Maxime Crépeau

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

I think you are on to something here.

Had we gone on to cruise to the victory, nobody would care about Milan juggling the ball. It's the same mentality as the paneka - people only care when you miss.

I am all for us asserting a psychological edge, but how and when we did it was naive and arrogant and backfired, just like at the World Cup. That's the ugly side of the coin here. 

Do we just chalk it all up to coincidence that Borjan was juggling the ball right before we played that pass into a risky area where Eustaquio was stripped by what seemed to be a very good and fair tackle? Which then led to Shamar Nicholson smashing the ball into the net with confidence? Want to talk about a psychological edge? Nicholson absolutely rammed it down our throats and completely shifted the tide. It wasn't a goal mouth scamble or a fluke goal, he smashed with authority past Borjan, the same Borjan that was playing mind games just seconds before.

And by the way, I don't pin the whole sequence on Borjan. I blame the whole team. It was the team as a whole trying to assert a psychological edge by trying to play Jamaica off the park, rather than just playing to maintain the result. Borjan's juggling was keeping in line with that general theme. That's how I saw things. We need to get more mature.

We could have controlled the game by just keeping the ball for the last 45 minutes - otherwise known as game management - otherwise known as asserting a psychologicl edge. 

I 100% agree the best psychological edge is to dominate possession when the rival needs a goal, then kill off the game with petty fouls when we lose the ball, if necessary. Then a bit of time-wasting. We have never done the former, we have never been a possession team, and less so with the Herdman legacy of having as thin a midfield as possible. And it was obviously too early to try to do 35 minutes of shithousery at home.

We also got unlucky in this game, as perhaps we were lucky away. 

[Bigandy]

6 minutes ago, Cicero said:

This has probably been litigated elsewhere, but I'd say this play is called a foul 7 or 8 times out of ten. It was definitely a judgment call, I'd say it probably shouldn't be a foul, but with the contact and coming from behind, it would very often be called a foul. But kind of irrelevant given that Eustaquio knew he was there and chose to expose the ball after hanging onto it for too long. Though I don't love showboating, Borjan's antics had really nothing to do with it, just a bad decision not to go right back to Johnston. It's a game where who has more mental lapses often decides the outcome. That's part of what separates the good from the great. But I'd agree that Borjan hasn't been up to the standard he was at in qualifying, why not give the hot keeper, and the likely future mainstay, a chance. 

Fantastic post!! wholeheartedly agree. 

To further your point, only lowe would be in that position on the field and making a tackle like that. It completely caught staq off guard because of how much distance lowe went to throw himself at the ball. 

For a board who complains non stop about john herdmans lack of tactical acumen, Im shocked that anyone could say this goal is a result of juggling and not a great tactical decision by jamaica/ our lack of tactical acumen to deal with the change. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Its not coincidence. Its methodical and tactically saavy with a sprinkle of talent. lowe is a CB who was put into midfield with one purpose. Destroy. His tackle on staq is quite remarkable. No coincidence there. 

Nicholson is a 6'4" monster striker in ligue 1. Phenomenal player.... The strike was class. It would be foolish to say that a player of his quality doesnt score that goal if borjan didnt juggle. 

Also, we couldnt control the game by keeping the ball because we lost the midfield. staq and kone tried to keep the ball but we lost it and got punished. Game management requires adapting to the game and we required a tactical shift not a psychological edge. 

I actually watched that Clermont-PSG game where they nabbed a scoreless draw, and I think I mentioned Nicholson here. But I was not sure he was on their NT even, I don't follow Jamaica closely. 

There are little details I put down to luck either way, and the reffing as well.

[Obinna]

24 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

 Game management requires adapting to the game and we required a tactical shift not a psychological edge. 

It's both. A tactical shift and a psychological shift are one in the same. We needed a tactical counter that Biello was seemingly incapable of making, but that doesn't excuse our guys for playing passes into dangerous areas, or getting caught in transition high up the field (2nd goal). We could and should have been more conservative. We tried to kill off the game by scoring another goal, but we should have asserted our control over the game by keeping the ball and playing it into areas with less risk. We played like a team chasing a goal, not conserving a lead. That's on both manager and players.

[Bigandy]

17 minutes ago, Obinna said:

It's both. A tactical shift and a psychological shift are one in the same. We needed a tactical counter that Biello was seemingly incapable of making, but that doesn't excuse our guys for playing passes into dangerous areas, or getting caught in transition high up the field (2nd goal). We could and should have been more conservative. We tried to kill off the game by scoring another goal, but we should have asserted our control over the game by keeping the ball and playing it into areas with less risk. We played like a team chasing a goal, not conserving a lead. That's on both manager and players.

I think we have different definitions of tactical.

Getting caught in transition because our players are too high requires a tactical shift of having our players less high. Playing through a high press or knocking the ball long is a tactical decision. 

While a psychological shift would be doing the same tactical thing (having players high up the field), but having a different psyche while doing it... maybe that looks like our guys being slightly more aggressive in their 1v1 defending or working harder to win second balls, or having a brain fart by not tracking a runner off your back shoulder. etc. This can also be attributed to the individual while a tactical shift is the entire team. 

[dyslexic nam]

It’s so unlike us to go down an off-topic rabbit hole.  

[Obinna]

16 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I think we have different definitions of tactical.

Getting caught in transition because our players are too high requires a tactical shift of having our players less high. Playing through a high press or knocking the ball long is a tactical decision. 

Yes for sure, but on some level the players are responsible for recognizing what is going on and adjusting accordingly. That's where the lack of a real veteran leader like Atiba hurts us.

The role of the coach is (or should be) to help the players notice what's going on and bark out orders, if not make personel or formation changes.

But again, the players didn't help themselves. It sounds like you are making excuses for where and how Kone lost the ball, and where the other players were in relation to him when he turned it over:

Why is Johnston so high here? Is that on Biello for instructing him to be that high up the field (doubtful) or is that Johnston lacking mindfulness for the situation? Why isn't Cornelius (who is out of frame) not closer to Nicholson? That is simply not being dialed in. There was nobody further forward than Nicholson. The players need to do better here. 

This is what you get when you are pushing bodies forward because you are more worried about scoring again than preserving what you have. And this was what, 4 minutes after the first goal was conceeded? We are clearly trying to get the goal back instead of being content to regain control of the match and just see the result out. 

[Bigandy]

6 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Yes for sure, but on some level the players are responsible for recognizing what is going on and adjusting accordingly. That's where the lack of a real veteran leader like Atiba hurts us.

The role of the coach is (or should be) to help the players notice what's going on and bark out orders, if not make personel or formation changes.

But again, the players didn't help themselves. It sounds like you are making excuses for where and how Kone lost the ball, and where the other players were in relation to him when he turned it over:

Why is Johnston so high here? Is that on Biello for instructing him to be that high up the field (doubtful) or is that Johnston lacking mindfulness for the situation? Why isn't Cornelius (who is out of frame) not closer to Nicholson? That is simply not being dialed in. There was nobody further forward than Nicholson. The players need to do better here. 

This is what you get when you are pushing bodies forward because you are more worried about scoring again than preserving what you have. And this was what, 4 minutes after the first goal was conceeded? We are clearly trying to get the goal back instead of being content to regain control of the match and just see the result out. 

No, not at all with making excuses.  A tactical shift can come from the coach but the best teams in the world have players who recognize and make on field changes. 100% I agree we want players to make those tactical changes on the field.  But again, its tactical changes that were needed, not borjan juggling or not juggling. 

This, is a good example of a psychological error by cornelius though. He can easily step up onto nicholson and laryea/ miller tuck in. This should be done in basically any tactical set up (unless nicholson goes to deep and our cdm can pick him up). However, even in this example, we literally have no midfield. Theres a huuuuge gap that is begging to be exploited. We lost the midfield and didnt do anything to get it back. 

My logic is that in order to learn from our mistakes, we have to clearly identify what went wrong. your picture is a great example of us getting caught out with no midfield combined with players caught out. Next time this happens, I hope staq fills that midfield gap and prevents the counter, rather than having this happen again... but at least crepeau didnt juggle. 

[Obinna]

7 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

No, not at all with making excuses.  A tactical shift can come from the coach but the best teams in the world have players who recognize and make on field changes. 100% I agree we want players to make those tactical changes on the field.  But again, its tactical changes that were needed, not borjan juggling or not juggling. 

This, is a good example of a psychological error by cornelius though. He can easily step up onto nicholson and laryea/ miller tuck in. This should be done in basically any tactical set up (unless nicholson goes to deep and our cdm can pick him up). However, even in this example, we literally have no midfield. Theres a huuuuge gap that is begging to be exploited. We lost the midfield and didnt do anything to get it back. 

My logic is that in order to learn from our mistakes, we have to clearly identify what went wrong. your picture is a great example of us getting caught out with no midfield combined with players caught out. Next time this happens, I hope staq fills that midfield gap and prevents the counter, rather than having this happen again... but at least crepeau didnt juggle. 

I agree with you here and thanks for clarifying. I hear you on the juggling thing too, but for me the juggling just speaks to the mentality of the group as a whole at that point of the tie.

Whether it was Borjan juggling, or Johnston playing that pass to Eustaquio (and not holding his position to give him an outlet - see below), or Cornelius not closing that gap with Nicholson, or Johnston being too high up the field....or me it's all different manifestations of the same problem, which was that our approach in the 2nd half was not near as professional as it needed to be.

We will hopefully learn and move on, starting with a win in March to get to the Copa America.  

[Bigandy]

11 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I agree with you here and thanks for clarifying. I hear you on the juggling thing too, but for me the juggling just speaks to the mentality of the group as a whole at that point of the tie.

Whether it was Borjan juggling, or Johnston playing that pass to Eustaquio (and not holding his position to give him an outlet - see below), or Cornelius not closing that gap with Nicholson, or Johnston being too high up the field....or me it's all different manifestations of the same problem, which was that our approach in the 2nd half was not near as professional as it needed to be.

We will hopefully learn and move on, starting with a win in March to get to the Copa America.  

I agree with you but my bigger issue is that we could have had an attacking mindset and it couldve worked out for us had we made the right tactical changes. At 3-1 in the 60th minute, we can afford to keep trying to play. Johnston making that overlapping run is not that critical usually. If we have a right footed cb, he would provide a better angle for the pass from staq. That cb then dinks the ball to johsnton and we are out of pressure and broken thru jamaicas first line.  Theres obv some lack of quality thats an issue here but look at that massive gap between kone and everyone else on the pitch.   You can also say staq just made a mistake. He could have one touched to johnston on the overlap, one touched to Cornelius, or switched it to miller. mistakes happen..... 

[Obinna]

8 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I agree with you but my bigger issue is that we could have had an attacking mindset and it couldve worked out for us had we made the right tactical changes. At 3-1 in the 60th minute, we can afford to keep trying to play. Johnston making that overlapping run is not that critical usually. If we have a right footed cb, he would provide a better angle for the pass from staq. That cb then dinks the ball to johsnton and we are out of pressure and broken thru jamaicas first line.  Theres obv some lack of quality thats an issue here but look at that massive gap between kone and everyone else on the pitch.   You can also say staq just made a mistake. He could have one touched to johnston on the overlap, one touched to Cornelius, or switched it to miller. mistakes happen..... 

I'm with you on the lack of tactical changes from the coach. And yeah at 3-1 we don't need to shut down shop. We also don't need Johnston to make that run though. As someone who has played a lot of full back and central midfield I think it was Johnston's responsibility to hold his position there, given that we didn't need anything more to win the tie. I would even go as far as to say he left him out to dry on that one. Why take that risk if you're Johnston? The return pass Allistair was looking for wasn't even on with Grey and Kone there. 

Cornelius was not in the position to recieve a pass imo because of where Nicholson is positioned. And if I were Eustaquio I would be expecting Johnston to just keep it simply and stay where he was. We were up 2 goals, keep it simple in your own third.

I think Dinking the ball forward is not an easy pass to make in that situation either, especially with Grey was lurking.. You're right though, it was a collection of errors on that play from everyone, Eustaquio included. I am still pissed we put ourselves in the situation to begin with, but it's over now. We move on upward and onward. 

[Bigandy]

32 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I'm with you on the lack of tactical changes from the coach. And yeah at 3-1 we don't need to shut down shop. We also don't need Johnston to make that run though. As someone who has played a lot of full back and central midfield I think it was Johnston's responsibility to hold his position there, given that we didn't need anything more to win the tie. I would even go as far as to say he left him out to dry on that one. Why take that risk if you're Johnston? The return pass Allistair was looking for wasn't even on with Grey and Kone there. 

Cornelius was not in the position to recieve a pass imo because of where Nicholson is positioned. And if I were Eustaquio I would be expecting Johnston to just keep it simply and stay where he was. We were up 2 goals, keep it simple in your own third.

I think Dinking the ball forward is not an easy pass to make in that situation either, especially with Grey was lurking.. You're right though, it was a collection of errors on that play from everyone, Eustaquio included. I am still pissed we put ourselves in the situation to begin with, but it's over now. We move on upward and onward. 

I agree with you but the run from johnston could be to create space. The bounce back to johnston could have been a bounce to cornelius instead. Cornelius takes 2 steps over and he can clear the ball but hes hesitant because its on his weaker foot so hes hiding somewhat behind nicholson.  If lowe doesnt throw himself for an incredible tackle, I dont think we criticize johnstons run.  Having said that, if johnston reads the game better, he screams man on.... give it back to me! 

[Bigandy]

After rewatching, I think cornelius had a big role to play. He literally doesnt move the entire play. He doesnt mark nicholson and he doesnt provide a passing option.... he just exists and hopes staq can figure it out. 

[Obinna]

39 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

After rewatching, I think cornelius had a big role to play. He literally doesnt move the entire play. He doesnt mark nicholson and he doesnt provide a passing option.... he just exists and hopes staq can figure it out. 

That (plus what you said above) is an interesting read on the play. I see what you are getting at with Cornelius. Maybe if he is on his strong side he is less of a passenger, but if you're Cornelius it's not your job to slot into the right back spot which Johnston shouldn't have vacated, because then he's leaving Shamar and the middle wide open. Even saying that, Cornelius should have been closer to Shamar than he was to begin with, because the ball then comes to him and he fires it into the back of the net. Moving into Johnston's spot would have taken him further out of the play, which may have been fine because maybe Staq finds him if he's showing for a pass, but all of this is high risk stuff that was initiated by Johnston's unecessary run. I guess fair enough that we aren't even talking about Johnston if Lowe doesn't put in the tackle, but he does so we are. 

[Kadenge]

We were outnumbered 6 to 4 on that series of plays. Up 3-1 we didn't need to get fancy. AJ should have just booted it upfield or as Obinna stated he should have held his position for the return pass from Staq. 

[Boominbooty]

3 hours ago, Obinna said:

Yes for sure, but on some level the players are responsible for recognizing what is going on and adjusting accordingly. That's where the lack of a real veteran leader like Atiba hurts us.

The role of the coach is (or should be) to help the players notice what's going on and bark out orders, if not make personel or formation changes.

But again, the players didn't help themselves. It sounds like you are making excuses for where and how Kone lost the ball, and where the other players were in relation to him when he turned it over:

Why is Johnston so high here? Is that on Biello for instructing him to be that high up the field (doubtful) or is that Johnston lacking mindfulness for the situation? Why isn't Cornelius (who is out of frame) not closer to Nicholson? That is simply not being dialed in. There was nobody further forward than Nicholson. The players need to do better here. 

This is what you get when you are pushing bodies forward because you are more worried about scoring again than preserving what you have. And this was what, 4 minutes after the first goal was conceeded? We are clearly trying to get the goal back instead of being content to regain control of the match and just see the result out. 

I went back and watched this one and i feel Kamal should have done better marking the eventual goal scorer. He just ran parallel to him and didn't actually cover him. I'm not defensive expert but I feel his job is to close the guy sprinting in. Happy to be told otherwise. 

 

[Bigandy]

24 minutes ago, Obinna said:

That (plus what you said above) is an interesting read on the play. I see what you are getting at with Cornelius. Maybe if he is on his strong side he is less of a passenger, but if you're Cornelius it's not your job to slot into the right back spot which Johnston shouldn't have vacated, because then he's leaving Shamar and the middle wide open. Even saying that, Cornelius should have been closer to Shamar than he was to begin with, because the ball then comes to him and he fires it into the back of the net. Moving into Johnston's spot would have taken him further out of the play, which may have been fine because maybe Staq finds him if he's showing for a pass, but all of this is high risk stuff that was initiated by Johnston's unecessary run. I guess fair enough that we aren't even talking about Johnston if Lowe doesn't put in the tackle, but he does so we are. 

I guess it depends if we are trying to play or not. At 3-1 in the 60th, I think we have to continue playing, even if they press. We cant just hoof the ball up for 30+ minutes just because jamaicas pressing. 

Theres so much credit to the tackle in my opinion and so many little things that we could do differently. 

1. staq could bounce it back to johnston on his first touch who hasnt started his run yet. 
2. staqs first (or even 2nd) touch could be to switch it out of press to kamal.
3. Cornelius can drop deeper and give a better angle, receive the ball, play borjan and then he plays kamal or laryea. 
4. Kone could have vacated the space ( he started to) but he turns back and brings reid with him. This makes staq take a 2nd and 3rd touch since the passing lane to johnston is closed. Kone bringing reid with him, also means grey doesnt have to track johnston (because the passing lane is closed) so all 5 guys can close even more space around staq. 
5. Johnston (and/or cornelius) could have held his run and booted it long.

[Bigandy]

19 minutes ago, Boominbooty said:

I went back and watched this one and i feel Kamal should have done better marking the eventual goal scorer. He just ran parallel to him and didn't actually cover him. I'm not defensive expert but I feel his job is to close the guy sprinting in. Happy to be told otherwise. 

 

Do you mean cornelius? Miller was on the far side marking bailey and sprinted over. He slid to block nicholsons shot but hes not the quickest and didnt get close. Cornelius ran pretty parallel to nicholson but was too far off. 

[top cheese]

It would be foolish not to start him against T&T. He should have been the starter for WCQ and the WC as well

[MtlMario]

Wasn't he injured at the W/C?

42 minutes ago, top cheese said:

It would be foolish not to start him against T&T. He should have been the starter for WCQ and the WC as well

 

[king1010]

53 minutes ago, top cheese said:

It would be foolish not to start him against T&T. He should have been the starter for WCQ and the WC as well

His leg was snapped in half a month before the world cup

[dyslexic nam]

Rooting for Max in the finals but if he has to lose, I hope it is to a JRR subbed goal.  

[narduch]

Columbus have a penalty.

Edit: and he goes the wrong way

Edited December 9, 2023 by narduch

[dyslexic nam]

Oof.  His team is really not doing him any favours but his positioning could have been better on the second one. 

[Cadeau]

6 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

Oof.  His team is really not doing him any favours but his positioning could have been better on the second one. 

Yeah it’s been all Columbus so far.