Only some late concerted effort, which finally led to a couple of breakthroughs made the end score look a little more respectable for us. Chalk this one up as well to being another one of those bizarre games we’ve witnessed the Sounders play and end up losing, but it is certainly no less painful than the others. On the contrary, it might be just the opposite, give how we dominated large chunks of the play and, especially in the second half, piled on the pressure only to see ourselves sucker-punched with each extended episode of sustained pressure on DC United.

It by no means was a complimentary commentary about our defense, even if the first DC United goal, which went into the net after taking a nasty deflection and sent Keller diving the wrong way, was less about poor defending and just plain bad luck. Yet, you know what they say about bad luck – we often make it ourselves. And it could be argued that perhaps one or more of our boys could have closed down on them quicker before the shot was unleashed from just outside the penalty box.

The second and third DC United goals, well, do you really want me to get into it? Let’s just say they were classic examples of what can happen when the opponent is clearly poised to play the counter-attacking game on the road, and despite knowing this full well, we fall asleep on the rare occasion when they do actually get to counter-attack.

Remember what I said in my last article about needing to stay focused? Well, we simple did not do that in defending against the counter-attack by DC United.

Once being two nil down and desperately chasing the game in the second half, we simply made our uphill task of getting back into it seem radically unlikely even if not impossible as DC United set back and essentially parked the bus in front of goal. And when we were caught sleeping again in defense during what was perhaps their only foray down into our final third of the field and conceded on looping header by an unmarked player, the obvious storyline of the night became obviously blinding – even if we managed to pull back two late goals to make the score-line look respectable.

Mark Fields

However, I doubt if Sigi is taking this game any less seriously than say the Galaxy or Revolution game. We all realize that this is a real chance for the Sounders to build on the momentum from last week’s win and try to get a mini-streak going and hopefully cap this two-game home stand on a high note. However, DC United are also looking for their own mini-streak after coming off a tie with Real Salt Lake.

It’s nice that DC United did us a favor of sorts and took points off Real Salt Lake, but this should also serve as a reminder of what can happen on any given days – and just what DC United is capable of doing, especially if we don’t take the game hard to them and open it up with some scoring early on. While getting the crowd also going has never been an issue, this will certainly help make United’s task all the more insurmountable. Much like the game against the Revolution, early goals are going to be crucial for us as we’ll need to set the tone and hopefully make it clear that we intend to slam the door shut and there’s not going to be any question about the outcome.

Therefore, the players will have to come off the blocks with a sense of mission – showing focus and determination similar to what we saw last Saturday.

Playing Freddie Ljungberg on the flank has been a brilliant stroke on Sigi’s part. It has eased the opponent’s abilty to double team and mark him as was the case earlier in the season when Freddie’s runs from the middle of the pitch seemed to broken up before they could start. This inevitably ended up in broken plays, misplaced passes or loss of possession. With Ljungberg and Zakuani on the flanks, it’ll also help the attack be more effective at stretching DC’s defenders and give us more width.

DC United have yet to earn any points on the road. Let’s keep it that way.

Mark Fields

Actually, Gonzales played a near perfect game. Mind you, this compliment is coming from someone who has not been a big fan of Gonzales. One could easily invoke all the usual clichés to describe his performance and had it not been for one late tackle that got him booked, he played as if he was in a zone. All his passes was spot on, his seemed to anticipate the ball and read New England’s passes perfectly, he seamlessly covered the left flank, and made his runs into the opponent’s half look graceful and well-timed, not to mention menacing.

Now this is not to distract from the fact that all our boys out there looked focused, determined, and keen on taking the game to New England. I couldn’t help but find myself even impressed by Montaro as he chased down balls and on several occasions surprised us with his willingness to trot back and actually help with some defending.

Though Gonzales had a memorable game, practically everyone out there on the pitch played with passion and they looked like they’ve never looked in a long while – that is, playing as a team. When you have a game such as this where everyone took his respective performance to the next level, it does indeed feel good.

Maybe it might be too much to ask for everyone to be hitting their stride and to be in harmony with each other as they were Saturday evening. But just seeing the sheer desire and focus in their eyes, coupled with confidence in their execution on both ends of the pitch was a treat.

Dare I say it brought flashbacks to some of the euphoria from last season.

Mark Fields

I have to admit, as I walked to my car after the game, I had some definitive concerns about how our boys played in this 1-0 loss at home. Then I turned on the radio and heard the post-game show, which really bothered me. I was rather amazed and puzzled, really, by the comments of the post-game commentators and analysts. Simply put, they seemed to be covering up the cracks in the Sounders’ performance. They seemed to be practically falling over each other in making excuses for the kind of game we had. It struck me as odd that they went on and on about this being one of those games where we played well but just couldn’t find the back of the net. Most surprisingly, they seemed unable to find any weaknesses in certain individual performances and especially in tactical execution.

Then, Sigi comes on the radio with his post-game press conference. Oh boy, was that a refreshing change of substance – not to mention tone – in the post-game analysis. Sigi just said it like he saw it. And for my money, he saw it pretty clearly. He questioned the players’ concentration on the field, he questioned some choices that certain players made on the field, and he made it abundantly clear that what we saw needed fixing. In other words, it was a far cry from what Matt Johnson and his mates had been going on about in the minutes before. Frankly, the two segments of the show couldn’t have been more different.

Hearing Sigi’s post-game press conference at least assured me that I wasn’t losing it because I just did not share any of the sentiments I was hearing on the radio before Sigi came on. Frankly, I felt as if the hosts of the program, much like a lot of the refereeing we see in this league, left much to be desired.

I’m grateful to Sigi for being candid with us. Without quite referring to him by name Sigi called-out Ljungberg for his incessant quibbling with the referee. In this day of excessive coddling of superstars, Sigi, in no uncertain terms, was frustrated with this leader on the pitch for creating more of a distraction than was necessary. Not to dwell on this, but I clearly see where Sigi was coming from on this. While it’s fine to let the referee have a piece of your mind, Ljungberg often gets too wrapped up in his tiff with officials and becomes distracted. Sigi is correct that Ljungberg might be much more valuable and effective if he’d cut back on his on-field complaining.

While Matt Johnson and friends seemed oblivious, Sigi, on the contrary, was also firm and blunt about the lapses in concentration during the game, and not just when San Jose scored early in first half. Kudos to Sigi for making that point. While Sigi cited situations in the game when players could have been more attentive to their teammates, I was also especially struck by the lack of concentration – especially in much of the first half – that showed up in various ways, but especially so in many of the sloppy passes in the midfield area, which often transpired in botched build-ups to the attack. No doubt we piled on the pressure and seemed to pick up the pace a lot more in the second half – but then we had to; we were badly chasing the game by that point. Sigi’s point, including his observation that we need to start the game with a lot more urgency, which we again did not do today, and stay focused is right on the money.

What a refreshing post-game analysis indeed from the coach.

Mark Fields

So one of the big questions that remains to be answered as we look forward to another early start at Xbox Pitch is what will Sigi opt to do? Will he stick with the formation and line-up that started against New York or will he shake things up? Surely, injuries nothwithstanding, a compelling argument can be made for sticking with the game plan that worked and to build on that sense of confidence. I for one liked the attacking-minded line up from the last game and the emphasis on ‘taking the game to the opponents.’

Sigi wanted to come out and have the players make a statement early on in that game, which they did. In fact, though it took a good while for the goal to come, they responded brilliantly from the first whistle. I’d settle for the same at home against San Jose as well.

While the back four were solid and in sync with each other, what stood out the most for me was the energy and determination in midfield. The lads made sure they dominated the space – on and off the ball – and were not hesitant to push deep into opponent’s box. I’d like to see us play that way more often. I was disappointed to see on a couple of occasions this season – including in the game against the Galaxy – where we seemed more interested in holding the ball and knocking it around in midfield, which of course we weren’t very effective at anyway, rather than raising the tempo and taking it to the opponent.

For this, I’d like to see the starting line-up we had against the Red Bulls. Of course if Alonso is fit, I can see throwing him back in the mix, but other than that, let’s not mess with what looked very good. Of course by this I’m also implying in no ambiguous terms that, all things being equal, Sigi keep Montero on the bench until the second half. I know this will sound rather controversial for many but I think we tend to dominate the midfield better, have more pace in our game, and put more pressure on opponents early on in games when Montero is not in the starting line up.

Montero is a force to reckon with – and he may well be the X-factor in the game against San Jose. I just think the chances of him shaking up the Quake are much better if he comes on in the second half.

Mark Fields

While Montero’s well-taken goal was the difference that bagged the points for a team that just a week ago looked all out of sorts, this win was all about playing with the right attitude and effort. It was about players on the pitch being focused, hungry and determined – something we lacked in a couple of our previous games.

For starters, the players who kicked-off the game showed real desire: they were quick to close down spaces each time the Red Bulls tried to build anything. There was good concentration and movement off the ball by the Sounders when we had possession. They boys looked lively and – like a team ought to do – worked for each other.

While we could go on singling out each player for individual praise, it was evident that they all deserve a pat on the back. Yes, the changes to the starting line up, both the tactical once and the once due to injuries, worked to keep New York off balanced. In all, the changes to the line-up added more pace and speed to complement Zakuani. Both Nyassi and Evans were especially outstanding and gave the Sounders more ammunition and creativity upfront – something we’re been desperately lacking in earlier games.

For my money, I’d like to see Sigi rotate the front line more often so that Montero does not become a permanent fixture in the starting line-up. This game against the Red Bulls showed that on our day, we can play good football – even on the road and without Montero for most of the game. Indeed, as this game revealed, Montero might well be more effective to the team in the long-run by coming on as a substitute deep into the second half and doing his thing in the box after the work horses such as Nyassi, Zakuani, Evans, and others have had the bulk of the game to drain the opponent’s defenders.

Much like a super-sub, Montero can come on like he did in New York and live up to his reputation of being the goal poacher that he is.

Mark Fields

But that may be the only thing the Sounders and the Red Bulls have in common in this early stage of the season. As it stands, one team sits at the bottom of its division while the other sits on top of the other table. Equally notable is the fact that the Sounders remain winless on the road in its two previous outings, while New York are standing tall with a perfect record at the Red Bull Arena.

I have a strange feeling the fans in New York will be out in force for this game. After all, despite the fact that we’re sitting on the bottom of our division, we’re Seattle. Our general rivalry with the other coast, and especially New York, has been well documented, so I expect there’ll be a fairly robust, if not capacity crowd there to help preserve their perfect home record and extract revenge for their April 8 loss to Seattle at Xbox Field.

As for us, the implications are rather clear. This road game not only comes at the heels of a poor home performance, but is our first road game since the lackluster trips to Dallas and Toronto. Privately, Sigi Schmid would probably not be too disappointed to get out of New York with a single point. That is, as long as they don’t end up “doing a Dallas” by conceding a late goal and grabbing a draw from the jaws of victory. Needless to say a loss would be a very ominous sign indeed of a potential mini-crisis of confidence in the team. While it won’t be altogether fatal, a loss would really put us into a mini rut, which could of course, become hard to correct and steadily morph into a major one. That’s precisely why a draw plus a respectable performance on the field would not be so bad; it would put the brakes on this mini-string of poor outings.

It goes without saying, of course, that a win in New York would do wonders for us.

Mark Fields

Getting beat 4-0 by L.A. was the biggest disappointment of the Sounders’ season thus far. But I sense there is something more disturbing than this defeat. As I left the stadium after the L.A. game, I was all the more convinced that the Sounders had another one of those games where the visiting team not only knew exactly what they had to do, but went about it methodically – much the same way that other teams that have come to Seattle to play have attempted to do. What’s more troubling is the fact that we don’t seem to have the weapons in our arsenal to be able to respond.

There is little doubt in my mind that unless we inject more pace and tempo to our game, we’re going to have a rather mediocre season. It seems clear that whenever we’re up against a team that is on paper faster and physically stronger than us, we come out trying to play a very blatantly scripted, slow tempo game. This almost inevitably means trying to establish possession by knocking the ball around with relatively short passes, while looking for the opportune through ball to get behind the opponent’s defense.

Unfortunately, visiting teams have seen this one-dimensional nature of our strategy since our first home game. If you follow the play on the field closely enough, you’ll find that the visiting team, even if they’re not blessed with much more pace and speed in their starting eleven than we are, basically push their back line high up the field to compress the pitch. This invariably, does two things. First, it allows the visitors to tighten the spaces in the middle-third of the field, thus frustrating the short-passing, low tempo, ball-possession game we try to get off to. While we manage, for brief moments, to hold the ball and sometimes even string a few pretty passes in the middle of the field, it nevertheless is only a matter of time that we end up losing possession in the tight spaces.

Second, it necessarily frustrates our attacking midfielders and forwards – Brad Evans, Zakuani, and especially Ljungberg, who finds himself repeatedly hacked and harassed, thus basically neutralizing the build-up to our attack. Parenthetically, it doesn’t help that referees in this league don’t seem to see the need to protect players like Ljungberg, who repeatedly finds himself the target of persistent hacking from behind by defenders. Close man-marking of Ljungberg is one thing, but allowing defenders to take him down is another. Anyway, to compound our problem, when we’re up against fast attacking teams, we thus become vulnerable to the fast breaks – as was the case against L.A.

Yes, there are those special occasions, when we do unlock this “press” and manage to the get the ball out wide and find that special cross or through-ball that get us beyond the visiting team’s backs, and maybe threaten the opponents goals. But more often than not, we struggle to do so. Last season, most teams – especially those with faster fullbacks and attacking midfielders did not necessarily opt to press so hard and compress the field as regularly here at the Xbox Pitch. This season, that’s changed, and we don’t seem to have a workable response.

It’s often said you play with the hand you’re dealt. In the Sounders’ case we’ve been dealt with slow fullbacks. Hence, no surprise that they rarely charge up the flanks and overlap with any speed; probably worried about not being able to retreat quick enough if we find ourselves in a counter-attack. It might be sacrilegious to say this of some of our beloved players but Riley and Gonzales lack pace, so they end up having to play very cautiously and conservatively. Hence, we cannot spread the field as wide as might be otherwise desired, and we especially cannot match up against those teams that know how to play the fast-break.

Finally, it doesn’t take a genius to see that under the above circumstances, our highly relied upon goal-scorer, Montero, becomes desperately neutralized. What transpires under the aforementioned circumstances, consequently takes Montero out of his element. Montero is most dangerous in the penalty box and when he gets service. How often has that happened this season and when was the last time that Montero scored from inside the box from open play? Montero is a natural poacher, and he needs those playing around him – in the hole or in the flanks – to service him in the box.

But as it stands, when defenses push high up the field and neutralize us in the midfield, Montero too is forced to backtrack towards midfield. And when he does touch the ball, he’s not got the pace, nor does he have the power to hold-up the ball and get the others around him flowing into the flow of any potential build-up in the attack. The result is we turn the ball over and start to chase it again. So while playing a 4-3-3 formation and even having the interchange in position going on between Montero, Zakuani and Ljungberg during the game is encouraging, this does not solve our fundamental dilemma.

Under these circumstances, Montero becomes obsolete and a luxury on the field that we can’t afford. It wasn’t surprising that, Zakuani’s pace and ability to attack defenders notwithstanding, the only time we actually had any spark upfront and looked able to run at L.A.’s defenders was when the new kid Montano came on for his Colombian counterpart deep into the second half.

So given that we’ve been dealt the cards we have, what’s the solution, you ask? Well, that’s what Sigi gets paid the big bucks for.

Mark Fields