Fire Warzycha, 2012 Version 1.0

God this thread sucks.

RW doesn't have a commitment to winning soccer, let alone attractive, winning soccer.

Who thinks we could just drop a new coach in and have the results we are looking for? You know, attractive, winning soccer. Look at what other, much richer clubs around the world do. Chelsea brought in AVB because of his beautiful, successful teams at Porto and it was a total disaster. With the players available to RW, he simply wouldn't be able to replicate what is going on in LA with the Gals.

Could we attack more? Perhaps. And maybe lose 5-4. Who would be happy about that?

Losing 5-4 instead of losing 2-0?

Sign me up!

Oh come on. Thats a horse sh*t statement. No wait youre right! RW wakes up every morning and says to himself "ok Bobby how are we going to go out and lose today? Lets not get the job done!"

As for the attractive part of your comment...beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I dont care how you win you just go out and win. If it means playing bunker ball because we dont have the talent to compete with LA, Seattle, RSL, NY, Dallas, and God knows who else then thats what it takes.

From the most recent Mark Titus blog on Grantland as hes talking about FSU basketball: "so I could see them turning the game into a defensive slugfest, which is the kind of game that always benefits the underdog."
Face it folks...this aint 2008 anymore. GBS aint walking through that door. Neither is Padula at LB or a young Ale Mo. We arent that talented of a side. If we are going to win its going to be winning ugly which is fine with me if it leads to 3 points at the end of the day.

That being said, RW has 2 months in my mind to prove he can do the job this season. If not, then have to start looking elsewhere. Id love Steve Nicol.

Wait, what?

This isn't the question we're trying to answer. It didn't just happen with Sigi. Stop assuming arguments that aren't being made.

Again, who said anything about replicating LA?

I'm sure I'm not the only one, but it's not just about attacking all the time. Never has been. It's been a part of it. Perhaps a big part depending on the individual bitcher. But it's not the whole of it.

What?

He's demonstrated a commitment to Columbus, Ohio, as a city, yes. He's sorta demonstrated a commitment to winning soccer, though the usual arguments apply. Outside of that, he hasn't demonstrated those three things mentioned in total.

He's 1.5 out of 3 at best.

Just about every argument had been made over the course of the past 18 months.

I don't think there is any question people in here want what LA has. Not much of a reach.

It's about winning. I made the comment about attacking but still losing because I am sure there are people in here that would be bitching about winning 1-0 but playing what they consider to be negative soccer.

Look, set your expectations wherever you want. We are a small market team that simply will not attract the big name DP's. We need to build through the draft, discovery players and luck. We will be competitive some years, not in others. Think of us as the Cincinnati Reds of the MLS.

Dropping coaches that have consistently made it to the playoffs is a recipe for disaster.

C'mon, I want Bobby out as much as anyone, but to say he doesn't want to win, and win in a way that makes fans happy, is silly. The problem, I think, is that we've seen the best of RW, and it's not good enough.

Lets Review:
Commitment to Columbus: YES...Hasnt left the city since he moved here in 1996. Its actually proven he bleeds black and gold. Ive seen it. Hes a medical freak!
Commitment to Winning: YES...Are we that dumb on these boards to say a head coach isnt committed to winning? Really? REALLY?
Commitment to Attractive Soccer: Maybe...when applicable. And again who cares? Al Davis Said it best Just win Baby win! This shouldnt even be in the argument...The first two things are all that matters.

So hes a 2 outta 2.

Well, beaches are nice, but I don't like all the phony people and pollution.

Here's where I stand on this, and not surprisingly, I see it differently than you.

I agree that it's about winning. To an extent. It's also about putting butts in the seats, attracting sponsors for the team, stadium and game day experience. At the end of the day, the Columbus Crew is is still a business, and the last time I checked, the goal of a business is to make money.

Yes, we won more than we lost last year. And we put our fans to sleep doing so. Two separate games, I brough a new person to games last year. Both times, I got questions like, "Why don't they run more?" and "Why are they so slow?" The reactions were in response to a lethargic looking style of play that is called "Bobby-Ball". Coincidentally, we won and tied the two games. But the new people were bored out of their minds by the unimaginative play that plagues this team.

This was a few pages back, and maybe someone has responded already but....

Counterattacks? - I thought, last season, we had a perfect set up for this. However for whatever reason we always seemed to want to slow the play down.
Set pieces? - Never looked dangerous from a set piece last season. Not sure if it was because GBS left, or just that we are bad at them.
Good defense? - Good defense does not always win games, it can help not conceding them. Having Hesmer out is not going to help. When James returns and we get mendes in, and then having DoR and/or maybe Balchan in Midfield will help.
Have you watched soccer before? - not much.

Nice one. That way you can say anything!

Another convenient (imaginary) bludgeon you can use against those with whom you disagree. Sounds like something else in current events these days.

That so much depends on the context it's not even funny. Everything you've said in this post so far completely lacks subtlety, because it serves your interest in the status quo to make it so.

We've done a shitty job at it. And yet we were still able to sign Schelotto, keep Chad Marshall for his entire career somehow, snatch Gaven from the Metros and keep him, get Frankie here for years, etc. Now we've got Urso passing to Omar Cummings three times in a match. We've got Renteria - who is suited to flattening people on the run - playing as a lone striker with his back to goal where his heavy touch is, shall we say, a bit less than ideal. And so on.

You'll excuse me if I find this a less impressive accomplishment than most, when 40-50% of the league makes it, and in so doing, our illustrious coach has managed to get out of the first round exactly zero times, despite being top seed once.

Good god this. This is the most maddening thing about Bobby Ball. Even during the scrimmage yesterday there was such a focus on maintaining possession that we missed numerous chances to quickly move forward when we HAD THE NUMBERS. The same thing happens every game.

I don't know if Robert has a vision for how he wants his team to play, but the end product is a pretty methodical (some would say plodding) style that has no element of surprise or creativity.

Game after game, we get the ball, knock it backwards and then try to break down a team that by this point already has numbers back. So we knock it about a little and then turn it over. No wonder Rodney was always going to the corner flag. There was nowhere else for him to go!

Not imaginary. Nice try.

So I support my argument with my opinion and you discount it because it serves my interest?

Isn't this more of a attack on the FO? You can argue the formations and I would somewhat agree, although the players that were available in the first game were limited by our current injury situation.

Our players didn't do anything to win us those first rounds, either. Putting all the blame on the coach simply isn't fair.

Let's look at Chelsea. I can put most, if not all the fault, on AVB. He continued to play players that weren't up to it when he had world class players on the bench. (Meireles over Lampard), constantly plays players out of position (Mata as a forward when he should be playing as an AM) and sits players he brought in on transfer that should be starting (Cahill). he also has made terrible subs (taking Sturridge out when they were down and replacing him with more defensive players)

All managers make decisions that are against what someone thinks are the right choices but Chelsea has the players to finish top 4, he just wasn't playing them correctly. RW puts in players he has available to him and gets crucified because they don't perform.

Except, RW doesn't put players in the best positions to perform. You really think starting Tchani in his first game back from a serious injury in a playoff game is putting him in his best position? What about not playing GBS in a playoff game? Or not starting Renteria in the playoff game last year? Or starting Urso? Or putting Renteria up top alone? Or never trying Dilly centrally? Or trying to use Mendoza as a standalone forward. Or ... shall I continue?

Yeah, imaginary.

I discount it because it willfully misrepresents the arguments of those with whom you disagree. You do this in the interest of maintaining the status quo. It's a pretty dishonest way of arguing.

A manager in soccer tends to have a significant position within the front office, more so than perhaps most other sports with which we're familiar. As an integral part of said front office, it falls on him at least in part, depending on the level of control granted over the playing staff - with Sigi, it was A LOT. I have little argument with putting blame on the front office generally.

He didn't do his job in preparing the team to succeed. As the supposed leader of said team, he may not get all the blame, but he takes most if not all of the responsibility. This is how businesses are organized and how they work.

<facepalm>

Pretty much this.

I don't think, other than not starting GBS in the playoff game a few years back, that RW had world class players sitting on the bench. Renteria last year is questionable. Urso didn't start, did he? I thought he came on when Dilly got hurt. Dilly did play centrally, just not all the time and Mendoza scored a few goals last year if I remember correctly.

Fine, here you have a legitimate argument.
A hell of a lot more so than "He doesnt want to win" and "Cant play attractive soccer".

So you must have objectively world-class players in your team to be held accountable?

Urso most certainly did start. Findlay came in for Dilly.

Renteria is not a hold-up #9-type player. Ever.

It'd be different if these excuses weren't trotted out over and over and over... But, coming from someone who was a RW fan (and still is really), I'm tired of constantly hearing RW tell reporters post game that too many players had bad games or that a lot of starters were injured or whatever. It's become pathetic how trite these excuses are.

Colorado was missing starters too. Some would argue Conor Casey is more important to that team than any one we were missing. At what point do injuries or poor starts or poor performances start reflecting the coach?