PDA

View Full Version : Which coach regime displayed the most attactive football?



nickio
08-05-2011, 12:04 AM
Which coach regime displayed the most attractive football TO YOU, FROM A GAMEPLAY STYLE PERSPECTIVE? Not wins or losses- that's not the point of this.

Attractive: pleasing to the eye or mind; charming.

menefreghista
08-05-2011, 05:52 AM
Where's Dasovic and Cummins?

In fact, the way this team has played of late reminds me a lot of the Dasovic era.

nickio
08-05-2011, 05:54 AM
Where's Dasovic and Cummins?

In fact, the way this team has played of late reminds me a lot of the Dasovic era.

Considering that they were interim coaches and never built a team of their own, it would be unfair to evaluate their "style"...

menefreghista
08-05-2011, 05:56 AM
The poll is useless without them.

They both coached long enough for people to form an opinion on them.

nickio
08-05-2011, 06:05 AM
The poll is useless without them.

They both coached long enough for people to form an opinion on them.


...in your opinion.

Fort York Redcoat
08-05-2011, 07:14 AM
Winter.

Mikey
08-05-2011, 07:44 AM
Frings.

He has done more "coaching" in the last couple of weeks from on the pitch than anyone on your list when they were on the sideline.

Oblio2
08-05-2011, 07:53 AM
Cummings

Or

Dasovic

West220Side
08-05-2011, 08:06 AM
I think we should go off on a rant and find who voted for Mo Johnston.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CwGS71_TWPk/TTt8-sOcoOI/AAAAAAAAACY/QbknC6I6f4E/s1600/sss.jpg

Pachuco
08-05-2011, 08:10 AM
No one will convince me that letting in all the goals Winter's team have let in is "attractive" football. The overwhelming vote for Winter is shocking, and I think it has alot to do with people drinking the koolaid. It's one thing to say he's trying to implement an attractive system, but I just can't believe people think we've actually executed on that.

Anyway, Carver's team for me were the most "attractive" and entertaining to watch. We had some pretty skilled players on that team, and although they played like individuals, it was still much more attractive to watch then this year's team.

Whoop
08-05-2011, 08:12 AM
Where's none?

ensco
08-05-2011, 08:18 AM
I would have structured the poll this way:

A. Barry Maclean
B. WinterMariner

ManUtd4ever
08-05-2011, 08:38 AM
I think our current group of players under Winter and Mariner is capable of playing the most attractive football, but it is too early to tell. The first half of the 2011 season was dreadful, and it wasn't asthetically pleasing either, because most of the players couldn't grasp the nuances of the new regime's philosophy.

In all honesty, I thought the first half of the 2008 season under John Carver was the most attractive football TFC fans have witnessed for an extended period of time. Once the likes of Guevara, Robert, and Ricketts were added to that team after game 3, that version of TFC went on an admirable run until injuries and national team call ups decimated the lineup. I remember going to BMO Field at that point in time and TFC would regularly outplay and defeat the opposition, usually by a comfortable margin.

Hopefully, those days will soon return to BMO Field.

Jack
08-05-2011, 08:43 AM
No one will convince me that letting in all the goals Winter's team have let in is "attractive" football. The overwhelming vote for Winter is shocking, and I think it has alot to do with people drinking the koolaid. It's one thing to say he's trying to implement an attractive system, but I just can't believe people think we've actually executed on that.

Anyway, Carver's team for me were the most "attractive" and entertaining to watch. We had some pretty skilled players on that team, and although they played like individuals, it was still much more attractive to watch then this year's team.

Hey, ease up on insulting your fellow supporters with the tired "drinking the Koolaid" cliche. Just because you feel you "see through" the MLSE spin doesn't make you some brilliant genius amongst mere mortals. Everyone has their opinion and reasons for voting. I personally think, in the few games where things have clicked, that Winter's system is quite attractive. But I also agree with your assessment that we have generally failed to execute. To me, winning=attractive football, but winning with some style is ideal. Losing with style is still better than losing while playing boring football. 1-0 is just as much of a loss as 3-2, but at least you get a couple of goals out of it.

Bottom line is, we haven't played a lot of attractive football in our short history.

Detroit_TFC
08-05-2011, 08:45 AM
That one stretch where we had a bunch of home wins probably was the high point. So I guess that was Carver, right?

More:
but - had Carver stayed, some of the internal dynamics that got exposed during the Dasovic interim period would have derailed things IMO. But in terms of snapshots, that was the best period of attractive play.

menefreghista
08-05-2011, 08:51 AM
That one stretch where we had a bunch of home wins probably was the high point. So I guess that was Carver, right?

Every season in TFC's history, other than this one, TFC went on a bit of a run in May and June after a slow start.

Hell, TFC's best ever league game was in season one (father's day game).

Stouffville_RPB
08-05-2011, 08:58 AM
Considering that they were interim coaches and never built a team of their own, it would be unfair to evaluate their "style"...

Cummins was probably here for about the same length as Preki.



In fact, the way this team has played of late reminds me a lot of the Dasovic era.

I think that's because Daso went to 4-5-1 which the 4-3-3 easily morphs into.


Anyway I think one of the most attractive games we ever played was Cummins first game in charge (when Carver was up in the press box) against Chivas.

To date I think that the JC era was most able to deliver attractive football on a consistent basis.

BUT

You are beginning to see Winter's team play an attractive system at times more regularly now then the first half of the year though. The runs from the full backs are nice and the play in the mid-field is improving. If the CB's could mark and distribute better I don't think it would be close for me.

Voting JC but if I ask myself this next season (or even at the end of this one depending how we close out) I may come up with a different answer.

ag futbol
08-05-2011, 09:08 AM
You're missing Cummings which would have easily been my answer.

Ironically enough, he was forced into playing the way he did by Mo Johnston's unbalanced roster.

Anyone who votes for Carver will be shot, unless you consider mindlessly whiffing balls in from the flank "attractive football".

Pachuco
08-05-2011, 09:21 AM
Hey, ease up on insulting your fellow supporters with the tired "drinking the Koolaid" cliche. Just because you feel you "see through" the MLSE spin doesn't make you some brilliant genius amongst mere mortals. Everyone has their opinion and reasons for voting. I personally think, in the few games where things have clicked, that Winter's system is quite attractive. But I also agree with your assessment that we have generally failed to execute. To me, winning=attractive football, but winning with some style is ideal. Losing with style is still better than losing while playing boring football. 1-0 is just as much of a loss as 3-2, but at least you get a couple of goals out of it.

Bottom line is, we haven't played a lot of attractive football in our short history.

I'm just not very politically correct sometimes. I don't know how else to describe it. I honestly feel that if you insert Preki as coach, with these results and this level of play we'd be saying Preki can't even build a team who can make more then 2 passes in the opposing end. I think the notion that this team plays attractive football comes from the reputation of the coaches and the system they are trying to build. But for there to be an overwhelming number of votes saying Winter's team has played the most attractive football we've seen at BMO?

Well then people must be voting on potential, it would be hard to convince me they are voting on actual execution.

And yes, if were were voting on potential, then I'd vote for Winter too.

Jack
08-05-2011, 09:24 AM
There you go :D a well-expressed point of view that doesn't ridicule or belittle other people! I knew you could do it. Believe it or not, not everyone is an idiot (though a lot of people are ;))

Roogsy
08-05-2011, 09:30 AM
I would have structured the poll this way:

A. Barry Maclean
B. WinterMariner


Interesting enough, Maclean's influence has not been removed from this club, only hidden better.

Jack
08-05-2011, 09:32 AM
If Maclean can get serviceable players, is that an issue? Or is there shady stuff happening? I love a good conspiracy.

nascarguy
08-05-2011, 09:37 AM
Where's none?
yeah that my vote!

Most MLS teams do not play attactive football.

TFCRegina
08-05-2011, 09:37 AM
...in your opinion.

And mine. I was going to vote Cummins.

Jack
08-05-2011, 09:41 AM
I think you could describe Cummins' tenure as a regime, but Dasovic? I dunno. None of our coaches have had much time to establish anything, nor have they had a stable roster with which to do so.

Roogsy
08-05-2011, 09:57 AM
And mine. I was going to vote Cummins.


I would have liked to see Cummins given the leeway that Winter was given. Cummins could have done something and more importantly, he was a proven developer of talent and had the respect of the players. The drama during his tenure came from surrounding elements.

jabbronies
08-05-2011, 10:01 AM
I would have liked to see Cummins given the leeway that Winter was given. Cummins could have done something and more importantly, he was a proven developer of talent and had the respect of the players. The drama during his tenure came from surrounding elements.

No one under MoJo was given a chance at anything IMO - He meddled way too much.

I wonder how Cummins would've done under Mariner? That would have been very interesting.

TO DEVILS
08-05-2011, 10:02 AM
I would have liked to see Cummins given the leeway that Winter was given. Cummins could have done something and more importantly, he was a proven developer of talent and had the respect of the players. The drama during his tenure came from surrounding elements.

For Mo to get him a DP (JDG) they needed a Board of Directors meeting and approval, for Winter to get 2 DPs he needed a phone call to the players agents.

Winter has been given far more leeway than anyone before him, but i also think the times have changed in MLSE as far as TFC goes, and i think someone has said the old phrase....I don't care how you do it, just get it done.

Beach_Red
08-05-2011, 10:12 AM
If Maclean can get serviceable players, is that an issue? Or is there shady stuff happening? I love a good conspiracy.

It always seemed odd that the same agent could prepresent the player and the GM -- both sides of the negotiations.

TO DEVILS
08-05-2011, 10:20 AM
It always seemed odd that the same agent could prepresent the player and the GM -- both sides of the negotiations.

Out of the first 14 players we ever signed, either by expansion draft, draft or free agents, 10 were Barry's clients with First Wave. Some that weren't were traded for Barry's players at one point or another.

Lets also not forget the open trials that Barry and Mo had in season 1 and 2 for any amateur trying to make the team, where they had to pay $100 per person and not one single one was ever signed to TFC.

Or the coaching staff, from the Academy to the main team, in the first three seasons were all Barry's men.

If there is one thing that ENRON taught us all is that you should never have these sorts of situations happening.

Roogsy
08-05-2011, 10:24 AM
This is getting a litte off-topic but just as a post-script to the Barry issue, we blame Mo often for what happened but Barry got off pretty scott-free from all this considering his tentacles are still found in TFC lockerrooms and front offices, which is not a good thing for our team. He hasn't gone anywhere. TFC is his bread and butter. He doesn't represent many players in the US, especially after breaking off from First Wave who now have mostly US operations and aren't associated with Barry anymore.

TOBOR !
08-05-2011, 10:45 AM
Which coach regime displayed the most attractive football TO YOU, FROM A GAMEPLAY STYLE PERSPECTIVE? Not wins or losses- that's not the point of this.

Attractive: pleasing to the eye or mind; charming.

Do you work for MLSE ?

menefreghista
08-05-2011, 11:01 AM
Do you work for MLSE ?

LOL.

He probably helped him out with that fan survey from a few weeks back.

Cashcleaner
08-05-2011, 11:05 AM
Surely in order to display attractive football, you need to be in possession of the ball for a reasonable period of time over the course of a match. And with that in mind, I voted for Carver.

ManUtd4ever
08-05-2011, 11:38 AM
Out of the first 14 players we ever signed, either by expansion draft, draft or free agents, 10 were Barry's clients with First Wave. Some that weren't were traded for Barry's players at one point or another.

Lets also not forget the open trials that Barry and Mo had in season 1 and 2 for any amateur trying to make the team, where they had to pay $100 per person and not one single one was ever signed to TFC.

Or the coaching staff, from the Academy to the main team, in the first three seasons were all Barry's men.

If there is one thing that ENRON taught us all is that you should never have these sorts of situations happening.

It's amazing that this situation flew under the radar for so long. The first time I heard about it was on this forum, in season 3...

Beach_Red
08-05-2011, 11:43 AM
It's amazing that this situation flew under the radar for so long. The first time I heard about it was on this forum, in season 3...


Makes you wonder what's flying under the radar now...

Detroit_TFC
08-05-2011, 11:44 AM
The First Wave control of TFC's front office.

Of all the things to be pissed off about in our short experience, to me this is ground zero. So many of the other problems are linked to this. Essentially this team was captured by an inside deal and this retarded the development of a playing core.

ManUtd4ever
08-05-2011, 11:46 AM
Makes you wonder what's flying under the radar now...

LOL, touche. Well, at the very least, it seems rather apparent that our roster choices have not been predominantly limited to players represented by First Wave.

ManUtd4ever
08-05-2011, 11:47 AM
^ +100

Of all the things to be pissed off about in our short experience, to me this this ground zero. So much of all the other problems are linked to this. Essentially this team was captured by an inside deal and this retarded the development of a playing core.

Agreed.

Cashcleaner
08-05-2011, 12:38 PM
The First Wave control of TFC's front office.

Of all the things to be pissed off about in our short experience, to me this is ground zero. So many of the other problems are linked to this. Essentially this team was captured by an inside deal and this retarded the development of a playing core.

Couldn't agree more. The fact that this all went down in our formative years is the real kicker. We effectively started off with one hand tied behind our backs and it continued for well over two seasons.

nfitz
08-05-2011, 12:46 PM
Considering that they were interim coaches and never built a team of their own, it would be unfair to evaluate their "style"...Given that Cummins did more MLS games than Preki, it would be unfair NOT to evaluate their style.

The poll is fatally flawed.

trane
08-05-2011, 01:32 PM
unlike most on this board, I do not give a shit about the football being attractive or attacking, I care about it being effective. No one has been effective enough to date.

ginkster88
08-05-2011, 01:40 PM
Cummins, thanks for the broken poll Nikio!

djking2
08-05-2011, 04:19 PM
4-3-3 therefore Cummins

Cashcleaner
08-05-2011, 05:01 PM
unlike most on this board, I do not give a shit about the football being attractive or attacking, I care about it being effective. No one has been effective enough to date.

Christ Trane, you're like the King of negative generalizations here.

I'd bet you good money that the wide majority of people here would take an effective team with a winning track record over a stylish one any day of the fucking week.

Give your head and shake.

Cristiano14
08-05-2011, 10:26 PM
Cummings for sure for me
biggest scoring margins, and the team seemed to gel and play well for the most part except for that final crap show

nickio
08-06-2011, 12:44 AM
Haha- no I do not work for MLSE, I wish I did though. :)

As for the poll, I honestly forgot about the interim coaches, I was just thinking of the 4. I think it's fair to say though, Winter's team would be first- followed by Cummins, Carver and MoJo.

Now... who is the guy that voted for Preki?!

Couchy81
08-06-2011, 01:41 AM
Now... who is the guy that voted for Preki?!

123 elite


If he kept most of Preki's guys and we had climbed up a few more spots in the standings to where Preki was at this stage last year, would that make you happier?


Yes actually. I would. I don't see any of the improvment people on here see.

:D

Oldtimer
08-06-2011, 09:13 AM
Which coach regime displayed the most attractive football TO YOU, FROM A GAMEPLAY STYLE PERSPECTIVE? Not wins or losses- that's not the point of this.

Attractive: pleasing to the eye or mind; charming.

Just want to remind folks here that this was the original question. We're getting into wins/losses, which nickio wanted to exclude (there's other threads for that).

In my opinion Carver's had the most attractive football so far, but the current squad has the most potential for attractive (pleasing to the mind) football. There wasn't really a poll answer for that.

sashavukelich
08-06-2011, 12:20 PM
seriously, people who are having a go at Nickio for making a poll need to check themselves and grow up.

I'd say Carver and Winter equally so far. Our Winter squad is easily the most talented to date however.

J .
08-07-2011, 02:57 AM
Winters team gets spanked all the time and nothing about that is attractive.

Shakes McQueen
08-07-2011, 04:28 AM
I'd say the current team, by which I literally mean the team at present, plays the most attractive football. Of course, it isn't exactly a high bar to get over.

- Scott

Brooker
08-07-2011, 04:42 AM
Sorry why is Cummins not in this poll? Shitbin this one.


I'd say the current team, by which I literally mean the team at present, plays the most attractive football. Of course, it isn't exactly a high bar to get over.

- Scott

I agree with that.

rocker
08-07-2011, 10:12 AM
Winter's team plays the most attractive football on the offensive end, and does it more consistently, than any team we've had. Now, with some defensive holes, things go bad at the other end. But Carver's and Cummins' teams had their defensive holes as well (we've always complained of the defense, back to 2007 when Reda and Braz were our whipping boys).

But Carver and Cummins' teams didn't play the ball on the ground. They were wing play/long ball teams that I distinctly remember received many complains from fans on this board -- "why do we play so many long balls .... why do play the English style...." Winter's team plays way more on the ground than any team we've had, and I think people find that more attractive.

69Chevy396
08-07-2011, 10:41 AM
This sort of discussion is so natural in Toronto, where generations of sports fans have been lamenting so long. The Directors of mlse must have a good long laugh when they get wind of this. For them, nothing is easier then selling season tickets to people who demand so little of their teams. If we were in Argentina, the various Firms would have set fire to the head offices long ago. Nobody in their right mind would trade the best player for a pylon like I-ROT, they would be afraid to leave their homes in the morning. Atractive football? Not in Toronto as long as mlse owns the team.

Oldtimer
08-11-2011, 06:28 AM
This sort of discussion is so natural in Toronto, where generations of sports fans have been lamenting so long. The Directors of mlse must have a good long laugh when they get wind of this. For them, nothing is easier then selling season tickets to people who demand so little of their teams.

No one's saying that we are happy with losses.

The question was an innocent one, just asking about styles of play. You don't have to read into it that the thread starter is then saying "it's OK to lose, as long as you do it gracefully" (which is what you are implying). It's just a comparison of English traditional longball vs.a more possession style. Some people find a more direct style more to their taste (such as JC used), others like a more possession style.

Pretty well most of the board hated Prekiball, the votes on this thread reflect that. Mo as a coach was so inept there was no discernible style whatsoever. The votes also reflect that.