The Seattle Sounders defeated the Philadelphia Union 2-1 Saturday night at Century Link field. The big decision on the day was Roland Alberg receiving a second yellow card and his marching orders in the 53rd minute. Lets take a look at the Union’s tactics and how things developed and fell apart for Curtin’s side.

Crossing:

Coach Jim Curtin has made it known that he plans on getting the ball into wide areas, having men in the box and putting the ball into dangerous areas. This strategy is a basic one, as well as one that can be easily combated if not approached in the right manner. With C.J. Sapong playing as the center forward, the Union understandably are looking to play to his strengths. Alongside Sapong, Pontius and Le Toux are two wingers who have good height and can be provided as targets in the air. Usually Le Toux played a bit wider, and Pontius shaded to the inside. With Pontius cutting in, space opened on the left for Fabinho, who wasted no time getting in advanced positions. Le Toux, Fabinho, Rosenberry and even midfielders like Alberg and Noguiera repeatedly put the ball in the box for Sapong and Pontius. The Union got their only goal on the night from a play like this. A lofted Fabinho cross was headed down by Sapong and finished smartly by a mid-calf-cramp Le Toux.

So why did the Union fail to create more chances like this? A lot came down to a lack of numbers in the box, and a near post runner. When the Union look the most dangerous, there are 3 or 4 attackers in the box ready to attack a cross. At the times when the Union are controlling the ball but failing to create opportunities, there is only Sapong, and maybe Pontius lurking in the danger areas.

Coming from the right, Le Toux and Rosenberry are two right footed players who excel at whipping in low, ground-level crosses. These are usually the most dangerous types of crosses as they act more like a pass in front of the net than a hopeful center. Regardless, for a low cross to work, the cross has to be either behind the defense, sharp enough to split the defenders and find a forward, or have a near post runner creating space. The Union often failed at each of these, and thus failed to create clear cut opportunities.

Early crosses are extremely difficult for defenders to deal with, as it force them to make a clearance while facing their own goal, which often results in a corner, missed clearance, or own goal. Either way it puts pressure on the defenders, pressure that can cause mistakes. For an early cross to work, the defenders should be above the penalty spot, so that the cross can be put in the space behind. Usually the winger would have to cross the ball near or well above the penalty area, so that the defenders don’t have the time to drop back before the cross is made. Le Toux and Rosenberry instead carred the ball to the end-line, and allow the defenders to drop in toward the goal, and square up so that they can clear the ball out of their box.

Carrying the ball toward the end-line is not always a bad thing, however. Many times it allows the winger time to pick his head up and pick out a player to cross to. Le Toux and Rosenberry were unable to make crosses that picked out the feet of Sapong in the crowed Seattle box. The reason for this is there was not a runner who was willing to make a hard near post run, and get past the goalkeeper; which is necessary even in the case of an early cross.

If Pontius, Sapong, or Le Toux were aggressive enough, they would have made that hard run that would have pulled a defender out of position, while also effectively take the goalkeeper out of the play. This run causes the goalkeeper to wait and see if the forward is going to get a touch on the ball. Now a cross that may have found a back post runner, or been flicked on by the near post runner is gathered by the goalkeeper or cleared by the near post man who doesn’t have to worry about a forward getting a touch.

Even on the left side, when Fabinho had the ball near the touchline, there was a lack of a near post runner. This allows defenders to pick out the sole threat in the area more easily (Sapong at the back post) and cut out the cross. Sapong is always going to be a handful to deal with, even for the largest defenders. However, if all they have to do is challenge Sapong for 50/50 headers, they will be happy enough. It will be nearly impossible for Sapong to win the 50/50 and head the ball down with pace and accuracy past a well positioned goalkeeper. Sapong and others should, in these situations make more of an effort to either head the ball across the goal, or head the ball down, like in the situation where the Union got the goal. In too many situations the forward in question went straight for goal and failed to be any threat.

If we look at the first half stats, the Union dominated 57% of possession, yet looked the less dangerous of the teams. Seattle hit on the break and threatened Blake’s goal on several occasion. The Union had glancing headers and promising attacks, but nothing that looked like it would break down the staunch Seattle defense.

If we look at past Union goals that came from crosses, most have either a near post runner dragging the first defender and creating space for Sapong (The first goal in the Revolution game), a headed pass (goal at Seattle), a well picked out cross (second goal against the Revs), or a cross behind the defense that is neigh impossible to clear (first goal against Orlando). The Union should work to make sure they are crossing with a purpose. Either play the ball behind, plan for a header and second ball, get a runner past the near post (should really happen every cross), or get far enough into the other teams penalty box that they can pick out a pass.

As it stood in Seattle, the Union seemed content to just put the ball in dangerous areas. The lack of second balls and near post runners stifled the Union until the 73′ when Sapong and Le Toux linked up. While at home the Union seem to understand crossing tactics much better than on the road, we can only hope that on Saturday they can correct the mistakes from the previous weekend.

Discipline:

Two road games, two red cards. The Union will have to be more conscious of their tackles while on the road. Coach Curtin has told his team that if they leave their feet, they give the ref a decision, and it may be one they don’t like. While the decision on Saturday to give the red may have been questionable, there is no doubt that it could have been prevented through patience. In the end this probably is what really cost the Union the game, as coming back from 1-0 with 10 men will always be a difficult climb.

Defending on the transition:

The Union could have done better defending on the break. At times they cause their own problems by pressing high up the pitch in poor situations. When Seattle broke the press, the Union failed to identify their marks in the midfield and allowed the Sounders players to run at the back-line, which can cause even the best defenses problems. Creavalle has been terrific this year, his constant running and pressing has energized the Union midfield. His positioning leaves something to be desired however. On several occasions he would drift wide, or forward in an attempt to press the ball. Unfortunately Nogueira is also not the best at defensive positioning, and on multiple occasions the Sounders were able to easily penetrate the midfield and allow their forwards to drive at an exposed backline.

The Union is sorely missing US international Maurice Edu, as he is the type of player that shields the back-line, the type of player that the Union needs. Philadelphia has been possessing the ball well, but even the best possession based teams will get countered often. Creavalle has been the man to break up the counter, and he did have several occasions where he made fantastic challenges to win the ball back, but the consistency was lacking, and Seattle found all sorts of space while attacking. This was most notable after the red card.

Down a man the Union scampered to win the ball back, and by doing so lost some composure, and opened space for Seattle. Creavalle and Nogueira needed to be more patient, as they ran to press different players while Seattle played around them.

If the Union are going to press high up the field, they should make sure they have covered the gaps, a simple lobed ball over the pressing midfielders caused easy counters for Seattle. The defenders should read the press and step upfield to close any holes that may arise when the press is on.

Conclusion:

The Union first half was promising, but I was disappointed in how they performed their tactics. A little more movement and forethought in the box could have given the Union a lead early on, and something to defend when they went down a man. Once it was 11 vs. 10 the game was going to be incredibly difficult. The second goal made things worse, but it was good to see a bit of resilience when Le Toux nabbed a goal. For the Union to make a push this year they will have to improve on the road, where they have a record of 1-3-0 while obtaining 2 red cards.