Icarus or Unfortunate?: Matchweek 11 (Houston @ Dallas/Frisco) Analysis

 Before we Begin…

           Let’s talk about “the incident” that changed the match. In the 5^th minute, Dynamo Right Back Griffin Dorsey takes down Left Wing Back Marco Farfan on a counterattacking opportunity. Farfan was in behind the Dynamo back line while Dorsey tracked back to provide defensive coverage. Here is where it gets (potentially) controversial. Dorsey and Farfan’s legs get tangled as Dorsey tries to catch up to provide the defensive coverage. This is where the (potential) controversy comes into play. Was this accidental or intentional? To me, it looked like incidental contact. That said, it is impossible to deny my purple (we will talk about this later) colored glasses impacting my vision. To others, it was a clear foul, including Coach Ben Olsen. If it was accidental, then play on; if it was intentional, then it is a clear DOGSO incident. We can argue intent or not for the rest of the week. Ultimately, the one who had the ultimate say was head referee Lukasz Szpala and Szpala determined it to be DOGSO, putting the Dynamo down a man early, changing the gameplan for both teams. Now that we have addressed the red card, let’s get to…

The Breakdown…

…Coming off the heartbreaking, EAFC like loss to Austin FC, the Dynamo traveled to Frisco to take of FC Dallas (Let’s be real, they are definitely FC Frisco). Frisco has struggled all season, entering the match in 13^th place in the Western Conference standings, sitting on 5 points. Struggling may be an understatement when describing Frisco’s season. Entering the match, Frisco’s goal differential at -5, only scoring 7 goals all season and coming off a 2 – 1 loss to the Rapids where Frisco provided the two goals for the Rapids. The Dynamo, on the other hand, entering the match in 6^th place in the Western Conference standings, sitting on 13 points and having one of their best starts in Dynamo history. On paper, this is the perfect match for the Dynamo to bounce back after the tough loss and easily earn 3 points on the road. This was the expectation from everyone, players, coaches, media, and fans. Unfortunately, that is the perfect recipe for a trap game, and, in a rivalry match, stats, points, standings, goal differential, and everything else that’s on paper is thrown out of the window.

Early in the match, both teams executed their gameplan exactly as planned. Frisco defended in a low block, allowing the Dynamo to maintain possession, and challenging the Dynamo to break down the defense. That is the Dynamo mentality under Olsen, and they were more than happy to oblige, challenging Frisco to maintain their defensive shape and believing in themselves to defend the Frisco counterattacking gameplan. The script went exactly as planned. The Dynamo, in accordance with the narrative of the season, started slow and struggled to break down Frisco’s low block. Frisco took their limited opportunities to counter and the Dynamo successfully thwarted Frisco’s attempt. Until “the incident” occurred.

With the Dynamo down a man, both teams threw the gameplans out of the window. Frisco went on the attack, while the Dynamo were forced to cover more space to defend the offensive onslaught Frisco initiated, having to settle for the point. While Frisco understood the assignment, the Dynamo refused to conform to the new script in play (which, in my opinion, is the attitude and mentality Olsen has instilled in this squad that I, for one, am love about Olsen’s version of the Dynamo. The “never give up and never settle” mentality that, for better or worse, Olsen is praised for or blamed for depending on the result. More on this later). 

With the new gameplan in place (for Frisco), the Dynamo adapted but stayed true to their identity; possess, look for the next pass, work forward, create a clear scoring opportunity, and press/counterpress when defending. While Frisco had more chances, and the Dynamo struggled to create their own, Frisco (and many others) appeared shocked by the Dynamo’s refusal (or maybe inability – discussion to come) to defend in a low block for the remaining 85+ minutes remaining in the match. The Dynamo did well to fight, play their style, and keep Frisco off the board entering the half. While Olsen did change the personnel in the 19^th minute by subbing off Latif Blessing for Daniel Steres, the Dynamo impressed me (and the announcers) about keeping Frisco’s attack at bay. This may be me giving too much credit to the Dynamo rather than acknowledging Frisco’s season long struggle to find the back of the net; however, entering the half, the Dynamo appeared to have a chance of earning a point with the possibility of pulling a “Broccoli” FC moment and capitalize on one of their limited chances to steal all 3. 

Entering the second half, Frisco made offensive substitutions, and the Dynamo bring on Brad Smith for Amine Bassi. The rest of the match went according to the script Frisco wrote that the Dynamo refused to conform too. The Dynamo hold off until the 55^th minute when Frisco opens the scoring, with Petar Musa scoring what would be the match winner. After some tactical changes by both teams, and very limited chances by the Dynamo, Frisco puts the match away in the 80^th minute by scoring a second off a header from Sebastien Ibeagha who was assisted by Sam Junqua (adding insult to injury). The Dynamo walked away with another loss from a rival, dropping points from another match they expected to win. With the analysis over, and the disappointment and frustration slowly starting to fade, I want to discuss two things creating much discussion (and internet arguments) in the Dynamo social media communities…

Questioning Olsen’s Tactical Decisions

            Again, I want to start this section by reminding everyone that the only soccer experience I have in terms of playing is playing in beginning leveled social soccer leagues and the only “coaching” experience I have is when I tinker with lineups, formations, and instructions on EAFC. Just like before, please keep that in mind (and feel free to roast me for my opinions and lack of knowledge). I do not mind the Dynamo starting lineup given the injury circumstances plaguing the team. I must still acknowledge Olsen’s accomplishments with the squad available to him. Despite currently being in 8^th place and dropping the last two matches that the Dynamo could and should have earned all 6 points, the Dynamo are still in a playoff position (albeit a wild card spot), I am still pleased with Olsen’s ability with the roster available to him.  I still give him props for his mentality to play his style despite an early red card that placed the Dynamo at a disadvantage. I may sound like a Dynamo front office apologist; however, in my opinion, I still have faith in Olsen and am not ready to clean house (again) just yet. That does not mean that I refuse to criticize Olsen, Pat Onstad, and Asher Mendelsohn. So, let’s start with Olsen’s tactical decisions after the red card against Frisco.

            I must admit, I would not want to be Olsen or any of his assistant coaches the moment Dorsey got sent off. Having to create an entirely new plan 5 minutes into the match, while still playing your style of football, and having your available subs nowhere near warmed up and ready to enter the match. Yet, the reality (or irony) of this section is, the one person with minimal experience in playing or coaching the beautiful game, that is exactly what I am doing by questioning the tactics of the coaching staff that has more combined years of experience than I have been alive by a mile. After the red, Escobar moved to RB to until Steres was ready. This makes sense as this was Escobar’s natural position last year until Dorsey’s breakout play making him an irreplicable member in our starting lineup last season. While Dorsey has not shown that level of play this season, the discussion of starting or benching him is a different conversation for a different day.

            This is where I disagree with Olsen and his staff in terms of tactics once Steres entered the match. Rather than taking out Blessing for Steres, I would have subbed Steres for Escobar. While this would severely limit the ability for an overlapping run, I believe that playing a back 3 and maintaining the attacking formation would be more effective than subbing Blessing and maintaining a back 4. If the decision remained Blessing for Steres and maintaining the back 4, then why move Escobar back to the LB position. I can understand moving Escobar to LB since he likes to go forward rather than stay back to defend; and by removing the player on the RW, having Escobar being higher up the field as the RB would create too much space to exploit on that side. However, having Escobar move to the inverted LB position to push forward and open space wide for Aliyu is understandable. My issue with this is the issue. I have consistently had, that being having two inverted players on the same side. This is why I would have subbed Escobar off, played a back 3, and have Blessing drop back on defense while providing width on offense (see image below). 

 (I apologize for the crudeness. My regular formation app is malfunctioning)

I admit, this is Monday morning coaching and hindsight is 20/20. Ultimately, Olsen made the substitutions he believed were necessary to remain competitive and try to steal a point once we went down a goal. Given the circumstances, I am providing Olsen with some leniency and grace. I hear the frustrations of the fans (including myself), yet I am not ready to sack Olsen. Comparing points earned after 9 matches played from 2023 to 2024, The Dynamo have one less point (13) this year compared to 2023 (14). While it is understandable to want to see progress in points in the next year, Olsen is dealing with more injuries to key players than last year, which leads me to Onstad and Mendelsohn. The ultimate question I have is…

Hubris, Misfortune, or just the beginning of a Stretch of Bad Form…

            …are the Dynamo experiencing the consequences of their hubris, two unfortunate matches where the soccer gods were not on the side of the Dynamo, or is this the beginning of a stretch of bad form? I would like to think the last two matches were the result of the soccer gods not being on the Dynamo’s side both matches. Despite my hopes and beliefs, the Dynamo’s schedule does not get any easier with 7 matches in the month of May. Onstad, and Mendelsohn have added role players to help with depth. However, the Dynamo could easily turn this misfortune into a stretch of bad form if key players are delayed in their recovery efforts. Yet, this is the consequence of the decision that Onstad and Mendelsohn chose during this transfer window.

            Earlier this season, I addressed the difficult decision Onstad and Mendelsohn may face if the rumors of the roster rule change for the summer were true. The looming question being, do the Dynamo spend their final DP slot on a Young DP as the rules state during the (now closed) window, or do the Dynamo wait until the summer in hopes that the rumors were true and spend the slot on either a 3^rd DP or keep the 2 DPs we currently have and use the newly created 4^th U-22 initiative slot on a dynamic player who could not only improve the squad, but also provide sustained improvement for multiple seasons? I am sure (or would like to hope) the two knew these rules would be approved and implemented well before the owners meeting to discuss these changes occurred. Even if they did not know prior to the approval of the rule changes, I ultimately think Onstad and Mendelsohn would have made the decision to wait until the summer regardless. 

This is why I believe waiting until the summer window regardless of knowing the status of the roster rules change was the correct decision. As I stated multiple times on multiple platforms, adding role players on short term deals and spending big on a DP (regardless of it being a YDP slot or the DP slot being uncoupled from the U-22 initiative slots) made more sense to me for three reasons. The first reason is, I cannot think of a single YDP player who was available to spend the necessary money on during the previous window as MLS windows do not align well with the windows of most leagues around the world. Even if the roster rules were not going to change, an available YDP who had the freedom to make a move at the close of their leagues window while the MLS window remained open could not come to mind. 

The second reason I believe waiting for the second window to open, regardless of the rule change implementation, was the right move due to the second window aligning with most leagues off-season windows. Therefore, the pool of available players to spend money on (whether it is a young player or a traditional DP) becomes much larger than the pool of available YDPs in the previous window. To me, it made more sense to increase the number of potential targets to spend money on than it did to spend money on a limited pool of available YDPs so early in the season. By waiting, not only is the pool larger, but it also gives the Dynamo time to allow players to get healthy and to determine positions to upgrade the roster with (hopefully) a fully healthy roster. 

The third and final reason I believe waiting for the second window to open was the right move involves the business side of the sport. It is well known that Coco Carrasquilla is wanting to make the move to Europe. I am not sure what his market value is or how that compares to the Dynamo’s asking price. Certainly, Carrasquilla’s play in Copa America this summer (provided he gets called up) will impact his stock. The hope for the Dynamo and ultimate gamble for Onstad and Mendelsohn is that Carrasquilla’s stock improves significantly. Regardless of his value by the time the next window opens, if Carrasquilla is sold, the Dynamo should receive a significant increase in their finances. Why does this matter? With the new roster rules in place, teams can buyout two player contracts per season rather than one. Additionally, teams can convert up to $3M of a player sale to GAM. Long story short, with the sale of Carrasquilla, the Dynamo would have the flexibility to potentially buyout or buy down Sebas Ferreira’s contract if his production and health does not improve by the next window. This would give the Dynamo an additional DP slot to pursue.

With all stated, this is a huge gamble on Onstad and Mendelsohn’s part. The assumption and trust the two have placed on Olsen to keep the team in a viable playoff position until the next window to improve the team is a risky one. Ultimately, only time will tell if this decision was the correct one, or if the Dynamo front office fell victim to their hubris. One thing is for sure, this summer will be critical for the evolution of the Dynamo. 

 

Stoppage Time Thoughts…

            Ultimately this one hurts. Dorsey left the team in a tough position with the DOGSO red early. Dorsey has not lived up to expectations this year, which is a different conversation for a different day. One thing for sure is the month of May will not be an easy one for the Dynamo. These last two weeks have proven that no match is a guaranteed win. While the Dynamo have fight and tenacity, that will only go so far with multiple mid-week matches, competitions, and the infamous “Houston Heat” on its way. This next month will be a true test to the Dynamo. My only question is, who knows how to perform a Limpia or Ted Lasso style curse removal on both the purple jerseys and our injured players? At this point, I will take anyone who can break this curse. Until next week…

Signing off for now, “El Profe”