I certainly don't & didn't feel absolute reverence towards Vanney. I thought he was a risky, fairly inexperienced hire for a cranky fan-base & long-troubled team. His inexperience was certainly noticeable in the beginning; things like delayed substitutions; reaction towards game situations rather than proactively taking control; inability to deal with changing situations like being up a man; etc. I think Vanney improved noticeably in many areas, und helped to bring TFC great success, but he still had some weaknesses. Was it about a year ago that Vanney himself admitted in an interview that he is not always pragmatic enough? I also don't know if he ever had full control over all players (especially Bradley for example).Originally Posted by NK Toronto
With the arrangement Manning / Curtis / Vanney, it's often not clear who was responsible for what. Vanney was not hired by the former two. It worked quite well in the big picture, but we don't know exactly how smoothly things were going on the inside. Vanney mentioned the last few years, ever since almost winning CCL, were difficult. Ensco feels that Curtis doesn't have that much to say; I believe he is probably supposed to find and sign mid-level & low-level talent (and his success with that has been mixed). I think he is also supposed to develop portions of the overall strategy. Definitely Curtis' (and sometimes Manning's) messaging has been awful, like repeatedly over-promising things that either came late or not at all. And they seemed unprepared for many situations that were not really unexpected.
However some of the player mishaps could be partially on Vanney. I think he was sometimes still a bit pedantic and not pragmatic enough. We can always debate about specific players, but I would often see new players on the field for a while; playing pretty well but not perfect; even improving; and then falling by the wayside and barely seen for weeks / months / years. And some other players on the roster we would absolutely never see. Meanwhile certain other players would always play, despite errors and/or exhaustion, until injuries or other issues knocked them out completely. Then sometimes those newer players who hadn't featured at all would suddenly be thrown in, and most people could say "see they aren't any good." Players aren't going to improve or gel with the team w/o playing time. A coach somehow has to find times within the season or within a game, and/or areas on the field, where those newer players can be mixed in, gain experience, and gel. And a coach might have to adapt his tactics, and be very good at motivating & directing both old and new players, to improve the chances of that succeeding. I don't think Vanney was always able to do all that, and that can cloud any of the successes or failures of those above him.
Plus if you ride a limited roster for most of the season, then it's going to be difficult to respond and train correctly based on sports analytics. You're more likely to run into problems with fixture congestion, late-season collapse and injury. I guess that would have been the fault of both Vanney, and those above (by not providing the best roster to him).
Others have described some of the concerns we have with Manning, Curtis, and the possible overall direction of the team. We shall see how they do with hiring a coach, and dealing with some of the major player personnel issues we currently have. With Vanney gone, the direct and indirect responsibility more clearly falls to Manning and Curtis.
