PDA

View Full Version : Your opinion on the team's problems?



Roogsy
09-07-2009, 02:59 PM
What is Toronto's biggest problem? We all have opinions on the troubles of this team, and some of may think the team has many problems. However, what is the biggest factor in the struggles so far that need to be addressed either this year to make it into the playoffs, or if you believe the playoffs are unattainable at this point for success next year?

Please elaborate on your answers with civil, rational posts. Any "such and such is a douchebag" posts will be deleted and likely infracted.

SanStarko
09-07-2009, 03:11 PM
Coaching without a doubt. We've never had a proper experienced head coach in place at any point, and it's shown.

I would also say that the players also aren't performing how they should be, but it all comes back to the coaching. A good head coach/manager will get his players to perform, a poor one won't. You can look at loads of teams that have performed poorly, couldn't buy a win and where the players look completely useless. They bring in a good manager and suddenly they look like a completely different team.

The right guy in charge can make a huge amount of difference, and Mo has to get the right man at the end of this season.

Roogsy
09-07-2009, 03:16 PM
I agree on the coaching side. We seem to have competent pieces that are not performing consistently. Nigel Reed made that same observation. Would most of us agree that this inconsistency is a problem with coaching or players? I think it's coaching. I would dare say Cummins has lost the room.

I am surprised someone has indicated they think the team is on track. That is my "mighty" option in case he decided to contribute. I am going to assume it's him, if that's the case so be it. If it's someone else, I'd be interested in hearing that point of view. Is it someone that is buying into the "5 year plan"?

As a discussion board, I'd like to know where most people find fault with this team because going forward we can see if management responds. I hope we get a good 100 responses at least.

poppamidnight
09-07-2009, 03:22 PM
how is option 2 even an option:

"The players are not performing, regardless of the coaching"

???

man... there's only 2 reasons this could have been posted:

1 - inferring other coaches did better. THis option doesn't make sense since Cummin's is the only one whose had this roster

therefore:

2 - You don't feel it's part of the coaches job to make players perform.................
Ummmmmmm, everything i've ever read/heard/seen about coaching states it as being one of the central elements of a coaches job: to make your players preform

dag
09-07-2009, 03:25 PM
I think we'd all agree that, player for player, this is the strongest team the club has put forward its three seasons of existence. We are significantly more talented than the previous two years.

I think, too, that the coaching can only do so much to get the players to communicate with one another on the pitch, for Barrett to actually hit the back of the net, and for the back four to actually mark their man. Was it the fault of Colorado's manager when their penalty struck the bar? Of course not. The players really do need to step up, play focused football for the full ninety minutes, and work collaboratively towards victory.

Having said that...

It is clear the Cummins cannot manage. Where are the tactics to secure that victory? His use - or rather, non-use - of substitutions is frankly bizarre and downright irresponsible. Based on our on the field play, I have to question what the training sessions really involve. Our corner kicks are terrible, our ball control is very poor, our passing is very patchy.

ML$E succeeded on the marketing side of Toronto FC. But the coaching has been consistently poor from day one. Cummins needs to be replaced with an adult who understands the game.

Roogsy
09-07-2009, 03:27 PM
how is option 2 even an option:

"The players are not performing, regardless of the coaching"

???

man... there's only 2 reasons this could have been posted:

1 - inferring other coaches did better. THis option doesn't make sense since Cummin's is the only one whose had this roster

therefore:

2 - You don't feel it's part of the coaches job to make players perform.................
Ummmmmmm, everything i've ever read/heard/seen about coaching states it as being one of the central elements of a coaches job: to make your players preform

It's meant to indicate that you believe that the coaching is sufficient to get better results but it's the players who are underperforming.

Shakes McQueen
09-07-2009, 03:37 PM
I agree on the coaching side. We seem to have competent pieces that are not performing consistently. Nigel Reed made that same observation. Would most of us agree that this inconsistency is a problem with coaching or players? I think it's coaching. I would dare say Cummins has lost the room.

I am surprised someone has indicated they think the team is on track. That is my "mighty" option in case he decided to contribute. I am going to assume it's him, if that's the case so be it. If it's someone else, I'd be interested in hearing that point of view. Is it someone that is buying into the "5 year plan"?

As a discussion board, I'd like to know where most people find fault with this team because going forward we can see if management responds. I hope we get a good 100 responses at least.

I also picked coaching.

Player for player, you'd have to agree this team is superior to the one we fielded last season. We lost no major pieces, added some depth, watched a couple of kids emerge as formidable defenders, and added Dwayne De Rosario.

I'm really hesitant to buy the whole "not having the right players" theory. You look at some of the games we lost, or drew, and you see a pretty consistent pattern of poor tactical decisions: sitting on one goal leads, when we should keep pressing; subbing in defenders instead of attackers, when we are behind or tied; neglecting to use our subs and then watching as our tired legs get exploited by the opposition; the legendary "long ball" attacking style; never using a consistent starting XI. The list goes on.

Cummins had his shot, and in my opinion, it's been a pretty epic failure. It's also clear to me that he has lost the room - I agree Roogsy.

We need a coach with some pedigree, either overseas, or in MLS. We need someone who can command the respect of the players, and who actively MANAGES during games. And in games where we are having a poor first half, we need a coach with the balls to actually CHANGE UP OUR TACTICS for the second half. This is another major failing of Cummins.

- Scott

mighty_torontofc_2008
09-07-2009, 03:52 PM
Nothing wrong with the manager , CC has done wonders for the lack of talented football on the team. Some of the players brought in for this season have failed
to deliver on a consistant basis. get some better footballers and the team will be fine/.

Toronto_Bhoy
09-07-2009, 04:03 PM
Who is responsible for the players on this team?

Who is responsible for the team's chemistry?

Who is responsible for hiring the coaching staff?

Who is ultimately responsible for this team's performance?

Mo and the MLSE front office are responsible for all of the above. The revolving door of players and coaches has got us nowhere in three seasons, regardless of the talent on the pitch which as time moves on only flatters to deceive...just as Mo has...

Time for Mo to go...and I'm guessing at least half of the TFC dressing room agrees.

redcard
09-07-2009, 04:06 PM
i dont believe its the coaching, as we have seen them perform very well occasionally, so he does find a way to pick them up sometimes...but they need an on field leader.


i believe its the players not performing, and it is probably related to there not being a true team leader...brennan is not a leader...

the team needs someone that will constantly push forward pick the team up....de guzman just might be that player/leader that this team requires.

Jeff s
09-07-2009, 04:20 PM
I dont think its the players. On paper we have a team that is capable of scoring tons of goals and able to put on a good display with great technique. Instead we're stuck with the long ball shit.

Has to go down to coaching. If he isnt able to find a way to stop the long ball, than theres something wrong. I knew there was something wrong with him as soon as I heard that he was okay with the away game records.

Beach_Red
09-07-2009, 04:29 PM
Time for Mo to go...and I'm guessing at least half of the TFC dressing room agrees.


Is that the half you'd want to get rid of, though? Is there really anyone on TFC who is so good they've earned the right to complain about their team is managed and not play as well as they can in protest?

The problem with this "team chemistry" thing is if that's what we have to rely on then w'll never hav a winning team. This is MLS, it's a 'make do with what you can get' kind of league. The top teams just aren't that much more skilled than the rest. Should TFC pass up a highly skilled player who's willing to come to Toronto (cause that's a very, very short list of players) because the chemistry "might" not be right?

There have been so many games this season where we were even at halftime and the next day the game report says, "_____ made adjustments and won the game," and it's never been, "TFC made adjustments and won the game."

I would just like to see that once.

CoachGT
09-07-2009, 04:40 PM
There is more than one answer to this question IMO.

While it is correct to say that players have underperformed at various stages of the schedule, and that there may in fact be coaching issues, two other things stand out.

1) I wonder whether our style of play is suited to the players we have. With many teams playing a modified South American style, we try to play a European possession game. I'm not disagreeing that this style of play can be and often is effective against the style used by many of or opponents, I wonder if we have the right pieces to be able to make this work.

2) I've often wondered whether there is a team chemistry problem. The inconsistent play and the way some players go about their business on the pitch just seems to me that several players are on a different page, perhaps of the same playbook, perhaps not. If it is just not being able to play the same game plan as indicated by the coaching staff, then that speaks of a more serious problem in terms of a) skill or b) a division within team ranks, a division opposed to the instructions given by the coaches.

I still firmly believe that time management (when players are brought onto the pitch) is a problem, but that alone really isn't the cause of our woes this season.

Coaching is at the root of all of these except a division in the room - few coaches anywhere can overcome that. That usually leads to player changes.

FluSH
09-07-2009, 04:42 PM
I don't know what to choose... I picked Coaching is the biggest problem because I think leadership is the biggest problem.

Having Robbo off with an injury clearly magnifies how little everyone talks to each other over there... I mean I saw absolutely no communication between the players... that to me is bad...

Lucky Strike
09-07-2009, 04:47 PM
Unsurprisingly, I chose coaching as well. Ever since day 1, TFC has always been second best in terms of tactics, formation, line-ups, etc. We need a coach able to counter the counter-measures the opponent throws at us, and one who can extract the best from the players we have. And as I've mentioned earlier today in another thread, we need to keep this coach, because we've had 3 now in less than 3 years. We've seen what that kind of turnover can do (referring to RBNY) who haven't won anything since the league began.

FluSH
09-07-2009, 05:12 PM
i dont believe its the coaching, as we have seen them perform very well occasionally, so he does find a way to pick them up sometimes...but they need an on field leader.


i believe its the players not performing, and it is probably related to there not being a true team leader...brennan is not a leader...

the team needs someone that will constantly push forward pick the team up....de guzman just might be that player/leader that this team requires.

+1

I think we need a leader on the pitch...

billyfly
09-07-2009, 05:45 PM
Its "Toronto" man. Jays and Argos are not MLSE and they SUCK TOO.

We need an exorcism and STAT.

RedRum
09-07-2009, 05:58 PM
Who is responsible for the players on this team?

Who is responsible for the team's chemistry?

Who is responsible for hiring the coaching staff?

Who is ultimately responsible for this team's performance?

Mo and the MLSE front office are responsible for all of the above. The revolving door of players and coaches has got us nowhere in three seasons, regardless of the talent on the pitch which as time moves on only flatters to deceive...just as Mo has...

Time for Mo to go...and I'm guessing at least half of the TFC dressing room agrees.

+1

Options 1 and 3 are for all intents and purposes the same thing. Combined 75%. Too bad MLSE doesn't use this poll in it's market research :rolleyes:

boban
09-07-2009, 06:10 PM
I think it's front office. I would go even a step further and say MLSE and not just the FO of TFC.
The atmosphere and mentality of MLSe pervades across all its spectrums. As such the various teams reflect that. Substandard performances by individuals and teams are accepted, thereby nullifying any urgency or real desire to improve on the field and in the standings.

flatpicker
09-07-2009, 06:37 PM
I blame Paul Beirne...

I mean really... how can it not be his fault???!!!

At first I thought it was the guy who scans my ticket at Gate 3,

But now I realise, it's all Paul.

Toronto_Bhoy
09-07-2009, 06:38 PM
All the pieces that are here...players, coaches and tactics are here because Mo has made it so.

That's not to say that a new coach wouldn't help but that decision is Mo's and he has failed in the three coaches he's selected...one being himself. Ironically, Cummins has the best record of the three.

The single biggest problem with this Club from Day One has been lack of goals...Mo has supplied us with what?

ensco
09-07-2009, 06:39 PM
Need an option 5:

Corporate ownership makes it impossible to compete, as winning requires somewhat irrational financial behaviour, and corporate managers are never capable of it, now matter how much they "care" about winning.

mighty_torontofc_2008
09-07-2009, 06:45 PM
i dont believe its the coaching, as we have seen them perform very well occasionally, so he does find a way to pick them up sometimes...but they need an on field leader.


i believe its the players not performing, and it is probably related to there not being a true team leader...brennan is not a leader...

the team needs someone that will constantly push forward pick the team up....de guzman just might be that player/leader that this team requires.

i also believe its the players..we could change managers at the end of the season and next year have a worse record then right now..then what?
Brennan has had his time as capt time to try someone else, Serioux, Wynne, JDG? or someone else coming for a trade. But the players have got to but put under the gun for the remaning schedule..produce or else/.

jloome
09-07-2009, 06:53 PM
Poll needs to be multiple choice. There is no one answer, there never is for anything. Some of our problems relate directly to things beyond the management's control, some are just poor decision making, many of the issues relate to player performance, and we don't really know anything about how the team is coached.

boban
09-07-2009, 06:58 PM
Need an option 5:

Corporate ownership makes it impossible to compete, as winning requires somewhat irrational financial behaviour, and corporate managers are never capable of it, now matter how much they "care" about winning.
That's what I was refering to in my post. It's more than the FO.
And you described it bang on about the financial irrational behaviour.

jloome
09-07-2009, 07:00 PM
I would say that a substantially under-appreciated element of a decent team is personality. There are a lot of guys on our squad who had ego reps before they got here. That might lead to a lot of one-upmanship and a lack of humility in approaching problems.

Cashcleaner
09-07-2009, 07:03 PM
I'd have to say coaching. To me it looks like we've got a pretty strong roster as it is. On paper, look at what we've got. One of the league's best keepers at the moment and a very talented midfield. Defense is still lagging behind the remainder of the team, but I wouldn't say its dire. We seem to have all the components to make a playoff-contending team, but nothing seems to be coming together at the right time for us.

All said, I think we'll need to make two big changes if we can't make the playoffs - Cummins and Mo.

Roogsy
09-07-2009, 07:13 PM
Poll needs to be multiple choice. There is no one answer, there never is for anything. Some of our problems relate directly to things beyond the management's control, some are just poor decision making, many of the issues relate to player performance, and we don't really know anything about how the team is coached.

Obviously when a team struggles, it isn't just one issue that is 100% to blame. That's why the poll is worded in terms of the biggest factor, inferring that there are likely other factors as well.

In my opinion, we have a talented enough group of players to at least have the 8th spot locked up. So if the talent is there, then for me it has to be the coaching. It just has to be. To a degree, that is Mo's fault. He wanted to move upstairs, that is fine but then leave a coach in place that has the ability to lead these players to a better record. If he can't, then he needs to go as well.

jimiv
09-07-2009, 07:13 PM
Problem is we have a team full of players who play so selfishly.

Roogsy
09-07-2009, 07:15 PM
Need an option 5:

Corporate ownership makes it impossible to compete, as winning requires somewhat irrational financial behaviour, and corporate managers are never capable of it, now matter how much they "care" about winning.

That is a cop-out. TFC have been given free-reign and are working in an environment where the league determines payroll, roster-sizes etc. MLSE may be a soulless money-grubbing entity, but they have no direct bearing on the results on the pitch.

What is going on at the ACC has little to do with what is going on at BMO Field. The people at BMO Field have to answer first before we look to MLSE for answers for why we aren't getting results in our fixtures.

ensco
09-07-2009, 07:30 PM
That is a cop-out. TFC have been given free-reign and are working in an environment where the league determines payroll, roster-sizes etc. MLSE may be a soulless money-grubbing entity, but they have no direct bearing on the results on the pitch.

What is going on at the ACC has little to do with what is going on at BMO Field. The people at BMO Field have to answer first before we look to MLSE for answers for why we aren't getting results in our fixtures.

I really don't think you understood the point that I have made.

The odds of success, of any professional team, in any sport, are lower if the team is held in a corporate form.

If you don't believe this, that is your right, but you are in a small minority.

Roogsy
09-07-2009, 07:32 PM
I really don't think you understood the point that I have made.

The odds of success, of any professional team, in any sport, are lower if the team is held in a corporate form.

If you don't believe this, that is your right, but you are in a small minority.

It may lower the odds, but the ultimate responsibility of results falls upon the shoulders of those placed directly responsible for that team. And that is what this poll and thread is about.

Cashcleaner
09-07-2009, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Roogsy http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/redbar/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?p=704269#post704269)
That is a cop-out. TFC have been given free-reign and are working in an environment where the league determines payroll, roster-sizes etc. MLSE may be a soulless money-grubbing entity, but they have no direct bearing on the results on the pitch.

What is going on at the ACC has little to do with what is going on at BMO Field. The people at BMO Field have to answer first before we look to MLSE for answers for why we aren't getting results in our fixtures.
^ League restrictions and the cap can take some share of the blame, but again it must be mentioned that staff, coaches, and facilities are NOT subject to any spending regulations in the same way players are.

MLSE does have the resources to bring in a top-quality coach with a top-quality management staff, but they haven't done that.

Dirk Diggler
09-07-2009, 07:44 PM
I think the obvious answer is coaching but we have to look deeper than that. It is quite evident that Cummins, along with a bunch of players on the roster, are clearly in over their heads at the moment. On paper, the team seems good enough but I'm not willing to blame it all on the coaching either. The team has been built with no form or shape whatsoever. I am optimistic at the prospect of watching the young guys play for TFC at the height of their careers but due to the nature of the salary cap and such, that might not even be possible. As it stands right now, our roster is too loaded with potential. What we need are veterans who are in their prime right now. We need a couple of central backs who are not only physically capable of handling dangerous strikers but also have the mental strength to go along with it. We need atleast one bonafide striker. We need atleast one midfield general who is capable of directing and handling traffic both ways (Cronin is that kind of a player but he is constantly being played out of position).

With that said, to me the problem is the management. There is no way that I want to see Cummins get the axe yet Mo continuing as the head honcho. What kind of competent general manager goes through 4 head coaches in 4 years? Contrary to his claims, there is absolutely no way that he has a 5 year blue print let alone a 5 week plan. Ask any well respected GM in any professional sport (i.e. not J.P. Ricciardi) ... their longest of long term plan consists of 3 years because honestly there is no way any one on this planet has enough foresight to plan any further ahead. I think Mo has clearly shown us MORE than enough of what type of team he is capable of putting together.

ensco
09-07-2009, 07:48 PM
^ League restrictions and the cap can take some share of the blame, but again it must be mentioned that staff, coaches, and facilities are NOT subject to any spending regulations in the same way players are.

MLSE does have the resources to bring in a top-quality coach with a top-quality management staff, but they haven't done that.

Not to mention grass and a DP

MLSE have done a wonderful job deflecting attention from the issue of getting what they want at BMO, but not paying for it, as a major holdup

re JDG, we'll see about that, I've expressed skepticism elsewhere about that. If he signs but has an out after 6 games that won't change my view

Roogsy
09-07-2009, 07:52 PM
^ League restrictions and the cap can take some share of the blame, but again it must be mentioned that staff, coaches, and facilities are NOT subject to any spending regulations in the same way players are.

MLSE does have the resources to bring in a top-quality coach with a top-quality management staff, but they haven't done that.

They've left that up to Mo. Therefore, the issue is with Mo. I can't blame MLSE if Mo hasn't gone to them and said "give me a scouting staff". Has he? Should we blame MLSE before we know if MLSE is denying Mo what he needs?

Either way...if you blame Mo or MLSE...the third option should suit that particular complaint just fine. After all it's pretty general when it refers to the "front office", that could include MLSE management.

Dirk Diggler
09-07-2009, 08:20 PM
Not to mention grass and a DP

MLSE have done a wonderful job deflecting attention from the issue of getting what they want at BMO, but not paying for it, as a major holdup

re JDG, we'll see about that, I've expressed skepticism elsewhere about that. If he signs but has an out after 6 games that won't change my view

I am undecided as to how much I agree with your general point of view. On one hand, the fact that MLSE has rolled in ridiculous amounts of money while operating franchises that have not met anything but failure is indeed too large to ignore. However, I don't know how much of it is down to their unwillingness to sacrifice financial gains for success on the ice/court/artificial turf. From what I've noticed, their lack of success primarily seems attributable to the kind of incompetent general mangers that they have employed in the past and the kind of fiscal irresponsibility that they have displayed.

With that said, I do think they have realized that saving money on a cheaper GM ends up costing them more in lost playoffs revenue and albatross contracts. They have went out and hired proven individuals for the Raptors and the Leafs. In regards to Mo, clearly he has not cost MLSE more money than he has made them ... thus the reason why I am absolutely frustrated by the fact that not only is he still employed but he figures to get a 3 year extension.

All in all, I think everyone will agree that despite their financial strength, MLSE will never be the kind of ownership that goes out there and spends the most money on players, facilities, coaches etc. That is fine in my opinion. My frustration stems from the fact that despite this fact, they seem either incapable or unwilling to form a successful team under the kind of circumstances than an average team around the league deals with. In my mind, there is no doubt TFC could have fielded a successful playoffs calibre team all the while playing on a shitty surface in a country with high taxes.

OneLoveOneEric
09-07-2009, 08:29 PM
Where is the "players aren't good enough" choice?

Roogsy
09-07-2009, 08:46 PM
Where is the "players aren't good enough" choice?

That would depend on what you feel is the reason for that?

Is it that Mo has chosen the wrong players? Is it that the coach is not getting enough out of current players?

If the players here are not good enough, who is to blame for that?

TFC USA
09-07-2009, 08:54 PM
The players are underperforming/shitty. That's split responsibility between the players and the coaching staff.

It's clear the coaching staff (in this case we'll just use Cummins) is horribly inept and puts out tactics that is not suited for those types of players. The hiring of the staff/appointing of him as coach is the job of MO.

Mo signs the players, hires the coaches. They've both failed. Great at drafting but that's about it. His hiring is the part of MLSE.

MLSE knows fuck all about soccer and probably hired him because of his funny Scottish accent.


In conclusion, it's been a giant shitshow from top to bottom since March 2007.

Roogsy
09-07-2009, 08:55 PM
^ Lots of blame. Do they all share it equally or does that shitshow start somewhere specifically? Is someone stinking it up more than the rest?

TFC USA
09-07-2009, 09:01 PM
It will have to start from the top and then trickle it's way down to the bottom.

In reality the MLSE-to-Cummins range is where most of the blame falls.

Oldtimer
09-07-2009, 09:05 PM
I'm surprised there is no option here for "It's the fans' fault"

Just think, you're a TFC player, you're curious what the fans are saying about you. After all, you scored a big goal in the last game. You go here or to U-Sector, you see a thread with your name on it! You excitedly click, and then are confronted with... 10 pages why you should be cut or traded! No wonder you can't perform.

So I say it's all our fault. :)

Beach_Red
09-07-2009, 09:38 PM
I really don't think you understood the point that I have made.

The odds of success, of any professional team, in any sport, are lower if the team is held in a corporate form.

If you don't believe this, that is your right, but you are in a small minority.

I said a little earlier in another thread I wish MLS had copied the NFL model of not having corporate ownership. Of course, there aren't a lot of individuals beaking down the doors to get in, so I guess they take what they can get.

But in the leagues in which there is both corporate and individual ownership I think the results would show that individually owned teams do better.

MLSE is certainly going to try, but they're not exactly going crazy. Look at the first season. Do you guys think Mo really picked himself as coach, or do you think MLSE was only willing to pay for one guy to do both jobs? Do you think thy talked to other managers who all wanted longe term contracts for more money? Since then MLSE have made some improvements every year but they take the baby steps that any board of directors would require and not any bold moves.

Seattle gets a guy to invest in the team who loves the game and he goes out and gets Sigi Shmidt to run the team. Do you think if he interviewed with both MLSE and Drew Carey, Shmidt would have picked the faceless corporation (and the likely one year contract they would have probably offered)? Of course, I don't know, but from what I've seen in other sports (look at the Red Wings and the Leafs, that's a pretty clear example, look at the Penguins under Lemieux, the Yankees under Stienbrenner and look at the NY Rangers Knicks...)

This is why I think it's a bad idea to focus the attention on Mo. Even if they fire him they'll just bring in another manager who does the same things - except it'll buy them a couple more years of the new guy putting together "his" team. Maybe he'll be able to build on what's here, but that's not usually what GMs who take over from fired GMs do.

Maybe firing the GM will solve all the problems, maybe there's an out of work MLS genius out there who just can't wait to come and work for MLSE.

Roogsy
09-07-2009, 09:40 PM
^ Ugh...your post depressed me like you wouldn't believe.

Beach_Red
09-07-2009, 09:43 PM
^ Ugh...your post depressed me like you wouldn't believe.


Sorry. I really meant to finish off by saying it's better these guys fix the mess they've made. And it's possible, they can.

The team needs an establshed coach - everyone knows it. This is probably the same as the DP situation where the team had been targeting JDG for a while. It's quite posible they're doing the same with a coach and they'll be just as stubborn in landing him.

OneLoveOneEric
09-07-2009, 09:45 PM
To answer your question, I guess I side with GM issues. I think the players are what they are -- a decent, inconsistent bunch.
I personally don't see another coach making them consistent. They'll have one good game and 2 or 3 shitty ones. And rarely will they all have a good game at the same time.
When people say things like, "play less long ball", I laugh. Playing the ball to feet, or playing short passes consistently, requires a level of talent our boys lack.
That's not a coaching issue, IMO.

Whoop
09-07-2009, 09:47 PM
Personally I think there are some issues in the dressing room, in that the Dichio situation exacerbated and now the JDG situation has made it worse. Everyone is on edge.

Vince Whirlwind
09-07-2009, 09:51 PM
I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who was going "WTF?!?" last game when to begin the second half, Serioux was subbed in for Garcia and not Sanyang (who had already gotten a yellow and plays very chippy).

I just knew we'd be down to 10 men before long. The same thing happened earlier on in the season with Barrett (who was being an idiot hothead) and Cummins didn't sub him off before he got ejected.

That to me was/is a sign of basic idiocy in terms of management/coaching. It's evident he doesn't even learn from his own mistakes. He's got to go.

Ossington Mental Youth
09-07-2009, 09:52 PM
two probs, Coaching (Cummins is overwhelmed, get him back to asst coach and get a proven MLS coach in there) and FO, Mo did not bring the players we need in and its showing. Both need to change (im not sure to what degree) before we see the team do well.

Ossington Mental Youth
09-07-2009, 09:57 PM
With that said, to me the problem is the management. There is no way that I want to see Cummins get the axe yet Mo continuing as the head honcho. What kind of competent general manager goes through 4 head coaches in 4 years? Contrary to his claims, there is absolutely no way that he has a 5 year blue print let alone a 5 week plan. Ask any well respected GM in any professional sport (i.e. not J.P. Ricciardi) ... their longest of long term plan consists of 3 years because honestly there is no way any one on this planet has enough foresight to plan any further ahead. I think Mo has clearly shown us MORE than enough of what type of team he is capable of putting together.

im really starting to believe alot of this statement right here, ive defended Mo from the beginning but his drafts and few signings arent covering up our bigger holes (imo, obviously)

S_D
09-07-2009, 10:05 PM
It starts at the top.

Let's look at Mo's philosophy for a moment.

1) He has deliberately sacrificed a deeper roster in order to afford higher priced players.
2) Find some quality youth that are decent depth for MLS but will be eventually sold so that they can invest in the club infrastructure without having to spend any of MLSE's money. (Edu and now there is mention of Sanyang, VPjr mentioned Frei's people are working on Europe too)
3) A willingness to have a head coach that has no business being in the position that he is. Lack of experience or 0 footy IQ, either way he isn't up to snuff.

Currently we only have 21 players on the roster, yet have a salary cap of 2.3 million + 300K allocation for not making the playoffs, 500K from the Edu sale plus an additional 100k allocation that was given to all teams. From what we have all heard, Mo is trying to unload a player to be able to fit in JDG under the salary so we know that there isn't a lot of wiggle room left. And 2 of the players on our roster are G/A so we don't have to count their salary against the cap. So in effect we have 19 players sucking out close to 3.2 million.

Now lets look at the philosphy of Houston.

I chose them because they are one of the class teams of the league. They have 25 players listed on their roster. I am assuming there is an error in there somewhere because the roster limit is 24, or because they have a player listed under the disabled list and there is an exception to the rule that you can go over the roster limit to replace a player you lose for the season due to injury. They have 2 G.A. players listed, just as Toronto does. Now granted I don't know how much allocation they have available this season because it has been hard enough just tracking TFC's lol. But suffice to say they did get some from their trades but they surely didn't get any for missing the playoffs and they certainly haven't had an Edu sale so they are working with less money. And yet they have a full roster of 24 players.

Now there are obviously pro's and con's to each philosophy, In TFC's case, with spending so much cash, you should have a good starting 11 (we don't), and higher quality depth (we don't), just not as much which limits the ability of the coach in player selections and formation choice. Because the club is young, any money that can be sunk into the infrastructure via player sales is a good thing.

In Houston's case, you have a better starting 11. However, the quality of depth by rights should just not be as good as TFC's (but it is better), but they do have more bodies so they should have an easier time filling in for injuries cards and international call ups. In addition, with more bodies means more competition for spots which in itself can be a major driver for having very motivated players, and more flexibility in formation and lineup choice.

Now if we look at the standings, which philosophy seems to be working?

Macksam
09-07-2009, 10:07 PM
The team has no identity.

Beach_Red
09-07-2009, 10:16 PM
It starts at the top.

Let's look at Mo's philosophy for a moment.

1) He has deliberately sacrificed a deeper roster in order to afford higher priced players.
2) Find some quality youth that are decent depth for MLS but will be eventually sold so that they can invest in the club infrastructure without having to spend any of MLSE's money. (Edu and now there is mention of Sanyang, VPjr mentioned Frei's people are working on Europe too)
3) A willingness to have a head coach that has no business being in the position that he is. Lack of experience or 0 footy IQ, either way he isn't up to snuff.

Currently we only have 21 players on the roster, yet have a salary cap of 2.3 million + 300K allocation for not making the playoffs, 500K from the Edu sale plus an additional 100k allocation that was given to all teams. From what we have all heard, Mo is trying to unload a player to be able to fit in JDG under the salary so we know that there isn't a lot of wiggle room left. And 2 of the players on our roster are G/A so we don't have to count their salary against the cap. So in effect we have 19 players sucking out close to 3.2 million.

Now lets look at the philosphy of Houston.

I chose them because they are one of the class teams of the league. They have 25 players listed on their roster. I am assuming there is an error in there somewhere because the roster limit is 24, or because they have a player listed under the disabled list and there is an exception to the rule that you can go over the roster limit to replace a player you lose for the season due to injury. They have 2 G.A. players listed, just as Toronto does. Now granted I don't know how much allocation they have available this season because it has been hard enough just tracking TFC's lol. But suffice to say they did get some from their trades but they surely didn't get any for missing the playoffs and they certainly haven't had an Edu sale so they are working with less money. And yet they have a full roster of 24 players.

Now there are obviously pro's and con's to each philosophy, In TFC's case, with spending so much cash, you should have a good starting 11 (we don't), and higher quality depth (we don't), just not as much which limits the ability of the coach in player selections and formation choice. Because the club is young, any money that can be sunk into the infrastructure via player sales is a good thing.

In Houston's case, you have a better starting 11. However, the quality of depth by rights should just not be as good as TFC's (but it is better), but they do have more bodies so they should have an easier time filling in for injuries cards and international call ups. In addition, with more bodies means more competition for spots which in itself can be a major driver for having very motivated players, and more flexibility in formation and lineup choice.

Now if we look at the standings, which philosophy seems to be working?


I'm really confused. You make a lot of sense, especially when you point out the smaller roster gives the coach fewer choices. But then I read other posts that point out the coach never makes any changes, anyway, even guys have a yellow card and are running around like maniacs. Of course, you have pointed out that the coach is way in over his head and most people here agree with that.

But what I really agree with is that it starts at the top. Above Mo.

There have been some very interesting coaching candidates mentioned on this board. Some of them Canadian guys. I'd like to see one of them given a chance, but I bet that's a hard sell in the MLSE boardroom.

The only thing keeping me interested right now is my hope that they're treating the coaching position like they did the DP - that they've targeted someone available at the end of the season (because he's not unemployed now) and they'll throw a lot of money at him.

S_D
09-07-2009, 10:38 PM
I'm really confused. You make a lot of sense, especially when you point out the smaller roster gives the coach fewer choices. But then I read other posts that point out the coach never makes any changes, anyway, even guys have a yellow card and are running around like maniacs. Of course, you have pointed out that the coach is way in over his head and most people here agree with that.


And that is the gist isn't it. Confusion. We have some players starting who have no business starting or being in the positions they are in. We do have some decent depth but not great, and that depth we do have is being used improperly, or isn't what is needed for the coach to make the right decisions. We see it all the time. When we are playing against a team with big defenders, (Chicago, Cbus, PRI come to mind) small forwards are played. We see a player losing it and yet he isn't subbed off. (Barrett's red, Sanyang's red and arguably Serioux' red)

We have NO natural wingers with the excetion of Jimmy B who has had a crappy season. We have a converted striker who can't score or cross, and we have an attacking mid playing the other side who isn't a winger. Mo put the players in there and Cummins has to make do, and yet he doesn't have the experience to be able to do it. And it was Mo who let him have the position in the first place. It all leads back to Mo, and the guy who thought it was a good idea to hire him.

And yet it is going to be Cummins who is the only one who gets the shaft while the guy who caused this mess in the first place is going to get a 3 year extension.:rolleyes:

koryo
09-08-2009, 06:56 AM
2) I've often wondered whether there is a team chemistry problem. The inconsistent play and the way some players go about their business on the pitch just seems to me that several players are on a different page, perhaps of the same playbook, perhaps not. If it is just not being able to play the same game plan as indicated by the coaching staff, then that speaks of a more serious problem in terms of a) skill or b) a division within team ranks, a division opposed to the instructions given by the coaches.


I've thought this for awhile now. A division in the dressing room would certainly explain their performance.

felipe
09-08-2009, 07:56 AM
Hand off the panic buttons!

We're fine; we'll squeak into the playoffs this year and be champions next year!

Year Five we win the champions league!

Remember the five year plan!

I'm sure all of the turmoil in recent times is all part of the plan; Mo's a genius and has orchestrated the whole situation.

Don't worry!

Everything will come out after the playoffs.

joel
09-08-2009, 08:12 AM
It's either a combination of caoching and/or the players not learning of performing. I mean, what coach actually promotes a strategy of hoofing it up the field? I really don't think that's what cummins is trying to do. We had a 4-3-3 for awhile and much better passing. I feel like the players share a lot of fault in not creating enough movement to move the ball up the field on the ground. They aren't hungry enough.

hodgkiss
09-08-2009, 08:16 AM
i think chris is an adequate coach but that doesn't cut it. carver had something good going but even he was hit and miss.

i'm not talking about the players performing. i'm talking more about who he fields, the lack of playing certain players and the insistent playing of other players who don't perform.

even substitutions in my books are way off - from the players who are subbed in and out to the timing of the substitutions.

just novice! and that is what causes more of our losses than anything else.

olegunnar
09-08-2009, 08:57 AM
In my opinion...the fish rots from the head. It's Mo.

He's failed in hiring a good coach.

He's failed in putting together a winning team.

He's failed in putting together a balanced team. We have no wingers. We have no depth.

He's failed at putting together a cohesive team. We constantly see reactive bandaid roster moves. That's killed chemistry, used up our allocations, and led to the divisive group we have now. How many strikers will he sign before he finds a good one? How many seasons will we be asking for some quality defenders?

He's failed in building a foundation. We're an expansion team, it was expected we'd struggle early on, but the idea is you take your punishment since you're building...short term pain for long term gain. We weren't building anything. We're sitting around throwing shit against the wall and hoping something sticks. How many young players are with us that we signed in year one? year two? are they starters now? are they any good or developing? (by my count we have Wynne...and that's it...so 2 years of sucking...and all we got is our older players getting burnt out from the crappy turf, no foundation).
A lot of people are poionting to this years crop as the future...that's nice....but how many failed attempts were there going in an out the revolving door before we found some players with potential?

Also in a touchy feely way...Mo's not a nice person...I don't think he's the type to be a leader. He's not the type to rally behind...he's not the type to be trusted, he's not the type you're going to respect. That's not a good mix for a leader and that negative vibe filters down the ranks.

billyfly
09-08-2009, 09:23 AM
Its "Toronto" man. Jays and Argos are not MLSE and they SUCK TOO.

We need an exorcism and STAT.


I guess no one other than myself subscribes to this theory.

I am telling you guys that there is no other explanation.

Beach_Red
09-08-2009, 09:30 AM
Also in a touchy feely way...Mo's not a nice person...I don't think he's the type to be a leader. He's not the type to rally behind...he's not the type to be trusted, he's not the type you're going to respect. That's not a good mix for a leader and that negative vibe filters down the ranks.

Wasn't he the captain of Kansas City when they won the MLS Cup?

Cobblers
09-08-2009, 09:31 AM
As has been mentioned, I think it's a combination of problems that make us inconsistent.

Firstly, Mo hasn't built a squad based on needs but more on individual talent or potential talent. He has lots of nicely shaped puzzle pieces but they don't fit together. We have needed a decent winger since last season, but that hasn't been addressed...

Secondly, Cummins isn't ready for the head coaching stage yet. While I think he is shorthanded in the correct personnel (see above), he also doesn't react well during games and doesn't seem to be able to effectively correct things that went wrong in previous games. He also hasn't done enough experimenting with his strike options to find a decent partnership (the positional awareness of both Dichio and Gerba I think would make a decent partnership but they need service - see below).

Disregarding the number of Chad Barrett's missed chances, I don't think it is fair to blame any of our other strikers for our lack of goals. The service to our strikers is absolutely shameful - they are just not being given opportunities to score.

The biggest problem in my eyes is in our midfield. We have talent and ability but we aren't filling space well enough. I'm not sure if it's fitness, coaching, lack of faith in each other, but we have nothing in the middle of the pitch. Guevara has been a ghost because he's the only one there - he has had to track all the way back to pick up the ball (how many times have you seen him get it directly from Gomez, Garcia or Serioux near his own box) and then try to fill the space and support the wingers and strikers going forward - he hasn't been able to do this by himself so the gap between him and our strikers is huge. This is also why we see DeRo pick up the ball at half and try to take on several guys and attempt to shoot - there's no one else there other than his strike partner (often Barrett who I think has lost his teammates faith in him). If the JDG deal comes through this would go a long way to helping fill this hole. We still need wingers to round out our midfield but i think Cronin on the right and DeRo out left could make it work if they spent some time in practice focusing on this - one-twos with midfielders to get down the line, beating a man or two then crossing, all drills to get the most out of our wingers.

Despite his individual skill I don't see a place for Vitti. He doesn't do enough as a midfielder to justify being there. He can beat one guy but that's it. His decision-making is poor, he is slow, he can't tackle to save his life, and his passing is average....

TFC OZZ
09-08-2009, 10:39 AM
Whatever we do with the coaching, I think we need to keep Cummins as an assistant for sure; assuming that he and the new potential coach work in harmony. Cummins seems like a smart guy, just not a head coach.

Detroit_TFC
09-08-2009, 10:49 AM
Not sure we would be able to attract high caliber coaching talent with Mo in place as Dir of Soccer. Nothing personal against Mo. Bruce Arena's condition in coming to LA was to have control over recruiting, I would expect the same from anybody worth bringing in.

trane
09-08-2009, 10:55 AM
I voted coachin as it is the single biggest problem, but I think that overall the managment and direction of this club seems to be wrong.

Bloor West FC
09-08-2009, 12:15 PM
No question about it, its the players not adding the finishing touch. How many open net misses do we need? That's why were not in a playoff spot. Remember the game against Seattle, that should have gave us 3 points. But we could not hit the back of the net. It has happened so many times.

Roogsy
09-08-2009, 12:37 PM
^ That's where I have a question about the players Bloor. I mean throughout his career, has DeRo EVER been considered someone who "can't finish"? Ever? Quite the opposite, he has been known as a clutch player in this league. One of the best in big games. So what's the problem? Why has Toronto FC influenced even DeRo's ability to produce in big games? Is he past it? Is it the system? The coaching? The players around him? The atmosphere around the club? What?

Personally, I can't think it's DeRo. If he were still in Houston, not only would they be near the top of the league like they are now...they would be at the very top. I think DeRo has joined a team in disarray and I have to wonder if he is reconsidering his decision.

Cashcleaner
09-08-2009, 12:46 PM
They've left that up to Mo. Therefore, the issue is with Mo. I can't blame MLSE if Mo hasn't gone to them and said "give me a scouting staff". Has he? Should we blame MLSE before we know if MLSE is denying Mo what he needs?

Either way...if you blame Mo or MLSE...the third option should suit that particular complaint just fine. After all it's pretty general when it refers to the "front office", that could include MLSE management.

Well, actually the thing is that we've only got people's word to take on these sorta things. Why wouldn't Mo ask for a coaching staff? What manager wouldn't take stock of what he has and ask the club for what he needs to plug the holes, so to speak?

I think its nonsense. If Mo needs a scouting staff or a new fitness trainer or whatever, there is no doubt in my mind that he'll approach the higher-ups and ask for that. But asking for what you need is one thing, and getting it from your bosses is a different matter altogether. I have a feeling the purse strings are pulled tighter than you think.

Toronto_Bhoy
09-08-2009, 12:54 PM
Interesting stuff Roogsy & Cash…I agree with both of you…but this is exactly why I blame Mo and the FO!

If JDG calls Dero and asks, "What's it like at TFC?"…what's his answer? Doubt its gonna be (to quote a cereal character)…"It's Grrrrrrrrrreat!"

Who's fault is that?

Its been said here and elsewhere that Mo is waiting for Stevie Nichol's contract to expire…but the damage may already be done. We are more than a coach away from winning we need and have needed a goal scorer from Day One…that's Mo's job!

And by the way…JDG is NOT a goal scorer…he will provide more opportunities for the "goal scorers" we have to fuck up…

olegunnar
09-08-2009, 12:59 PM
Its been said here and elsewhere that Mo is waiting for Stevie Nichol's contract to expire

Why would Steve Nichol want to or accept working for Mo?

Based on achievement it should be the other way around.

Beach_Red
09-08-2009, 01:21 PM
Why would Steve Nichol want to or accept working for Mo?

Based on achievement it should be the other way around.

Life is full of "should be," but we all have to accept what is.

There is clearly something going on in NE that prevents them from getting over the final hurdle to the MLS Cup. Maybe it was only as a player, but Mo has won it.

Who knows, maybe the two of them could put together a dynasty in MLS.

ilikemusic
09-08-2009, 02:09 PM
It all starts at the top.

CretanBull
09-08-2009, 02:42 PM
I don't know how people can blame Cummins...his options are severly limited by the roster he has. Everyone can aknowledge that we have problems at the back, but our midfield is made up entirely of CMs and our front line is made up of guys like Vitti and Barrett who aren't natural strikers, Dichio who does his best and an over-weight out of shape Gerba. I don't think that there's a coach in the world who could find success with this mix of players - and that falls on Mo's head.

When Cummins get's out-coached, 9 times out of 10 its not because he tactically doesn't know any better its because he doesn't have any other options.

hodgkiss
09-08-2009, 02:45 PM
the option of using zero subs during a game is not what i would consider a "good" tactic. especially when ur not winning.

flatpicker
09-08-2009, 02:49 PM
My thinking right now...
Toronto's issues are with too much player movement and not enough time for a starting 11 to gel.

Since the team began, it has been non-stop tinkering with roster and lineup.

This is obviously Mo's area... but I am not necessarily a "Mo hater".

The team is an ongoing 'experiment'... and time is quickly running out for some kind of conclusion to this.

3 years is enough time to build a team... next year, we need to see a consistent lineup.
I understand the occasional player movement here and there... but there must be some cohesiveness in year 4.

Mo has picked up some good pieces over time... but now he needs to have results.
If we are not battling for the Supporters' Shield next season, then Mo will be in my black list.

Beach_Red
09-08-2009, 02:52 PM
^ by season four we really shouldn't have any players left from the expansion year.