Familiarity Breeds Contempt | a DC United Match Reaction

You want me to recant? To say that Wednesday’s Reaction Post was a mistake?

Keep waiting.

I suppose if I were going to be really cynical, I’d point out that our first team could absolutely dominate the MLS Reserve League[1]. I’m not going to go there. I’m going to give United credit for finishing chances, for learning their lessons from last time around, and for generally answering the challenge Olsen laid down.

So why no backtracking? Why no crow on my platter?

Because results in single-games are not United’s big problem[2], sequences of positive results are. I’m not even going to consider the case for optimism until we see if the Back to the Mean Express pulls into the station come Thursday night in Philly. String together back to back results and then we’ll sit down to the table for a discussion about the post-season and the damage to be done there.

Instead, let’s hit some talking points, shall we?

• Repeat after me: De Rosario is a forward. I will grant you that he’s also our best attacking midfielder, playmaker[3], what-have-you. But, as I’ve harped on before, he’s also our most clinical and unpredictable finisher and needs to be in and around the goal, particularly with Pontius out of the equation. Combine this with the evidence that United look both more organized defensively and more potent going forward with a second holding type (King) playing with Simms in the middle, and the best option for where to play De Rosario should be obvious. Though King doesn’t technically sit deep next to Simms, he does contribute more defensively, particularly in snuffing quick transition sequences, and doesn’t bomb forward as often, thus screening Simms’ increasing lack of wheels and freeing the wide midfielders to make storming runs off the ball.

• Was Burch taking notes during his spells on the sidelines? Long-time followers of FBF will know I have absolutely zero love for Burch, but he didn’t do the things that normally launch me into fits. His positioning was solid, he wasn’t looking to immediately hit 50-yard balls to nowhere as soon as the ball landed at his feet, and he was committed defensively. Still probably not a long-term solution as the starter at left-back, but probably an upgrade on Woolard.

• Better possession. Not perfect, mind you. Some of the hold-up play was lacking and the distribution from defense, particularly the center backs, was inconsistent. But compared with the constant hemorrhaging of possession against Chivas, United were miles better in this game. As a result, there were only two real wobbles (around minute 35 and again around the hour mark) where United seemed to lose their way and allow RSL to start dictating affairs.

• Good response to harsh criticism? You’ve got to figure that the better energy and focus were the direct results of Olsen calling the team out after the Chivas fiasco. You could see players, particularly Brandon McDonald in the post-goal scrums, issuing reminders. The real test though, won’t be this match, where the bitter taste of the Chivas collapse was fresh in their minds and Olsen’s words were ringing in their ears. The real test comes Thursday. That’s when we’ll see if the focus and energy and commitment remain, when we find out if the slide Back to the Mean (TM) can be avoided.

Quicks hits?

• Wolff killed another couple of counter chances with terrible passing. He does bring fire (no pun intended) and effort, but the technical failings grate.

• Can somebody please work with Najar on finishing with his left? How many times did he cut onto his left in the box and not have a whack at goal? Still had an excellent game.

• Much better width in this match, though the over-riding tendency from the wide players continues to be to cut inside. Still, there was more and better flank play on offer.

So at the end of the weekend, despite a potentially huge win and games in hand, United still sit outside the playoff positions. I imagine, though I haven’t made my rounds yet, that there is a certain amount of post-season optimism being enjoyed in the United blogosphere at the moment. Unfortunately, I can’t yet look beyond all of those points coughed up at home and the late let-downs, can’t rid myself of the memory of previous encouraging results followed by absolute face-plants.

And that’s why I’m standing pat with my pessimism. That’s why I can’t get carried away despite the flush of victory and the favorable mathematics of the table. Nevertheless…

Vamos, United!

---

1. Yes, yes, I’m aware that RSL fielded a few starters, and that many of their scrubs have picked up significant minutes. I’m also aware that they’re among the deepest teams in MLS. Still, I see a front line of Saborio/Espindola both causing many more problems and finishing more chances than the bench dregs. See the danger (and eventual goal) the introduction of Saborio alone caused.  ↩

2. Chivas USA result (among others) excepted.  ↩

3. See the defense-splitting ball to Najar for the opener.  ↩

Pack Your Bags, Gentlemen

I give up. Honestly.

How can you love a team, desperate for points in the playoff race, that takes a 2-0 lead at home to one of the worst teams in the league and conspires through a combination of catastrophic defending, a complete inability to retain possession, and, most damningly, sheer gutlessness in the face of adversity, to throw away two points?

So where should I begin?

Should I rag on De Rosario deservedly missing a critical PK after flopping for the call?

Should I point to the number of times Simms found himself behind the play or on the ground (including, crucially, slipping and losing the crosser on Angel's first, the goal that let Chivas back in the game?)

Should I moan about the number of hopeless balls to nowhere if not flat out delivering the ball to the opposition to have another go at a defense that seemed never to have been informed that it should close down opponents in the final third?

Should I expound upon how every sequence of lucid attacking play was matched by a half-dozen stuttering, stammering, cave-man-grunt-filled, monosyllabic abominations of counter-killing, backward-passing, turnover-filled idiocy?

Should I wonder how Davies stayed on the field so long despite a bloodless performance that saw him (1) display a miserable lack of crossing and passing ability, (2) single-handedly gum up the works of fantastic counter build-ups, and (3) flat-out give up on balls he should be chasing?

Probably. And that doesn't even address half of the heavily-underlined, rant-filled notes that I gave up writing just before the back line fell all over each other trying to make Angel feel young and useful again.

Instead, I'm going to do with this match reaction exactly what United did with this game, and by extension the 2011 season. Give up and go home. Hope they're used to it, because, come the close of the regular season, that's exactly what this shambolic lot is going to be doing.

Go ahead and pack your bags, gentlemen. I'll wait.

Absolutely pathetic.

(Go ahead, tell me, "it could have been worse," and watch my head explode.)

Sigh.

Quick Post-Match Thoughts | United vs. Sounders

Guess what? United are a middle of the road club. They slot in somewhere between the also-rans like Chivas and the league elites like Seattle. Hard to find these last couple of results shocking when you put things in that perspective, is it? Nor was it surprising to see United struggle offensively in their first game without their second most influential attacking player1.

Some things to think about…

• Is there an MLS side that carries less of a threat from crosses than United? Given that lack and the tendency of all United wide attackers to cut inside, opposition defenses have the immediate advantage of having to defend a quite narrow attack. They can basically ignore the areas wide of the box in their own final third and quite comfortably pack the middle. Small wonder United’s threat revolves around counterattacking at pace when defenses are not allowed time to set up.
• Brandon McDonald has been a terrific mid-season addition, but he didn’t have a game to remember. Any other fingers to point? Woolard’s lack of pace. Simms doesn’t have the wheels or tenacity to play Lone Ranger at d-mid. General lack of coherency in attacking play, particularly linking up with forwards (at least while the game was still a contest).
• When Pontius went down, I’d been thinking metaphorically of a missing link in the chain connecting De Rosario to Davies. The image never inspired enough to generate a post, but I think you saw it here. Da Luz may have the passing chops, but he plays to deep and can’t threaten on the dribble like Pontius. Najar causes problems on the dribble but not so much with his passing. Ngwenya is neither link nor finisher. So that leaves De Rosario trying to form two links of the chain to the poacher himself2.
• I just mentioned Najar’s causing terror on the dribble. Strange then that United weren’t looking to consistently isolate him against Wahl, not exactly the fleetest of left backs in the league.

End of the world? Not really. Seattle just happen to be among the best in MLS at the moment, and United aren’t in that lofty company. Should it have been closer despite that gulf in class? Probably. Was it useful to have both Davies and the team brought down a peg after last week’s comfortable win in preparation for their stretch run to qualify for the post-season?

I guess. But then what exactly is the point? Clearly, United aren’t good enough to win MLS Cup. Is it enough to put reaching the playoffs out there as a milestone, a learning experience for the young core of the team, something to use as a pushing-off point for bigger and better things next year?

Maybe. Kinda flies in the face of the De Rosario acquisition though, which seems to be more about winning now.

Double…no…wait, let’s make this a result-specific triple ugh…

---

1. DeRosario #1, Pontius #2, for those with no firm grasp of the obvious. ↩

2. Which, I suppose, is better than trying to form all three links as he was being forced to do when he first arrived. ↩

Sneaking Suspicions | a USA Match Reaction

Granted, these early matches under the Klinsmann regime are all about assessing players and introducing the new boss’s style, so it’s not yet time to go overboard with complaints about players who don’t belong, defensive disorganization, and lack of chances created. Sadly, my suspicion is that we’re going to have plenty of chances to file those complaints down the road.

Instead, let’s begin with what went well…

• The opening 30 minutes were played in an excellent, quick style, with high pressure to retain possession and almost no worries on defense. Indeed, if Donovan finishes the golden chance the Torres-Shea-Altidore combination set him up for, I can see us singing a very different tune this morning. With a tangible reward to show for their excellent early play, the US may have built on that platform and Costa Rica might not have gained the confidence to come back into things.

• Castillo’s play in those opening 30 minutes suggested that maybe he might stake a claim to be the answer at left back. Unfortunately, there were another 60 minutes to play, and in those minutes he was miserable in both possession and defense. His quality on the ball promises much, but his defensive weakness makes him little more than Bornstein-plus at this point. Still no answers…

• The forwards. Altidore looked really impressive holding the ball up and playing quick combinations as the lone striker, asserting himself physically. Regular minutes and gaining confidence in a similar system at AZ should lead to better play for the US. I’m sure there will be some rumbling that Agudelo’s livewire substitute appearance argues either for him seriously pushing Altidore for starting minutes or for a two-man strike force, but given the inadequacies on the wings, I wonder if starting Agudelo on the wing, where he can threaten with the ball at his feet, might be a better option.

• Torres demonstrated pretty much everything I love about him as a player, and I can see him thriving in this system. He has vision and imagination, holds the ball well, and can hit scorchers from distance. Of all the players set to thrive with the Bradley-shackles off, he’s the biggest beneficiary. There might be an issue when Holden returns to full fitness as I see them fulfilling essentially the same role in Klinsmann’s current system. It might prove difficult to get both on the field as Holden, despite being a great crosser, isn’t an ideal fit as a winger, and Torres isn’t as effective either wide or pushed in the higher Donovan-role.

And some things to work on…

• The crossing was abysmal. I mean flat out awful. Indeed, the flank play in general was pretty lacking. The wingers all too often slowed play and cut inside rather than taking on defenders and getting to the byline for crosses. Shea had his moments and should still be in the picture (though more often as a substitute for now), but Rogers looked largely out of place, his movement and thinking just too slow and too tentative for the match. Additionally, I wonder why all of the corners seemed to be taken as out-swingers. Dead balls in general are where Holden’s return will prove particularly effective.

• Defensive organization against the counter was poor. When the ball was comfortably in front of them, the gaps were clogged and the defense looked solid. But on the break, things fell apart. Both fullbacks looked shaky¹, Orozco was often sucked out of position, and Edu was a mess, either pushed too high, leaving a gap in front of the back line, or chasing rather than anticipating movement. Orozco’s long distribution was a welcome addition at times, but I’m not sold in general.

• Chances. For all of the possession, the US created very little in the way of clear chances on goal. There was that one early one that really should have set them on their way, but precious little thereafter. With a target like Altidore, Donovan ghosting in from deep, and Torres following up with that ability to strike from distance, more direct play from the wingers (beating their man and getting the crosses in) and fullbacks (making more decisive overlapping runs) probably would have created more chances. Maybe it’s not as pretty or possession-centric, but the tools at hand would seem to suggest such an approach. Then again, given the quality of the crossing (see my point above), maybe not. Still, the constant slowing of play and cutting inside, both by wingers and fullbacks, into an already congested middle resulted in little threat.

• The fluidity of the front three (wings swapping, Altidore pulling onto the flank as Shea moved inside) didn’t really accomplish much. Shea looked lost on the right, Rogers looked lost everywhere, and the Costa Rican defense didn’t seem to be troubled. Maybe more darting runs from deeper-lying midfielders trying to exploit any potential gaps would have created more discomfort?

• How does Kljestan keep getting into camp? Is he sneaking in? Throwing him on when chasing the game is the equivalent of punting. Let’s formalize that, shall we? I hereby dub him Sacha “White Flag” Kljestan. Ugh. I understand wanting to see Agudelo function as the sole striker in the new system in a match that really doesn’t matter, but maybe having a look at a “real” two-striker set (i.e. not Shea pushing up top) when chasing a result might have been useful too…

So let’s finish by running through things line by line, shall we?

Howard and Bocanegra were solid as usual at the back. Both fullbacks had moments getting forward (Castillo more so than Chandler), but both were found lacking in the crossing department and in their defensive positioning (again, Castillo more so than Chandler). Orozco has some useful qualities, but I would still rate Ream and Goodson ahead of him and a rejuvenated Onyewu would be as well. It will be interesting to see who starts against Belgium².

In midfield, I wasn’t impressed with Edu, who seemed to be chasing more than clogging channels. Torres, on the other hand, was excellent. Donovan drifted in and out. I do like him playing underneath a lone striker, and the times he went missing most were when he played high as a second forward or dropped very deep. I still think he fits best into this system centrally, but wouldn’t be too surprised if the return of Holden saw him move onto the flank again, particularly as our options there don’t seem like finished products yet³.

Up top, Altidore and Agudelo both threatened without ever actually providing any moments of real danger, and the flanks were nowhere near as effective as they should have been. It’s going to take a while before Shea completes the step up to this level, but you can see him getting there. Rogers, on the other hand, has all the makings of a Bob Bradley-style Bornstein/Kljestan special.

And that seems about as good a place as any to wrap things up. In the end, this felt like a very “Bob” outing. Control of possession without chances (either quality or quantity), much bustle with little reward, reliance upon set pieces, solid against all but the counter, and Sacha “White Flag” Kljestan. Arguments can be made, I suppose, that it’s only logical for this to be the case in a time of transition, and that’s what we’ll have to hope is happening.

There’s little doubt that Klinsmann is trying different pieces and a different style, but if the end result is the same, is progress being made? The complaints we’re hearing from Germany about a lack of tactical nous will start to get worrying if there’s no improvement over the coming months.

---

1. Chandler in particular disappointed. I had thought that the combination of Lichaj and Chandler would push the aging Cherundolo out of the starting lineup, if not the first choice 18 altogether, but Lichaj’s injury and Chandler’s lukewarm outing suggest that Dolo still needs to be in the mix. ↩

2. Klinsmann’s stated goal of adding more of a Latin element to the US is the right move, but not in every circumstance, I would argue. ↩

3. Dempsey excepted, of course. ↩