A Nana Attakora hypothetical
...and if you don't like hypotheticals, save everyone the time and GO AWAY.
Let's say we signed another really strong central defender. GIven the struggles our fullbacks have had this season, do we then move Attakora to right back, even though it might somewhat derail a hugely promising career at centre back.
It might hurt him long term, but it would give us a much stronger backline in the immediate.
Thoughts?
Thoughts? Play 3 central defenders and do a 3-5-2 formation.
I don't like hypotheticals, whine whine whine!
Just kidding, it's an interesting question. Maybe this means I'd be a bad person but if I were TFC manager, I wouldn't really care about his long-term development. He's already very good in MLS so it's a case of diminishing returns - even if he gets better, he's already as good as he needs to be to be effective in MLS. Some might say "but what about the national team or his future transfer to as European club?" but as club manager, it's not your job to care about that.
Supposing that the new CB is better than Attakora at that position, shift Attakora to RB no question. Even if the reverse situation were true and the new CB isn't as good as Attakora, I'd consider doing it anyway on the basis that you'd want as many of your good players out on that backline. I don't mean by this play everyone out of position (like if you had 4 CBs) just for the sake of having your best players out there but it's a question of balance between positional talent and the overall talent of your defenders.
Last edited by Lucky Strike; 05-28-2010 at 11:30 AM.
I think our backline has been decent this year and is improving every game. I don't think another defender is the immediate need. My 2 cents.
But if they can get one, you know they will. After all, we've had constant depth problems at centre half for four seasons.Originally Posted by Eastend
Lucky, I'd tend to agree. I guess the question is whether he's athletic and composed enough to move back and forward, and that may well be the case. Wonder if his technique and speed are developed enough for that to be the case down the line in his career, though, were he to move on?
I wouldn't play 3 in the middle, Globe, unless it was part of a larger overall system change, as our team has never looked comfortable in the 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 variants.
what about keeping Nana in the centre with said new signing and moving Cann to either LB or RB? Nana is the better of the two so pairing him with a better CB seems like the smarter move in terms of his development... IMHO...
Actually now that you bring up pairings, I think the good understanding Cann and Attakora have developed might make me pause and think more about this than I've let on earlier. Why fix something that isn't broken? A new CB with Cann (who I don't think can play elsewhere) or Attakora would require more time to gel together, which could cost TFC in the short run.
I guess it depends on whether there is a greater negative effect by having a lack of cohesion in the centre or a bigger positive effect from bringing in an extra quality player and Attakora's subsequent ability at RB.
It's hard to tell so early in his career but I think he might actually have the distribution skills and a bit of creativity that would make him a good fit in a sweeper type role in a three man backline
That's kinda my take on the pairing. They've developed a good understanding of each others styles and sense of position and cover each other well. To boot, they've developed this chemistry a lot quicker than most probably imagined. To disturb that may be a bit detrimental.
It would also mean that Frei would need to build chemistry with the new player as well. Remember at the beginning of the season when Garcia was starting and Frei just couldn't read him?! It frusterated the hell out of Frei and I don't think he'd want to go through that again now that we're getting into the middle of the season.
Agreed. Both for the team and his development, that would be good. Two wing backs. I am down for that. Cann-Attakora-CB would be solid. The Russian on one side as the wing back, and one of the others on the other. That would work for me.
Keep them both in the middle. Nana is a CB like Cann, they are doing quite the job.
Nana at right back would not improve our team. He has no ability to distribute.
Even though the Attakora Cann partnership has been strong so far, I worry what would happen should one go down - Garcia and Harden? Ugh. If we bring in a strong CB then Nana is on the right and 'cover' at CB in case needed. I don't have much faith in Usanov and Hscanovics (actually almost none) and think a back line of Gargan-McKenna(ha!)-Cann-Attakora would round out one of the most imposing defences in the league.
Further, if this in fact happened, I would say this wouldn't end Attakora's development at CB as with us gaining entry into Champ League (knocking on wood) would surely see some rotation. This could actually help his career long term as clubs looking for a defender could see he's versatile and capable at handling more than one position. Look at McKenna or Peters this season - surely this factors into their overall value to their club.
I don't think distribution is an issue as we've seen most of the season this task falls on De Guzman who is always coming back and finding open space for the back line to get the ball to.
I understand the rationale behind such statements, but I believe them to be misguided and incredibly short sighted. Many talented young NA players already have this view of MLS and choose to avoid it (I can't argue with them at all). Adopting such an attitude would be a great way for TFC to convince young talent to avoid them like the plague. Does TFC want to be known as the place of last resort when all other options are exhausted? Wouldn't TFC rather be recognized as an organization that is a great place for talent to develop and succeed? I think that the fact that Maurice Edu now plays for Rangers should be a source of pride for TFC. If an organization leaves a good impression on a young player, you never know, they may rejoin the club later in their career.
I beleive that a major problem with the development of players in Canada and the US is the lack of continuity. Every time a young player moves to the next level of football, the player must contend with a new coach who has no vested interest in the progress of said player beyond the limited time that player stays within that coach's system. I believe a change of mindset is needed. Perhaps rewarding coaches beyond merely wins and losses?
Anyone here believe Bayern are a better squad without Thomas Müller and Holger Badstuber? Why bother giving Diego Contento minutes when we can afford to poach high-priced talent elsewhere, right?
Well it's not like you would tell them: "by the way I don't care about your development and I'm using you until you're no longer useful to me". I'm not at all against developing players but a manager's job is to win and win now and nothing else. Development is indeed important in the sense of improving your team and so it's vital that way (doubly so in a cap world). But if I'm looking at a situation like "now that I have an extra quality CB, should I move Attakora to RB despite it perhaps limiting his development?" To me, that's a non-factor, I'll put out the line-up I think which is collectively the best at that time.
So I guess to answer, on a wide-picture aspect, developing players is important, but when you get down to focused situations, it becomes less so.
Last edited by Lucky Strike; 05-28-2010 at 07:36 PM. Reason: deleted extra bit of text left over when I was writing my post
Players aren't dumb. They can tell when a coach doesn't care about their success or further growth.
I couldn't disagree with you more. I expect a coach to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Developing players doesn't have to mean sacrificing current success. Developing players improves the quality of the team and insures a better outcome on the field in the long-term as well. An important function of being a coach is getting the most out of your players and helping them reach their potential. The long term viability of a team depends on their performance over more than one stretch or season. Short-term rewards lead to booms and busts. I'd rather my team perform at a consistently high level, then win it all once only to end up relegated twice in two years (or in the case of MLS, just sit at the bottom of the league for a decade or more). Furthermore, transfers are lucrative to teams and can help them improve overall quality. Not to mention that transfers can increase exposure for a team.
Isn't Attakora naturally a RB? Wasn't he moved to CB to help fill a weak spot in the first place? Many things have to be considered or juggled. Do you bring another guy in for a short period of time and disrupt Attakora's ability to play a position where you'll need him again later? If new players are added, who goes unprotected during the upcoming expansion draft with twice as many selections as last year's? Would any new holes created by expansion draft selections be even harder to fill? Endless questions abound. If a coach fails to line up his outlook with the broader interests of his players, long-term affects such as the loss of some current players and discouraging potential future acquisitions may be the least of his problems.
There will always be more games to be played. Unless MLS folds or your team destroys its long-term future and is unable to perform and continue to attract spectators/viewers. Teams in MLS win games, but does that matter if nobody watches because they believe the product is shite, lacks any skill, and is incredibly difficult to watch?So I guess to answer, on a wide-picture aspect, developing players is important, but when you get down to focused situations, it becomes less so.
and I believe in it but because it makes the team better.
how about we talk about nana getting healthy first b4 we think about hypotheticals
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
