Photo: Ron Soliman
The Union returned home after a brutal week on the road looking to get back to winning ways and maintain their position at the top of the Shield race. In the Player Ratings for the Vancouver match I wrote that “[a]nything short of a win on Tuesday and Saturday will have me questioning whether he [Head Coach Bradley Carnell] should return next year.” Well, they lost Tuesday, and after Miami’s and Vancouver’s results, they no longer control their own destiny for the Shield. But Carnell stemmed the bleeding. The Revs were looking to impress a new, interim head coach (at least until Jim Curtin lands up north?) and could very well have had a “dead cat bounce” as fellow PSP writer Ryan Sedwick wrote in his preview. But Carnell did enough with the lineup (with Olwethu Makhanya still suspended, and Jovan Lukić joining him) and the Boys in Blue did enough on the pitch to escape with a win.
Player Ratings
GK Andre Blake – 6
It was reassuring to have Blake back between the posts, though Andrew Rick could hardly be faulted for the prior two losses. Blake dealt with crosses and corners as needed and kept his box clear. Made one mistake when he lost his footing, either because of the sun or he just stumbled, and wound up on the ground, but the Revs shot wide into the side netting. Made up for the stumble with a big save (his one in the game) that kept the 1-nil scoreline intact.
LB Kai Wagner – 7
Kai Wagner returned at left back and created the most scoring chances in the game (4). Defensively a stalwart, as usual, he also had a decent night putting crosses into the box and getting the ball up field.
CB Jakob Glesnes – 6
Glesnes was able to stay in position and rewarded his goalkeeper, coach, and the rest of the back line with a solid performance.
CB Nate Harriel – 8
I wrote this last week: “I think Harriel has, in the past, filled in at center back and done so admirably. His 30+ minutes at CB after Makhanya’s red card in Cincinnati were terrific. But Harriel is not a CB. Harriel did not play well in Vancouver. He was beaten in the air on the first goal.” Harriel redeemed himself with the best defensive showing on the night from a Union player (actually, from either team). Won a huge tackle when he was the last man back, had thirteen clearances, an interception, and nine recoveries. Offensively, he had five passes into the final third. In total, created one scoring chance on the night and made ten defensive contributions that ended scoring chances for the Revs.
RB Frankie Westfield – 8
A very good night for Westfield before the Union lose him for the remainder of the season. Won all the tackles he challenged for; had seven clearances and three interceptions. More impressively, he got up field when needed without sacrificing defense. Finally, his pass to Milan Iloski was weighted perfectly, and led to the Union goal. Without Westfield playing Iloski into the box, that goal does not happen.
DM Jesus Bueno – 6
A better afternoon for Bueno than his previous outing. Granted, he was partnered with Danley Jean Jacques, and it was the Revolution, but Bueno had a good enough game.
DM Danley Jean Jacques – 6
A quieter game from Danley than we’ve come to expect. Not a poor game by any stretch of the imagination, but not a domineering performance either. Subbed off after 60 minutes for Iloski, who made an immediate impact.
AM Indiana Vassilev– 5
He hustled a lot. He also had a decent night passing, but all the hustle and passing led to only one shot and one chance being created. His one shot on goal was right at Matt Turner.
AM Quinn Sullivan – 7
Sullivan also hustles and presses well. Defensively he was a monster, winning every tackle, making five recoveries, and challenging for sixteen duels (winning half). He had four passes into the final third; unfortunately, his crosses were not accurate. That said, he dribbled and harassed the Revs, and nearly scored, only for Turner to tip his well-struck shot over the bar.
FWD Bruno Damiani – 7
Damiani had one of his better games, statistically, passing accurately and creating some chances. He also lost the most duels of any player. But most importantly for a striker, he scored when he needed to. Set up perfectly by Westfield and Iloski, he had to score and he did.
FWD Tai Baribo – 5
If Damiani hadn’t scored, Baribo was right there to hopefully tap it in. Shot high over the bar on the one good chance he had. But other than that, a quiet afternoon offensively. Baribo was his usual force, however, pressing the attack, which kept the Revs off balance. His actions led to Peyton Miller’s red card; unfortunately, Baribo also received a yellow and will miss the D.C. game.
Substitutes:
(60′) Milan Iloski – 7
Iloski created two scoring chances in the 30 minutes he was on the field, leading to the one goal. Also took the most shots of any Union player. He needs to be starting.
(77′) Mikael Uhre – 5
Uhre missed a wide-open goal that could have given the Union a cushion. He did bring a sense of urgency to the match and created two scoring chances in his short time on the pitch.
(82′) Chris Donovan – (n/a)
Listen, I get the need to run the clock down. But Donovan looks like a deer in headlights out there. Confused and scared and like he is trying to not make mistakes. Which just led to mistakes.
(83’) Jeremy Rafanello – (n/a)
Rafanello did not make any mistakes in his short time on the field. He ran out the clock the way you are supposed to run out the clock.
Geiger Counter
Lorenzo Hernandez – 7
Hernandez called a good match. Yellow cards were fair, and he did not hesitate to give Miller a red (and Baribo a deserved yellow).
Player of the Match – Milan Iloski
Why wasn’t Iloski starting? He made an instant impact when he entered the match. Perfectly set up Damiani for the winning (and only) goal.
What’s Next…
The Union travel down to the nation’s capital to face D.C. United at Audi Field on Saturday, September 27. (7:30 p.m. Apple TV).”
To say that the Union “don’t control their own destiny for the Shield” is really stretching a point. If they won all 3 of their remaining matches, then Miami would have to win all 6 of their remaining matches to pull ahead of us (which is not happening), or Vancouver would have to win all 5 of their remaining matches (which is also not happening).
–
In fact, if we earn 7 points from our last 2 matches, we’re very likely to win the Shield. Even 6 points might well be good enough (though the biggest problem in that scenario would likely be Cincy, which has 2 of their last 3 matches against crap teams).
Your point being? The Union do NOT control their own destiny. Does Miami (or Vancouver) have to win out? Yes. But if the Union win out and so do Miami and Vancouver, the Union do not win the Shield. That is the very definition of not controlling ones own destiny.
The mistake is really in relating the Nashville or New England game to controlling their own destiny. As soon as they lost to Vancouver they lost the control and won’t regain it until Miami and Vancouver drop points.
@Andy – forgive me if I wasn’t clear. I was not relating controlling their destiny to the Nashville game. I was referring to the fact that I said I had a question about Carnell returning if they lost both Nashville and New England. Well, they won New England, and although they still don’t control their destiny – they DON’T – I was backtracking off of my Carnell statement.
.
Simple fact remains – the Union do not control their own destiny. That is fact.
By that logic, you could say that some team has “lost control of their own destiny” after the first few weeks of the season. It only makes sense to talk about that once you have a reasonable number of games to win out. Vancouver is *highly* unlikely to win 5 straight matches. Miami is absolutely not winning 6 straight.
Scottso – by your very own quote, you admit the Union do not control their own destiny.
.
Scottso: “Vancouver is *highly* unlikely to win 5 straight matches. Miami is absolutely not winning 6 straight.”
.
But if they do, the Union do not win the Shield, right? So do the Union control their own destiny?
Got you, Chris. (I would forgive you if I thought you had actually done anything wrong…I was just taking a message different than what was intended, so it’s just as much on me.)
.
I’m still really frustrated with the Vancouver game since it was the first time in 16 seasons that I voluntarily shut off a Union game midway through…and I barely made it 30 minutes in. (I even stuck out the whole Pachuca game last year.)
The Union need 9 points from the 3 remaining matches to win the Shield. Anything less and they don’t win it. You read it here first. And even 9 points does not guarantee anything. Miami’s remaining schedule is *easy*.
I suspect we will have the opportunity to settle this argument, and I look forward to it.
@Scottso – just stop. It’s different with 3 games – or 6 – remaining. You know that. The simple fact is that the Union can win out and still not win the Shield. And that is known as “not controlling one’s own destiny.” You just sound foolish.
.
Miami is just as likely to win all 6 as the Union are to win 3.
.
By your logic, the Union still control their destiny. They DON’T. But the fact remains, Miami DOES.
@Scottsco – answer this very simple question with a Yes or No? Do the Union control their own destiny? Based simply on the math?
.
Thought so.
Anyone notice that in their weekend report mls.com did not even include the Union win, the supporter shield leading Union?! Too busy drooling over big money folks like Messi, Son, and the like I guess.
We’re from Philly, effing Philly, no one likes us, and we don’t care.
The coverage of the Union on MLS has been negligible at best. Even when we are mentioned, it’s a 30 second blurb and they are moving on. They don’t know how to talk about our team, since we don’t have a $10M player, or make 20 pass build-ups. The sad part is that we actually do some things tactically very well. Sure the midfield is a bloodbath most of the game, but some of the things we do with the ball are well strategized and are worth more air time.
I wish someone better at tactical analysis than me could explain these phenomena from the last two matches.
In the 70th minute — roughly — in Nashville, Uhre and Quinn Sullivan came on and the Union began to create and attack pressure that had not been there for the previous seventy minutes.
.
In the 60th minute — again, roughly — against New England, Uhre and Iloski came on and the Union began to create and attack pressure in a way that had not been there for the previous hour.
.
Is there some subtlety of attacking mid/striker adjustment that is throwing the other team out of its defensive comfort zone?
.
The only thought I have had is that Uhre is a much clearer threat to run into the green space behind the other side’s defensive line.
Simply – and in my opinion – both Quinn and Iloski offer more direct dribbling with the ball at their feet. In other words, they can beat their defender.
– – –
They are also both creative players in that they create chances through crossing or good passing (or just taking the shot on their own). This effect is probably magnified with fresh legs versus an already tired defense.
– – –
I think we’ve looked best this season with both of them starting but Carnell clearly still values Vassilev as one of the attacking mids.
I’ve thought the same thing, particularly with Iloski. The Union look much more threatening when he has the ball at his feet. Is it because the opponent has tired legs? Perhaps. But he just looks for dangerous than Vassilev. He should be starting.
I’ve long thought that Uhre is best coming off the bench when he’s using his speed against tired defenders.
It’s because Vassilev offers little threat going forward, while Quinn and Iloski are dangerous. Unclear whether Uhre is playing a role in this.
The Union do control their own destiny regarding qualifying for Champions Cup through their regular season record since even if Messi passes them, he’s already qualified.