Tintin Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by TFCRegina That wasn't a tactical blunder, it was a player selection blunder. When I talk tactically poor decisions, I mean selecting a defensive 4-4-2 when we have a great attacking midfield that can create chances. We are playing a 4-3-3 which is designed to promote offensive play. And it's creative compared to what everybody else plays in this league. Bruce Arena is what I like to call the typically boring, big name coach in MLS. He's always played defensively, and more so this year, as he lacks Beckham right now in LA. His tactics are ultra-defensive and boring. There's two reasons why LA's attendance has fallen this year. One is Beckham, two is that draws are boring as hell. At least Cummings plays creatively, something significantly better than most MLS coaches. I agree with everything else you said, but to describe draws as boring as hell reeks of the modern NHL with overtime and shootouts. I presume you mean that tactics which result in draws are boring as opposed to the final result being a draw because two teams played as well as each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tintin Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by kyam In talking to US fans, Bruce Arena is seen as the Mitchell of US Soccer... He is largely blamed for "losing" Rossi (fairly or unfairly), so hes definitely considered over hyped... He tends to play favorites with who he plays as well, his "big name" status was earned through failure in the US MNT. Sorry, it's me again, but I just saw this thread and I'm replying to a lot of things at once. Exactly. He's known because he managed (poorly) the US national team, as opposed to so many of the managers in MLS who are some unknown guys from the University of Hicktown, Oklahoma or somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFCRegina Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Tintin I agree with everything else you said, but to describe draws as boring as hell reeks of the modern NHL with overtime and shootouts. I presume you mean that tactics which result in draws are boring as opposed to the final result being a draw because two teams played as well as each other. What I mean by draws are boring as hell is that LA has barely won or lost any games all year. They go out playing something like the bucket or an equally boring tactical formation and play not to win and not to lose. It's incredibly hard for american fans to watch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tintin Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 quote:Originally posted by TFCRegina What I mean by draws are boring as hell is that LA has barely won or lost any games all year. They go out playing something like the bucket or an equally boring tactical formation and play not to win and not to lose. It's incredibly hard for american fans to watch... I agree. It's just like the trap in hockey, putting off even people who like hockey. I would also argue that watching anything from Los Angeles is boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Peter Schaad Bob took a VERY high road in the media today. He commented on how the focus should be on Toronto's achievement instead of Montreal's lack of it. Teitur was a tad more critical...and he had a good point. Last year, when the Whitecaps were mathematically out of it, they turned in a professional performance and pulled out a 2-2 draw, thus opening the door for Montreal. I don't think the fixture list was any less congested, and every team has injuries. What I really wonder, is whether Matt Jordan was ticked about not playing. He's a superb goalkeeper, and a terrific man manager. It's not like a goalkeeper runs 6 miles in a game...and I think he would have loved to stuff an MLS opponent, and still be ready for Saturday. Bob was a real gentleman about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Boomer Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 quote:Originally posted by BHTC Mike THEY WEREN'T OUT OF IT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THAT GAME. This is a V-Cup myth that needs to be clarified before it becomes accepted fact. And I've never been a fan of the Duze but he's right... scoring six goals is an achievement full-stop. NOTHING about TFC's win needs to be qualified. THEY could have just as easily said, "well, that's unrealistic" and rolled over themselves! They didn't, went for it, and played a more frantic, passionate, risk-taking game then they ever have before. IN MONTREAL. AFTER going a goal down. TFC rarely dominates games and NEVER scored freely even when they did. If you don't think that the team that Montreal just wanted to put out a "professional performance" and leave with their respect intact you're underestimating the competitive nature of any athlete playing at this level. What so few want to accept is that for once TFC RAISED THEIR GAME to the level required and played like their salaries and reputations indicate they should. Will if last? Probably not but I couldn't imagine a better time for it to happen even once. COME ON! They were down 2-1 at halftime in their last game and -3 in the competition. Don't give us that "until the game was over BS" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 They still had an outside chance to win, so they had no reason to play their reserves like MTL did. Teitur tried to portrayed his team like being a good example of the ethical way to approach such a situation. The fact that was presented by some posters here is that Vancouver were still in it when the game started last year, so you can't compare both situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnyranger Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 You can absolutely compare both situations. Montreal laid down and died after 20 minutes of that game, and TFC uncharacteristically took their chances well and did enough to progress. Last season the WFC org unequivocally knew they were out of it. We had NO chance, and took to the field to play spoiler. We had injuries, Montreal wanted nothing to do with that. It is akin to "tanking" for a higher draft pick in the NFL, NBA, or NHL. It was shocking and Lenarduzzi, Teitur, and everyone else associated, including the paying customers of L'Impact deserved a hell of a lot more than an apology. Going back to last year: Jeffrey with the foreshadowing of disaster: http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14964 Then read this thread, where the Caps drew TFC 2-2, with TFC then heading to Montreal to play the final fixture, which ultimately determined the tourney winner…http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16348&whichpage=2 There was no tone there that had me thinking, oh We have a chance at winning the thing, from a WFC supporter’s perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crampton Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Boomer COME ON! They were down 2-1 at halftime in their last game and -3 in the competition. Don't give us that "until the game was over BS" Yes, because no team could ever score four second half goals in a V-Cup game could they? Oh, wait... p.s. Seriously, what where they gonna do at that point? Sub all 11 players? They entered that game with an outside chance of still winning the tournament and until the final whistle that was the case. To state otherwise, which was popping up all over, is FACTUALLY incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crampton Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Johnnyranger Going back to last year: Jeffrey with the foreshadowing of disaster: http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14964 What does that prove. There were probably 400 threads on TFC forums declaring that we had no chance of scoring 4 in Montreal and "foreshadowing disaster". And I'd bet virtually everyone from Montreal and Vancouver agreed. quote:There was no tone there that had me thinking, oh We have a chance at winning the thing, from a WFC supporter’s perspective. Again, what does it prove that you didn't believe that your team could win by three or four goals? They could have and were still alive in the tournament when that game started. People who say otherwise are either ignorant or changing the facts the fit their argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I can sympathize with Whitecaps fans who are pointing out to the fact that the format of the competition did put them in an unfair situation. It's true and that should be look at by the CSA for the future tournaments. But I'm starting to lose my sympathy with those who are trying to say that Vancouver last year were in a similar situation when they clearly weren,t. A 4-0 win over TFC combine with a 3-0 win by TFC over MTL was enough to see Vancouver winning the Champions^hip. Of course, the chance to see the 4-0 win happening were slim but you guys were at home and it was worth trying. You had no reason not trying. Who thought Chaminade would beat Virginia? Who thought Canada U-23's would get enough goals over Guatemala (5-0) to see us through the next round on goals differential? Not many people is the answer to both questions but both teams played like it was possible and achieved their goals. Vancouver had an outside chance, it's a fact. Montreal didn't have a chance (even a 15-0 win wasn't enough), that's another fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 BTW, what was the V's reaction when in the group stage of the 2008 CONCACAF U-23 championship, an already qualified Guatemala team rested 7 of their starters against Canada, who took advantage of the situation to score 5 goals and qualified over Mexico based on goals differential? Were we outraged by the decision by Guatemala to rest their starters and "throw the game" in order to help us bypass Mexico? I'm just wondering.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tintin Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 quote:Originally posted by loyola BTW, what was the V's reaction when in the group stage of the 2008 CONCACAF U-23 championship, an already qualified Guatemala team rested 7 of their starters against Canada, who took advantage of the situation to score 5 goals and qualified over Mexico based on goals differential? Were we outraged by the decision by Guatemala to rest their starters and "throw the game" in order to help us bypass Mexico? I'm just wondering.... No, but we Vancouver fans aren't expecting Toronto supporters to be upset by this, they won the cup. However, if Mexican fans had been upset, I wouldn't have blamed them. As I've pointed out before in one of these threads, Whitecaps were not allowed the luxury of firing ten goals past a team of reserves that looked half asleep. In keeping with good sportsmanship, each team should be allowed the same opportunities. It's true that Dos Santos can play whom he wants, but he should also expect some criticism for it. Even his boss was apologetic and apparently pretty angry about what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Impact Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Saputo shouldn't have apologized to anyone. His coach did what he had to do, to ensure his team goes out and gets maximum points in USL League play. Thats the reality of professional Football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyam Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Mr.Impact Saputo shouldn't have apologized to anyone. His coach did what he had to do, to ensure his team goes out and gets maximum points in USL League play. Thats the reality of professional Football. Not taking sides, but if Montreal won this game, lost to Vancouver the follow Saturday, then misses the playoffs by 3 points down the road, how bad will that look on Dos Santos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Impact Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 quote:Originally posted by kyam Not taking sides, but if Montreal won this game, lost to Vancouver the follow Saturday, then misses the playoffs by 3 points down the road, how bad will that look on Dos Santos? If Montreal misses the playoffs, Dos santos is gone regardless. He did what he had to do, in the best interest of the club. He's paid to make tough decisions, even if some fans don't always agree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.