1. Save 40-80% on great soccer jerseys. Shop today at BigSoccer Shop!

Post-match: San Jose Earthquakes - Club Deportivo Chivas USA (Sunday, 5/13) postgame thread [R]

Discussion in 'San Jose Earthquakes' started by Goodsport, May 13, 2012.

Moderators: KMJvet, Smurfquake, TyffaneeSue
  1. QuakeAttack

    QuakeAttack Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Sunnyvale
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    People. People. Ike is not ready to start at the moment. He gets caught up field too often, his skill level needs improving, and he needs to be more consistent. Jason positioning is better at the moment.

    Corrales speed is not the issue. He just makes some poor decisions on when to go into attack.

    As lurking and few others stated, we need Bernandez back. Plain and simple...
     


  2. DotMPP

    DotMPP Good Luck Rafa

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Location:
    San Jose,CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    A line up that includes Rams is defective upon delivery
     
    markmcf8 and QuietType repped this.
  3. JazzyJ

    JazzyJ BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    I re-watched part of the game last night, and I think we are falsely accusing Jason of the long floater to Dawkins that got picked off. Looks like Morrow hit that pass. This of course can only mean one thing. Morrow is ineffective with his distribution from the center, and needs to start at left back. :)

    I think it's partly a confidence thing with Ike right now, and partly that he hasn't had an opportunity to be paired with a stronger player / veteran leader (like Bernardez). IMO Ike's athleticism and upside outweigh whatever positioning advantage Jason might have. I think he just needs more time in pressure situations to improve, and he's not going to get it sitting on the bench. The way things are going, he's not going to develop with the Quakes due to lack of playing time, they are not going to want to re-up his salary based on his performance to date, he will get traded, and then he will come back to haunt for many years.

    Why play an older, frequently injured player who is already on the downside of his career, and has his own limitations as a CB, instead of developing a young player with all the upside that Ike has? The short term gain is minimal at best and the long term loss could be significant. IMO Quakes should not waste any more time with Ike. Let's see what he can do if he actually got to start several games in a row.
     
  4. QuakeAttack

    QuakeAttack Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Sunnyvale
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    You have a valid argument from an upside perspective with Ike, but is he a better pairing with Morrow at the moment? In all of the games this year, Ike has looked out of place and exposed. Until he is more confident (have a game or two alongside Bernandez?), his confidence isn't going to improvde be playing more game and makeing more mistakes. There is no guarantee that he will get better.

    As far as worrying about next year and his contract, it shouldn't be part of the equation unless we are out of the playoffs or saw far ahead of other teams that we can afford to play him. It doesn't look either will be the case this year...
     


  5. JazzyJ

    JazzyJ BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    I think waiting to pair him with Bernardez might be a good idea. But I think we can "afford to" play him now because IMO it will start to pay dividends by the end of the season, and on balance will not hurt the Quakes playoff chances. It's like an investment that is a little up and down at the beginning, but by maturity (i.e. end of season) you've come out ahead and you can cash in :--).
     
  6. nihon2000

    nihon2000 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    United States
    everyone says it looks like Jason & history has shown that Jason hits the long ball :rolleyes:
     
  7. JazzyJ

    JazzyJ BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Looked like Jason was playing fairly far to the right at that point to cover for Beita, who had moved upfield. The ball came more from the middle - pretty sure it was Morrow, with the left foot.
     
  8. hc897

    hc897 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    Could not disagree with you more. What is his upside other than his athleticism? Yes, being athletically gifted is nice, but if you don't know where to play on the field, you aren't very useful and Ike has shown nothing so far this year that leads me to believe he can consistently put himself into good positions. Defenders can beat attackers best by disrupting the distribution of the ball through reading the game and positioning themselves in places to make defensive plays. I'll refer to the Hernandez fake header to Busch again. On that play, Jason dropped into the space where the ball was being played, and had a couple of obvious options: play the ball off his head to Busch, or try to put the ball beyond the end line. Instead, he outwits his opponent by playing the ball into the least likely place, behind him. I seriously doubt Ike would have gotten into that position, nor would he have had the thought to trick his opponent with a play like that.
    The love affair with the ultra athletic is tiresome as it has been shown over and over again that skillful, intelligent players are a better, more reliable option. Normally the body wears out long before the mind does.
     
  9. sportsfan-quakes

    sportsfan-quakes Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Location:
    San Jose
    I've watched the replay several times on my dvr, and it was absolutely Morrow who made the pass to Dawkins that led to the Chivas goal. It wasn't a horrible pass, but it was a pretty risky one. The problem was that the Quakes just had Corrales and Dawkins on that side of the field (no central midfielders, they were shaded to the right and upfield), and Morrow was pretty far right. So when the ball was turned over, Chivas had an advantage, with 3 guys against two Quakes defenders. Dawkins made the bigger mistake, not coming back to the ball and/or using his body to shield off Riley, but Morrow really shouldn't have made that pass. Ramiro was not caught any further upfield than he should have been, he was outnumbered once Riley won the ball. Ramiro covered Bolanos when Riley passed it to him, and he did a poor job of stopping Bolanos, but you can't say Ramiro was too far upfield. Morrow should not have made the pass in the first place given the lack of Quakes vs Chivas players on the left side when he made it. And then, as noted, Hernandez didn't do a good job of covering Correa on the cross right away. Poor plays by Morrow, Dawkins, Ramiro and Hernandez all contributed.

    On the rest of the game, I didn't think the Quakes did as poorly as many of you, it's just one of those games where a bunkering team with a very good goalkeeper stymies the other team. Chivas has played that way all year, and other than the Rapids game (where the Rapids scored 3 times in the last 8 minutes), Chivas had allowed 6 goals in 7 games played this year, pretty much by bunkering and playing conservatively. You can complain about starting Moreno and Stephenson together, but it worked pretty well against DC, didn't it? And for those asking for Cronin to start, he didn't play well at all in Vancouver in the last game, so it's understandable why he didn't start. I thought Garza was a bright spot, and for those who said he lost the ball a lot, the Opta stats don't support your premise. From the matchcenter, he had 13 successful passes, 1 unsuccessful pass and 1 tackled and lost possession. He kept possession very well according to those stats, not sure what you saw.

    Unfortunately this draw comes after a poor loss on the road, so it feels even worse. Hopefully the guys can keep their confidence up and come up with a win against Columbus in the next game.
     
    elvinjones repped this.
  10. sportsfan-quakes

    sportsfan-quakes Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Location:
    San Jose
    And while I love how Beitashour has been playing this year, his crossing was horrible Saturday. He hit many of them too close to the keeper and hit several very high and lofted. I like how aggressive he was playing, but his final ball into the box was not up to his standards.

    I'm not alone in my thinking, here's a tweet from Matthew Doyle (the "MLS Analyst"):
     
  11. JazzyJ

    JazzyJ BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Ike is a top-rated central defender prospect, and it's not entirely for "athletic ability". You make it sound like he has no idea how to play the position, or that he is some sort of athletically-gifted nitwit. In Ike's rookie year, I heard very little about how how he can't read the game or can't position himself properly. I think he's out of form a bit right now due to some loss of confidence. But he will be fine given some more playing time and perhaps a more steady veteran partner.

    It's a competitive world out there. Why wouldn't you want both - a player who knows how to play the position and is also athletically gifted. That will always trump just one or the other. You can't learn "athletically gifted" but you can learn how to better play your position with experience. That's why the "love affair with the ultra athletic".
     
  12. JazzyJ

    JazzyJ BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    True, it wasn't so much that Corrales was too far upfield but that he just stabbed at the ball and then gave up and started walking back while the goal was scored.
     
  13. hc897

    hc897 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    I think Ike's getting to an age and experience level where the term "prospect" means less and less for him. How long are you willing to wait with him? I certainly don't think he's a nitwit, but he's been out of position too often and had enough lapses in judgement to where I wouldn't be confident playing him if I were Frank.
    It seems he's gotten worse with age and is regressing back to the mean after a very bright start. Maybe I'm being too hard on him. It's not like I don't want him to succeed, it's just that as the season drags on, it doesn't make sense to me to "test" Opara when he's proven to be a defensive liability when compared to the other available options. The Quakes have scored a lot of goals, but they haven't really blown out any of their opponents. In close games, the defense has to be especially stingy.
    The reality is the guy is gonna get minutes, both in the reserves and with the first team. Corrales will be out of action again at some point. But if Corrales plays, and Hernandez, Morrow and Bernardez are fit, Ike sits. He's the weakest defender of the group no matter how much any of us want it to be otherwise.
     
  14. JazzyJ

    JazzyJ BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    He's just starting to play again after being out for most of the last 2 years. Typically the only reason a player might "regress" is due to erosion of physical skills resulting from age or injury, or possibly confidence. He's not getting too old, clearly. I think I read where he's carrying a knock, so that could be a factor, but probably not a significant one. I think he just needs some playing time to get his confidence back.
     
  15. markmcf8

    markmcf8 Member+

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 1999
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    Good post. We just can't overlook that we're missing some starters. Also, two of the guys we signed from overseas, who we expected to be starters (Dawkins and Moreno) just aren't good enough. I don't know what's up with Dawkins, but he hasn't been very good this season. I'm pretty sure he was better last season. Moreno just continues to under perform.

    We can blame JD and Frank for not having enough defenders on the roster to start with, and for not recalling Suggs now that we're extra thin in back. Of course, Suggs is an outside back, which doesn't provide a lot of help. We need another healthy center back, like maybe Bobby Burling! (Except that he's having too much fun in Europe.)

    GO QUAKES!!!

    - Mark
     
  16. sportsfan-quakes

    sportsfan-quakes Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Location:
    San Jose
    Suggs was recalled, he's been with the Quakes for a couple of weeks now.
     
    markmcf8 repped this.
  17. markmcf8

    markmcf8 Member+

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 1999
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    Oh darn! I missed that.

    Really, I'm very pleased with how well our guys have been playing and the results we've been getting. Losing to Wankouver sucked, and this tie doesn't make me happy at all. But, on the whole, we're doing well. And Suggs won't be any sort of savior, he's just another option at outside d.

    As mentioned, we need for Bernardez to get healthy. Of course, a sudden return to form by Ike would be almost as good. Oh, and the return of Shea and Chavez will help a lot too, because we can go back to playing Baca in the middle, and moving Moreno to the bench.

    GO QUAKES!!

    - Mark
     
  18. JazzyJ

    JazzyJ BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    I think most of the bad ones were towards the end of the game, some of which were too short. I think he may have been tired as he was running up and down the wing all 2nd half vs. what he normally does, which is stay a bit more in the back.

    I actually think Wondo had a worse game than Beita in terms of his finishing. I think he skied something like 4 headers (though one only looked like a sky in that I think Riley kicked it up and over). Good news is that he continues to get chances. As long as that continues to happen, the goals will keep coming.
     
  19. dred

    dred Member+

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Location:
    Land of Champions
    You could just as easily have cherry-picked when I said "Sure, we could lose, like we did against Houston, despite dominating play. " I'd say that pretty much sums up the day, except we did manage a point.
    Well, we're just fiddling with semantics on "easy game". I feel the game was "easily dominated", but clearly not an "easy three points" because even Man City almost lost at home to 10-man Queens Park Rangers.
    Ooooh, now you've done it.
    But just to be fair, here's me:
    So basically, we're 2 guys who agree on 99% of things and just can't back down on a good argument. :D
     
  20. JazzyJ

    JazzyJ BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Well I cherry-picked the conclusion of that train of thought. You are cherry-picking a statement that was made along the way to that conclusion. Taking the whole thing in context:

    "When you are 0 and 5 at home you suck. It's too small a sample size to say they are a good road team. Sure, we could lose, like we did against Houston, despite dominating play. But Chivas is no Houston and anything but 3 points is grounds for reevaluating our team. We have 11 healthy regular rotation guys to start and 2 more on the bench, that should be plenty barring more freakish injury luck."

    The line of thought here is:
    - Chivas is horrible
    - Sure, we could lose despite dominating play like we did against Houston
    - But Chivas is no Houston
    - Therefore, anything but 3 points is grounds for reevaluating the team

    So either you are reevaluating the team right now or you are going to admit that your conclusion is wrong. Take your pick. :--)

    [snip...all the 2010 Philly stuff...]

    Hah, very nice. Looks like we've switched sides of the argument since 2010. :--) I would just say that it is even more heinous to play this way when you are tied (as the Quakes were with Philly in 2010) than when you are ahead, as Chivas was last weekend. And there would be less reason to strategically bunker when you are tied.

    I think the Quakes were trying to win that Philly game, but with long ball that failed badly, whereas Chivas was clearly strategically bunkering. In my mind there is a bit of a difference. If you are bunkering you would expect to absorb a lot of attacks but to do so doesn't necessarily mean that you are getting outplayed. You are getting solidly outplayed in the bunker if the opposition is getting great chances, and I think the Quakes were getting only OK chances.

    For our own sake and everyone else on the forum, I'm willing to very charitably call it a draw. I said that the game would not be easy and even mentioned Chivas's goal scorer as someone to who may cause a problem, and you said that "anything but 3 points is grounds for reevaluating our team". So point for me.

    OTOH, I thought that the game would play more evenly than it did, and you thought that the Quakes would dominate. So point for you (though I think that if Chivas did not get the early goal the game would have played more evenly, and it was pretty even for the 1st 20 minutes). If the match was in LA and say tied for most of the game, I think it would have played pretty even. We may get a chance to test out that theory later in the season, but part of my rationale for "not an easy game" was based on some key Quakes players missing.
     
  21. Earthshaker

    Earthshaker BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Location:
    The hills above town
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    And Moreno was right in front of Morrow, and had moved into a space to receive the ball, but, Morrow ignored him and made what turned out to be a disastrous pass.
     
  22. dred

    dred Member+

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Location:
    Land of Champions
    Yeah, the sentence about the 3 points didn't come out right. I seldom focus on points. You'll observe that after the Houston game I was trumpeting how well the team was playing when the rest of the board was saying "we lost, ergo we suck". In my defense, this was just a response to your response touting Chivas and warning about the negative impact of our injuries. I was (over-)stating the claim that we should expect to be superior on the day. Had Chivas gotten the same scoring chances that we did, I would indeed feel that was "grounds for reevaluating our team".

    I suspect next time we'll be on the same side of some argument. (Although who knows, even Colin McCarthy is saying we played well. I was counting on him to bemoan our lack of finishing.)
     
  23. JazzyJ

    JazzyJ BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    I am usually all about evaluating a performance based on the flow of the game / number of chances, etc., and no so much about the score. So I think we see things similarly in that regard. The only caveat in this game is that think that the "flow of the game" would have been different, maybe even significantly different, if Chivas didn't get the early lead. The first 20 minutes was pretty even in my view. But even taking that into account, I thought the Quakes controlled the game a bit more than I expected.
     
  24. nihon2000

    nihon2000 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    United States
    it has been mentioned before in different context ..

    when away team scores 1st (early) then away team may sit back & bunker; allowing the
    home team to regain the momentum as they push for equalizer.

    IMO, the context of the game should be prefaced when making a point about the game:
    1) at the start of the game when score is 0-0
    2) when we're behind pushing for the equalizer 1 pt.
    3) if we're equal & pushing for the 3 pts;
    4) when we're ahead trying to keep 3 pts.

    my apologies if I've stated the obvious.
     
  25. dred

    dred Member+

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Location:
    Land of Champions
    As promised, I rewatched the game with an eye on Correa.

    5' redirects brilliant line drive cross from Riley off of Hernandez' instep and into goal
    7' loses midfield challenge to Khari
    8' Poked away by Morrow for throw
    10' fights for aerial ball, it hits his shoulder and bounces laterally to teammate
    10' recieves ball and makes uncontested backpass to Labrocca in midfield.
    13' recieves throw in, challenged, and ball deflects to teammate at top of box.
    14' Takes on Morrow outside Quakes box, falls down and disposessed by Corrales.
    15' takes on Corrales down the wing, Ramiro reaches in and tackles it out of bounds
    15' Holds up throw in at top of box for Bolanos 5 yards away
    15' tries to get difficult header on frame at top of box and ball pops up backward.
    17' at top of box sends through ball past Courtois straight to Busch
    20' Chases long punt but Hernandez heads it beyond him and controls.
    23' Runs for Courtois ball but Beita heads it off and sends it out for throw
    26' Holds up ball on throw in and gets it back under pressure to thrower in midfield.
    28' Does the Freddy Adu hot dog dance on the ball then passes straight to Tressor Moreno
    32' pops contested header straight up
    32' Dribbles ball out of bounds under pressure
    33' falls over backward trying to hold up a forward pass and loses possession
    34' Receives ball down the left, dribbles to corner and is dispossessed by Beita
    38' Gets ball with back to goal pressured by Hernandez. Controls and back-passes beyond teammate to start Quake break.
    45' Loses aerial challenge to Morrow. Goes down "cramping".
    47' Receives ball in midfield not under pressure and passes back to defender.
    47' Leaps and deflects ball headed to teammate to Morrow.
    49' Comes back to midfield to recieve ball, square ball goes past teammate out of bounds.
    53' heads Quake corner out uncontested
    55' recieves ball at midfield and heads it back to Baca.
    55' Loses aerial challenge to Morrow, who controls.
    56' Beaten to long ball by Corrales
    59' Tries to hold up long throw against Morrow, but falls down and Khari takes it away
    60' Contests header in Quake box, deflects it over end line halfway to corner flag.
    65' Flicks on header straight to Hernandez
    69' Holds up for square ball but teammate makes through ball
    77' Makes half-hearted aerial challenge on Khari and does not get ball. Makes half-hearted poke challenge and does not get ball.
    80' Gets ball caught between feet in center circle and is dispossessed my Morrow.
    80' Complains that Ryan Smith's scary shot from the wing wasn't a cross to him.
    83' Beaten to ball by Morrow, but pokes it to teammate who has to send it downfield to Busch.
    84' Outrun by Morrow to long ball.
    88' Beaten to header by Hernandez.


    So basically, other than getting hit by Riley's perfect cross, he may actualy have been the single least effective player on the field.
    A lot was asked of him as the lone forward but:
    Never got behind the D. Did not come close to getting off a shot on goal. Did not connect with a teammate for a shot. Seldom able to keep possession under pressure. Completed more passes to Quakes than goats. (Not figuratively, literally.)

    I came away very impressed with our back 4. I wouldn't touch a thing, they are a phenomenal unit.

    I am revising my grade of Garza upward, he had multiple turnovers and a questionable shot, but also had a couple of decent possession plays to add to his cross. Made a good hustle play to harrass Ryan Smith into a turnover and forced a corner. Would like to see more of him against Columbus.
     
    DotMPP repped this.
Moderators: KMJvet, Smurfquake, TyffaneeSue

Share This Page