i dont like the fact he blamed it on injured players after the loss, seems like hes redirecting the negative criticims the easy way out and theyre starting to look like excuses, that and the fact that the team looked like a total flop (similar to last years) sunk me down a bit, so , fo the time being im going to have to say hes in the hot seat
Originally Posted by pawlukj
How exactly is he in the hot seat? I reiterate; it's six games in, and we're not even playing badly.
You'll notice that lots of managers do this.Fuck me, the first few months of the Brendan Rodgers era at Liverpool was all " I know we lost, but the boys played hard" and "we had a lot of injuries, if we we had those players I think we would have stood a better chance." Look where they are now.
What exactly do you want him to do? he can't blame the players, that goes against his thesis of always keeping a positive locker room atmosphere. He can't blame himself, 'cuz then the media and fans will start wondering if it's his fault every time we lose, and despite what he might deliver us later that's really not good for him in the short term. Coaches find excuses after poor results, it's been like that in all sports since the beginning and it will continue 'till the end of time. I'm not sure why you hold Nelsen to a higher standard.
If you're a coach, you should never, ever address criticisms of your team in an honest matter to the media. You give vague statements because most of the time the media only warrants vague statements. he can't afford to have people second guessing every single decision he makes at this point in time.
Last edited by molenshtain; 04-24-2014 at 01:52 PM.
If I am Nelsen, I blame injuries too. It is a ready made excuse that many seem to be buying.
He can't really go out and say what Winter said as in we need better players. While that is likely very true, he'd submarine his bosses and pave his way out the door.
If the pressure starts to build I think his post game comments will start to get more specific.
Btw, brad great arguments back there. Keep it up.
I saw this quote today, referring to the Chelse/Atletico match
"If you approach a match with a siege mentality, it should not be a surprise when it eventually turns into a siege"
This is my feeling about how TFC have played since day one of their existence.
The reason we lose leads in the last fifteen minutes is because we are so rarely more than one goal up.
We almost never try to increase the lead and create an uncontestable buffer between us and the opponent team.
If we are one up in the second half, a forward or an attacking midfielder is coming off and our half is going to be the Alamo for the rest of the game.
Absolutely every single coach we've ever had does this.
Agreed 100%. Great post.
I think TB and RN have the potential to put a team out that plays a commanding style. However we are looking at another couple transfer windows plus the important draft we have coming out. Just need more time. In the short-term we have to do what we can to get results during games and having reevaluating my stance, I do think counter-attacking style is probably our best bet.
Definitely true. The other side though is that if we are leading in the last 15 minutes, the other team is going throw everything at us to try and equalize. We have never had a manager able to make the appropriate tactical adjustments to stem that flow, and never really had the bench to make those adjustements.
They throw numbers forward, we win the ball, and hoof it right back to them. Rinse and repeat until we tire out and eventually cave under the pressure. No coincidence that people also used to complain about our fitness looking poor when we tired out in the last 15 minutes... That's a result of this scenario
moyes is avail
I tried to make a post like this the other day, to answer the question about why we always concede in the last fifteen. Thankyou for articulating that better than I could.
In a nutshell, the other team are trying hard to equalise or win and instead of us trying to close the door with another goal we are bunkering and not just conceding posession but conceding control of the game. As you say, we play negative, get exhausted and eventually crack under the barrage.
This is an old argument going back to 'do we need a defender DP or a forward DP'
The Defender DP case was that we always give the game up in the last fifteen. Therefore a stronger defence was required.
The argument for the striker was that a lack of teeth in front of goal was what was leading to us being on a knife edge in the first place. If we were two or three up in the last fifteen of any particular game, we wouldnt have this issue. Even if we were only one up, putting the other team on the back foot at the end of the game is surely going to reduce the number of chances they generate.
Those who favour the negative, defensive style of play went with the former argument. We need a defender.
So anyway here's the point.
If the other team is going full on at us in the last fifteen, and we are a counteratttacking team, we should have more chances in this period than any other, no?
Surely counterattacking, is about countering attacks, not about absorbing them.
In the past - our defense was always weak (well - the whole team was) and that caused problems - but this is a whole team problem. Defenders lacked composure under pressure to play the ball out. Midfield did not hold shape and did not show for the pass from the defense.
Under Nelsen we are holding shape way better, and with Bradley we have a lot more composure and better positioning for that first pass. The one thing that does worry me a bit is Caldwell has been known his entire career as a safety first, boot it out defender, and we definitely see that here.
Alone, I don't think a defensive DP would have change things much TBH.
For sure. And in games where we are only up by one, the DP striker actually helps as well - so long as they have good hold up play.The argument for the striker was that a lack of teeth in front of goal was what was leading to us being on a knife edge in the first place. If we were two or three up in the last fifteen of any particular game, we wouldnt have this issue. Even if we were only one up, putting the other team on the back foot at the end of the game is surely going to reduce the number of chances they generate.
I actually discussed this with DeKlerk a few years ago. We used to go into "a defensive shell" late on when we were a goal up - we'd sub off Koevs for a defender, and inevitably concede. What DeKlerk told me was that Koevs gets tired, they need to take him off. They had nobody else they could sub on in place of him up front to do his job, so they put on a defender and hoped for the best. Without the hold up play up front to take pressure off the team, they eventually broke. He flat out said that they knew the strategy probably going to fail, but they had no other options so they had to do it and hope for the best.
Exactly. For a proper counterattacking team - this period should be gold. Doesn't mean you'll win them all, but we should be hitting them on the counter. Unless there is such a massive gulf in class between the two sides that we aren't capable of hitting back. A place like RSL away would be the only example I could think of where there would be a viable reason this wouldn't work - based on the quality of their team and how much more tired we would be near the end due to altitude.Those who favour the negative, defensive style of play went with the former argument. We need a defender.
So anyway here's the point.
If the other team is going full on at us in the last fifteen, and we are a counteratttacking team, we should have more chances in this period than any other, no?
Surely counterattacking, is about countering attacks, not about absorbing them.
As a complete aside - this pressure/tire out thing is exactly why Man Utd scored so many late goals under Fergie. If he was down with 15 minutes to go, he'd commit to all out attack. Against he vast majority of non-top premier league teams, the gulf in class was simply too great for the other teams to sustain that pressure (especially back in the 90's when the gulf in class was greater). They'd tire and concede.
Great discussion.
Does not controlling possession for significant stretches during the first 75 mins contribute to late game "tire and concede" outcomes?
MLS stats on possession are now published in 5' increments. Review most TFC games and you may see only one 5' segment of a 45' half in which the team enjoyed keeping the ball more than the opponents.
Factor or non factor?
Playing low percentage long balls against the build up teams by definition will land you in under 50% possession range.
I do not think this is how we necessary want to play, we are just not prepared to impose ourselves as a team.
This is ought to change for us to make the playoffs, as per recent possession to playoff correlation trends.
I kind of sense they've always taken the "build from the back" approach, on the suggestion that because the team is constantly "rebuilding", they have to follow the edict of defense first. Then it never gets beyond that. I mean, I really don't recall the last time we tried to press high and keep the ball in our opponents' half. I like a good counterattack, but surely it's not the only thing we'll ever do.
At least this crew holds the promise of some stability to see if they expand beyond bunkering in once they've nicked a lead (and I do mean nicked; that Osorio through ball to Defoe was a pretty rare occasion for this club).
Can't say based on posession alone. In fact - in a number of games I would say we looked controlled and comfortable when not in posession.
I would say the larger factor in fatigue is what the opponent is doing to you. A lot of posession the opposition have in a number of games has been in areas where they couldn't really hurt us and we looked quite comfortable when they had the ball.
You tire when you are chasing the ball down endlessly and when to opposition is coming at you and not letting you catch your breath. In the games where Bradley was fit we did very well controlling the center of the park and forcing the opposition to play in areas they couldn't hurt us in.
BAM Right here!
I'm not sure why Bradley and Nelsen are not worried about the lack of possession we have in a game. If we don't have the ball, that means we are defending and moving at the mercy of the other team. As they move the ball we have to adjust and move. I'm not saying that we are running hard and chasing the ball. Sure we look like we are in control, but we are running way more than the other team. The more we move, the more tired we get. It's basic stuff here.
If we have the ball, we are not running - the ball is doing that for us.
This team is so boring to watch that TV ratings are dropping because of it. Let's bring back "attacking football" where we actually fun to watch despite lack of talent (or lack of healthy talented players) while dealing with backroom politics who hated "attacking football" movement.
i still think we are too early judging the team and Nelsen on this.
listen to the Osorio interview today - he talks about how the team is focusing on a possession game in practice - that they are building to be a possession team - it is steps
they have only played 6 games and have barely had the starting 11 together for any of those matches
i really believe we'll see a very different team 14 games in....
i understand the 7 years of frustration - i've been here every moment of it - but i do think we need to give this group some time.
personally i like where they're headed..........i think..........
Moderator
I cannot disagree with much of what you've said.
Though I will remark that under Carver, we did pull off the most games with a 2+ goal margin in regular season play (I believe 4 games in 2008) and he probably had the most offensive-oriented attitude out of all our coaches/managers. Heck, at the end of the 2008 season the Supporters' Shield winner (Columbus) had a total of 41 goals at the season and we were only 4 behind them with 37. I think that's something to consider.
Absolutely. Look, I agree that possession is only one component out of many that comprise a team's strategy in any given match, and whatever the number is, it's never guaranteed to translate into goals for or against us, respectively. But I think it's wrong to simply dismiss it and any discussion about it. It certainly has implications for the club, and I imagine steps are being made to change the situation.
Hey, if we can hold on to the ball for only a quarter of the match and still win, I'm not gonna complain. I don't think anyone else will either, but at the moment we've got a 3-3-0 record and I don't think it's unreasonable to mention it.
I think we're going to see a whole new dynamic open up once Gilberto can find the back of the net. We definitely are going in the right direction. I don't think we can chalk all of our recent poor performances up to injuries, but they obviously play a factor and a healthy squad is superior in every way.
Last edited by Cashcleaner; 04-25-2014 at 12:32 AM.
Did the USA , of all countries, just fix soccer? - C. Ronaldo, May 27th commenting on the FBI-led investigations into fraud and corruption throughout FIFA.
Anyone listen to the latest Nelson interview? I get the feeling that once we have everyone fit and playing together for a few games our style will change for the better. I think Nelson is correct in stating that you need to have a good foundation first and foremost and then build form that. He indicates that they are working on the offensive aspect of the team now but it's been difficult with so many key guys out injured. I saw glimpses of what we are capable of in the first half in Seattle so I am optimistic that we will get better and play some better soccer in the months ahead. Perhaps I am the being overly optomistic out of desperation for success after 7 miserable years but I think Nelson should be given a chance to see if he can prove himself and judging him after 6 games is a little unfair I'm my opinion given what he has had to work with
If I compare TFC to Liverpool it took their coach some time to put his mark on to the team. As long as Ryan is moving the team along and we are getting steadily better I am fine. However, if we stall like Moyes at MANU then his future would need to be considered. You need to evaluate in 3 blocks 10 games at a time to gauge progress. We are not there yet.
Last edited by SKB; 04-26-2014 at 01:41 PM.
Interesting preamble to the Guardian's Chelsea-Atletico minute-by-minute today, with some bearing on this conversation.
Preamble
Evening. Last Tuesday night, thousands and thousands of neutrals sat in front of their televisions, ready for an evening of top-quality European action, and it wasn't long before they were all raging at their screens, decrying Chelsea and Jose Mourinho as the enemies of football, anti-football luddites who will stop at nothing to ruin our enjoyment of the sport, the shameless swines. Entertain me. Go on. Entertain me. Entertain me now. You'd better entertain me. Entertain me this instant, else they'll be hell to pay! I'll blog! Don't think I won't blog! And I'll tweet. Then you'll wish you'd entertained me.
Thing is, Chelsea and Mourinho have no obligation to entertain us; nowhere in the laws of football does it state that to be the case and, until that changes, teams are free to do whatever the hell they want to in order to get the win, even if that means parking a bus in front of the goal. Or two buses. Or two buses and Mourinho's gargantuan ego. The only obligation Mourinho has is to do what he feels is best for Chelsea and clearly, at the moment anyway, that is not to try to be peak Barcelona, it is to play to their considerable strengths: their defence, their organisation, their power and their speed on the break, all of which makes them a formidable proposition to overcome when everything comes together at once. The rest of us? This is what Mourinho thinks of the rest of us:
At this moment, football is full of philosophers. People who understand much more than me. People with fantastic theories and philosophies. It's amazing. But the reality is always the reality. A team that doesn't defend well doesn't have many chances to win. A team that doesn't score lots of goals, if they concede lots of goals, is in trouble. A team without balance is not a team. I remember in my first period here, if you have a goalkeeper like Petr Cech who puts the ball in the opponents' box, and a striker like Didier Drogba who wins everything in the air, why play short? Because you are stupid? If your opponents are very fast on the counter and want space behind your defensive line, if you give them that space you are stupid. So when a team plays strategically and [a manager] thinks about his team and the qualities of the opponent … 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 'good teams, intelligent teams'. In this moment – depending on the coach and the club obviously – the critics speak."Wise words, although the critics can still say whatever they want. IT'S STILL A FREE COUNTRY, LAST TIME I CHECKED. Game of opinions, innit, game of opinions, and just as Mourinho is free to set up his team as he pleases, neutrals are free not to like watching Chelsea. It can, and there's no getting away from this, be extremely hard to watch matches as incident-free as last week's first leg but at the same time, you would have to be remarkably obtuse not to be able to admire what Chelsea have achieved in the past couple of years in Europe. Put it this way: there wasn't a Chelsea fan alive who, as Didier Drogba sent Manuel Neuer the wrong way, stayed totally still while everyone else went crazy and said: "Nope. Not having it, we got lucky, we parked the bus, we should have lost every game we played on this run. Where's the glory, the style, thepanache? I'm not having it. Play it again." The ends justify the means and, more often than not, football is defined by the winner. The reality is the reality.
And the reality is that Chelsea are one game away from their second Champions League final in three years. The reality is also that anyone who watched last night's defensive shambles from Bayern Munich would have to admit that there is value in proper, old-school defending, the kind that seems to have been lost in the last few years. A confession: unless my mind is playing tricks on me, I quite enjoyed the 2003 final between Milan and Juventus. Good defending is enjoyable, an art form in its own way. It might not be as memorable as tiki-taka but it is a part of the game. "There is no 'one way' to play football," Diego Simeone reckons. "If we all played the same way, it would be very boring."
So, negative football, leaving 10 men behind the ball, playing for penalties and never attacking, is negative, we can agree on that. But counter-attacking football? The clue's in the name. The idea behind is to use the other side's strengths against them, lure them in and then, when the time is right, to punish them with your pace and directness, as Real Madrid repeatedly did to Bayern. One of the most gripping performances by any top side this season was Chelsea's win at Manchester City: powerful, imposing and ruthless. No one called them negative that night; quite the opposite.
But that was where they failed against Atletico Madrid last week. Chelsea might have choked Atletico but Mourinho knew that they only did half the job: it cannot be a masterclass if you do not score. Chelsea were poor on the break, failing to create any chances or ever really suggesting that they might, and that surely wasn't part of the plan, and the failure to score an away goal could yet prove costly. Manchester United found that out against Monaco and Real Madrid in 1998, and Chelsea did against Barcelona in 2009 (yes, Tom Henning Ovrebo helped in that regard). One goal from Atletico, who have the best defensive record in the competition, would make this an exceptionally awkward task for Chelsea, who haven't exactly been at their best against sides who come to Stamford Bridge and sit back, deny them space and play on the break. How very Alanis Morissette.
Please provide stats that show we run more than the other teams. if you have the ball, it doesn't mean you stop running. Those Barcelona teams ran more than anyone. style of play does not determine how much you run. I could just as easily spin it as if counter-attacking/ sitting behind the ball means we're only shifting side to side and running shorter distances whereas the attacking team has to run around to try and make things happen. That's obviously not true though and the actual truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. stop letting your gut get in the way of facts.
I really, honestly hate to have to point this out yet again because it seems so obvious, but possession does not matter one bit. It's how effective you are with the ball and how effective you are at limiting and capitalizing on mistakes that makes winning teams. There are multiple tactical routes to this and not all of them are about always being attacking and controlling the ball. sometimes it's far more pragmatic to let your opponent have the ball for the game.
It is interesting.
I wonder why no one ever really talks about the other side of the coin.
If it is true that you need to defend well to win, you also need to score to win too. The whole "best defense is a good offense" school of thought.
In soccer, keeping the ball in the attacking 3rd limits the other team's ability to score. Table leaders typically have something in common, they tend to league the league (or in the top 5) in goals for.
This year's EPL table? Liverpool, Chelsea and Man City in the top 3 in goals for. Liverpool have actually given up more goals (46) than Everton (36), United (40) Palace (43) and Hull (45). The difference is in goals for at well over 30 more than each of those sides.
Last year? United, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal all top 4. Interestingly, United conceded only 2 fewer goals (43) than Stoke City (45) but potted 52 more. They also only managed 5 draws on the year vs Stoke (not to pick on Stoke) who had 15. Giving away over 30 points as a result of earning the draw.
Go to a league with parity and the same general picture emerges, with but a few exceptions.
Take MLS and forget playoffs. If they had a table champion last year, it would have been NY. NY led the league in goals scored. Same with 2012 and San Jose. Top of the league in goals scored. Etc. Etc.
Lots of ways to win of course but I think that a defense minded mentality that is used throughout a season in soccer (or hockey) comes from a team that wants to be "competitive". They don't want to get blown out and realize they don't have the same talent as the top clubs. Keep the standings close as long as possible and maybe with a bit of good fortune get in a race. Sell some tickets. Keep the fans interested.
Granted individual games from champions might employ different tactics (as you noted with Chelsea) depending on circumstances. But generally speaking, good teams score a lot of goals. You typically don't get that by absorbing pressure all season long, IMO.
Good teams score more AND concede less than the teams below them. that's why they win games and they are higher up the standings. You can't just say "look! good teams score a lot" because sure, that's fine they do, But they also concede far less, and very good defensive teams are 9/10 times going to beat very good attacking teams.
It's interesting you didn't go back any further than the last two years, obviously leaving out the defensively stout Galaxy teams that destroyed everyone on the back of the best defense this league has seen and midfield and attack that were pretty good on capitalizing on mistakes. go even further back and the general trend, in this league at least, is that having the base of a good defense is better than trying to put out an attacking team with little defensive capabilities. How many good MLS teams from the last 8 or so years since we've been in the league would you say had a better and more consistent offense than defense?
Fact of the matter - and this is in all sports - is that good defenses are more consistent than good offenses because defense is about hustle, it's about how much you work, it's how much you concentrate, it's how strong you are and how big you are and how you use that to your advantage. Offense is much, much more difficult to consistently produce because it involves a certain level of IQ, and then when teams figuere out the little things you like to do you have to create some new way of getting the ball into the other team's net ( or basket or endzone etc.),and so this happens again and again until you run out of ideas. Very good defensive units can just go out and keep on doing the same thing they've been doing.
I agree with some of this.
However - just watch the game and you see that TFC - who are not with the ball - are running more than the opposing team.
Stats only show part of the picture. If you have played the game - not you, specifically, but anyone - you will know that when your team is running with the ball - it's way easier than if your team doesn't have the ball. You are running at your own teams pace - If you don't have the ball your pace is dictated for you by the other team. They have the ball. They are making you run.
I didn't go back as I'm not writing an article on it just highlighting there is another side of the coin.
That 2012 San Jose example doesn't back up your first point though. San Jose conceded 43 goals that year. Good for 7th in terms of goals against. 2013, same thing with NY. They would have been in a 3 way tie for 6th in terms of goals conceded.
Hockey is similar. "The trap" became very popular as teams found out that by using it, they could keep games closer. Some were successful with it and others weren't. At the end of the day, a team could appear competitive as the results were often close and the standings were congested which was great for ticket sales and interest in the teams… particularly in the southern US.
Doesn't mean that the trap is the only way to win championships. Just like parking the bus isn't the only strategy a team can employ. To say defense first is the ONLY way to go is flat out wrong and many, many examples fly counter to this.
TFC has to go defense first as it doesn't have the talent (US Domestic core) to play with deeper sides. It can keep results close (-1 GD through 6 games) and sits middle of the table which is great for interest in the team and standings.
But please don't sell me this as the ONLY and most necessary way for the team to play over time.
I Agree with all of that. It's not the ONLY way teams can play and It's certainly not necessary all of the time, but it's necessary to be able to play in a defensive manner if the circumstance presents itself where it's the best option, especially if you're a very good team. The Liverpool-Chelsea game on the weekend was a prime example of this. People were reaming out chelsea for playing negative football but what did you want them to do? go out and play a high-line and get eviscerated like every other team has at Anfield this year? It was the smart thing to do. Liverpool probably would have done themselves some favors if they had just given the ball to Chelsea and sat back themselves like Atletico did today.
I'ts it's a little bit, I don't know, entitled of us to start asking for this free-flowing attacking ferguson esc football just because we have some good players now. How about we win some games first, that is what's going to make you happy at the end of the day anyway.
Parking the bus isn't the best defensive strategy. It does work at times, but you need a good team to do it who can weather the pressure. Bad teams crack under constant bombardment.
As they say in wrestling, business is about to pick up.
I posted this in the post game thread, but I think its relevant to this one:
I'm not saying fire Nelsen or anything like that, but he has to shoulder a huge part of the blame for todays performace. Take our back line for instance, these are not terrible players, however the way he has them playing, its a no win situation and when your back line is under continuous pressure and attackers running at you all game, shits gonna go down eventually, thats the law of averages.
For instance, I was taught that the golden rule of defending is NEVER let the attacker turn and run at you with the ball. Something has to be done to teach our back line to compact more and get stuck in. It basics like this that Nelsen has to get his team to improve upon if he wants to be taken seriously as a professional manager.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote