Doug Starnes returns this week with Talking Tactics. Why did that draw feel like a loss and what needs to improve? Give Doug a follow in Twitter at @GrassInTheSky1 to continue the discussion. Or, if 140 characters isn’t your thing, have at the comments section. Don’t be shy!

Although Indy Eleven remain undefeated after Saturday evening’s draw at home to FC Edmonton and although FC Edmonton capped a ludicrously long road trip with a point against the league’s sole remaining undefeated side, the draw had to feel like a loss to both teams.

In my match preview I suggested that this game would go a long way toward validating Indy as either a good team or revealing them as merely a team with a couple of positive results early in a very, very long season. So, which is it? I hate to be non-committal, but…both?

First and foremost, a draw is better than a loss. I know that’s the most Alexi Lalasesque thing to say, but if you draw or win all of your games, you’re going to wind up in a pretty good position at the end of the season. Like, champions good. So you can’t really be too upset with a point early in the NASL slog.

Plugs and Holes, Plugs and Holes

That said, as I wrote in the preview to Saturday’s match, the biggest hurdle facing this team right now is who to play where in order to achieve the best results. The switch from a 4-2-3-1 to a 4-4-2 has improved the team’s dynamism going forward, but it hasn’t been a panacea and there are other issues creeping into the team that now need to be addressed.

Let’s take just one example of a new issue created by the switch away from the 4-2-3-1. In that now seemingly scrapped system, Siniša Ubiparipović played a true number 10 role sitting in behind a lone forward with a double screen protecting him from getting exposed defensively. He was free to create and find pockets of space and do all of the technical, creative awesomeness he’s capable of doing in and around an opponent’s penalty area. The problem was Indy never got in and around the opponent’s penalty area in that system.

In the current 4-4-2, there’s no room for a dedicated number 10. However, Ubiparipović most certainly possesses the kind of skill set Tim Hankinson wants on the field. His solution is to hope he can get some of that technical and creative awesomeness by deploying the number 10 shaped midfielder into a number 7 or 11 shaped hole. So far, the results have been far from convincing.

Consider Ubiparipović’s average starting position against FC Edmonton Saturday. He was playing as a left midfielder. Now, there are often very good reasons to have right and left midfielders pinch in. Maybe your outside backs love to get into the attack and by pinching in you’re creating space. Maybe you’re playing with inverted wingers and you want them coming inside to find the ball in attack. Maybe you’re playing with a midfield diamond and they need to be there to help protect a lone pivot player. Maybe the opposition is doing something in possession that necessitates a very narrow midfield.

However, I don’t think any of these exceptions is really the case with the Eleven right now. It’s more a matter, as I wrote in the preview, that there are suddenly lots of players vying for essentially four spots on the field and some of those players are guys like Ubiparipović who were brought in to do a specific job in a specific system. For this reason, I wouldn’t be surprised if that midfield bank of four morphed into a diamond – with Ubiparipović on top – in the very near future. As with all adjustments though, more issues would arise. In that scenario either Nicki Paterson or Brad Ring gets the ax.

Whatever is done in the future, Indy’s newfound ability to get forward has not benefited Ubiparipović. He only had 31 touches in 74 minutes played Saturday and only logged one key pass. The irony of all of this is that Indy needs his skill set now more than ever. He’s just not in a position to provide it.

We Got Here, Now What?

Thierry Henry recalls Pep Guardiola saying of the final third while the two were at Barcelona at the same time, “My job is to get you there, your job is to score once you’re there.” Indy has certainly seen more of the ball in the final third in the last few matches, but the ability to turn those chances into goals has thus far proved elusive. Saturday night in particular was tough to watch as numerous gilt-edged chances were spurned with poor decisions on the ball or poor execution. Justin Braun in particular had a rough night and probably should have had two goals, or at least an assist and a goal.

The statistics at left tell some of the story. Plenty of shooting opportunities were created and nine (italicized for Principle Rooney effect) came from inside the Edmonton penalty area, yet Indy ended the match with only one goal to show for all that close range shooting. The team also logged 18 crosses in open play, yet curiously only won three corners.

The real issue in all of this – and the reason I say it’s ironic that Ubiparipović has been ineffective but also desperately needed in the last couple of matches – is the lack of quality in the final third. Often times on Saturday evening, there needed to be one more pass to spring the open runner or open up space on the back side or create that pocket through combination play that would allow time for the finish and all too often Braun or Omar Gordon or Zayed opted for the solo or the predictable.

Consider the following two Opta chalkboard graphics:

Obviously, this somewhat mirrors what you’d expect to see in any match; more passes, successful and unsuccessful in the middle and defensive thirds than in the final third. This graphic becomes telling though when we look only at the attacking third.

There’s almost zero passing happening in central positions, and only one key pass made from inside the box. The entire area across the top of the box with very little of anything substantive going on is where Ubiparipović did the work that helped Ottawa Fury FC win a fall season championship. More telling than that though is the fact that Zayed and Braun only combined with one another twice and often each looked as if they were playing in a lone striker system.

Your Point?

Indy is still a work in progress. The previous two wins, as exciting as they were, probably didn’t warrant the level of partying with which they were celebrated. However, the side continues to evolve. Now that they’re consistently getting in to the final third and still not giving up many goals, the tweaks come with shape and personnel.

The key, and I said it in the preview to Saturday’s match, is to find the best two front combination and then let the midfield pieces fall in logically behind. After Saturday’s match, I think it’s safe to say Zayed and Braun is hardly a can’t miss combination. I’d be surprised if the two of them started the next match up top with one another. What’s important to keep in mind is that every adjustment and “problem” solved only creates another issue that did not previously exist. If Hankinson goes with a midfield diamond to bring Ubiparipović’s qualities to more dangerous positions, Ring or Paterson finds the bench. If a 3-5-2 looks attractive to keep all three of those players on the field centrally, then Greg Janicki likely makes way. He’s hardly put a foot wrong all season. If a 4-3-3 is employed to accomplish the same thing, who become your wide forwards and does it devolve back to an unsuccessful lone striker system? At some point, you have to stop making macro changes and find the best players to suit the system you’ve settled on.

The easiest fix right now is a different combination of front runners. Saturday’s match was disappointing precisely because Indy should have won it. A lack of composure in front of goal and in the final third left two or three goals off the scoreboard that should have been buried. A two front system in which your two forwards only find one anther twice over the course of 90 minutes is not going to produce many goals.

The foundation is there. Right now it’s just about finding the right plugs for the right holes.