Depth Chart: 3 XIs - We Do It Like This

The Sounders came out with the intent to continue their possession based game, but the RSL midfield shut them down hard. The aimless long-ball was a reaction by the back four to having few outlets in the midfield to advance possession. Ochoa looked underwhelming, IMHO, but the onus was largely on the uninspired midfield play rather than either him or the system Sigi was using.

Maybe he had a knock we didnt know about,I would agree it’s a problem but I dont see him as a 90min type player. I’m not saying you laid the blame on him for the RSL loss but others have hinted towards it.

Ochoa/Montero compliment eachother so I would expect their on field awarness to be better coming in to this year and more goals to follow.

Playing at that altitude will cause any athlete problems. I think we might have seen a better showing if Sigi had saved him for the Seattle leg.

A couple of observations.

1. This chart does not make any comments about forward flexibility. The clarifying comments in the original post state that Fucito plays the TF position differently, then promptly charts him as the #2 withdrawn forward. My point is that the chart lays out a definite pecking order for a team that really doesn’t use it this rigidly. Yes, these charts normally make an attempt to block in the flexibility. But this one does not even with the players like Fucito, Flaco, Evans and Levesque who have a track record with the team.

2. I do not consider Sivebaek the starting RW. I don’t even consider him the #2 until he proves himself. Based on your argument, he should have been slotted into the pecking order at RB. This is the position on his resume. But all indications are that he will be used differently at Seattle and so you slotted him into the RW/M slot. I agree with the decision though not the place on the order. For me, Flaco is #2 at RW with Neagle playing LW until Sivebaek proves himself. Fucito is #2 behind Ochoa at TF until Sodade proves himself.

3. Based on the lack of a track record all of the new players except for Gspurning, Burch and Johannson really should go to the bottom of the pecking order at their respective positions. Until they prove where they belong, the younger prospects should be slotted into the 3rd string. Scott is the other 2nd string CB until Duran earns the spot.

4. I would have preferred if you had slotted the new prospects into the depth chart with a comment about how you think Seattle might hope to use them for depth and flexibility. Based on the FO comments we think that Seattle hopes to use Sivebaek as depth at RM and RB. The team hopes to use Duran at depth at CB and RB. Based on his use last year Scott is also another option at RB, but the team probably hopes that either Duran or Sivebaek will give them more options at the position.

My primary complaint is that you are trying to shoe horn the players’ position on the pitch into the format of the tool. Fucito is a possible #2 WF along with Rosales. But he is just as likely to be used as the TF until OBW gets back and Sodade matures. Players that have a proven record with the team at multiple positions are not charted that way when we all know that this is precisely how they will be used.

The prospects have a limited track record. I don’t have a problem with stating this. I don’t have a problem with putting them at the bottom of the pecking order at positions that we think that they might play. Heck put them in italics in positions where they are unproven but that we think the team hopes to use them. There is precedence for this in previous depth charts. But I think that the team is bringing them in to add flexibility and coverage and I wish the way in which this tool is being used for the discussion was used accordingly. Particularly since the title of the post includes, ‘We Do It Like This’.