Without Three Best Technical Players Seattle Fails To Create
Sigi Schmid's side lacked its best three technical and creative force in the game Saturday night. Forced to use the natural central midfielders (Brad Evans and Erik Friberg) at the same time and deploying Pat Noonan as a withdrawn man the Seattle Sounders did not threaten the Philadelphia Union goal as they typically do. Only 5 threatening attempts occurred (2 shots on goal, 3 blocked shots) and while there were a few misfirings by players in the box, the larger issue was a lack of creation of opportunities inside the 18.
Evans and Friberg split time in central and right central positions, but they lacked the width that a Mauro Rosales can create on that side. When either was on the right it was more like an Alvaro Fernandez, but neither have the passing or dribbling skills and so many of their passes were of a safer square variety or drop backs to Osvaldo Alonso or James Riley.
Noonan in the space of Fredy Montero was a like-for-like concept. Of the options available he was the best medium length passer and ball controller. Ideally he would do like Montero feeding diagonally to create for his teammates. Lacking the speed of Montero the quick give-and-gos would be less likely to succeed.
Unfortunately the plan never came to fruition.
This limited look at the 5 ball controlling players (Noonan, Neagle, Friberg, Evans and Alsonso) shows the flick-ons, throughballs and key passes in the attacking half of the field. Since Seattle didn't have a tall ball-winning man in the starting lineup the nature of the crosses prevented that from being a threat as well. The high lofted balls might work with men like Nate Jaqua or Sammy Ochoa, but with Mike Fucito being the only high man the crosses needed to be much tighter, lower. Since almost all of the crosses came from the right, there may have been some latent looking for a player to behave as Fernandez has lurking off the left post.
Unlike the game against the Chicago Fire, there was much less direct play to space for Lamar Neagle or Mike Fucito, and in this game Brad Evans to run onto. The attacking options were limited,. In these circumstances it seems as if the gameplan was made to keep the game as most like a typical Seattle attack then custom designed for the game being played.
The failures at finishing will be most noted. But when forwards only get three trackable offensive actions within the penalty area focusing on finishing misses that the team didn't create opportunities as typical. Against Fire there were about a dozen opportunities for forwards. Against the Revolution that number was again nearly a dozen.
Seattle can play a strong game and beat playoff caliber teams missing some of the creative players, but lacking the top three caused shifts in behavior without major shifts in tactics that meant the goal dangerous players were midfielders in forward space rather than the men who should be threatening in an ideal world.
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Is it just me
or do the attacks seem to die when Friberg gets the ball?
No, it isn't
He’s not a great passer of forward balls, instead using safer lateral/square passes. He has little speed and dribbling skills. His skill set is very similar to peter vagenas.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I think of him as a Nate Stugis
with a bit more flair.
by Jack Brando on Oct 10, 2011 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Nate was a much better defender
more a CDM than CM (though used in both roles at times)
Pete was a box2box (well 35 to 35 probably) CM.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
To be more clear
I like him as a CM, but I think Seattle needs at least one creative player out there, or has to shift to a more direct style that utilizes the speed.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Could Carrasco be that guy?
I know most see him as the future Alonso, but it seems like he could also be molded elsewhere
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 10, 2011 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think Carrasco's skill set lends itself to dribbling, passing
but more defense and positioning
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Ok then. I stand corrected, There are other people out there that are mistaken as well.
That is why Sigi has started him all season. We disagree on this. You watch a different game than Sigi and I. All I can say is that I am glad that Sigi is the coach.
How many times has he started by choice?
Brad Evans has been injured so much this season that Friberg has been the starter by default. If both are healthy in the Playoffs who would you start?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
All I saw at that game
Was cross after cross sailing into the goal box and being calmly plucked out of the air by Zach McMath.
by Jack Brando on Oct 10, 2011 9:39 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Same here
A lot of those seemed to come from Riley, who often had space on the right. As an attacker, I realize he’s a bit limited, but cross after cross with little to nothing to show for it seemed like a real waste. I don’t know what his options were in general for switching the point of attack—Philly was pretty well organized—but after a while it just seemed like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.
I noticed that too.
To add onto ubel’s comment about Riley, it seems like he has the speed and vision able to find space on the right, but his crosses are way to far into the goalie box. If he works on this adjustment, we will have a great option in our attack. When it comes to defending he doesnt seem to do well in getting in there and challenging the attacker(rewind to Freddies goal). Ive noticed him doing this in previous games.
Frankly, I would throw any analysis of this game out
I do not care what lineup was thrown out there in this match because this was a typical trap match. I was not surprised by the outcome at all.
Seattle was coming off an incredible high just four days prior. Philadelphia was fighting for it’s life.
Sure, the Supporters Shield was still out there, but it was very slim. Seattle had little to play for and Philadelphia had everything riding on this game.
When your head and body are not into the game 100%, technical and creative play falls to the side.
Except they didn't have players who excel at technical/ceative play
it wasn’t a case of not trying, it was a case of who was out there.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
The talent on the field *was* the same as not trying?
I read more than a few predicting that lineup couldn’t do much before the match. And, it seems they were right.
They were predicting two or more of Jaqua, Noonan, Levesque
and predicting that the problem would be finishing.
Neither were right.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
You would be surprised how much technical play improves when the focus is higher
no matter the players on the field. I also never said the players weren’t trying. It was all about focus.
For example, how does a 1-3 Seahawk team go into New York and beat the 3-1 Giants? It is all about focus. Same players for New York play good technically the previous weeks, and then against Seattle, technically they play awful.
So they tried really hard to focus
but didn’t?
Or players were in situations to display skillsets they don’t have?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
The team seems to have 2 tiers of attacking players
In my mind, the clear top tier consists of Zakuani, Montero, Rosales, and Fernandez who were all out.
The next tier are guys like OBW, Fucito, Neagle, Evans, and Alonso (when playing CM instead of CDM, normally with Carrasco).
Based on PP90, you could make the arguement that Fuctio and OBW should be higher and Fernandez lower, but either way, that’s about how the team shakes out.
So the game on Sunday had no top tier attacking players and only 2 middle tier attacking players (as Ossie was playing more CDM with two CM’s in front of him). I also noticed that Evans and Friberg kept on ending up in the CM space on the field with no one out wide right – though this seemed to give Riley that ability to get up the right hand side of the pitch.
My wife also said to me about 5 minutes into the game that the team just seemed “flat.” I’m not sure if that’s a USOC hangover or just no spark in the attack, but she was definately right.
I would put Neagle somewhere between the two tiers
More than most of the guys in the second tier you listed, Neagle seems to be able to beat his man and make something out of not much. But he also doesn’t seem to be able to do it as often as the guys in the top tier. I really like Neagle as depth/an option off the bench.
Neagle...
Has been outstanding. Considering coming into the season no one knew who he was, with the opportunities he has been given he has done just amazing. I can’t wait to see what he brings for us over the next couple years.
Granted, probably the main reason he has gotten his chance is because of Zakuani being out and we all know Zak will be back in that spot next year, I think Neagle has proven that he is starter quality and is only going to get better as time goes on.
by SounderEvertonRomaFan on Oct 11, 2011 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Neagle has been outstanding compared to his expectations coming into the season
But I think he’s pretty clearly a level behind Zakuani, Fernandez, and Rosales in the winger / outside mid roation. As teams get a chance to watch video of what he does well and build a “book” on him it will be interesting to see if he can still run by defenders and put himself and his teammates in positions to be successful.
by CMC_Stags on Oct 11, 2011 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm interested in hearing whether the peanut gallery thinks that this wasthe right call
Personally, I’d rather the team continue to do what it’s been doing in order to prepare the most for the playoffs, rather than try a new scheme temporarily to better suit available personnel for a largely meaningless game.
Could go both ways
On the one hand you want to get the usual subs more familiar with Seattle’s usual tactics.
On the other hand, if there was ever a game to work on some tactical flexibility for the playoffs, this was it. What do we do if a playoff opponent plays five in the midfield?
Nos Audietis
I'm confused, what would you have done differently?
Would you have started a questionable Fernandez or Rosales? I would rather have healthy stars for the playoffs than risk reinjuring them.

by 


















