 |
| If you know, you know. |
Forgive me Father, Mother Mary Full of Grace (full of grace! full of grace!), the bless’d angels and the Holy Spirit, I turned off my late, late viewing of the Portland Timbers 3-1 win over the Vancouver Whitecaps at the 85th minute.
And yet I’ll argue that made decent sense.
To start with something I saw in a tweet – and by no means am I shitting on the original tweeter (and I couldn’t tell you who it was, gun to my head) – I saw this described as (paraphrasing) “the Timbers making a pretty good Vancouver side look pedestrian.” I want to dig into that from two directions.
First, how good are the Whitecaps, really? My best description: better than the av-e-rage team, but only just. That’s on a high-level, nuts ‘n’ bolts level – e.g., their goals for (15) and goals against (12) against the league average (14.24) – but I have a couple thoughts in my head that push back against the “but numbers love them” argument.
Eight of those 15 goals came in two games – the recent 3-2 win versus Minnesota United FC and the earlier 5-0 drubbing of Club de Foot Montreal (aka, Simon Becher's debutante ball) three weeks before the latter got their groove on. Yeah, yeah, the ‘Caps beat the Timbers at BC Place some weeks ago – a game that...did not go well for Portland (though I did search for silver linings with a magnifying glass and tweezers) – but I also just ticked through Vancouver’s every win of 2023 and none of those teams rolled into the foot of the Canadian Rockies as their best selves (though the Timbers were one game from the/some shit straightening). In a lot of ways, and to lift up a cliche that answers “but the numbers” cliche, The ‘Caps are exactly what their record says they are: a middle-table team. But that’s just starts the answer...
I’ve watched all or large portions of five Vancouver games this season and...well, they’ve never “wowed” me. As I said in the last preview, I see them as a team that goes about the business in a very business-like way; those of you who watched at home might have heard Ross Smith’s digression about “no outstanding players” and that’s just a big “yep.” The phrase “collective spirit” stands in for “no one really spectacular to see” not so much nicely as appropriately, soccer players making soccer plays, etc.
Wait. Does that mean...the Timbers have special players?
The rest of that post deals with that question – and in bullet-point form – but I want to circle back to the second angle on the whole question of whether Vancouver came into this game “pedestrian.” Entirely related, once I saw Evander’s rather peachy goal go in, I had exactly one question on my mind: did the Timbers let them back in the game?
The better question is, was that ever really a risk?
And yet I’ll argue that made decent sense.
To start with something I saw in a tweet – and by no means am I shitting on the original tweeter (and I couldn’t tell you who it was, gun to my head) – I saw this described as (paraphrasing) “the Timbers making a pretty good Vancouver side look pedestrian.” I want to dig into that from two directions.
First, how good are the Whitecaps, really? My best description: better than the av-e-rage team, but only just. That’s on a high-level, nuts ‘n’ bolts level – e.g., their goals for (15) and goals against (12) against the league average (14.24) – but I have a couple thoughts in my head that push back against the “but numbers love them” argument.
Eight of those 15 goals came in two games – the recent 3-2 win versus Minnesota United FC and the earlier 5-0 drubbing of Club de Foot Montreal (aka, Simon Becher's debutante ball) three weeks before the latter got their groove on. Yeah, yeah, the ‘Caps beat the Timbers at BC Place some weeks ago – a game that...did not go well for Portland (though I did search for silver linings with a magnifying glass and tweezers) – but I also just ticked through Vancouver’s every win of 2023 and none of those teams rolled into the foot of the Canadian Rockies as their best selves (though the Timbers were one game from the/some shit straightening). In a lot of ways, and to lift up a cliche that answers “but the numbers” cliche, The ‘Caps are exactly what their record says they are: a middle-table team. But that’s just starts the answer...
I’ve watched all or large portions of five Vancouver games this season and...well, they’ve never “wowed” me. As I said in the last preview, I see them as a team that goes about the business in a very business-like way; those of you who watched at home might have heard Ross Smith’s digression about “no outstanding players” and that’s just a big “yep.” The phrase “collective spirit” stands in for “no one really spectacular to see” not so much nicely as appropriately, soccer players making soccer plays, etc.
Wait. Does that mean...the Timbers have special players?
The rest of that post deals with that question – and in bullet-point form – but I want to circle back to the second angle on the whole question of whether Vancouver came into this game “pedestrian.” Entirely related, once I saw Evander’s rather peachy goal go in, I had exactly one question on my mind: did the Timbers let them back in the game?
The better question is, was that ever really a risk?
 |
| The first number is right! We're rich! |
Once you take the nine goals scored from the ‘Caps home wins noted above out of the picture, that leaves them with six goals scored over eight games – i.e., less than a goal a game. Moreover, they only really went off in the Montreal win. The point is, Vancouver’s odds of getting back into the game went up (which, here, means got worse) the second Portland went up by one; betting on them to draw bordered on calling buying a lottery ticket “financial planning” by the time the Timbers went up by two. And, that goes back to the eye test – i.e., they’re plodding and, once you yank the Montreal win out of the sample, the ‘Caps look like a 1.0 goals per game team.
That’s as far as I’m going in terms of recapping this one. If I had to explain Portland’s win in the fewest possible goals, I’d go with, “Timbers players scored all the goals.” In the biggest of picture, the Timbers took a lead and never gave it up. That’s how teams build a good season. With that in mind, I have a headful of talking points that talk less about whether or not the Timbers are a good team and more about the things that are going all right. In a loosely-formed order of importance...
Zac McGraw, MotM/Talisman
Why? Because he shook off an own-goal and continued to play a decently front-foot game. After two straight let-downs – a late, late draw versus Austin FC and a, let’s call it straight, a collapse against Real Salt Lake in the U.S. Open Cup (also, see point after next talking point) – I can’t think of anything the Timbers needed more than a show of resilience. Going the other way, you will have to watch 20 own goals before you see one as excusable as the one Zac connected in the other direction (for you old farts) – i.e., Julian Gressel got behind clean (see next talking point) and McGraw knew Sergio Cordova had slipped behind him, so, on the reasonable suspicion Cordova would score, he gambled and got burned. In a bad version of the multi-verse, memories of the past two games slither in like brain-worms, Zac et. al. try to make up for the own goal, everyone gets over-eager as Claudio Bravo, and shit lights on fire. They didn’t do that, they believed in the plan (not a Q reference, btw), and they packed off the win. That’s as good as it gets. Related...
The Team’s Problem Gambler
I don’t follow the widest circle of Timbers people on twitter, but about 3/4 of them give Claudio Bravo shit. I’m fine with Bravo and, for anyone who wants it, I found peace with Bravo the day I stopped worrying about whether he was “league-elite” and just accepted him for what he is. He hit his usual allotment of mistakes, but he did plenty of good things too – e.g., critical clean-up in defense (e.g., cleaning up back-post runs), reads on plays, including the one that led to Portland’s first goal, some good inter-play and some nice, patient passes forward. Is he perfect? Nah. Is he fine? Yeah. Can the Timbers to better? Probably. But Bravo’s here now and he’s fine. Going from there...
This First Team Is Okay!
The Austin draw sucked, no question – by which I mean more people would have shrugged at the loss versus RSL – but they still came close and, so long as a couple theories hold up (see conclusion), I believe the Timbers have a competitive starting lineup as it stands. Going the other way, things get unpleasantly hairy just about any time any given Jenga piece comes out - i.e., the word "precarious" comes to mind.
Conclusion
I know I’ve called for a three-man back-line before, but – and this goes back to what’s immediately above – I have enough faith in a four-man backline with Zac and Dario Zuparic (who’s looking good in the air this season) at the heart of it that I’ll only worry when either of them and Aljaz Ivacic (was it two or three great saves last night?) are out. Diego Chara and Cristhian Paredes do all right together in midfield, even if neither of them standout, and Yimmi Chara will always turn in the effort and, fingers crossed, maybe he and Bravo combine to tie down the right enough to keep the boat above the playoff line...
...and that feels like a strong enough foundation so long as Santiago Moreno, Evander, Franck Boli and Juan David Mosquera can play and combine like the did last night against...oh, half the teams in the league, if only for now. Boli gets closer to finding his fit in Gio’s system with each passing week he’s fine dropping back for the ball, but always seems up to stretch the backline – and that’s just one of several people/movements for Evander to feed as he moves closer to the beating heart of the whole thing. Dramatic framing, I know, and I don’t mean to tee that up as some kind of continual, non-stop rise to trophies, but I haven’t seen the Timbers score what I’d call a “Gio-approved” team goal since 2021 until Portland’s second goal tonight. Last week, I floated a rhetorical about whether Moreno could find his best place on the field again and tonight’s lineup made it work. Moreover, I’d call the two, squeaky-clean back-post shots fired by, first, Evander and then Paredes as decent proof of theory that driving most of the attacks down the right won’t make the left side whole ineffectual.
Put all the above together, I believe the overall pitch goes something like this: the Timbers beat a mid-table team at home and they did it pretty well. And, yes, now that they have something closer to a first-team present and accounted for, it does look better.
That’s as far as I’m going in terms of recapping this one. If I had to explain Portland’s win in the fewest possible goals, I’d go with, “Timbers players scored all the goals.” In the biggest of picture, the Timbers took a lead and never gave it up. That’s how teams build a good season. With that in mind, I have a headful of talking points that talk less about whether or not the Timbers are a good team and more about the things that are going all right. In a loosely-formed order of importance...
Zac McGraw, MotM/Talisman
Why? Because he shook off an own-goal and continued to play a decently front-foot game. After two straight let-downs – a late, late draw versus Austin FC and a, let’s call it straight, a collapse against Real Salt Lake in the U.S. Open Cup (also, see point after next talking point) – I can’t think of anything the Timbers needed more than a show of resilience. Going the other way, you will have to watch 20 own goals before you see one as excusable as the one Zac connected in the other direction (for you old farts) – i.e., Julian Gressel got behind clean (see next talking point) and McGraw knew Sergio Cordova had slipped behind him, so, on the reasonable suspicion Cordova would score, he gambled and got burned. In a bad version of the multi-verse, memories of the past two games slither in like brain-worms, Zac et. al. try to make up for the own goal, everyone gets over-eager as Claudio Bravo, and shit lights on fire. They didn’t do that, they believed in the plan (not a Q reference, btw), and they packed off the win. That’s as good as it gets. Related...
The Team’s Problem Gambler
I don’t follow the widest circle of Timbers people on twitter, but about 3/4 of them give Claudio Bravo shit. I’m fine with Bravo and, for anyone who wants it, I found peace with Bravo the day I stopped worrying about whether he was “league-elite” and just accepted him for what he is. He hit his usual allotment of mistakes, but he did plenty of good things too – e.g., critical clean-up in defense (e.g., cleaning up back-post runs), reads on plays, including the one that led to Portland’s first goal, some good inter-play and some nice, patient passes forward. Is he perfect? Nah. Is he fine? Yeah. Can the Timbers to better? Probably. But Bravo’s here now and he’s fine. Going from there...
This First Team Is Okay!
The Austin draw sucked, no question – by which I mean more people would have shrugged at the loss versus RSL – but they still came close and, so long as a couple theories hold up (see conclusion), I believe the Timbers have a competitive starting lineup as it stands. Going the other way, things get unpleasantly hairy just about any time any given Jenga piece comes out - i.e., the word "precarious" comes to mind.
Conclusion
I know I’ve called for a three-man back-line before, but – and this goes back to what’s immediately above – I have enough faith in a four-man backline with Zac and Dario Zuparic (who’s looking good in the air this season) at the heart of it that I’ll only worry when either of them and Aljaz Ivacic (was it two or three great saves last night?) are out. Diego Chara and Cristhian Paredes do all right together in midfield, even if neither of them standout, and Yimmi Chara will always turn in the effort and, fingers crossed, maybe he and Bravo combine to tie down the right enough to keep the boat above the playoff line...
...and that feels like a strong enough foundation so long as Santiago Moreno, Evander, Franck Boli and Juan David Mosquera can play and combine like the did last night against...oh, half the teams in the league, if only for now. Boli gets closer to finding his fit in Gio’s system with each passing week he’s fine dropping back for the ball, but always seems up to stretch the backline – and that’s just one of several people/movements for Evander to feed as he moves closer to the beating heart of the whole thing. Dramatic framing, I know, and I don’t mean to tee that up as some kind of continual, non-stop rise to trophies, but I haven’t seen the Timbers score what I’d call a “Gio-approved” team goal since 2021 until Portland’s second goal tonight. Last week, I floated a rhetorical about whether Moreno could find his best place on the field again and tonight’s lineup made it work. Moreover, I’d call the two, squeaky-clean back-post shots fired by, first, Evander and then Paredes as decent proof of theory that driving most of the attacks down the right won’t make the left side whole ineffectual.
Put all the above together, I believe the overall pitch goes something like this: the Timbers beat a mid-table team at home and they did it pretty well. And, yes, now that they have something closer to a first-team present and accounted for, it does look better.
At ProvPk the Whitecaps passed the ball around efficiently like a good team would. And comparing with earlier Timbers games this season where our side would have great trouble stringing three passes together, that made me apprehensive. Not to mention a couple of early fast breaks by the 'Caps where they got behind our defenders. But that was me worrying about the historic frailty of our defense.
ReplyDeleteThe obvious talking point is that we have 11 optimal starters, plus maybe three sub's who are a nicely competitive team. ANY absences from that core group and things go off a cliff. Makes every Timber-on-the-turf situation a nail biting moment. The insanity of us having only two competent center-backs to fill the two slots will bite us on the a** the rest of this season.
McGraw was fine. He had a Hobson's choice situation with the own-goal. Sh*t happens. What I really liked was the nice loose interplay in attack by Moreno, Evander and Mosquera. Being a goal-up early helped, but they just looked like they were there to have some fun in attack. For this night there was no crippling performance pressure making them think twice about every move. I hope it's the new normal.
Very well said. And your note argument re "things go off a cliff" is glumly endorsed.
ReplyDelete