PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk about the FO



Oldtimer
06-07-2012, 08:42 AM
Let's talk about the TFC FO.

With a break after a sobering 1-9 start to the season after a good CCL run, it's a good time to talk about how we feel about the FO. How are people feeling? Here's my view on the various people, why I feel the way I do about them, and why I might possibly be wrong.

BDK

Opinion: He actually hasn't worked out as a coach, but may be OK in the office.

Why: Due to his Sir Alex treatment of players (minus the boot in the face), and his bombastic treatment of game officials and punch-outs with opposing team coaches. He'll probably do better punching out ML$E minions in the offices :D . He has experience at Ajax that suggest he might do OK in bringing in players.

Why I could be wrong: North America is not Europe, he's run into cultural differences in coaching players, these may handicap him in dealing with GMs and the like.

Mariner

Opinion: has not worked out at all.

Why: It's pretty clear that he doesn't work well with Winter. The story is that he has been part of the group keeping Winter from having the team of his choosing. His picks have overall been poorer than expected (especially in bolstering TFC's defense).

Why I could be wrong: He did great with the Revs, he might do well if a certain former Revs coach is brought in.


Cochrane:

Opinion: the sooner he is out the door at TFC, the better. I'm sure ML$E can find him some other job in the organization

Why: If nothing else, he should have been fired over the DeRo to Celtic disaster. Everything else he touched as a GM turned to crap.

Why I could be wrong: his links with the CSA could be helpful in bringing talent to the academy (unlikely though).

Anselmi:

Opinion: the only constant in TFC's failures

Why: He hired Mo, he failed to fire him after the 5-0 loss in NY, he admitted his incompetence when hiring Klinnsman

Why I could be wrong: if he hires good advisors, he might right the ship (although if he even knows where the ship is, I'd be surprised).

Winter:

Opinion: Inexperienced, in over his head, the wrong hire at the time when we needed solid MLS experience, done for the wrong reasons

Why: Inflexibility in tactics (a typical reaction when you don't have the confidence that you know what you're doing), slow to make decisions (took way too long to rebuild the team), strange substitutions, continuing to try some formations when they've already been proven no good, hiring BDK as coach which didn't work out. Hired to promote "total football" to SSHs and the media, so brought in for the wrong reasons.

Why I could be wrong: he may ultimately learn enough on the job to run this team (too bad we had to suffer with an inexperienced trainee). 1-9 is never 100% the coach, other factors are always in play.


CONCLUSION: Unfortunately some exits need to happen.

dupont
06-07-2012, 08:52 AM
I knew there would be trouble when I heard TFC was trying to form a coaching staff based around a "style of play" or mentality that suits the city. After so many failed seasons, the only concern should have been getting a coaching staff to produce any kind of positive results. Style of play should have been the last concern considering how starved we are in Toronto for playoffs.
So I put the blame on the front office for going about the hiring in this way.

Phil
06-07-2012, 08:53 AM
Overall my frustration is with the actual structure. Until that is fixed I think we continue to re-arrange chairs on the deck of the titanic.

We need a president who actually oversees operations and has accountability. If things are going bad then that person is there to make the appropriate changes instead of looking to MLSE executives and consultants to fix the issues. They got most of the directional stuff right but they can't seem to appoint the roles and people needed to see it through.

Just some off the cuff thoughts about the football structure overall.

Shakes McQueen
06-07-2012, 08:56 AM
I agree with this assessment more or less. Cochrane and Anselmi are the two ASAP must-exits for me. They are the two constants after all this time, and it's time to own up to that half-decade of failure (I'll give them the expansion year).

Winter I think needs to be shown the door as well, unfortunately. I liked what he appeared to be building last season, and that seemed to be bearing fruit in the CCL prior to this season with some fantastic performances against some solid opposition. However, you can't argue with 1-9 - our one win coming against a similarly feckless team. He's not the sole bearer of responsibility for that record, but unfortunately coaches are easier to turn over than entire rosters. He owns this lineup - these are his players. He had opportunities to fill the holes that needed to be filled last season and last winter, and he seems to have failed at that.

- Scott

Suds
06-07-2012, 09:09 AM
Overall my frustration is with the actual structure. Until that is fixed I think we continue to re-arrange chairs on the deck of the titanic.

We need a president who actually oversees operations and has accountability. If things are going bad then that person is there to make the appropriate changes instead of looking to MLSE executives and consultants to fix the issues. They got most of the directional stuff right but they can't seem to appoint the roles and people needed to see it through.

Just some off the cuff thoughts about the football structure overall.

Agree. The idea of giving partial control of different aspects of the club to different people but also needing some form of board approval for other decisions is never going to work. It's clear Anselmi does not want to hand over full decision making around the club to any one person. When it comes to making a decision on a DP the club needs to go to the MLSE board and makes it's case to spend. And from the outside looking in it seems we have too many people where one can't tell exactly what their roles and responsibilities are and how they are measured for success.

I'm not willing to let anyone in our FO off the hook for their performance, but I think the structure is setting them up for failure. Or, at the very least it is hindering success. I'm not convinced making personnel changes will have a major impact if the structure which they work within is not changed as well.

You know what they say about too many cooks. Gordon Ramsey loses it - or at least I continue to. :)

Beach_Red
06-07-2012, 09:17 AM
I knew there would be trouble when I heard TFC was trying to form a coaching staff based around a "style of play" or mentality that suits the city. After so many failed seasons, the only concern should have been getting a coaching staff to produce any kind of positive results. Style of play should have been the last concern considering how starved we are in Toronto for playoffs.
So I put the blame on the front office for going about the hiring in this way.

Especially since the one they picked doesn't suit the history or the character of the city at all. If they think it does, they've never explained how.

It does seem like until there is a president of the team the rest of this will go in circles forever. Maybe the team will rise a little in the standings and have some good games here and there but without a solid structure it won't be sustained.

There still seems to be a real lack of respect for the opposition in this league, if not for the league itself.

Detroit_TFC
06-07-2012, 09:21 AM
It's normal business practice that when things go bad, someone has to answer for it. So getting rid of Cochrane and Anselmi makes sense. But I'd like to have a better understanding of the specific points of evidence of how they have made things worse. Or are they sins of omission (not doing something or standing by when something should have been done) rather than sins of commission (doing bad things)?

Whoop
06-07-2012, 09:22 AM
Major announcement at 1:30 p.m.

Though I doubt it's about the coaching staff.

Canary10
06-07-2012, 09:23 AM
Especially since the one they picked doesn't suit the history or the character of the city at all. If they think it does, they've never explained how.

It does seem like until there is a president of the team the rest of this will go in circles forever. Maybe the team will rise a little in the standings and have some good games here and there but without a solid structure it won't be sustained.

There still seems to be a real lack of respect for the opposition in this league, if not for the league itself.

Part of the "style of play" mentality has to be to understand where football is going. I think based on that we have the right direction. There is no question that the USMNT, for example, is going toward a more proactive style of play, and that is seeping down through the ranks there. In Canada, we have a long-term player development plan in place that emphaisizes skill development. This is all to say that I think TFC's direction is the right one. The staffing to implement not.

Canary10
06-07-2012, 09:24 AM
It's normal business practice that when things go bad, someone has to answer for it. So getting rid of Cochrane and Anselmi makes sense. But I'd like to have a better understanding of the specific points of evidence of how they have made things worse. Or are they sins of omission (not doing something or standing by when something should have been done) rather than sins of commission (doing bad things)?

Hiring Klinsmann to me is evidence that they just don't know enough about the soccer world to be guiding this ship.

Shakes McQueen
06-07-2012, 09:31 AM
It's normal business practice that when things go bad, someone has to answer for it. So getting rid of Cochrane and Anselmi makes sense. But I'd like to have a better understanding of the specific points of evidence of how they have made things worse. Or are they sins of omission (not doing something or standing by when something should have been done) rather than sins of commission (doing bad things)?

Unlike some, I think Anselmi wants to build a winner, and probably makes good faith efforts to try and do that within the confines of what's expected of him by the company. So I don't think he intentionally did "bad things".

I think he's simply incompetent at running a soccer team. He decided to reign over a soccer team despite having no experience with it for a few years, then when that inevitably failed, he tried to buy an expensive expert to tell him who to hire, but then still stayed in his role as overseer of the operation.

If Anselmi isn't going to be removed, he at least needs to remove himself from lordship of Toronto FC, and someone with actual experience doing the job needs to be brought in.

- Scott

Detroit_TFC
06-07-2012, 09:32 AM
Hiring Klinsmann to me is evidence that they just don't know enough about the soccer world to be guiding this ship.

A legit conclusion. If they don't have the strategic vision to guide the staff selection, how do they manage it after the consultants bring in the staff the consultants think are best for the team?

Edit - basically what Scott said above.

Suds
06-07-2012, 09:32 AM
It's normal business practice that when things go bad, someone has to answer for it. So getting rid of Cochrane and Anselmi makes sense. But I'd like to have a better understanding of the specific points of evidence of how they have made things worse. Or are they sins of omission (not doing something or standing by when something should have been done) rather than sins of commission (doing bad things)?

I hear ya. I don't want someone sacrificed to quell the mob. That does not serve us well at all. There is a fair bit a hate for Cochrane but I'm not sure exactly what he's done to cause the problems at TFC. (maybe I have not been enlightened yet) Which goes to my point above. Putting good people in a environment that does not allow them to use their talents to the best of their ability is not going to garner positive results.

For me, Anselmi has been a constant from day one. He clearly has to take some responsibility for bad decisions that have been made. If he didn't make them, then they were made on his watch by his people. That still sits at his door.

Beach_Red
06-07-2012, 09:39 AM
Part of the "style of play" mentality has to be to understand where football is going. I think based on that we have the right direction. There is no question that the USMNT, for example, is going toward a more proactive style of play, and that is seeping down through the ranks there. In Canada, we have a long-term player development plan in place that emphaisizes skill development. This is all to say that I think TFC's direction is the right one. The staffing to implement not.

In broad strokes, sure. No one is ever going to say, "Why don't we try to play a low-skill game?" Certainly no consultant will ever recommend that, it just doesn't stroke enough management ego.

But all I'm saying is the way that they've tried to sell this "culture" has no connection to what's already here or the history of what's here so they probably need to spend a little more time on the bridge, so to speak, to get us where they want to be. The staffing, as you say, is a clear example (I think) of not realizing what a huge culture shift they're talking about and what's involved. Generally peple don't give up on their culture or heritage easily. Toronto has been a grinder, head-down-hard-work town for a long time so to change that may need more time and some real leadership that just hasn't been provided.

Gazza
06-07-2012, 09:49 AM
Unlike some, I think Anselmi wants to build a winner, and probably makes good faith efforts to try and do that within the confines of what's expected of him by the company. So I don't think he intentionally did "bad things".

I think he's simply incompetent at running a soccer team. He decided to reign over a soccer team despite having no experience with it for a few years, then when that inevitably failed, he tried to buy an expensive expert to tell him who to hire, but then still stayed in his role as overseer of the operation.

If Anselmi isn't going to be removed, he at least needs to remove himself from lordship of Toronto FC, and someone with actual experience doing the job needs to be brought in.

- Scott

Anselmi is the only one of the "execs" that has to show his face. And he shows his face even when he doesn't have to. I have to believe it irks him just as much as anyone that this team is a failure on the field.

I doubt he would fall on his sword, but he has to know that he is incompetent when it comes to football operations. I wonder if he would recommend stepping aside for a football-oriented president to come in and take over the reigns? He's been a good soldier for ML$E, as far as profits are concerned, so i'd imagine he'd still have a role at the company.

__wowza
06-07-2012, 09:54 AM
Hiring Klinsmann to me is evidence that they just don't know enough about the soccer world to be guiding this ship.

bang-on! in some aspects you can say that at least they're big enough to realize that.

brad
06-07-2012, 09:57 AM
The manager must be able to put their people in place, and have the say on which hold overs from the previous regime stay or go.

You put a manager in, they bring in there team. The interaction between the board and the team goes through the gate of a the manager. No more setups where the manager is forced to work tightly with people they don't see eye to eye with (aka - Winter and Marnier), no more corporation man in charge of player signings (like Cochrane).

You hire a manger, give them the keys and then sink or swim based on that choice.

Canary10
06-07-2012, 09:58 AM
A basic principle should be that the coach chooses his staff. Norwich just hired their next manager, and brought with him the assistant, the head scout and reserve team coach. They made a major mistake in putting Mariner and Winter together and expecting them to work it out.

Another thing that should be done is MLSE provide the budget allocation to the team, and let them spend it as they see fit. There would be the lobbying for more money for player salaries, etc, that all managers everywhere have to deal with, but MLSE shouldn't be dictating who they sign.

Canary10
06-07-2012, 09:59 AM
Ha, Brad, you beat me to it.

Shakes McQueen
06-07-2012, 10:13 AM
Anselmi is the only one of the "execs" that has to show his face. And he shows his face even when he doesn't have to. I have to believe it irks him just as much as anyone that this team is a failure on the field.

I doubt he would fall on his sword, but he has to know that he is incompetent when it comes to football operations. I wonder if he would recommend stepping aside for a football-oriented president to come in and take over the reigns? He's been a good soldier for ML$E, as far as profits are concerned, so i'd imagine he'd still have a role at the company.

If the results on the pitch continue to be abysmal, but he's still seen as a good soldier for the company, I wouldn't put it past the new ownership to remove him from his current overseer role to quell fan outrage, but still keep him somewhere within the company. In fact, I'd guess it's probably the most we can expect.

However it's parcelled out, it's time for the people at the very top of this hierarchy to atone for the underachieving of their subordinates. Someone like Cochrane may not be directly responsible for our failures, but part of being in that type of role is taking responsibility for the failures of those under you. And these guys have had lots of chances.

- Scott

Redcoe15
06-07-2012, 10:18 AM
The ones that need to be shown the door the most - Ansalmi, Cochrane - are the ones that will least likely to leave.

__wowza
06-07-2012, 10:56 AM
The ones that need to be shown the door the most - Ansalmi, Cochrane - are the ones that will least likely to leave.

this is why i drink.

brad
06-07-2012, 10:56 AM
Ha, Brad, you beat me to it.

A novel way to run a team, isn't it....

brad
06-07-2012, 10:57 AM
Ha, Brad, you beat me to it.

A novel way to run a team, isn't it....:)

Oldtimer
06-07-2012, 01:26 PM
I was right about Winter... but didn't expect to be vindicated so soon LOL.

However, shuffling the deck doesn't work. A lot more people need to go, starting with Anselmi and Cochrane.

sulfur
06-07-2012, 02:16 PM
The rot even goes deeper... going back to the 5-0 game, when your captain (or any other "elder" player) will not speak to the media and you leave two rookies to speak to the media? There should've been a house-cleaning beginning at that point in time.

The more I hang around this "franchise", the less I think that anything good will come of it.