I do not think any of us expected the Revolution to get a result against LAFC. It was not surprising then, when New England lost 2-0 to the Black and Gold.
Isn’t that sad? To go into a home game with no hope. To expect to lose and then lose in an uninspiring fashion.
New England played decently for the first 20 minutes of the game. The Revs were solid in defense and managed to stifle the dangerous attacking players of LAFC.
Los Angeles then started to dominate and New England suffered long spells without possession. While the Revs were able to maintain their defensive shape and not concede, you could tell by halftime that the players were tired.
The team did what Head Coach Caleb Porter wanted them to do. They dug in defensively, limited LAFC’s chances, and kept the game close.
I think you can make a strong argument that chasing the game in the first half led to New England’s inability to match LAFC’s intensity in the second half. Another terrible turnover in their defensive third led to the first goal for Los Angeles. LAFC turned up the pressure and the Revs could not deal with it.
As the match wore on, the only offensive substitute Porter brought into the game was designated player Tomás Chancalay. Why did Chancalay start one of the most important games of the year on the bench?
Because Porter preferred the defensive work rate of Ignatius Ganago to the skillset Chanca brings to the team. It only makes sense if your goal is not to win but to draw. Ganago and Luca Langoni are the best wingers to pick if your primary focus is the defensive phase of the game.
Whatever the reason, it is a failure of roster construction and tactics that all three designated players were not on the field to start the game.
Was there anyone else the Revs could have subbed on to bolster the attack? Say, the team’s fifth leading goal scorer, Maxi Urruti? No, because Maxi Urruti and Luis Diaz were released by the team in favor of younger players and potential signings, according to Porter.
Unfortunately, no younger player was subbed in and no attacking player was signed before the game. Maybe the Revs should have waited another week before waiving Urruti and Diaz?
Without attacking subs to bring in, Porter changed the formation. The Revs started in the 4-2-3-1 and switched to a 3-5-2 with Tanner Beason coming into the game as the third center back.
The move did not work. The Revolution could not score and they conceded a late goal to lose the game 2-0.
New England lost at home for the eighth time this year. That is a staggering 62 percent of their home games. At this point we can all kiss the playoffs goodbye.
The game against LAFC highlighted Porter’s tendency to play conservatively. Not just against the best teams in MLS, but every team. How many times have you watched a game and thrown up your hands at the lack of attacking play?
Porter seems to believe that if you play conservatively and keep games close, you have a better chance of winning. The problem is that the Revolution cannot win those kinds of games.
Playing that style requires extraordinary defensive work from the players. They must press the opposing team and focus their efforts on not conceding a goal. That takes a lot of energy, especially over a long season. The defenders and midfielders must feel pressure not to make a mistake because they know their attacking players won’t have many opportunities to score.
It also puts pressure on the attacking players because they don’t get many good looks at goal. So they force things and go for too much.
This playing style is not a formula for success. The margins are so thin that winning becomes effectively impossible. Porter wants to neutralize the other team so badly that he neutralizes his own team.
Look at the list of teams the Revs have beaten this year. They can only win against terrible teams.
I would argue the primary reason for those wins is not Caleb Porter but the literal best player in club history. Without Carles Gil, how many wins do you think the Revs have this season?
If Porter’s goal is to keep the game close and reduce the other team’s opportunities, wouldn’t it make sense to be more proactive? Wouldn’t it be better for the Revs to have more effective possession and generate better shots on goal? Wouldn’t that cause the other team to work defensively, making them more tired and less dangerous?
What do you think? How could the Revs get better results with the roster they have? What would you do if you were coaching the team?
What would I do if I were coach? I'd expect to be fired!
Another great analysis. Can't argue with anything you say. I want to scream every time Porter says "We've been in every game"! He's playing for 1-0 wins or 0-0 ties and it's not effective or entertaining. It's really hard to justify keeping my season tickets if Porter remains at the Helm.