Jonathan Sirois

[kacbru]

2 hours ago, Kent said:

It's not like it was a cross in front of the face of the goal and there was a forward at the near post in an offside position that pulls the keeper there. It was launched from the opposite half and it went over the keeper. No offside.

I always thought that it doesn't matter where it is on the field, the question is whether the player in an offside position affects the play. A player chasing down a high ball (ie making a play for the ball) affects the play for both the defender and the keeper. 

Regardless, Sirois should have had it. 

[BearcatSA]

On 3/16/2024 at 8:18 PM, kacbru said:

Regardless, Sirois should have had it. 

A strong wind blowing towards you and you opt for a very high position in front of your goal:  that was.a poor decision from the get go.  The first one was poor positioning, as well.

 

Edited March 18 by BearcatSA

[InglewoodJack]

Fluky goal that’s liable to happen at any time, but I wonder if Sirois gets that one easily if he’s 2-3 inches taller. Someone scored on him on a cross that just floated above his head to a man behind him a few games ago too. Love Sirois but I wonder if his height is a limiting factor in him moving on from Montreal in the short term. 

[blueseeka]

I have also noticed that he struggles with crosses/chips just over his head. I know exactly what goal you are talking about and earlier in the game it almost happened again

[nolando]

24 minutes ago, blueseeka said:

I have also noticed that he struggles with crosses/chips just over his head. I know exactly what goal you are talking about and earlier in the game it almost happened again

It's okay, I also struggle with chips. 

[InglewoodJack]

26 minutes ago, blueseeka said:

I have also noticed that he struggles with crosses/chips just over his head. I know exactly what goal you are talking about and earlier in the game it almost happened again

Yeah not sure if it looked a lot closer than it was because of the angle, but a few goals he fumbled on I think he saves if he’s like 6’3. That one against Cincinnati late last year was very similar to the Chicago goal too. Not saying he can’t move on from Montreal, but I believe if he were to join one of the top 5 leagues, he’d be the second or third shortest goalie across all leagues. 

[Bertuzzi44]

4 hours ago, InglewoodJack said:

Fluky goal that’s liable to happen at any time, but I wonder if Sirois gets that one easily if he’s 2-3 inches taller. Someone scored on him on a cross that just floated above his head to a man behind him a few games ago too. Love Sirois but I wonder if his height is a limiting factor in him moving on from Montreal in the short term. 

That's a bad goal to let in, not a fluke. A fluke would be a deflection in close or something. But a shot from that distance definitely shouldn't go it.

[InglewoodJack]

12 minutes ago, Bertuzzi44 said:

That's a bad goal to let in, not a fluke. A fluke would be a deflection in close or something. But a shot from that distance definitely shouldn't go it.

The wind got an assist on that goal no? Not sure if it was windy or if people are just saying that because it’s Chicago. He probably shouldn’t have been that far out from the net though. 

[GasPed]

21 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

The wind got an assist on that goal no? Not sure if it was windy or if people are just saying that because it’s Chicago. He probably shouldn’t have been that far out from the net though. 

Yeah, look at the replay again - that ball not only sailed long, but also curved very hard from Sirois' left to right - definitely a huge wind assist.  That said, they had been playing all game in the wind and Sirois should've known.  You can't be playing at the top of the box when that kind of wind is playing into you.

[pod818]

that goal was a fluke..it was a sudden wind gust. Did you see the direction the ball was kicked in..it was directed towards the right side of the field, almost towards the out of bounds line. Only a sudden severe wind gust  could take it all the way to the goal and there's no way Sirois could have predicted that IMO

[dyslexic nam]

The real question for me is if it was in any way intentional.  Home stadium in the “Windy City” and kicked really high for what looked like a cross-field pass attempt.  Part of me wonders if the kicker had any awareness that might happen.  I suppose more likely is that he knew the conditions and hit it that way knowing the wind would put it in the box for a contested ball and a possible chance.   

[GasPed]

5 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

The real question for me is if it was in any way intentional.  Home stadium in the “Windy City” and kicked really high for what looked like a cross-field pass attempt.  Part of me wonders if the kicker had any awareness that might happen.  I suppose more likely is that he knew the conditions and hit it that way knowing the wind would put it in the box for a contested ball and a possible chance.   

I don't think there's any doubt the kicker knew the wind direction and accounted for it - he was trying to play into/towards the box.  I do doubt that he was trying to put on goal, but if he was, that has to be the shot of the century.

[Bertuzzi44]

37 minutes ago, pod818 said:

that goal was a fluke..it was a sudden wind gust. Did you see the direction the ball was kicked in..it was directed towards the right side of the field, almost towards the out of bounds line. Only a sudden severe wind gust  could take it all the way to the goal and there's no way Sirois could have predicted that IMO

 

A fluke goal implies there was nothing the keeper could do to stop it. I would not classify that goal as unstoppable.

Unlucky maybe, but not unstoppable.

Edited March 18 by Bertuzzi44

[Bison44]

Fluke implies a lucky or unexpected event.  Thats exactly what happened on that last goal.  He should have had it, but it was lucky/unlucky that unexpected wind gusts turned it into a shit show thats going to be replayed more than that qualifying goal we got last cycle.  

[Bertuzzi44]

In my mind calling it a fluke lets the keeper off the hook.

But anyway, doesn't really matter

[Unnamed Trialist]

The fact that after 20 years of Fire in the Windy City you can't find any comparable miscue removed it from the fluke category. Or maybe the logic is reversed. 

We beat Haiti there and our keeper seemed fine but he's not with us anymore.

[An Observer]

57 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

The fact that after 20 years of Fire in the Windy City you can't find any comparable miscue removed it from the fluke category. Or maybe the logic is reversed. 

We beat Haiti there and our keeper seemed fine but he's not with us anymore.

Honestly, I can't really tell how much the wind impacted the play.  The one replay I saw is that it looked like quite a bit.  Personally, I don't think it mattered whether he was standing in his net or farther out in the box as he would have had to come out to try to catch it and it still could have gone over his head.  Unless you are going to advocate for letting it bounce which I think would have been worse.

Was it a blunder? Sure.  Was it a howler? I don't think so.  That ball could have caught many a keeper out whether it has happened before or not.  A howler to me is where someone should have saved it (eg. goes right through his arms and legs into the net or when the Haiti goalkeeper scored on himself in qualifying).  In this case, the wind made what would have been an easy catch into a tricky save which he didn't make.

Personally, I thought his positioning in the net on their first goal was worse. 

 

  

[RS]

There's an angle that a fan shot from behind the opposite net that shows that Acosta (the goal scorer) was trying to switch the ball from the left wing to a player on the right, but as the ball hits its peak height a gust of wind just grabs it and sends it 10-20 yards the other way. Of course I can't find it now.

 

[BearcatSA]

Probably the windiest game in NFL history:

Watch the Robbie Gould missed field goal.

[InglewoodJack]

16 hours ago, GasPed said:

Yeah, look at the replay again - that ball not only sailed long, but also curved very hard from Sirois' left to right - definitely a huge wind assist.  That said, they had been playing all game in the wind and Sirois should've known.  You can't be playing at the top of the box when that kind of wind is playing into you.

Fair. Trying to give Sirois a bit of credit because I’ve seen the wind do funky things to the ball whether it’s at a Fire, Bears, Cubs, Whitesox game, etc. I do notice that he tends to come out of his box quite often and gets himself out of position. Something that will come with time, hopefully.

[BearcatSA]

9 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Fair. Trying to give Sirois a bit of credit because I’ve seen the wind do funky things to the ball whether it’s at a Fire, Bears, Cubs, Whitesox game, etc. I do notice that he tends to come out of his box quite often and gets himself out of position. Something that will come with time, hopefully.

The winds can be very tricky but you still need to manage the situation.

I was more bothered by his positioning on the first goal.

Edited March 19 by BearcatSA

[costarg]

Some of the takes here, wow.  It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can and is both.  We need to stop living in extremes.

Sirois needed better judgement and the ball totally sailed over and to the side of him.  Anyone checking their bias at the door and with eyes and ears can see and hear the commentators also say it immediately after the goal.

This blunder does not take anything away from Sirois' work the past season.  He's made very few errors over a lot of games.  No need to make excuses for him, he's earned CFM a tonne of points they had no right to.

[BearcatSA]

2 minutes ago, costarg said:

Some of the takes here, wow.  It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can and is both.  We need to stop living in extremes.

Sirois needed better judgement and the ball totally sailed over and to the side of him.  Anyone checking their bias at the door and with eyes and ears can see and hear the commentators also say it immediately after the goal.

This blunder does not take anything away from Sirois' work the past season.  He's made very few errors over a lot of games.  No need to make excuses for him, he's earned CFM a tonne of points they had no right to.

You're going to have sub par games and questionable moments in others.  Just prior to the wind swept winner, he made a smart save decisively coming off his line to block a shot that could have been the winner right there.  Movin' on.

[InglewoodJack]

20 minutes ago, costarg said:

Some of the takes here, wow.  It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can and is both.  We need to stop living in extremes.

Sirois needed better judgement and the ball totally sailed over and to the side of him.  Anyone checking their bias at the door and with eyes and ears can see and hear the commentators also say it immediately after the goal.

This blunder does not take anything away from Sirois' work the past season.  He's made very few errors over a lot of games.  No need to make excuses for him, he's earned CFM a tonne of points they had no right to.

Sirois is an imperfect keeper. I think his positioning is suspect and his lack of size makes makes these sorts of errors more fatal. You can't change your height, but he's only 22, and this feels like more of a soccer IQ thing and that comes with age. He's a baby as far as keeper age goes. Obviously our best young goalie by a significant margin, regardless.

[Bigandy]

8 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Sirois is an imperfect keeper. I think his positioning is suspect and his lack of size makes makes these sorts of errors more fatal. You can't change your height, but he's only 22, and this feels like more of a soccer IQ thing and that comes with age. He's a baby as far as keeper age goes. Obviously our best young goalie by a significant margin, regardless.

I'd say mcgill is near sirios's level. The kid from bordeaux could get there soon as hes a few years younger. Goodman is a potential look as well but seems a step behind.