Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
Toronto absolutely dominated the game, they looked like a 2x better soccer team, and had two chances that were inches from going in. I don't really follow soccer too much, but as a casual fan that was an embarrassing way to hand out a championship, although I get why they're kind of handcuffed.
I mean that was the equivalent of the NHL playing one OT in game 7 for the Stanley Cup and then going "Well, that didn't work out, alright boys line up for a shootout!!".
|
My biggest issue is that a one off final was not played on neutral grounds. When you award a winner take all game to a team that did slightly better, you sort of force the other team to play an ugly defensive game. There's a reason why all major championships either have either a best of 7 or a neutral ground final.
Sure you risk a pathetic display like the Grey Cup in Toronto with ticket giveaways and lower ticket sales, but you also don't give a team with the same number of regular season wins and 5 more regular season points a massive psychological advantage.
As for Toronto being twice the team, the stats don't quite indicate that. Sure, Toronto had 19 shots to Seattle's 3, but 12 were off target, and of the 7, only 2 were dangerous. Toronto did a really good job blocking shots too. Possession was close to 50/50, and Seattle won more duels and tackles. They weren't playing to win, they were playing not to lose. All 3 substitutions were for more defensive minded players as well.
Seattle played strategically and played for the kicks or a single counter without committing their midfield too far forward. Is it ugly? Definitely. But defence wins championships, and when you have idiot fans throwing bottles and you're not in your home, that's how a strategic coach plays.