Road woes still haunting Impact in their playoff drive

Another road game, another disappointing result for the Impact last Saturday with a 3-1 loss to the Chicago Fire.

The mystery of why teams in Major League Soccer are so poor in games away from home continues to baffle. The Impact, which is now 2-12-1 on the road, was always in Saturday’s game and with 58 per cent possession of the ball did a good job dictating the pace. It was not a complete outing and too often players switched off mentally/physically at the wrong times.

Making the playoffs has now become nearly impossible, although the team at least remains mathematically in contention for the fifth and final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference. With four games remaining, starting with Saturday’s 1 p.m. home game against Sporting Kansas City at Saputo Stadium, the Impact (12-15-3) is in seventh place with 39 points, six behind fifth-place Columbus (13-10-6) and five behind sixthplace D.C. United (13-10-5).

Here’s a look at some of the pros and cons. Pro: Impact goalkeeper Troy Perkins faced 15 shots, of which seven found the target. His four saves were needed and he looked comfortable making them. Con: I’m of the belief that goalkeepers should always make the saves they are supposed to. But the ’keeper needs to make at least one save that makes everyone stand and applaud. By no means can Perkins be blamed for allowing the three goals that beat him, but I would like to have seen him keep out Chicago’s second goal. It was within Perkins’s reach and with better reaction and reflexes, there was a chance to get a quick hand on it to parry it away. It would have been spectacular, but it would have been a game-changing save. Pro: The back line of Hassoun Camara, Alessadro Nesta, Nelson Rivas and Matteo Ferrari looked comfortable in the opening 30 minutes. Rivas in the fourth minute showed his exceptional oneon-one strength against a Chicago forward just as big as the Colombian. Controlling the tempo of the game usually requires the inclusion of the back line to help with ball possession, and this was effectively done for most of the first half. The back line did not allow Chicago any clear-cut chances, and kept the opposition in front of them throughout. Offensively, Montreal’s goal originated from a terrific 60-yard ball from Rivas to Camara, who then linked up with Marco Di Vaio. Con: Where do I begin! I’ll start with the fullbacks, Camara and Ferrari` Camara at least showed a willingness to join the attack on rare occasions. Also a converted fullback, Ferrari on the left is really there just to defend. After two weeks between games, somehow both Ferrari and Nesta looked out of shape. Pro: Davy Arnaud played the game with the intensity needed and like a man who understood the value of three points. Arnaud defended well — as always — and committed himself to helping the attack, even with full-field supporting runs ... that’s a captain! Patrice Bernier and Collen Warner had the type of game we’ve come to expect. Warner stays home, while Bernier strays. Their partnership is excellent. Di Vaio’s goal was magnificent. It took the Impact all of five touches — and three players — to go from their end to the next, and eventually to the back of the Chicago net. Note to DiVaio: your defensive work did not go unnoticed. In minute 25, Di Vaio chased back nearly 60 metres after a ball meant for him was intercepted. He is doing his part for the team. Con: Arnaud might have scored in the opening three minutes if he had the mind of a striker and not a mid- fielder. Felipe played a short ball into Arnaud’s path just as he entered the box, but Arnaud decided to take a couple of touches before attempting a shot. A quick first-time attempt would have been a striker’s choice, catching the ’keeper in movement as opposed to when he’s allowed to get set. Pro: Though up against the wall with four games to play, the Impact are still not eliminated from playoff contention.