 |
| The 2nd image under "unremarkable" somehow. |
I am struggling powerfully to come up with anything useful, meaningful, or even mildly interesting about the Portland Timbers’ season-opening loss to the Vancouver Whitecaps and all I’ve managed so far is to marvel at how Richard Farley managed to write so many words about a game that offered so little for The Mothership (then again, I sometimes think they get paid by the hype).
Ooh, just thought of a couple more: the game ended 0-1. Let’s see, what else? What else?
There’s the game’s lone goal, of course, via a loud, collective brain-fart the defense allowed by letting the ‘Caps large striker, Lucas Cavallini, slip into a wide patch of space for a free header off a corner kick. The Timbers appeared to let in another goal on a later set-piece, but that one was called back for either a handball or offside; beyond signs of continued shakiness on set-pieces, it’s hard to care about a non-goal that wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the game. Had Portland been knocking on Maxime Crepeau’s goal, that would have been a moment, obviously, but I didn’t see (or, to keep with the knocking metaphor, hear) anything worth noting. Related, I’m looking at The Mothership’s collection of highlight clips, which didn’t bother to include Felipe Mora getting a step behind Vancouver’s defense around the 89th minute. For what it’s worth, and on the grounds it felt unremarkable in the moment, I don't mind the omission.
Unremarkable. There’s a good word. Regrettable? Dull? Disappointed? Nah. I don’t have the energy for disappointment.
I have one external note: for good or ill (I’ll tell you in six-seven days), and because I don’t have (fucking) ROOT Sports at home, I actually watched this one at a bar. The place was pretty quiet, fortunately, but I still sat about 20 feet from the TV, so I couldn’t see very well. The combination of that distance, the weirdness of the setting (who among us gets out much?), and just operating outside what has become routine translated into something of a metaphorical distance; put it this way, I’ve gotten used to the quiet of isolation for these games. Going the other way, given the near-complete absence of tension and/or drama, what conceivable setting could have turned that dull fucker of a game into something compelling? Everything I can come up with (e.g., “being suspended over a giant pit of ______”) would only, and perhaps blissfully, provide an excuse to stop watching.
After a bad day at the office, one of the first questions is how to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The obvious choice - “play better” - doesn’t offer a lot to work with, but it also probably answers the question. I sat through the MLS in 15 clip to see whether I lost track of any major chances and both of the best chances I saw in there fell to Diego Valeri; good passing and movement created both, but the most I can say about either is that he could have done better with the first one (a shot from the left) and he nearly pulled off the second (the one from deep right that spun off the crossbar). Dairon Asprilla had a collection of chances at the end of the first half and the only thing I can think to say about any of them besides, “he missed,” is that I think he might have done better to look for someone to set up behind him instead of going for that bicycle kick. Going the other way, if he was trying to get a little drama into the game, who the hell can blame him?
If either team had a real chance besides the one that actually went into the goal, I’d flag that time when a Vancouver attacker (who? don’t know, don’t care) somehow squeaked the ball through the challenge of two Timbers defenders, which then rolled past Steve Clark and into the foot of his left post. With that, I believe I’ve recorded every remotely interesting shot and/or attempt on goal by both teams. All in all, file this one away as an exhibit for people who hate soccer.
In closing, I’ve got no specific gripes against any player, I’m not calling for changes in formation, personnel (well, outside of getting back players like Sebastian Blanco, Jaroslaw Niezgoda, and Jeremy Ebobisse), or approach. I do have a tactical gripe, but it, like pretty much everything else, has some crossover with execution, or the failure thereto. After Vancouver scored and Portland was fishing for ways to get back in the game, a number of Timbers arrived at the idea that, after generally struggling to play through Vancouver’s aggressive defending, they’d try playing over it. No matter the chosen path - e.g., from the back over the top, or long diagonals to switch the field of play - too many players hit too many of those passes short or otherwise just wrong. The solution, in other words, failed as a solution - and that sets aside the question of whether or not that was even a good idea. Something had to be tried, obviously, but that didn’t come off last night. At least it amounted to a form of urgency.
That’s all I’ve got on this one: “play better.” I saw some complaints about the Giovanni Savarese’s substitution pattern(s) and have no second-guesses in response - e.g., if Asprilla and Eryk Williamson aren’t getting it done, I don’t know who would think Marvin Loria and Cristhian Paredes will. As I look over the options, I don't see any obvious change agent in that mix (paging Blake Bodily?), which takes the conversation back to those two easier-said-than-done words, "play better."
And, assuming it really is simple as an off-game, that’s it. Here’s to hoping I’ll return next week with some cause for excitement. Hell, if you offered me despair at this point, I’m not sure I’d turn it down.
Ooh, just thought of a couple more: the game ended 0-1. Let’s see, what else? What else?
There’s the game’s lone goal, of course, via a loud, collective brain-fart the defense allowed by letting the ‘Caps large striker, Lucas Cavallini, slip into a wide patch of space for a free header off a corner kick. The Timbers appeared to let in another goal on a later set-piece, but that one was called back for either a handball or offside; beyond signs of continued shakiness on set-pieces, it’s hard to care about a non-goal that wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the game. Had Portland been knocking on Maxime Crepeau’s goal, that would have been a moment, obviously, but I didn’t see (or, to keep with the knocking metaphor, hear) anything worth noting. Related, I’m looking at The Mothership’s collection of highlight clips, which didn’t bother to include Felipe Mora getting a step behind Vancouver’s defense around the 89th minute. For what it’s worth, and on the grounds it felt unremarkable in the moment, I don't mind the omission.
Unremarkable. There’s a good word. Regrettable? Dull? Disappointed? Nah. I don’t have the energy for disappointment.
I have one external note: for good or ill (I’ll tell you in six-seven days), and because I don’t have (fucking) ROOT Sports at home, I actually watched this one at a bar. The place was pretty quiet, fortunately, but I still sat about 20 feet from the TV, so I couldn’t see very well. The combination of that distance, the weirdness of the setting (who among us gets out much?), and just operating outside what has become routine translated into something of a metaphorical distance; put it this way, I’ve gotten used to the quiet of isolation for these games. Going the other way, given the near-complete absence of tension and/or drama, what conceivable setting could have turned that dull fucker of a game into something compelling? Everything I can come up with (e.g., “being suspended over a giant pit of ______”) would only, and perhaps blissfully, provide an excuse to stop watching.
After a bad day at the office, one of the first questions is how to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The obvious choice - “play better” - doesn’t offer a lot to work with, but it also probably answers the question. I sat through the MLS in 15 clip to see whether I lost track of any major chances and both of the best chances I saw in there fell to Diego Valeri; good passing and movement created both, but the most I can say about either is that he could have done better with the first one (a shot from the left) and he nearly pulled off the second (the one from deep right that spun off the crossbar). Dairon Asprilla had a collection of chances at the end of the first half and the only thing I can think to say about any of them besides, “he missed,” is that I think he might have done better to look for someone to set up behind him instead of going for that bicycle kick. Going the other way, if he was trying to get a little drama into the game, who the hell can blame him?
If either team had a real chance besides the one that actually went into the goal, I’d flag that time when a Vancouver attacker (who? don’t know, don’t care) somehow squeaked the ball through the challenge of two Timbers defenders, which then rolled past Steve Clark and into the foot of his left post. With that, I believe I’ve recorded every remotely interesting shot and/or attempt on goal by both teams. All in all, file this one away as an exhibit for people who hate soccer.
In closing, I’ve got no specific gripes against any player, I’m not calling for changes in formation, personnel (well, outside of getting back players like Sebastian Blanco, Jaroslaw Niezgoda, and Jeremy Ebobisse), or approach. I do have a tactical gripe, but it, like pretty much everything else, has some crossover with execution, or the failure thereto. After Vancouver scored and Portland was fishing for ways to get back in the game, a number of Timbers arrived at the idea that, after generally struggling to play through Vancouver’s aggressive defending, they’d try playing over it. No matter the chosen path - e.g., from the back over the top, or long diagonals to switch the field of play - too many players hit too many of those passes short or otherwise just wrong. The solution, in other words, failed as a solution - and that sets aside the question of whether or not that was even a good idea. Something had to be tried, obviously, but that didn’t come off last night. At least it amounted to a form of urgency.
That’s all I’ve got on this one: “play better.” I saw some complaints about the Giovanni Savarese’s substitution pattern(s) and have no second-guesses in response - e.g., if Asprilla and Eryk Williamson aren’t getting it done, I don’t know who would think Marvin Loria and Cristhian Paredes will. As I look over the options, I don't see any obvious change agent in that mix (paging Blake Bodily?), which takes the conversation back to those two easier-said-than-done words, "play better."
And, assuming it really is simple as an off-game, that’s it. Here’s to hoping I’ll return next week with some cause for excitement. Hell, if you offered me despair at this point, I’m not sure I’d turn it down.
Nothing about Cincinnati? I just saw the highlights but that looked like a more interesting game.
ReplyDeleteI wrote about them in a separate post. And it was more interesting, but I was still not gentle.
ReplyDeletehttps://conifersandcitrus.blogspot.com/2021/04/nashville-sc-2-2-fc-cincinnati-take.html