My conclusions about Galaxy-Chivas playoff encounter: right on, or dreadfully off?
Alternate headline: Where Galaxy-Chivas USA, Captain Ramius and bids for good journalism converge
There’s a great moment in Hunt for Red October that always resonates in my life. (That’s a movie I’ve seen a dozen times. But for whatever reason, if it’s on, I just can’t stop myself from tuning in for minutes or so.)
Sean Connery’s character (Captain Ramius) asks Dr. Jack Ryan what books he’s written. When the bookish Ryan lists a couple, including one on a naval subject that Ramius knows well, the Russian sub captain quickly retorts: "I know this book! Your conclusions were all wrong!"
That’s the way I feel sometimes when I’m breaking down MLS matches for my weekly wrap-ups at ESPN Soccernet and MLSnet.com.
Initial disclaimer: it’s tough to break down matches on TV. The brilliance of HD provides an edge, but it’s still a challenge.
Individually, you can make some decent assessments. But you are hamstrung because you can see only what an individual is actually doing. What you can’t recognize is everything a player isn’t doing – and that’s just as important to the collective work.
Then when it comes to team tactics, it’s even more of a challenge. But it’s my job. I enjoy it. And I do the best I can to break it all down into digestible bits and pieces for all those who don’t watch every MLS match. (Which is, of course, pretty much every other person on the planet.)
All of this brings me to last weekend’s Los Angeles Galaxy-Chivas USA contest. I wrote that Preki’s choice to man mark David Beckham (using rookie Michael Lahoud) served to disrupt the Galaxy. It forced Bruce Arena to move his men around, shifting Beckham out to the right. In general, I just didn’t think the Galaxy looked good. Only by the grace of two shockingly bad defensive sequences did the Galaxy score at all.
But then I spoke to one MLS manager Monday morning. His comment: "Preki really out-coached himself. He should have just left his team alone." (Since we were just shooting the bull at that point, somewhere in the journalistic netherworld between on the record and off the record, it wouldn’t be fair of me to say which manager.)
Then I saw others who believed that using Sacha Kljestan centrally and Paulo Nagamura out on the right (to mark Landon Donovan) was a mistake. (They went back to their normal spots after about 20 minutes, once Beckham had gone out to the right.)
Again, I thought it worked out OK. In my mind, Chivas
But there’s always a bit of humble acceptance in my business, the knowledge that I may be barking up the wrong tree. Anytime you are 100 percent, dead-eye certain that you are right, it’s always valuable to know that Ramius may step into the room and announce: "Your conclusions are all wrong!"
So … anybody else see that match? Thoughts?
0 recs |
2 comments
|
Comments
In the End
I believe you are right. Like you said, as the true underdog, Chivas, although playing a bit sloppy in the back, are still very much alive for the second leg. For that game, mission accomplished.
by deepsouthsoccer on Nov 4, 2009 11:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
There is usually more than one path up the mountain...
I always enjoy your thoughts, Steve. On this issue, I don’t see how you can give the “one” correct opinion. There are many ways to construct a team. Each coach will often look at the same player and see him differently. There are a few players that are so gifted in one or two aspects of the game that you build the team around them to maximize those aspects, but even those players have aspects of their games at which they are mediocre at best. All you can do is give your opinion, and since it is generally a well thought out opinion I respect you for it. (As opposed to some writers who don’t understand the game so well, but are very talented at tossing things out to get a reaction.
So I didn’t see this game, so do doubt you are right about Chivas! :)
by Mark_B on Nov 4, 2009 11:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 











