RMC v. 1.2 (cRapids v. RSL Sept 21) [R]

ReAl's Gal · 09-21-2005, 07:08 PM

Lumpy's is awesome! You should check it out!!

montgjules · 09-21-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BumpyPitchBoy

-------Countess
-Cabrera-Pope-Broome
----Trembly-Kamler
Gregorio--------Scarlett
---------Williams
-----Mathis--Watson

Well, from what it looks like, Tarley started and Trembly did not. So what would that likely give us? I guess Mathis got moved back to midfield with Tarley up top? So how did the midfield get configured?
Anybody?

montgjules · 09-21-2005, 09:26 PM

gahhh.... this is horrid.... frustrating... hideous.... Gahhhhhhh.....

Does anybody have anything slightly more intelligible to add?

RSL1 · 09-21-2005, 09:38 PM

This team is just a tactical mess. Ugh.

Midfielders don't understand how to support the attack. They also don't follow their man through on counter attacks leaving the backline flooded with opposing players. Forwards don't make the correct runs off the ball to receive passes. Backline was, overall, very safe tonight - with the exception of the first goal (I guess that's no small exception) which seemed to be a miscommunication between all three defenders. One let a loose ball bounce the others didn't follow their men as they pursued the ball that was allowed to bounce in the first place.

Rover · 09-21-2005, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montgjules

gahhh.... this is horrid.... frustrating... hideous.... Gahhhhhhh.....

Does anybody have anything slightly more intelligible to add?

Sorry, but no. I should know better than to post after watching a "performance" like that, but misery loves company.

Two thoroughly awful goals conceded and nothing to show in the attack.

Just a thought on shooting. I tell the rec forwards I coach that it's a "little keeper, big goal." If you look at the keeper as you shoot, you shoot right at him. If work to NOT shoot directly at the keeper, your chances of getting the ball into the back of the net increase tremendously. Maybe the professionals could give it a try.

Nothing positive to say so I'll just leave it at that.

Aerick · 09-21-2005, 10:26 PM

The 2nd goal was a joke. We made a one touch pass back to Andy who happened to be out of play with a hurt foot, and the ball - which was passed with some heat on it to begin with - rolled right passed him and setup a Crapids attack with like a 4 on 2 scenario or something. Nothing we could do about that one. The first goal was our fault, though.

Additionally, we were denied goals AGAIN! I've found myself asking the same question over and over again all season - "Why can't we get a break?"

rslfan · 09-22-2005, 05:43 AM

Once again, the mid field could not get the balls to the forwards. The passing was absolutely horrible and what passes made it to the forwards were so bouncy they couldn't get control. The second goal, no defenders and DJ just stood there. Several times Watson was across the field wide open and neither Tarley or Williams would switch the fields. IMO, the team needs to learn to play as a team . We can only look towards next year.

SoccerPrime · 09-22-2005, 06:55 AM

*sigh*

Bad News: We lost, again
Good News: I saved...sorry... I meant we play the Crew next.

Aerick · 09-22-2005, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rslfan

Once again, the mid field could not get the balls to the forwards. The passing was absolutely horrible and what passes made it to the forwards were so bouncy they couldn't get control. The second goal, no defenders and DJ just stood there. Several times Watson was across the field wide open and neither Tarley or Williams would switch the fields. IMO, the team needs to learn to play as a team . We can only look towards next year.

From what I remember, we had our two defenders (Pope, Cabrera) which we had switched to at that late part of the game, and the rest of our guys were pushing forward (which was part of the strategy). The problem was that the intended pass back to Andy to maintain possession was right on it's mark, and had the necessary heat on the ball to get it to him with enough time for him to do something about it. However, he got injured at the same time the pass was made so it flew right by him and setup a 3 or 4 on 2 situation. Very difficult to defend, and our midfield - having pushed forward so much - weren't in a position to make it back in time to help. That's just one of those goals you have to take.

Aero · 09-22-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerick

From what I remember, we had our two defenders (Pope, Cabrera) which we had switched to at that late part of the game, and the rest of our guys were pushing forward (which was part of the strategy). The problem was that the intended pass back to Andy to maintain possession was right on it's mark, and had the necessary heat on the ball to get it to him with enough time for him to do something about it. However, he got injured at the same time the pass was made so it flew right by him and setup a 3 or 4 on 2 situation. Very difficult to defend, and our midfield - having pushed forward so much - weren't in a position to make it back in time to help. That's just one of those goals you have to take.

Yes, that goal really was a fluke. And if the Crapids player had any sense of sportsmanship, he would have kicked the ball out of bounds instead of taking advantage of a situation that resulted from an injured player. I'd expect that kind of stuff from a Chivas player, but I didn't think that it would come from a Crapids player. I guess we know better now.