The way that Mikael Stahre wants San Jose to play has become clear to me. He prefers a rapid, counter-attacking style of play, allowing the opposition to have most of the ball. Although I am not necessarily opposed to this line of thinking, I believe that the Quakes need to moderate it to some degree. Possessing the ball, and thus controlling the match, provides clear advantages. Although it is fine to utilize counter attacks at times, we must not entirely sacrifice possession and control. In all four of Quakes’ matches thus far, our opponents have thoroughly out possessed us. Even in the, for the most part, comprehensive performance against Minnesota we possessed the ball for only forty-three percent of the match. This must change if we want to have a successful season.

Although possession is not always an indicator of which team will win, out-possessing your opponent provides advantages. Dominating possession will generally give a team more opportunities to create chances, and limit the opponent’s opportunities. When one team has the ball, the likelihood of their opponent scoring decreases. This is not a general rule, but will often hold true. In addition, possessing the ball will tire the opposition, as they will have to constantly shift around and press at times, in an attempt to win the ball back. Ample possession will also reduce the pressure subjected on the back line, effectively giving them a rest.

This is where I see the failings of Quakes to lie. When we don’t possess the ball, we fail to control and manage the match. Take the Minnesota match as an example of this: if, after going three goals up, we hadn’t have sat back and given the ball to the Loons, we likely would have seen the match out in a more comfortable manner. If we had possessed the ball and controlled the match, they would not have had opportunities that they did have. We would have tired our opponents by forcing them to constantly press us, in an attempt to get back into the match. Instead, we ceded them almost all of the ball in the closing stages, resulting in a very nervy ending. Game management, particularly when leading, is highly important. Possessing the ball would allow us to do so.

There are a few means to address this problem. Firstly, I would like to see Quakes switch to playing three center midfielders, instead of the current two. Too many times we simply get outnumbered in the center of the pitch, resulting in our midfielders dropping deep and giving possession to the opposition. Individual failings have also played a key role in shaping this issue. Quakes have shown rampant poor passing and decision making. Magnus Eriksson, while creating key chances, often fails to make easier passes, instead opting for rarely successful long balls. Yeferson Quintana has looked suspect in his passing ability, often resorting to playing the ball long as well, and surrendering possession. Andrew Tarbell, while having been an adequate shot-stopper, has displayed poor distribution.

However, the biggest factor, in my opinion, has been the mentality and style instilled in the team by Stahre. In soccer, the manager generally plays the biggest role in dictating how a team plays. In this case, it seems very likely that Stahre is instructing his players to neglect controlling the match and making easier passes, in favor of playing direct balls to the attackers. Thus, our players often seem as though they are forcing the ball through, when better options are available. Once again, I am not in favor of entirely abandoning the counter-attack. I would just like to see Stahre be less radical in his approach, by instructing his players on the importance of possession. We need to vary our game and not be so one dimensional. The upcoming match against Houston provides the perfect opportunity to adjust our style. Playing at home and against a somewhat average team, we should look to dominate possession and control the match. While certain players need to step up, Stahre, more importantly, needs to modify his mentality.