CNL Play-In for Copa America: Canada vs Trinidad & Tobago - Saturday, March 23, 2024 - Frisco (greater Dallas), Texas

[Kadenge]

Glad Jamaica scored early and looked like they were going to advance. We need to go full out from the opening whistle and don't stop until the end. While we need a win here, given what has transpired in 2023, we need much more than that and  hope  all the players & coaches are pumped for Saturday.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

17 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I agree that its not a strategy vs better teams but im curious about cheap goals. 

In WCQ we played it vs:
Mexico 2-1 where they scored in the 90th off a cross where we had 10 of our players in the box. 
USA: 1-1 Kennedy gets the ball taken from him, they counter and cross it behind henry and kennedy who are caught ball watching. 
Honduras: 2-0
Honduras: 1-1 Buchanan forgets to track his man in a give and go and then takes him down for a PK 

I dont think we gave up any cheap goals in a 3-4-3. 

A number of those are the definition of cheap to me. And I think a lot of those mistakes have a less chance of happening if you have another option in midfield.

A lot of the problems I see come from 2 in midfield (and 2 with Davies who wont stay there).  Jamaica for instance or the entire World Cup which had a number of cheap goals.  The only one which kind of worked was against Belgium, who also went with a (relatively slow) 2. 

Edited March 22 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[costarg]

34 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

3-4-3 gets our best players on the field but has been part of our downfall in giving up cheap goals, in my opinion.  Also not what we should be training with, look forward to better teams.  

Totally agree with your points and strategy and suggestions, I just struggle with understanding how playing 3 CB's which is our weakest position gets our best players on the field?  Any way I look at it, it's shoehorning good players into positions that don't suit them and they don't play with their clubs.  Mainly Johnston at LCB. 

Just an example of a possible 3-4-3 (several other options exist).

Millar - David - Larin

Davies - Kone - Stache - Tajon

Miller - Cornelius - Johnston

Leaves out Bombito which is probably our most in form CB

I feel 4-4-2 gets all the best players in their ideal positions. 

David - Larin

Millar - Kone - Stache - Tajon

Davies - Miller - Bombito - Johnston

While the 4-5-1 probably provides the most balance and strongest 11 we could field.

David

Millar - Kone - Stache - Option - Tajon

Davies - Miller - Bombito - Johnston

 

[Bigandy]

2 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

A number of those are the definition of cheap to me. And I think a lot of those mistakes have a less chance of happening if you have another option in midfield.

A lot of the problem I see come from 2 in midfield (and 2 with Davies who wont stay there).  

Cheap, yes. But I dont think they are related to the 3-4-3.

Im not sure how a midfield 3 solves buchanan giving away a penalty. Or kennedy literally standing on the ball and getting stripped. 

The mexico goal actually came when we took off davies and switched to a 3-5-2 with oso coming into midfield. 

So in 4 games against two teams better than us, we conceded 2 goals in a 3-4-3. Both very very naive individual mistakes. 

I would argue that the stats suggest the 3-4-3 was incredibly good at not conceding cheap goals. 

I look at the 4-1 panama game where we played 3-5-2 and that was a cheap goal. Bait miller high, play in behind, cross, goal. Probably happens in any 3atb formation but the extra midfielder doesnt solve this. 

the costa rica 1-0 game. They scored a very similar goal as the mexico goal. 

Mexico 1-1. they transition in a 4 on 3 and cross it back post to the open guy.  cheap goal with a 3 man midfield. 



 

[Bigandy]

3 minutes ago, costarg said:

Totally agree with your points and strategy and suggestions, I just struggle with understanding how playing 3 CB's which is our weakest position gets our best players on the field?  Any way I look at it, it's shoehorning good players into positions that don't suit them and they don't play with their clubs.  Mainly Johnston at LCB. 

Just an example of a possible 3-4-3 (several other options exist).

Millar - David - Larin

Davies - Kone - Stache - Tajon

Miller - Cornelius - Johnston

Leaves out Bombito which is probably our most in form CB

I feel 4-4-2 gets all the best players in their ideal positions. 

David - Larin

Millar - Kone - Stache - Tajon

Davies - Miller - Bombito - Johnston

While the 4-5-1 probably provides the most balance and strongest 11 we could field.

David

Millar - Kone - Stache - Option - Tajon

Davies - Miller - Bombito - Johnston

 

The only difference of your 3-4-3 and 4-3-3 is cornelius vs bombito. If you put bombito Central CB in the 3-4-3 then its the same 11. 

Then the argument of natural position is: davies and buchanan at wb (which is their best positions), vs Johnston at rb. 
2 players vs 1 player and those 2 players are both top 5 players while johnston isnt. 

I dont want to play 3-4-3 but strictly talking about our best 11 in their best positions, 3-4-3 is more accurate. 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

17 minutes ago, costarg said:

Totally agree with your points and strategy and suggestions, I just struggle with understanding how playing 3 CB's which is our weakest position gets our best players on the field?  Any way I look at it, it's shoehorning good players into positions that don't suit them and they don't play with their clubs.  Mainly Johnston at LCB. 

Just an example of a possible 3-4-3 (several other options exist).

Millar - David - Larin

Davies - Kone - Stache - Tajon

Miller - Cornelius - Johnston

Leaves out Bombito which is probably our most in form CB

I feel 4-4-2 gets all the best players in their ideal positions. 

David - Larin

Millar - Kone - Stache - Tajon

Davies - Miller - Bombito - Johnston

While the 4-5-1 probably provides the most balance and strongest 11 we could field.

David

Millar - Kone - Stache - Option - Tajon

Davies - Miller - Bombito - Johnston

 

I don't think it's neccesarily our weakest position at this point.  We have MLS starters or equivilent in actually really good depth (some not called up) and some great young talent possible. 

In central midfield we have 2 locks who are not playing that much and MLS (semi) starters in less depth.  I get why we tried Bombito there. 

Again you try to put all your best players on the field but it doesn't work in a number of important situations. It is honestly an u8 approach to the game. You try and get the most on while playing smart. 

 

Edited March 22 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

15 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Cheap, yes. But I dont think they are related to the 3-4-3.

Im not sure how a midfield 3 solves buchanan giving away a penalty. Or kennedy literally standing on the ball and getting stripped. 

The mexico goal actually came when we took off davies and switched to a 3-5-2 with oso coming into midfield. 

So in 4 games against two teams better than us, we conceded 2 goals in a 3-4-3. Both very very naive individual mistakes. 

I would argue that the stats suggest the 3-4-3 was incredibly good at not conceding cheap goals. 

I look at the 4-1 panama game where we played 3-5-2 and that was a cheap goal. Bait miller high, play in behind, cross, goal. Probably happens in any 3atb formation but the extra midfielder doesnt solve this. 

the costa rica 1-0 game. They scored a very similar goal as the mexico goal. 

Mexico 1-1. they transition in a 4 on 3 and cross it back post to the open guy.  cheap goal with a 3 man midfield. 



 

If you have more options to pass to, there is less pressure to panic and make those mistakes. 

Edit: I don't think you are looking at things beyond the moment either.  The more ball you have, made easier by options in midfield, the less of those dangerous situations happen. 

Edited March 22 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[costarg]

13 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

The only difference of your 3-4-3 and 4-3-3 is cornelius vs bombito. If you put bombito Central CB in the 3-4-3 then its the same 11. 

Then the argument of natural position is: davies and buchanan at wb (which is their best positions), vs Johnston at rb. 
2 players vs 1 player and those 2 players are both top 5 players while johnston isnt. 

I dont want to play 3-4-3 but strictly talking about our best 11 in their best positions, 3-4-3 is more accurate. 

Man by man, you are correct.  But you'll have a hard time convincing me Johnston the RCB is as strong as Johnston the RB.  Two very different positions, where one suits Johnston very well and the other does not. 

I also still haven't seen Davies dominate at LW like he's dominated games at LB with Bayern.  Keep in mind, he's been rated the best LB in the world, he's not even in the discussion at LW.  Sure it might be more exciting to see him at LW, but it doesn't make us stronger.  

Also means we need to bench Millar which is part of our best 11 for a weaker player.  So it is not "our best 11 players".
 

Edited March 22 by costarg

[costarg]

11 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I don't think its neccesarily our weakest position at this point.  We have MLS starters or equivilent in actually really good depth (some not called up) and some great young talent possible. 

Don't get me wrong, I feel we're turning a corner here, Bombito might turn out to change the whole situation and perception of our backline in a few months.  Only issue is he just has not had a chance to play much with the other options yet.  Cornelius and Bombito may very well give us an entire new look and some solidity we've been lacking.

I really like the squad Biello picked, just feel he lost another opportunity with the formation he seems to be going with.  It's been proven that more strikers don't get you more goals, just like more CB don't allow fewer goals.  It's all about the balance.

[Kadenge]

Regardless of formation AJ, Miller, Crepeau & Derek (?) at the back is a bit smurfish. Would be concerned about defending set pieces. We know T&T are going with a low block. Need  in game flexibility to deal with that & other than Davies & Tajon  our usual starters are not great 1v1. IF T&T keep it tight, there wont be much space to utilize our 1 touch passing in the final 3rd. It's really unfortunate Ahmed in not on the squad as he would be ideal. 

[Bigandy]

7 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

If you have more options to pass to, there is less pressure to panic and make those mistakes. 

Edit: I don't think you are looking at things beyond the moment either.  The more ball you have, made easier by options in midfield, the less of those dangerous situations happen. 

Good point. But I feel like thats just a general sentiment of soccer in general and not about our specific run to the wc. 
 

The evidence is showing that only 2 goals happened against us in a 3-4-3. 

1. Davies throw in to kennedy put him under pressure. Nothing to do with midfield options. All kennedy is able to do is a one touch pass to kaye who is wide open or back to davies. He takes a touch. A 3rd midfielder doesnt solve this. We could have 99% possession and 10 passing options but if kennedy takes a touch when he doenst have the time, hes going to lose the ball. He had options, he just chose to ignore them. 

2. Buchanan giving up a penalty was not because of his passing mistakes. So the argument is if we had more of the ball, maybe buchanan isnt put in this position. However, this goal came in transition. The more we have the ball, the more susceptible to counters we are. In fact, our qualifying run was largely built on allowing teams to possess in non threatening areas so we could set up blocks and then hit them on the counter. 

Theres some truth to what youre saying on #2, but then we have to change our player profile and strategy. Given the success of the qualifying campaign, I dont think it would have been wise for us to do so. 

If you take out 2 major individual mistakes, the 3-4-3 doesnt concede any goals. these mistakes could have happened in any formation. 


 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

30 minutes ago, costarg said:

Man by man, you are correct.  But you'll have a hard tie convincing me Johnston the RCB is as strong as Johnston the RB.  Two very different positions, where one suits Johnston very well and the other does not. 
 

We can go in circles on this again and I disagree about it automatically not suiting him. But if what you say is true then try out things where he doesn't play unless he can be better than the other options.  I love him and he is probably the best crosser of the ball we have but a good coach can make that work from RCB.  I have seen it. 

30 minutes ago, costarg said:

I also still haven't seen Davies dominate at LW like he's dominated games at LB with Bayern.  Keep in mind, he's been rated the best LB in the world, he's not even in the discussion at LW.  Sure it might be more exciting to see him at LW, but it doesn't make us stronger.  

Kind of silly asking a player to be considered in best in the world discusions at a position he has not played regularly for 4 maybe 5 years.   

I don't want him playing left wing right now.  His worldclassness (I'm sure that's a word) is pace, first and formost, not dribbling nor crossing, he can cover a whole wing like no one else and can pop up and make some incredible things happen on offense.  Perfect wingback for me. 

Also Millar is playing wingback as well these days.  Again its not always about the best 11 its about the best 11 to win the game. 

 

Edited March 22 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Bigandy]

15 minutes ago, costarg said:

Man by man, you are correct.  But you'll have a hard time convincing me Johnston the RCB is as strong as Johnston the RB.  Two very different positions, where one suits Johnston very well and the other does not. 

I also still haven't seen Davies dominate at LW like he's dominated games at LB with Bayern.  Keep in mind, he's been rated the best LB in the world, he's not even in the discussion at LW.  Sure it might be more exciting to see him at LW, but it doesn't make us stronger.  

Also means we need to bench Millar which is part of our best 11 for a weaker player.  So it is not "our best 11 players".
 

Johnston at RB is 100% better than at rcb. no debate from me there. Tajon at RWB is better than at RW. Davies at LWB is waaay better than davies at LW (my point was not about putting him lw btw). Davies at LWB is better than LB IMO but this can be up for debate. 

Say davies is equal at lwb and lb. So its a matter of playing tajon or johnston out of position. On paper, tajon is more valuable. If the debate is getting our best 11 into their best positions. 3-4-3 makes a very strong case. As does 4-4-2. Its a bit of a toss up but i dont think anyone can definitevly say that the 3-4-3 is not in the same category as 4-4-2 for getting our best players on the field (on paper).  

Also, both your lineups include millar. Im not sure what you mean that we have to bench him? For who? And why would you now change the line ups that you posted? Im confused.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

23 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Good point. But I feel like thats just a general sentiment of soccer in general and not about our specific run to the wc. 
 

The evidence is showing that only 2 goals happened against us in a 3-4-3. 

1. Davies throw in to kennedy put him under pressure. Nothing to do with midfield options. All kennedy is able to do is a one touch pass to kaye who is wide open or back to davies. He takes a touch. A 3rd midfielder doesnt solve this. We could have 99% possession and 10 passing options but if kennedy takes a touch when he doenst have the time, hes going to lose the ball. He had options, he just chose to ignore them. 

2. Buchanan giving up a penalty was not because of his passing mistakes. So the argument is if we had more of the ball, maybe buchanan isnt put in this position. However, this goal came in transition. The more we have the ball, the more susceptible to counters we are. In fact, our qualifying run was largely built on allowing teams to possess in non threatening areas so we could set up blocks and then hit them on the counter. 

Theres some truth to what youre saying on #2, but then we have to change our player profile and strategy. Given the success of the qualifying campaign, I dont think it would have been wise for us to do so. 

If you take out 2 major individual mistakes, the 3-4-3 doesnt concede any goals. these mistakes could have happened in any formation. 


 

1) Sorry, if a third midfielder is there and smartly moves to recieve there is by definition another option.  

 

2) Transitions against are a direct result of you being poor in taking care of the ball. "However, this goal came in transition." is making my point. 

 

The whole point of three at the back is that you can shift around and cover.  Your wingback is attacking and gets caught, the wide centre back shifts over to cover the ball or the runner wide.  The third midfielder comes and helps in the centre of defence. I want 3 in midfield with 3 at the back unless you think you can blow the opposition away. 

If you just want stability, play and call it what it is: a back 5. 

 

 

Edited March 22 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[YorkRegionFan]

Whatever formation we play, Davies should not be taking the free kicks, corners or penalties.  He has world class speed, but I have yet to see him create dangerous chances with the free kicks and corners.

[Bigandy]

12 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

1) Sorry, if a third midfielder is there and smartly moves to recieve there is by definition another option.  

 

2) Transitions against are a direct result of you being poor in taking care of the ball. "However, this goal came in transition." is making my point. 

 

The whole point of three at the back is that you can shift around and cover.  Your wingback is attacking and gets caught, the wide centre back shifts over to cover the ball or the runner wide.  The third midfielder comes and helps in the centre of defence. I want 3 in midfield with 3 at the back unless you think you can blow the opposition away. 

If you just want stability, play and call it what it is: a back 5. 

 

 

1. if you watch the replay, Kaye is there to receive. Where would this 3rd midfielder smartly go where hes a viable passing option? I posted a picture but this is just a horrible throw in from davies, with a bad decision to take a touch by kennedy.

2. True, but that happens in every game in every system not just 3-4-3. I see your point but I dont think, 1 transition that leads to Tajon barreling down a guy for no reason is enough to justify that the 3-4-3 results in cheap goals. Can't we apply your logic to the goals we got scored against in a 3-5-2 (ex. panama). Doesnt that prove that the 3-4-3 isnt to blame for cheap goals any more than any other formation given the stats of the CMNT? 


As for your point of the 3-5-2, I strongly agree. I think thats way better than the 3-4-3 but Im just debating that I dont think the 3-4-3 resulted in more than 2 goals and I think both are not related to the formation, while the 3-5-2 has resulted in more cheap goals. 

[InglewoodJack]

35 minutes ago, YorkRegionFan said:

Whatever formation we play, Davies should not be taking the free kicks, corners or penalties.  He has world class speed, but I have yet to see him create dangerous chances with the free kicks and corners.

I would hope that the captain's armband gives Eustaquio a bit of room to pull rank and take our corners.

[Alex]

37 minutes ago, YorkRegionFan said:

Whatever formation we play, Davies should not be taking the free kicks, corners or penalties.  He has world class speed, but I have yet to see him create dangerous chances with the free kicks and corners.

Remember the Panama wcq game at bmo? He took several really good corners in a row which led to the first goal… directly off his corner. 

[Cheeta]

One more sleep!

 

That is all.

[Sal333]

16 minutes ago, Cheeta said:

One more sleep!

 

That is all.

You can sleep?

[Joe MacCarthy]

 

[costarg]

2 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

We can go in circles on this again and I disagree about it automatically not suiting him. But if what you say is true then try out things where he doesn't play unless he can be better than the other options.  I love him and he is probably the best crosser of the ball we have but a good coach can make that work from RCB.  I have seen it. 

Kind of silly asking a player to be considered in best in the world discusions at a position he has not played regularly for 4 maybe 5 years.   

I don't want him playing left wing right now.  His worldclassness (I'm sure that's a word) is pace, first and formost, not dribbling nor crossing, he can cover a whole wing like no one else and can pop up and make some incredible things happen on offense.  Perfect wingback for me. 

Also Millar is playing wingback as well these days.  Again its not always about the best 11 its about the best 11 to win the game.

Suggesting putting our best crosser and one of our shortest guys at RCB, is not maximizing the 11 or balance.  Intl soccer is not at all like club football.  Tactics NEED to be watered down, especially for Canada who does not play often.  Inventing roles for guys that don't get to play together often is asking for trouble.  A formation that asks Johnston to cross while defending the back is setting up to fail.  Need to KISS the next year, adapt new guys to their real and ideal positions.

Of course Davies can play WB and cover the whole left side, but teaming him up with tricky Millar who can also put in honest work defensively and having them overlap will just terrorize the opponent.  Isolating Davies asks him to play more hero-ball which is what we need to avoid.  Davies speed at LB also helps out our CB's as we've seen him do a tonne with Bayern.

Any way we add it up.  Having a left side of Davies and Millar actually improves our defense compared to playing an extra, weaker CB.  Not one of our CB's is as good, effective or useful as having Millar in the 11.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

1. if you watch the replay, Kaye is there to receive. Where would this 3rd midfielder smartly go where hes a viable passing option? I posted a picture but this is just a horrible throw in from davies, with a bad decision to take a touch by kennedy.

2. True, but that happens in every game in every system not just 3-4-3. I see your point but I dont think, 1 transition that leads to Tajon barreling down a guy for no reason is enough to justify that the 3-4-3 results in cheap goals. Can't we apply your logic to the goals we got scored against in a 3-5-2 (ex. panama). Doesnt that prove that the 3-4-3 isnt to blame for cheap goals any more than any other formation given the stats of the CMNT? 


As for your point of the 3-5-2, I strongly agree. I think thats way better than the 3-4-3 but Im just debating that I dont think the 3-4-3 resulted in more than 2 goals and I think both are not related to the formation, while the 3-5-2 has resulted in more cheap goals. 

You are right that you can never legislate for individial errors, to alter an old political saying.  

To me, ball retention will always tend to be better with 3 in midfield.  Since many of the goals against -especially at the World Cup and later came from panic moments or break-downs, that is what I think will work better.  Having better use of the ball works against errors, 4 or 5 moves ahead.

(Also we have some very pacey people on the break, we should be winning more balls in the midfield and transitioning ourselves.  Much harder to do with 2.)

The problem with the "what ifs" is they are exactly that.  We could also say that if had played more 343 in qualifying, would we have made more individual errors.  General football to me says yes, but I of course, can't say for sure.  

Cheers

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

30 minutes ago, costarg said:

Suggesting putting our best crosser and one of our shortest guys at RCB, is not maximizing the 11 or balance.  Intl soccer is not at all like club football.  Tactics NEED to be watered down, especially for Canada who does not play often.  Inventing roles for guys that don't get to play together often is asking for trouble.  A formation that asks Johnston to cross while defending the back is setting up to fail.  Need to KISS the next year, adapt new guys to their real and ideal positions.

Of course Davies can play WB and cover the whole left side, but teaming him up with tricky Millar who can also put in honest work defensively and having them overlap will just terrorize the opponent.  Isolating Davies asks him to play more hero-ball which is what we need to avoid.  Davies speed at LB also helps out our CB's as we've seen him do a tonne with Bayern.

Any way we add it up.  Having a left side of Davies and Millar actually improves our defense compared to playing an extra, weaker CB.  Not one of our CB's is as good, effective or useful as having Millar in the 11.

Again, mate, we have done this and argued this and I respect your opinion but still think its wrong. 

However, some factual errors or your assumptions are not facts. 

- We aren't inventing anything with Johnston. he has done it a lot, remember.  And we had success to a degree.  If we have better options at his position we need to use them, of course, but don't pretend he hasn't done it and other nations and clubs don't use similar players.  I  am not actually saying start him, to be honest. 

- Davies hasn't played LB for Canada forever , so you can't actually say it improves our defense.  So saying "Any way we add it up" is again silly.

 

 

 

Edited March 22 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Macktruck]

Let me just say it because i may be alone here but is Tajon match fit? is he sharp and game ready. Yes, he has been training every day at Inter with crazy good players but he's played a total of 37 mins of competitive soccer since arriving in January. I know he's one of our top players. Just playing devil's advocate. Does anyone not have him in their 1st 11?