Portland Timbers? What?
It is early Sunday afternoon and I'm watching the replay of Barca v Valladolid on the ESPN stream. Early in the match, Valladolid is pressing and Barca is looking a little ragged. Valdes was just forced to clear a ball from his own box and didn't get it out before an opposing attacker was able to deflect it. Puyol is jumping up and down and yelling to his players to step up their performance. It's early in the match but it's not the Barcelona whose well-oiled passing carried them through the season just past.
All of which is tending to cause memories from last night's Timbers match against St. Louis to resurface like the aftermath of too big a breakfast. Along with the kids and some friends we settled into our seats in section 111 last night with confidence that Coach Wilkinson and the crew would have picked through the debris of Thursday's match against Crystal Palace Baltimore (or is it the other way about?) and that they would launch a blitz of polished football moves emphasizing that it is indeed a 'simple game' but one that demands execution.
Instead the evening unfolded with a display of aggressive football but not one that had us cheering in our seats. Indeed, there were moments-good moments- but they were laced in between long periods of athletic effort that did not look like football.
Last year the Portland Timbers left us with wondering smiles in match after match because they were exceptionally effective with small-side passing, uncanny awareness of each other's moves, and particular skill at providing options to the player with the ball even under pressure. They worked close and fast and only periodically changed up the attack with long balls.
By contrast long sections of Timber play last night consisted of clearing balls lofted out of the defensive end with little apparent intent, of header to header passing, even in the ten to twenty yard range in which the ball rarely came to a foot but bounced through the air. Impressive in a general way but not the best way to bring the ball from the midfield to the edge of the box and the attacking zone. This aerial play puzzles me. (Out of the corner of my eye I am watching the ball in the Spanish match run foot to foot and occasionally be lobbed skyward to change field or as a variation. ) I know the field surface at PGE Park is fast. Does that encourage the 'boing boing' style? The field is not smaller by much. (Pedro has just scored after four lovely passes on the ground out of the back). I don't know but I don't think it's good.
The paper this morning noted that Coach Wilkinson had been vehement that the substitutions he'd made were to energize the game not give it away. (my paraphrasing) It noted that Ryan Pore had two solid chances to score and had missed. It noted that OJ had started instead of Josten on the front line. All true but I would say less worrisome to me than the dilemma of how to bring the game down to the mat more and to create more good choices away from the ball to help move the attack (or the defense) forward. Keitah continues to impress me with his vision as well as his ability to snap out a quick shot. When blocked he is quick to see opportunities to feed someone else. Part of what I imagine is happening to the team on the scoring line may be as simple as Pore and Keitah having to rediscover how they best connect. Pore was effective when Keitah had not yet arrived and may be trying to focus on that chemistry. There were moments last night when that looked to be the case. And, interestingly, Keitah may have been trying to figure out his role interacting with OJ. Their styles are more similar and there were moments in which they actually entangled because they were both making the same run for the ball.
Soccer is brilliant in part because it is an intellectual and psychological game as much as a physical one. I think the problem of getting the small side accurate and smart passing game going and not just booming the ball end to end or playing 'head to head to head' is a much bigger issue for the team. We have struggled to play against two teams who we should have sent home with a lesson. I'm hoping....really hoping.
All of which is tending to cause memories from last night's Timbers match against St. Louis to resurface like the aftermath of too big a breakfast. Along with the kids and some friends we settled into our seats in section 111 last night with confidence that Coach Wilkinson and the crew would have picked through the debris of Thursday's match against Crystal Palace Baltimore (or is it the other way about?) and that they would launch a blitz of polished football moves emphasizing that it is indeed a 'simple game' but one that demands execution.
Instead the evening unfolded with a display of aggressive football but not one that had us cheering in our seats. Indeed, there were moments-good moments- but they were laced in between long periods of athletic effort that did not look like football.
Last year the Portland Timbers left us with wondering smiles in match after match because they were exceptionally effective with small-side passing, uncanny awareness of each other's moves, and particular skill at providing options to the player with the ball even under pressure. They worked close and fast and only periodically changed up the attack with long balls.
By contrast long sections of Timber play last night consisted of clearing balls lofted out of the defensive end with little apparent intent, of header to header passing, even in the ten to twenty yard range in which the ball rarely came to a foot but bounced through the air. Impressive in a general way but not the best way to bring the ball from the midfield to the edge of the box and the attacking zone. This aerial play puzzles me. (Out of the corner of my eye I am watching the ball in the Spanish match run foot to foot and occasionally be lobbed skyward to change field or as a variation. ) I know the field surface at PGE Park is fast. Does that encourage the 'boing boing' style? The field is not smaller by much. (Pedro has just scored after four lovely passes on the ground out of the back). I don't know but I don't think it's good.
The paper this morning noted that Coach Wilkinson had been vehement that the substitutions he'd made were to energize the game not give it away. (my paraphrasing) It noted that Ryan Pore had two solid chances to score and had missed. It noted that OJ had started instead of Josten on the front line. All true but I would say less worrisome to me than the dilemma of how to bring the game down to the mat more and to create more good choices away from the ball to help move the attack (or the defense) forward. Keitah continues to impress me with his vision as well as his ability to snap out a quick shot. When blocked he is quick to see opportunities to feed someone else. Part of what I imagine is happening to the team on the scoring line may be as simple as Pore and Keitah having to rediscover how they best connect. Pore was effective when Keitah had not yet arrived and may be trying to focus on that chemistry. There were moments last night when that looked to be the case. And, interestingly, Keitah may have been trying to figure out his role interacting with OJ. Their styles are more similar and there were moments in which they actually entangled because they were both making the same run for the ball.
Soccer is brilliant in part because it is an intellectual and psychological game as much as a physical one. I think the problem of getting the small side accurate and smart passing game going and not just booming the ball end to end or playing 'head to head to head' is a much bigger issue for the team. We have struggled to play against two teams who we should have sent home with a lesson. I'm hoping....really hoping.
Comments