PDA

View Full Version : TFC alumni versus TFC now



jloome
06-07-2009, 12:24 PM
We've only been around three years but it's view that anytime a team's current lineup might be beaten by the players it has effectively let go, that says something about management.

I posted this comparison elsewhere, but wanted to see what people think the odds are here, which team would win most of the time:


Here's the question: Which of these two teams wins, the team we have now, or the team we've let go:


Team we let go:
--------------Jon Busch-----------------
Mulrooney--Marshall--Tebily--Dunivant
------O'Brien--Nagamura--Robert--------
------Buddle---Casey----Eskandarian------


Team we have:
-----------Stefan Frei----------------
Wynne--Velez/Nana---Serioux---Brennan
-------Cronin----Robbo---Guevara-------
------Vitti-------DeRo-----Barrett


Thoughts?

gracos
06-07-2009, 12:28 PM
Barrett for Eskandrian, Buddle for Vitti, Marshall for Velez/Nana

ensco
06-07-2009, 12:50 PM
I think Julius James might be on the other team, instead of Robert. Also maybe Will Hesmer in the net.

Would be an interesting game.

mr k
06-07-2009, 12:58 PM
colin samuel scored for T&T in WC qualifying yesterday. Conor Casey actaully started for the US team yesterday - didn't do anything during the game.

Dirk Diggler
06-07-2009, 01:07 PM
The alumni team is going to have superior defence, superior striking and marginally inferior midfield. Overall, the people we let go should be able to do better ... no doubt about it. Even in the midfield there is a playmaker such as O'Brien and Robert wouldn't do too badly if he has options up front that can actually convert some of the chances he creates.

Mojo
06-07-2009, 01:09 PM
McBride? Edu? Alums would demolish us.

Yohan
06-07-2009, 01:12 PM
let's define alumni as players who actually played a game for TFC

Beach_Red
06-07-2009, 01:41 PM
^ Did we "let go" most of those players or did they want to leave?

It doesn't make much of a difference, unless there's a common reason why they wanted to leave that could be addressed.

Dirk Diggler
06-07-2009, 01:47 PM
^ Did we "let go" most of those players or did they want to leave?

It doesn't make much of a difference, unless there's a common reason why they wanted to leave that could be addressed.

I think the issue jloome might be trying to bring up is that the management has failed to utilize these players in a proper fashion, thus creating an atmosphere in which players were not willing to fully commit to the team. To be honest, players ask to leave teams for differing reason but the frequency at which we have signed and released/traded players that have later turned out to be useful is alarming to say the least. It shows a lack of foresight (not to mention a long term plan for the team) and a tendency to make knee-jerk decisions in regards to player movement.

ensco
06-07-2009, 01:48 PM
let's define alumni as players who actually played a game for TFC

No I want Adrian Serioux to play for both teams.

First half TFC, second half altenate-universe TFC. Ricky Titus is the sub for him, but puts on Serioux's jersey.

Nigel Reed never figures out what's going on. He calls Cunningham's name four times.

rocker
06-07-2009, 01:54 PM
I think the issue jloome might be trying to bring up is that the management has failed to utilize these players in a proper fashion,

but the logical fallacy made is that the alumni starting eleven would play well together too.
Of course, we'd never know.

rocker
06-07-2009, 01:57 PM
a tendency to make knee-jerk decisions in regards to player movement.

I would disagree. Certain players on TFC have been given a great deal of time to prove themselves, but have not. See: Barrett.

Beach_Red
06-07-2009, 01:57 PM
I think the issue jloome might be trying to bring up is that the management has failed to utilize these players in a proper fashion, thus creating an atmosphere in which players were not willing to fully commit to the team. To be honest, players ask to leave teams for differing reason but the frequency at which we have signed and released/traded players that have later turned out to be useful is alarming to say the least. It shows a lack of foresight (not to mention a long term plan for the team) and a tendency to make knee-jerk decisions in regards to player movement.

Well that's just it, we don't really know. Some guys said outright it was the crappy turf, Tebily just retired and never played again, Robert likely had an offer from the Greek team before he asked to be let go, Carver made no secret of picking his favourites, and so on.

But yes, TFC has had too many roster changes, there's no doubt, and they can't use the excuse that as an expansion team they could only sign other team's leftovers. Also, we're tired of the excuse that they had to sign a certain number of Canadians - and couldn't pay transfer fees so it had to be Canadian out of contract elsewhere, and so on. Maybe they should't even have bothered to go after guys like Tebily and Robert.

Jloome has decided the problem is entirely Mo, and he may be right. The best thing changing the manager would do now is give us someone else to focus on. The problem with changing the manager is the new guy will say it will take a couple of years to get the team in shape and demand a multi-year contract (if he's any good) and we'll be starting over. Which we might as well anyway.

A bigger problem for me than the players who are no longer with the team, are the players who are. The heart of this team hasn't changed since year one and it's not good enough.

Brooker
06-07-2009, 03:01 PM
i think even Cuntingham could score on us right now....

*ducks the flying objects*

Roogsy
06-07-2009, 03:03 PM
i think even Cuntingham could score on us right now....

*ducks the flying objects*

I am right beside you dude...ducking.

Cause I agree.

jloome
06-07-2009, 03:38 PM
Well that's just it, we don't really know. Some guys said outright it was the crappy turf, Tebily just retired and never played again, Robert likely had an offer from the Greek team before he asked to be let go, Carver made no secret of picking his favourites, and so on.

But yes, TFC has had too many roster changes, there's no doubt, and they can't use the excuse that as an expansion team they could only sign other team's leftovers. Also, we're tired of the excuse that they had to sign a certain number of Canadians - and couldn't pay transfer fees so it had to be Canadian out of contract elsewhere, and so on. Maybe they should't even have bothered to go after guys like Tebily and Robert.

Jloome has decided the problem is entirely Mo, and he may be right. The best thing changing the manager would do now is give us someone else to focus on. The problem with changing the manager is the new guy will say it will take a couple of years to get the team in shape and demand a multi-year contract (if he's any good) and we'll be starting over. Which we might as well anyway.

A bigger problem for me than the players who are no longer with the team, are the players who are. The heart of this team hasn't changed since year one and it's not good enough.

And that's all up to Mo. We can have whomever he hires running the tactics (also up to him) and we can have all the Paul Winspers in the world; but if you can't put a winning combo on the field, sayonara. Three years is enough. Playoffs should be a must this year, and I don't see that happening without personnel changes that Mo has, until now, been unable to pull off.

Juanito
06-07-2009, 05:47 PM
^^

I agree. The point of a director of football/president ... whatever you want to call this position is to create a winning team and the coach is part of that equation. The director is supposed to stay long-term, in such a way as to retain the "footballing knowledge" even if a coach is sacked, or decides to move on.

Being such, a team that can not make the playoffs with THREE different coaches, albeit one being the director, to me means that this person is not doing their job.

giambac
06-07-2009, 06:19 PM
We've only been around three years but it's view that anytime a team's current lineup might be beaten by the players it has effectively let go, that says something about management.

I posted this comparison elsewhere, but wanted to see what people think the odds are here, which team would win most of the time:


Here's the question: Which of these two teams wins, the team we have now, or the team we've let go:


Team we let go:
--------------Jon Busch-----------------
Mulrooney--Marshall--Tebily--Dunivant
------O'Brien--Nagamura--Robert--------
------Buddle---Casey----Eskandarian------


Team we have:
-----------Stefan Frei----------------
Wynne--Velez/Nana---Serioux---Brennan
-------Cronin----Robbo---Guevara-------
------Vitti-------DeRo-----Barrett


Thoughts?


The game would never end. Both sides play boring uninspired soccer. the fans would fall aslpeep. The ref would have to flip a coin to decide the winner.

denime
06-07-2009, 07:01 PM
The game would never end. Both sides play boring uninspired soccer. the fans would fall aslpeep. The ref would have to flip a coin to decide the winner.

Oh my ..... :smilielol5::smilielol5:

ensco
06-08-2009, 09:04 AM
And that's all up to Mo. We can have whomever he hires running the tactics (also up to him) and we can have all the Paul Winspers in the world; but if you can't put a winning combo on the field, sayonara. Three years is enough. Playoffs should be a must this year, and I don't see that happening without personnel changes that Mo has, until now, been unable to pull off.

Yup.

Yohan
06-08-2009, 09:16 AM
And that's all up to Mo. We can have whomever he hires running the tactics (also up to him) and we can have all the Paul Winspers in the world; but if you can't put a winning combo on the field, sayonara. Three years is enough. Playoffs should be a must this year, and I don't see that happening without personnel changes that Mo has, until now, been unable to pull off.
bit too pessimistic about the entire situation?

the lads have shown that they can play footy. if the team created these many chances last season, we would have surely be in playoffs.

all we're missing is one striker who can score. that's it.

sure, a CB and a bit more depth in bench to get rid of some of the deadwood sitting there would be nice, but it's not all doom just yet

jloome
06-08-2009, 11:43 AM
bit too pessimistic about the entire situation?

the lads have shown that they can play footy. if the team created these many chances last season, we would have surely be in playoffs.

all we're missing is one striker who can score. that's it.

sure, a CB and a bit more depth in bench to get rid of some of the deadwood sitting there would be nice, but it's not all doom just yet

No, I think you've got rosy glasses on mate; go back and look at some of the shot counts from last season. We couldn't finish then, we can't finish now.

The problem is the same. And with respect to the personnel, even if you assume our players are as good as the ones we no longer have (and, sorry, but in multiple positions they're just not; Conor Casey is leading the league in scoring, Marshall's partnering Hurtado etc etc) shouldn't IMPROVEMENT be the goal after three years, not status quo?

Look, I think -- as I believe you're intimating -- that our players are mostly solid. But we lack a) a clear on-field leader, unfettered by ego b) a striker who finishes, has composure, knows how to put a ball away one on one; c) a strong, experienced and quick central defender.

These are the same things we lacked in preseason. Mo can add all the extra cogs he wants, but eventually you need an engine to work the driveshaft and get those cogs working. That's not always just the coach; who's our onfield leader, Jimmy? The King of petulant left backs? He spends half the game screaming at the ref, and so does Robbo. Someone who is composed-but-strong and leading the team doesn't do that.

jloome
06-08-2009, 11:45 AM
Oh my ..... :smilielol5::smilielol5:

This is MLS, seems to be his argument.

Casey is leading the league in scoring and is, comprehensively, the best striker in the league so far this season. I don't know about you, but right now a few of his goals would be decidedly not dull and uninspiring.

Beach_Red
06-08-2009, 12:13 PM
These are the same things we lacked in preseason. Mo can add all the extra cogs he wants, but eventually you need an engine to work the driveshaft and get those cogs working. That's not always just the coach; who's our onfield leader, Jimmy? The King of petulant left backs? He spends half the game screaming at the ref, and so does Robbo. Someone who is composed-but-strong and leading the team doesn't do that.

This is the most worrisome. These guys (Brennan and Robinson) are fan favourites so they'll stay and Dichio will stay as long as he wants - this is where we're being treated like Leafs fans, appeased with favourites rather than being ruthless enough to win.

This is why I think there's probably too much ownership interference and some guys labelled "untouchable."