.)
Speaking of up top. Kelsy did not cover himself in glory, and Mora did look lively in his minutes. We have a problem up there. Neither one is really outplaying the other. I like the potential in Kelsy, his bull rushing and occupying two defenders, whereas Mora doesn't seem real threatening. Mora seems more threatening coming off the bench. The problem here is that the alternating of forwards has done no one any favors, neither the two forwards, nor the other teammates. Chemistry hasn't been developed, no rhythm established. It could be too that even with regular minutes, one of them still wouldn't be effective. I'll give credit to Kelsy, who was involved in the very awesome team goal. That doesn't happen without his very nice flick to Moreno.
So what about Guerra, the goal guzzler? As Jeremy said, he changed the game. Another good game from him and maybe a goal, and perhaps he gets a starting nod in the future.
Moving forward, we have a tough stretch of games, and I hope this win gives the team something to build off and improve. I'd do the same thing against St. Louis - start with the 3-4-2-1 and go from there, bringing in Guerra later. If Kamal screws up again, then switch back to the four in the back with Guerra's entrance. I don't think Kamal screws up this bad again, though. Zup and Surman played badly last week after a long lay off, so I'll give Kamal a pass.
"....on the right side with a wonderful diagonal ball over the top. This put Langoni in a 1v1 opportunity with Kamal Miller, and the young Argentine won that battle before firing his shot past Maxime Crepeau."
This happens too often. Thankfully, it isn't happening to McGraw anymore, thanks to Surman. We need to figure this out and do something about it. I'd prefer to sign a new CB than to forgo the high line. Maybe Ortiz continuing to improve can somewhat mitigate this risk. A sweeper keeper could also help, though that poses it's own risks, and Crepeau and Pantemis have both been good to great in other respects.
"The Revolution nearly took the lead two minutes later but Leo Campana sent his golden opportunity into the North End."
We can't count on these kinds of mistakes and shouldn't give up these opportunities. The game is different because NE couldn't finish. But their chances exposed our systemic problems.
On the other hand, we had out own missed chances with Kelsy not ready for prime time:
"A David Da Costa ground cross in the 34th should have led to that second goal, but Kevin Kelsy's attempt to strike the ball didn't result in any contact.
...repeated miscommunications with Kelsy"
Nor should we rely on Surman heroics:
"Langoni was suddenly rushing at goal, and Surman erased the threat with a perfect last-man tackle."
"Besides the obvious caveat of a relatively tame New England press?"
This is a huge caveat. We also shouldn't downplay how poorly New England has been playing, though I understand their recent and road form may counter this somewhat.
"I was skeptical about how playing with dual 10s would work out. But so many of these box entries came from the channels."
Moreno tends to tuck in anyway. We should just lean into this, especially since Mosquera is always bombing forward to provide width and Da Costa isn't usually taking shots from that zone.
That said, we should work toward a double pivot of Mosquera and Fory. "Mosquera is always given the freedom to get forward if necessary on the right, particularly in buildup." This makes us a little bit too predictable IMHO and it could give Surman a break once in a while. On the other hand, as long as Kamal is the left CB, I like our left back hanging back more to cover for him.
"Ortiz stayed higher than Ayala in buildup because the Timbers weren’t afraid to try the long ball today."
Yes! I said elsewhere (and it has been observed by others) that we need to try the long ball more often. I'm specifically talking about long passes into space and not just hoof and a prayer to the big man.
"And immense credit goes to Phil Neville for figuring it out."
I'll believe he's actually figured it out when it becomes a regular part of the system. For now, I'm crediting Guerra.
"...after a flick from Kevin Kelsy."
I thought the "not a back heel" was Kelsy and appreciate the clarification. I'll credit Kelsy for that flick though.
"...and the Timbers have just executed a merry-go-round of sorts."
We need to see this working more often as part of a plan or strategy. While I love that Neville wants the players to be free, I believe it should start with a foundation. They should have more patterns and plays to fall back on. We've had at least one good set piece goal from a play. Rules are meant to be broken but I think having that safety net would lead to less indecision and hesitancy in the attack. At the moment, it is hard to square my perception that we don't have rules with the players' tendencies to be static and not move off the ball enough, whether that to run into space or close passing lanes. I suspect there's an emphasis on maintaining shape and I know Phil has told the players not to go in (go to ground?) on challenges without backup. It's been too long since I saw that video from training to accurately remember and it may have been out of context. It's also hard to square maintaining shape with playing free, so maybe I don't know so many things.
"This reminds me of the nonsensical ring-around-the-rosie that the Kansas City Chiefs tried before the snap in a regular-season NFL game a couple seasons ago (I do not remember the exact game). Ayala now gets to act as the quarterback, and he’s about to have two receivers"
Please, please, please refrain from such analogies. This means nothing to many people and just detracts. Sorrynotsorry. Thank you.
"Portuguese Dave finds Big Kev, and the humongous Venezuelan instantly rolls it backwards with the bottom of his foot (ONCE AGAIN, NOT A BACKHEEL) into space for Moreno, who has continued his run."
There is the back heel I was talking about lol. So, credit to Kelsy for a smart play.
"All of these off-ball runs have come through the middle since Ayala got on the ball. The Timbers are being direct in possession, and it’s already glorious."
Yes, more of this please though, again, we shouldn't be so dependent on Ayala in attack.
"He sensed this opportunity, and it’s his turn to box-crash and save this glorious sequence."
Elsewhere I was unfairly stingy in not characterizing this as crashing the box because I was being overly-specific about confining that to zone 17 but I can clearly see now that Smith is in that space. Not sure why I thought he was outside the box.
"Last week I talked about the Timbers’ aversion towards passing the ball into space."
Gah. I incorrectly guessed/misremembed that it was Morrisonic. Maybe they've mentioned it too but I know it was your analysis I was thinking of, so credit where credit is due and my apologies for the misattribution elsewhere.
"Phil Neville’s rating begins with the starting lineup. There were some serious questions about what the forward line would look like. However, Neville said “it was obvious” that two strikers did not work for this team. Credit to him for figuring that out, and for putting the team in a balanced structure."
Eh, it should be clear Mora should have started. Even if Kelsy hadn't flubbed chances, his profile is better off the bench if we need to play long ball or two up top (which should work if it's him and maybe Guerra together), or to defend set pieces.
He also persists in starting a high line with Kamal and keepers who aren't sweepers. Maybe it's a calculated risk but his public comments make me feel like he doesn't recognize the problems and tradeoffs.
His subs are always pretty good though, even if I don't understand them immediately. Gauge for Kamal might have been one this time, though I don't remember what my reaction was in the moment. There's a difference between what I want and what I expect though and I suspect this defied expectations, in a good way. I expected Guerra for Kelsy.
"Yeah, he’ll get some stick for Langoni’s goal, but I’m choosing to place the blame on Kamal Miller for failing to stop the Argentine in the open field."
We can't blame Kamal for not stopping Langoni in the open field. It is not his fault he is slow and positioning wouldn't have made a difference because we were playing a high line. If he played deeper he would have nullified any potential offside trap and would still have been 1v1.
Edit: I just re-watched the highlights and I was wrong. Kamal messed up twice on their first goal, once when he checked his run, maybe hoping to play an offside trap, and again when he got juked and went to ground. Great save around 37. Being faster might have allowed him better positioning and prevented the attempts from happening in each instance though.
I also wouldn't blame Crepeau unless there's a question about his positioning. He's not a sweeper and we play in such a way that a sweeper would really, really help. Edit: I don't think his positioning was bad. He came out and made himself big. Only so much he could do at that point.
"An international goalkeeper was on the pitch, but it was 21-year-old Finn Surman who got entrusted with the top on-field leadership role."
Love this. Hope it isn't perceived as slight by Crepeau. I strongly doubt it is.
"Miller has a very exploitable weakness: he isn’t that fast and often gets beat by tricky and technical wingers, especially when he’s defending on the back foot."
Again, not his fault.
"It’s just very easy for opposing teams to gameplan for him."
Why doesn't Neville seem to game plan for it or even be aware of it?
"The defense wasn’t as good, but the ball progression was excellent."
This may be a trade-off that an improving Ortiz can help mitigate. We are too reliant on Ayala for progression. Like Surman, I love that he's exceeding all reasonable expectations but I don't like how much we've come to depend on them being consistently heroic.
"I thought he did something that needed to be done: dictating the tempo. This featured a lot of first-time passes, and a lot of looking upfield for long balls."
This is another thing we've been missing and it's very encouraging. Perhaps this will cool some of the demands for a DP midfielder which, if secondary to our need for a DP attacker, is probably beside the point because of our commitment to Ortiz and the continued presence of Chará and Paredes.
"...Fory took over and then Claudio Bravo’s experience we went with….you know every day in training he was training in a different position..."
I've been kind of hoping he could convert to a Kamal successor but perhaps left back is more reasonable. Maybe that's just part of a transition. Anyway, encouraging performance and I'm increasingly confident in him anywhere on the left side.
"Hell, it’s a New York Jets score. I watch the Jets every week because I can’t stop, and most Sundays treat me to Eldritch horrors. It’s utterly demoralizing. Although Moreno’s job doesn’t involve table tennis, and my job has nothing to do with the tragedy that is Jets football, a defeat like that delivered by your boss can ruin your week."
Please STAHP. Respectfully. I know you may double down out of spite but I appeal to your better nature.
"The man who is nominally Portland’s starting right winger is not a winger at all."
Again, yeah, lean into that. Why hasn't Neville planned around it so far, especially given the lack of production from that space with Da Costa's tendency to drift left and reticence to shoot (or ability to consistently score?), and Mosquera getting forward?
"Da Costa has more goals from outside the box than inside the box. Sure, the tally marks stand at 2 to 1, but I think he should shoot more from outside the box. The numbers back it up."
Yes! More please! Especially given shots outside the box have been missing and he isn't shooting as much elsewhere. Edit: he almost had a great goal later. This gives me hope that he's got it in him and just needs to be unleashed.
Great points about Evander. Aside from taking the high road and not being petty, I didn't think of the benefits of the sell-on clause at all.
"Most of his actions on the pitch involved some form of miscommunication. This included various flick-on passes to no one, which would have been positives if players had continued their runs. It boils down to his teammates not being on the same page as him."
This may be about chemistry but I think it's a systemic problem and evidence of Neville's failure to game plan and prepare, to give the players patterns, plays, and routines to fall back on, and what I suspect is an overemphasis on maintaining shape. There is too much of a pattern of this regardless of personnel or opponent. I love the idea of the boys playing free but they have to start from a foundation. I don't think Neville gives them enough of that. That's why there is hesitancy and indecision, and a lack of off-the-ball movement. The chemistry we've had seems to develop between clusters of two to three players in the same attacking unit. There isn't enough whole-team coordination and cohesion. This leads to defensive miscues as well. Neville and the players can't get by on mentality. They need some intellect too. Neville seems like an anti-intellectual and it's one of the few things I dislike about him, but I hate it.
I'll reiterate that Kelsy's profile is one of the things that we missed last season. I'm optimistic about him. But I think he needs a complementary striker who should be the starter and he should be the finisher, or who he can partner with better than Mora (who plays too similarly as a poacher or surprisingly good target/hold-up forward) in a two forward formation. Maybe that's Guerra? I hope so but that seems optimistic and an unfair burden to put on him. But he's got an opportunity here for a few weeks at least.
I like Guerra press, workrate, and ability to stretch the pitch. I'd like to see him up top in a two-forward formation with Kelsy or Mora. I don't think Neville took the right lessons from the attempt at two up top vs. Toronto because he didn't say the right things.
"I saw Mora begging for the ball quite a bit tonight, and I think he should’ve been involved around the box... Mora’s strengths would’ve worked wonders from the start in tonight’s game. It wasn’t a terrible idea to start Kelsy in his place, but I was fully expecting a Mora masterclass prior to the lineups being released."
This could be about the lack of off-the-ball movement, game planning, chemistry, etc.
It was a terrible idea to start Kelsy.
I agree with and have no comments on the rest of your player assessments.
I love the Neville pull quote. I like this side of him.
I hope we learn from the few mistakes that were made today and lean into the positives. We have a lot of good pieces but need to put the puzzle together. It's on Ned to find missing pieces and Neville to put it all together. I have more confidence in the former and wish I had more hope in the latter. I also hope and wish that Neville prove me wrong.
RE: The long diagonal over the top that led to the goal.
It seems like all the chances against us come when somebody screws up in the final third or in the build up and they make some kind of mistake. Usually it's something preventable, but it's just careless. In the case of this goal, Mosquera makes an absolutely telegraphed ball to Ortiz, and the defender steps to it (Ortiz does not) and then gets it out to Gil, who is wide open for the counter. (Yes, Kamal did not do his job - just pointing out that we often put our defense in bad situations and under pressure with careless errors on offense.) What should Mosquera have done? Ayala was wide open on the play for a simple, safe pass, or take it to the end line, or put one over the backline for a forward that would result in a shot, or a corner.
Oh yeah, good observation. We often have problems stepping to balls. That might fall under the umbrella of off-the-ball movement but specifics are helpful. There are also distinctions with running into space, moving to draw defenders to create space, closing passing lanes, etc.
Agreed that the problems often start higher up, leaving the defenders exposed. That could be not pressing, not tackling, not moving to close passing lanes, etc. I didn't look for any breakdown before Kamal borking the first goal so Mosquera might have avoided the giveaway as you said, or someone might have prevented the pass after (I don't know, I didn't notice that watching the replay).
"when somebody screws up"
Also key to separate individual errors from systemic problems but, as you noted, the former is often a consequence of the latter. In this case, it isn't just that Mosquera made a bad pass or someone else might have prevented the pass, it's also that Kamal keeps being put in situations where his lack of speed is a liability. Not many defenders should be relied upon to beat good attackers in a foot race, especially if they start facing the other direction. But that has to be factored into the strategy and tactics, and the game plan based on the opposition. Maybe Fory could have gotten back to help. Smith isn't slow but I didn't see where he was on the play.
Also important to identify patterns, like balls over the top....
Even if there is a mistake, I agree that systemically, you can prevent a counter if positioned correctly, but still, unforced errors are a culprit because guys are not positioned defensively - they're trying to find open spaces.
With respect to positioning, I don't know if Kamal started in a bad spot, but he goofed a couple of time after the pass was made. Sometimes Kamal makes that tackle but this time he got clowned. Gotta give credit to the attacker too. Before the sliding tackle, it seems like Kamal hesitated, presumably to try to avoid playing the attacker onside? I don't often criticize Kamal's decision-making, just his lack of speed, but he may not have had good spatial awareness on this one and just got juked on the tackle. Shit happens. But when the same shit happens repeatedly and not just to one player...
Can you elaborate on this or rephrase it? I'm not entirely sure I'm following what you're trying to say.
RE: Positioning. You can see that both Finn and Kamal were occupied with the two forwards. Surman was ready to run and Kamal didn't turn and run as the ball was kicked. He's already two steps behind. OK. He catches up, but leaves his feet. Sometimes the guy shoots and it is a great block, but in this case, Kamal bit and whiffed. So, yes, credit to the attacker. He won that one.
RE: Systematically. Both defensive midfielders were positioned flat in relation to each other. Ortiz was actually on the 18 trying to receive the ball from the wing back (Mosquera), and Ayala was a hair deeper between the two. The safe pass would be to go to Ayala, but Mosquera tried the flat pass to Ortiz. Where was the danger man, Gil? He had drifted out a bit as an outlet on the ball side behind Ayala and Mosquera, so when it came to him, he had a ton of space. Zup was first man up to encounter but was in no man's land - neither back with the other two CBs, nor up so far as to cover Gil. I can't blame him for that.
Final Verdict (;): Mosquera 50 percent of the blame for the bad pass, and Kamal 40 percent for inability to snuff it out, and Crepeau 10 percent (after the fake, he didn't readjust himself or make a move or make himself bigger. He just kinda was a statue.)
I’m thinking bigger picture systemically but you may be seeing a symptom of how and why we struggle to progress and defend through that zone. They should be pivoting. One of them can hang back while the other carries. Depending on the circumstances, they might switch roles, with one being more 6 to the other’s 8, given their strengths and weaknesses. Since they’re both hybrids, they should alternate. That takes communication, coordination, chemistry, situational awareness. It would get more complicated if we pivoted fullbacks too, which we should. When one fullback goes forward, the central midfielder closer has to cover the space in behind, while the other might shift more central, know the fullback that’s staying back is covering the other side. A back three should let both fullbacks get forward, with the midfielders being back to separate even more vertically, maybe still alternating in give-and-gos. I haven’t given a lot of thought to or made observations about how Ayala and Ortiz compare in terms of strengths and weaknesses aside from height difference, as Ayala has been so very good and Ortiz mediocre, albeit arguably still adjusting. Ortiz had a good game but I haven’t broken down how.
Zuparic has gotten burned advancing too much before but the center CB is often the one in the back three to get forward and fill the space of a missing midfielder. We didn’t play with two up top this time, so we weren’t missing a body in midfield, but as you said the shape wasn’t ideal.
I thought Crepeau made himself big. Maybe he didn’t adjust his position but his feet could have been planted in that straddle position too late to adjust to the juke. I’d have to re-watch. I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt. This may underscore why I’d like a sweeper keeper. He might have gotten beat or chipped if he’d come too far off his line. I don’t know if a sweeper would have helped in this particular instance as it seems like the ball was carried most of the way rather than passed deeper into the space behind.
In the preview article for this game, I posted that a 3-4-2-1 would be the best option, and I was excited to see that's what the team rolled out with. Given the available personnel and their skill sets, this. was the way to go. As NickG points out, this best suits Santi's game, and Da Costa. And it definitely fit Smith, who can work as an LB, but seems even better as a wing back because he is very offensive minded and skilled in that direction. Back four, no question Fory is way better defensively. It was just awesome to see the team own the midfield and run circles around them. This has to be the way it goes until Antony gets back, or just start Antony up top. That guy has forward chops, too, I'm thinking. (Sidenote: The caveat is that K. Miller starts in this lineup and he made a mistake, obviously, by leaving his feet. He get's beat over the top, yes, because he's ball watching, too. We've seen that before. The main mistake is leaving his feet. It's almost like he's trying too hard to protect the keeper, who had the near post covered because the angle initially was difficult. Let him take that shot.)
Speaking of up top. Kelsy did not cover himself in glory, and Mora did look lively in his minutes. We have a problem up there. Neither one is really outplaying the other. I like the potential in Kelsy, his bull rushing and occupying two defenders, whereas Mora doesn't seem real threatening. Mora seems more threatening coming off the bench. The problem here is that the alternating of forwards has done no one any favors, neither the two forwards, nor the other teammates. Chemistry hasn't been developed, no rhythm established. It could be too that even with regular minutes, one of them still wouldn't be effective. I'll give credit to Kelsy, who was involved in the very awesome team goal. That doesn't happen without his very nice flick to Moreno.
So what about Guerra, the goal guzzler? As Jeremy said, he changed the game. Another good game from him and maybe a goal, and perhaps he gets a starting nod in the future.
Moving forward, we have a tough stretch of games, and I hope this win gives the team something to build off and improve. I'd do the same thing against St. Louis - start with the 3-4-2-1 and go from there, bringing in Guerra later. If Kamal screws up again, then switch back to the four in the back with Guerra's entrance. I don't think Kamal screws up this bad again, though. Zup and Surman played badly last week after a long lay off, so I'll give Kamal a pass.
"....on the right side with a wonderful diagonal ball over the top. This put Langoni in a 1v1 opportunity with Kamal Miller, and the young Argentine won that battle before firing his shot past Maxime Crepeau."
This happens too often. Thankfully, it isn't happening to McGraw anymore, thanks to Surman. We need to figure this out and do something about it. I'd prefer to sign a new CB than to forgo the high line. Maybe Ortiz continuing to improve can somewhat mitigate this risk. A sweeper keeper could also help, though that poses it's own risks, and Crepeau and Pantemis have both been good to great in other respects.
"The Revolution nearly took the lead two minutes later but Leo Campana sent his golden opportunity into the North End."
We can't count on these kinds of mistakes and shouldn't give up these opportunities. The game is different because NE couldn't finish. But their chances exposed our systemic problems.
On the other hand, we had out own missed chances with Kelsy not ready for prime time:
"A David Da Costa ground cross in the 34th should have led to that second goal, but Kevin Kelsy's attempt to strike the ball didn't result in any contact.
...repeated miscommunications with Kelsy"
Nor should we rely on Surman heroics:
"Langoni was suddenly rushing at goal, and Surman erased the threat with a perfect last-man tackle."
"Besides the obvious caveat of a relatively tame New England press?"
This is a huge caveat. We also shouldn't downplay how poorly New England has been playing, though I understand their recent and road form may counter this somewhat.
"I was skeptical about how playing with dual 10s would work out. But so many of these box entries came from the channels."
Moreno tends to tuck in anyway. We should just lean into this, especially since Mosquera is always bombing forward to provide width and Da Costa isn't usually taking shots from that zone.
That said, we should work toward a double pivot of Mosquera and Fory. "Mosquera is always given the freedom to get forward if necessary on the right, particularly in buildup." This makes us a little bit too predictable IMHO and it could give Surman a break once in a while. On the other hand, as long as Kamal is the left CB, I like our left back hanging back more to cover for him.
"Ortiz stayed higher than Ayala in buildup because the Timbers weren’t afraid to try the long ball today."
Yes! I said elsewhere (and it has been observed by others) that we need to try the long ball more often. I'm specifically talking about long passes into space and not just hoof and a prayer to the big man.
"And immense credit goes to Phil Neville for figuring it out."
I'll believe he's actually figured it out when it becomes a regular part of the system. For now, I'm crediting Guerra.
"...after a flick from Kevin Kelsy."
I thought the "not a back heel" was Kelsy and appreciate the clarification. I'll credit Kelsy for that flick though.
"...and the Timbers have just executed a merry-go-round of sorts."
We need to see this working more often as part of a plan or strategy. While I love that Neville wants the players to be free, I believe it should start with a foundation. They should have more patterns and plays to fall back on. We've had at least one good set piece goal from a play. Rules are meant to be broken but I think having that safety net would lead to less indecision and hesitancy in the attack. At the moment, it is hard to square my perception that we don't have rules with the players' tendencies to be static and not move off the ball enough, whether that to run into space or close passing lanes. I suspect there's an emphasis on maintaining shape and I know Phil has told the players not to go in (go to ground?) on challenges without backup. It's been too long since I saw that video from training to accurately remember and it may have been out of context. It's also hard to square maintaining shape with playing free, so maybe I don't know so many things.
"This reminds me of the nonsensical ring-around-the-rosie that the Kansas City Chiefs tried before the snap in a regular-season NFL game a couple seasons ago (I do not remember the exact game). Ayala now gets to act as the quarterback, and he’s about to have two receivers"
Please, please, please refrain from such analogies. This means nothing to many people and just detracts. Sorrynotsorry. Thank you.
"Portuguese Dave finds Big Kev, and the humongous Venezuelan instantly rolls it backwards with the bottom of his foot (ONCE AGAIN, NOT A BACKHEEL) into space for Moreno, who has continued his run."
There is the back heel I was talking about lol. So, credit to Kelsy for a smart play.
"All of these off-ball runs have come through the middle since Ayala got on the ball. The Timbers are being direct in possession, and it’s already glorious."
Yes, more of this please though, again, we shouldn't be so dependent on Ayala in attack.
"He sensed this opportunity, and it’s his turn to box-crash and save this glorious sequence."
Elsewhere I was unfairly stingy in not characterizing this as crashing the box because I was being overly-specific about confining that to zone 17 but I can clearly see now that Smith is in that space. Not sure why I thought he was outside the box.
"Last week I talked about the Timbers’ aversion towards passing the ball into space."
Gah. I incorrectly guessed/misremembed that it was Morrisonic. Maybe they've mentioned it too but I know it was your analysis I was thinking of, so credit where credit is due and my apologies for the misattribution elsewhere.
"Phil Neville’s rating begins with the starting lineup. There were some serious questions about what the forward line would look like. However, Neville said “it was obvious” that two strikers did not work for this team. Credit to him for figuring that out, and for putting the team in a balanced structure."
Eh, it should be clear Mora should have started. Even if Kelsy hadn't flubbed chances, his profile is better off the bench if we need to play long ball or two up top (which should work if it's him and maybe Guerra together), or to defend set pieces.
He also persists in starting a high line with Kamal and keepers who aren't sweepers. Maybe it's a calculated risk but his public comments make me feel like he doesn't recognize the problems and tradeoffs.
His subs are always pretty good though, even if I don't understand them immediately. Gauge for Kamal might have been one this time, though I don't remember what my reaction was in the moment. There's a difference between what I want and what I expect though and I suspect this defied expectations, in a good way. I expected Guerra for Kelsy.
"Yeah, he’ll get some stick for Langoni’s goal, but I’m choosing to place the blame on Kamal Miller for failing to stop the Argentine in the open field."
We can't blame Kamal for not stopping Langoni in the open field. It is not his fault he is slow and positioning wouldn't have made a difference because we were playing a high line. If he played deeper he would have nullified any potential offside trap and would still have been 1v1.
Edit: I just re-watched the highlights and I was wrong. Kamal messed up twice on their first goal, once when he checked his run, maybe hoping to play an offside trap, and again when he got juked and went to ground. Great save around 37. Being faster might have allowed him better positioning and prevented the attempts from happening in each instance though.
I also wouldn't blame Crepeau unless there's a question about his positioning. He's not a sweeper and we play in such a way that a sweeper would really, really help. Edit: I don't think his positioning was bad. He came out and made himself big. Only so much he could do at that point.
"An international goalkeeper was on the pitch, but it was 21-year-old Finn Surman who got entrusted with the top on-field leadership role."
Love this. Hope it isn't perceived as slight by Crepeau. I strongly doubt it is.
"Miller has a very exploitable weakness: he isn’t that fast and often gets beat by tricky and technical wingers, especially when he’s defending on the back foot."
Again, not his fault.
"It’s just very easy for opposing teams to gameplan for him."
Why doesn't Neville seem to game plan for it or even be aware of it?
"The defense wasn’t as good, but the ball progression was excellent."
This may be a trade-off that an improving Ortiz can help mitigate. We are too reliant on Ayala for progression. Like Surman, I love that he's exceeding all reasonable expectations but I don't like how much we've come to depend on them being consistently heroic.
"I thought he did something that needed to be done: dictating the tempo. This featured a lot of first-time passes, and a lot of looking upfield for long balls."
This is another thing we've been missing and it's very encouraging. Perhaps this will cool some of the demands for a DP midfielder which, if secondary to our need for a DP attacker, is probably beside the point because of our commitment to Ortiz and the continued presence of Chará and Paredes.
"...Fory took over and then Claudio Bravo’s experience we went with….you know every day in training he was training in a different position..."
I've been kind of hoping he could convert to a Kamal successor but perhaps left back is more reasonable. Maybe that's just part of a transition. Anyway, encouraging performance and I'm increasingly confident in him anywhere on the left side.
"Hell, it’s a New York Jets score. I watch the Jets every week because I can’t stop, and most Sundays treat me to Eldritch horrors. It’s utterly demoralizing. Although Moreno’s job doesn’t involve table tennis, and my job has nothing to do with the tragedy that is Jets football, a defeat like that delivered by your boss can ruin your week."
Please STAHP. Respectfully. I know you may double down out of spite but I appeal to your better nature.
"The man who is nominally Portland’s starting right winger is not a winger at all."
Again, yeah, lean into that. Why hasn't Neville planned around it so far, especially given the lack of production from that space with Da Costa's tendency to drift left and reticence to shoot (or ability to consistently score?), and Mosquera getting forward?
"Da Costa has more goals from outside the box than inside the box. Sure, the tally marks stand at 2 to 1, but I think he should shoot more from outside the box. The numbers back it up."
Yes! More please! Especially given shots outside the box have been missing and he isn't shooting as much elsewhere. Edit: he almost had a great goal later. This gives me hope that he's got it in him and just needs to be unleashed.
Great points about Evander. Aside from taking the high road and not being petty, I didn't think of the benefits of the sell-on clause at all.
"Most of his actions on the pitch involved some form of miscommunication. This included various flick-on passes to no one, which would have been positives if players had continued their runs. It boils down to his teammates not being on the same page as him."
This may be about chemistry but I think it's a systemic problem and evidence of Neville's failure to game plan and prepare, to give the players patterns, plays, and routines to fall back on, and what I suspect is an overemphasis on maintaining shape. There is too much of a pattern of this regardless of personnel or opponent. I love the idea of the boys playing free but they have to start from a foundation. I don't think Neville gives them enough of that. That's why there is hesitancy and indecision, and a lack of off-the-ball movement. The chemistry we've had seems to develop between clusters of two to three players in the same attacking unit. There isn't enough whole-team coordination and cohesion. This leads to defensive miscues as well. Neville and the players can't get by on mentality. They need some intellect too. Neville seems like an anti-intellectual and it's one of the few things I dislike about him, but I hate it.
I'll reiterate that Kelsy's profile is one of the things that we missed last season. I'm optimistic about him. But I think he needs a complementary striker who should be the starter and he should be the finisher, or who he can partner with better than Mora (who plays too similarly as a poacher or surprisingly good target/hold-up forward) in a two forward formation. Maybe that's Guerra? I hope so but that seems optimistic and an unfair burden to put on him. But he's got an opportunity here for a few weeks at least.
I like Guerra press, workrate, and ability to stretch the pitch. I'd like to see him up top in a two-forward formation with Kelsy or Mora. I don't think Neville took the right lessons from the attempt at two up top vs. Toronto because he didn't say the right things.
"I saw Mora begging for the ball quite a bit tonight, and I think he should’ve been involved around the box... Mora’s strengths would’ve worked wonders from the start in tonight’s game. It wasn’t a terrible idea to start Kelsy in his place, but I was fully expecting a Mora masterclass prior to the lineups being released."
This could be about the lack of off-the-ball movement, game planning, chemistry, etc.
It was a terrible idea to start Kelsy.
I agree with and have no comments on the rest of your player assessments.
I love the Neville pull quote. I like this side of him.
I hope we learn from the few mistakes that were made today and lean into the positives. We have a lot of good pieces but need to put the puzzle together. It's on Ned to find missing pieces and Neville to put it all together. I have more confidence in the former and wish I had more hope in the latter. I also hope and wish that Neville prove me wrong.
Onward.
RE: The long diagonal over the top that led to the goal.
It seems like all the chances against us come when somebody screws up in the final third or in the build up and they make some kind of mistake. Usually it's something preventable, but it's just careless. In the case of this goal, Mosquera makes an absolutely telegraphed ball to Ortiz, and the defender steps to it (Ortiz does not) and then gets it out to Gil, who is wide open for the counter. (Yes, Kamal did not do his job - just pointing out that we often put our defense in bad situations and under pressure with careless errors on offense.) What should Mosquera have done? Ayala was wide open on the play for a simple, safe pass, or take it to the end line, or put one over the backline for a forward that would result in a shot, or a corner.
"...the defender steps to it (Ortiz does not)"
Oh yeah, good observation. We often have problems stepping to balls. That might fall under the umbrella of off-the-ball movement but specifics are helpful. There are also distinctions with running into space, moving to draw defenders to create space, closing passing lanes, etc.
Agreed that the problems often start higher up, leaving the defenders exposed. That could be not pressing, not tackling, not moving to close passing lanes, etc. I didn't look for any breakdown before Kamal borking the first goal so Mosquera might have avoided the giveaway as you said, or someone might have prevented the pass after (I don't know, I didn't notice that watching the replay).
"when somebody screws up"
Also key to separate individual errors from systemic problems but, as you noted, the former is often a consequence of the latter. In this case, it isn't just that Mosquera made a bad pass or someone else might have prevented the pass, it's also that Kamal keeps being put in situations where his lack of speed is a liability. Not many defenders should be relied upon to beat good attackers in a foot race, especially if they start facing the other direction. But that has to be factored into the strategy and tactics, and the game plan based on the opposition. Maybe Fory could have gotten back to help. Smith isn't slow but I didn't see where he was on the play.
Also important to identify patterns, like balls over the top....
Even if there is a mistake, I agree that systemically, you can prevent a counter if positioned correctly, but still, unforced errors are a culprit because guys are not positioned defensively - they're trying to find open spaces.
With respect to positioning, I don't know if Kamal started in a bad spot, but he goofed a couple of time after the pass was made. Sometimes Kamal makes that tackle but this time he got clowned. Gotta give credit to the attacker too. Before the sliding tackle, it seems like Kamal hesitated, presumably to try to avoid playing the attacker onside? I don't often criticize Kamal's decision-making, just his lack of speed, but he may not have had good spatial awareness on this one and just got juked on the tackle. Shit happens. But when the same shit happens repeatedly and not just to one player...
Can you elaborate on this or rephrase it? I'm not entirely sure I'm following what you're trying to say.
RE: Positioning. You can see that both Finn and Kamal were occupied with the two forwards. Surman was ready to run and Kamal didn't turn and run as the ball was kicked. He's already two steps behind. OK. He catches up, but leaves his feet. Sometimes the guy shoots and it is a great block, but in this case, Kamal bit and whiffed. So, yes, credit to the attacker. He won that one.
RE: Systematically. Both defensive midfielders were positioned flat in relation to each other. Ortiz was actually on the 18 trying to receive the ball from the wing back (Mosquera), and Ayala was a hair deeper between the two. The safe pass would be to go to Ayala, but Mosquera tried the flat pass to Ortiz. Where was the danger man, Gil? He had drifted out a bit as an outlet on the ball side behind Ayala and Mosquera, so when it came to him, he had a ton of space. Zup was first man up to encounter but was in no man's land - neither back with the other two CBs, nor up so far as to cover Gil. I can't blame him for that.
Final Verdict (;): Mosquera 50 percent of the blame for the bad pass, and Kamal 40 percent for inability to snuff it out, and Crepeau 10 percent (after the fake, he didn't readjust himself or make a move or make himself bigger. He just kinda was a statue.)
I see what you mean about Kamal and agree.
I’m thinking bigger picture systemically but you may be seeing a symptom of how and why we struggle to progress and defend through that zone. They should be pivoting. One of them can hang back while the other carries. Depending on the circumstances, they might switch roles, with one being more 6 to the other’s 8, given their strengths and weaknesses. Since they’re both hybrids, they should alternate. That takes communication, coordination, chemistry, situational awareness. It would get more complicated if we pivoted fullbacks too, which we should. When one fullback goes forward, the central midfielder closer has to cover the space in behind, while the other might shift more central, know the fullback that’s staying back is covering the other side. A back three should let both fullbacks get forward, with the midfielders being back to separate even more vertically, maybe still alternating in give-and-gos. I haven’t given a lot of thought to or made observations about how Ayala and Ortiz compare in terms of strengths and weaknesses aside from height difference, as Ayala has been so very good and Ortiz mediocre, albeit arguably still adjusting. Ortiz had a good game but I haven’t broken down how.
Zuparic has gotten burned advancing too much before but the center CB is often the one in the back three to get forward and fill the space of a missing midfielder. We didn’t play with two up top this time, so we weren’t missing a body in midfield, but as you said the shape wasn’t ideal.
I thought Crepeau made himself big. Maybe he didn’t adjust his position but his feet could have been planted in that straddle position too late to adjust to the juke. I’d have to re-watch. I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt. This may underscore why I’d like a sweeper keeper. He might have gotten beat or chipped if he’d come too far off his line. I don’t know if a sweeper would have helped in this particular instance as it seems like the ball was carried most of the way rather than passed deeper into the space behind.