That is a pretty fascinating story. Kudos to Kurtis Larson.Originally Posted by Yohan
In my experience, you can't get away with this for long as a management style, it catches up with you.
That NZ team doesn't get its due. The only undefeated team at WC2010!
Last edited by ensco; 06-11-2014 at 08:43 PM.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
Moderator
Are you telling me that a leadership style that consists of making up lies tends to eventually get back to you? I don't believe you, good sir!
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
^He says that the Italian media were laughing at New Zealand, I do not recall that. Clearly the Italian media would have said that we should have beaten New Zealand, but Italian media tends to be Cassandra's choir before every game before any opponent, so laughing at them is a bit hard to beleive. But I could see something like " well if this years azzurri cannot even beat lowly New Zealand then they should be out of the tournament".
He defo gets next season. We had some big names come in, but still a lot of very average players in our panel. A few more tweaks in the squad still needed, and we are starting to see a gradual change in tactics to a more possession based attacking game (first half SJ). This will be more prominent when Bradley gets back and is allowed to play more advanced. We are very quick to cut some slack to Gilberto as he is settling in etc, Nelsen is in a similiar predicament. He is in a new role, Payne got fired, we needed a complete overhaul of players, historically worst team in MLS etc. Injuries and world cup have hindered us slightly, although every team has this issue. Our football has been effective, not pretty, but it looks like we are evolving, definetly in last 2 games or so, even reverting to 4-3-3 at times. Earlier in season I was critical of some of his sub choices in games, but against Colombus he changed the game with his subs. Like Gilberto I see enough in his ability to be successful that I would defo give him next season also. Whether TIM L agrees I don't know............
^ In real football managers do not get that much time. If he does not get us to the playoffs, there will be and should be questions about his future.
Moderator
My confident guess is no playoffs = no Nelsen next season.
I also think he may be gone if the team goes on any kind of a futility streak this summer.
“Heroism breaks its heart, and idealism its back, on the intransigence of the credulous and the mediocre, manipulated by the cynical and the corrupt.” ~Christopher Hitchens
Can't pass up the opportunity! Wanted to point out the fact that the possession in yesterday's game between Spain and the Netherlands was 64-36% in favour of the Spanish. If we played a game in MLS and only got a draw, never mind lose 5-1 and in possession we were on the Dutch end of 64-36%, the hatchets would be out saying Nelsen was a shit coach. Nobody's saying that about Vicente Del Bosque today and absolutely nobody is telling Louis Van Gaal he's a shit manager because they were out possessed. At the end of the day all of that tip tap in the middle of the park didn't get them much praise in an embarrassing loss. There's more than one way to play the game. It's not about the long ball or the short ball, it's about the RIGHT ball and that's the ball that puts the other team under pressure ... Nelsen's doing all right in my book!
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25285043
Precisely
Well said!
This is a very good point, worth repeating:
^
Uruguay also had a lot more possession but lost to Costa Rica 3-1 and Greece had more possession but lost 3-0 to Columbia. With the exception of the England/Italy game the team with the most shots on goal won every game so far. Seems simple. Shoot the ball on the net more than your opponent and you win.
Either would be fair.
To add to your point Italy often does not have more possession then the opponent and still win. Almost every team that has surprised, other then Brazil has been counterattacking, offense build from defense.
We have had more possession than our opponents once this year and we lost that game (NE). 6 times we have had more shots on goal than the other team and won 5 of those games. (the only loss was against Colorado). We also won one game despite having less shots on goal (first game against Columbus). As I suggested earlier the most important factor in determining the winner may be shots on goal not possession. Makes sense because no matter how long you play around with the ball if you don't get a shot on goal you will not score. The most deadly combination would likely be if you get a lot of shots on goal and also possess the ball most. The crappy chart shows our SOG and possession figures with the most shots on goal wins exceptions highlighted.
---------SOG--POSS
Seattle 4-2----38-62
DC -----6-2-----38-62
RSL ----3-5------40-60
CLMBS 3-5 --- 38-62 won
COL ---4-3-------49-51 lost
DAL ---4-5------ 39-61
NE -----3-5-------- 59-41
NY----- 4-1--------41-59
KC ---- 3-5 -------38-62 TIE
CMBS -5-2----45-55
SJ ----- 4-2----- 48-52
Last edited by Lumpy; 06-15-2014 at 05:15 AM.
The emphasis on possession is about shots on goal. Logically, if you have the ball more you have more opportunities to shoot. Of course if you can't convert possession to shots you decrease your chances to score.
Incidentally, FIFA has different stats on the Netherlands game. 57-43.
The other interesting variable is possession at moments during the match.
When possession is broken down into 5' increments, the Dutch scored their 1st at a time when they had about 75% possession. Their 2nd and 3rd came when they had the ball over 80% of the time. They made good use of the possession advantage during those segments to pound shots on goal to put the game away.
Most folks that complain about TFC's possession is when it is in the 30s and there is no counter. Simply absorbing wave after wave of pressure with long clearances and resetting for the next one.
^ Very good points Pookie.
I don't care if the opponent is kicking the ball around in their half or near the midline. I care if the opponents has the ball in very dangerous spots for large portions of the game. I also care if they have lots of time & space on the ball, for example, at the top of our penalty area.
The first few games of the season, I remember TFC pressing hard most of the game, all over the park. You rarely saw opponents with lots of space. And you also saw lots of interceptions & plays interrupted by TFC, which often led to really quick, half-field counterattacks, and plenty of dangerous chances by TFC (even if the finishing wasn't perfect). That's where I saw Nelsen's "defend to attack" idea working well. In a game like that, I don't even look up the possession stats, if it wasn't dangerous possession by the opponent, I don't care.
In some later games, I saw TFC play differently. Not only did the opponents have lots of possession, TFC wasn't hounding them. You saw opponents with lots of time to look around, and line up nice passes, even from just outside of our penalty area. At that point, it doesn't matter if TFC has 9 or 10 guys behind the ball: it becomes a very nervy, unpleasant game. And shit happens, like it did. Enough balls pinged into the box, you are going to give up some handballs or fouls in the box, and PKs. Or the ball deflects right into net. We may complain that this or that call by the ref wasn't right, but don't give them so many opportunities to make a bad call. And even though we squeezed out results in many of those games, I don't think it's a reliable long-term strategy to follow. Based on interviews, I think even Nelsen knows that. But I'm not sure if Nelsen and the players know how to consistently execute the game differently.
Why did TFC stop with the high-pressure tactics in many games? MLS opponents aren't World Cup teams -- a bit of pressure disrupts most of them, and MLS teams don't have the skills to really exploit the spaces you may leave open due to high pressure. It's partly due to the players that were available in some games but not others (e.g., Bradley) -- but that was not the only factor. Did Nelsen feel there were injuries due to over-exertion, and tell some guys to take it easy? (That would be a fairly sensible option.) Or do the guys just not have the physical and mental stamina to keep that pressure? Was it motivation? Or does Nelsen just not feel that high pressure is so valuable -- and that it's OK to leave the opponents with lots of time & space on the ball?
I don't see any World Cup team let a player like Doneil Henry repeatedly kick 100%-hopeless long balls straight to the opponent, usually to areas where there isn't even a TFC player anywhere near. Or in the general direction of our 5 ft 5.5 inch, very expensive striker. Defoe is going to get injured if we keep expecting him to absorb the crunching tackles that are guaranteed to happen when you try to receive a long ball like that, with your back to the goal. If you need to send the occasional long clearance in an emergency, at least aim for somebody like Luke Moore. And BTW Henry often sends those long balls even when he's not under pressure. (I'm singling Doneil out because I find he's the most persistent, but there are plenty of other players giving away the ball too cheaply.)
Possession does not necessarily mean more opportunities to shoot on net . It is where you possess the ball that is important. Playing around with the ball outside of dangerous zones where you can realistically score doesn't mean you will have more actual opportunities to score. Spain only had 4 shots that were on goal while the Netherlands had 10 yet Spain possessed the ball 64% of the time. Uruguay possessed it 56% of the time yet Costa Rica had 4 shots on goal versus 3 for Uruguay. Possession is one factor but it is not necessarily the most important factor and it does not necessarily translate into real scoring opportunities which are shots on goal. I would take more shots on goal anytime over possession.
Lumpy is exactly right - its all about WHERE you have possession, and also what type of possession. You can pass the ball along your backline over and over and keep possession, but that doesn't create you any chances at all.
Possession is often quoted as its an easy stat to point blame to whenever TFC lose - "they lost because their possession was 35%". NO - that's not true - they lost because the opponent scored more goals than TFC! I hardly ever see anybody on this forum say "TFC won, and it was because they had low possession!" - in fact, when TFC win, the possession stat is largely ignored as irrelevant! Damn lies and statistics - soccer fans only quote stats when it actually backs up their argument - when it doesn't - those stats are ignored.
Not sure we should be comparing what possession means in a World Cup match between the best of Spain & the Netherlands to what possession means between two sets of technically
inept MLS sides.
That's what I said. We can agree sometimes you know.
That's what I said. We can agree sometimes you know.Feels good.
Some people look at the possession stat too black and white.
It's not about possession.
It's about possession-with-intent.
When you get 35% possession but click well and score from it, enough to win the game, that's great! Good style of play, regardless of possession.
If you get 35% possession but don't create chances, and hoof the ball up the field and give it away more often than not, that's a good indication that the team didn't play well.
Possession as a raw number is nothing but combined with context can be telling, though not in every circumstance.
I think possession-with-intent is far more important than possession for the sake of possession.
Bringing the issue of possession up right now is a strawman, really. No one is complaining about our possession, at least not any dominant number of people. It's a rare bitch that's brought up, usually after we've been dominated in some fashion.
And why do the last handful of posters assume people who aren't sure of Nelsen yet have some depreciated knowledge of football that they somehow magically possess? The discussion of whether possession is essential has been gone over about six million friggin' times on these boards over the last seven years.
Personally, I find fluid, possession-based soccer to be more fun to watch than a team that plays counter, where the extra defensive profile leads to 80% of the game being played in the middle third. THat doesn't mean I think counter-based football is a losing strategy, just that it's sometimes awful to watch.
I hear you, though I'll add I wasn't talking about Toronto FC, just football in general.
It's what you do with the ball that counts, even if you only have it for 15% of the game.
Moderator
^ I don't think many would disagree with you on that.
As for the greater argument, I think TFC is trending well in many regards. We won the last two games against Columbus and San Jose and guess what? We out-shot both clubs, had superior or near-equal passing accuracy, and enjoyed much better possession than we had in previous games. We were even able to squeeze out an anomalous draw in Kansas City which I'm appreciating more and more given all the factors involved in that match.
Long story short, it certainly looks like TFC is steadily improving, with the exception of a few misteps here or there. Jack remarked a few pages back that it would be good for Nelsen to grow as the team does, and that as the players and coaching staff gets comfortable with each other, we'll start seeing a better level of play overall. Personally, I think that could very well be the case here.
Another thing to bring up is Bezbatchenko's recent transactions. While I think it's still early to determine the quality of the Issey/Warner and Rey/Oduro trades, I do like Tim B's proactive approach.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote