Correct. Correct. Correct. It's usually a lot harder to win the second championship in a row than the first. I started the "standing pat" thread because I didn't like the lack of quality new blood and the losses from the team (primarily Dawkins). This was a failure from top to bottom in the organization.
We're not talking about winning championships, we're talking about qualifying for the playoffs in consecutive seasons, something the current regime has been unable to do. RSL has qualified for the playoffs six straight years. Seattle and L.A. five straight (and L.A. is defending consecutive MLS Cup titles while doing so). Houston has qualified for the playoffs in every year but one of its existence. The Quakes play in the same league as these guys. It's not too much to ask that the Quakes consistently qualify for the playoffs, notwithstanding the giddiness of their mild success in winnig a Supporters Shield.
In fact, Kaval repeated the "Big Club" comment at he Gala. I almost gagged. Wait, I did. We are going in the right direction, but it's been slow and painful steps. I agree with Lurking that this season wasn't that bad based upon point total. On a positive note, we ended well and hopefully will take some momentum into next year. However, if we think that staying pat is going to cut it, we will have the same problems as this year.
On a side note, my wife and I spoke with Frank Yallop at a real gaga this weekend (Archbishop Mitty Black and Gold). We congratulated Frank on his new position and having more control over player personnel decisions. While he was professional as always, he did allude to the fact that he was tired of being second guess on decisions with the Quakes. He had asked for additional players at the beginning of the year (due to injuries and other reasons), but he was told to work with what he had. Also, Frank stated that he will be back in the Bay Area in the future (not necessarily as a coach). His family likes it here.
Good point. We definitely need to strive for consistency. I don't expect to win the Supporters Shield or MLS Cup very year, but we should make the playoffs. Anything else should be considered a failure (doesn't matter what the point total is at the end of the year.)
Hah, fair point. Looks like the good years switched from odd to even somehow when the Quakes came back. There was a misalignment in the universe.
What I was referring to was specifically the year following a championship year. I consider a Supporter's Shield win not to be a "mild success" at all, but a "championship"; it is a piece of hardware and can be shown objectively to be the best measure of "best team" over the course of a season. It is not just difficult to "repeat"; it's difficult to avoid a "down year" where teams may not even get close to the playoffs. There are many, many examples, but the SF Giants are a good recent and local example - more or less the same roster and completely different results. Trivia question: which of the following has won a Supporter's Shield? RSL, Houston, Seattle, or in the last 5-6 years, Chicago, with Hauptman's trumpeted "more financial resources"? Regarding Frank and his supposed unhappiness about being "2nd guessed", etc., one thing we don't really know is the nature of his relationship with Doyle as time went by. Was Doyle the primary source of 2nd guessing? How often did they disagree on personnel decisions?
My guess was Doyle, but hard to say with Dave being known to "pop off" at times... Frank doesn't seem to be very political. Doyle on the other hand. Worst case, he was thrown under the bus by Doyle, but based on Frank's comments, it appears to be death from a thousand cuts...
None of the above, I know. And I don't disagree that the Supporters Shield is a major piece of "hardware" denoting a championship of sorts. But winning it doesn't explain, let alone excuse, the inability to qualify for the playoffs the following season. I don't have the data, but I'm willing to bet that most Shield recipients managed the feat.
@JazzyJ What about our arch-nemesis!?!? LA - they've won twice in a row and are on a quest for their third!?!?!
If it is so that his excuse is he couldn't get more players, then unfortunately, that does say a lot about him as a coach. Being second guessed is clearly a difficult place to be in if you are going to be seen as a leader, but at the same time, if his only answer to team struggles, actual or potential, was more players, then he probably wouldn't have been the best coach to have going forward.
LA was not one of the listed choices in my question . LA right now is a combination of money and management competency. They are spending a lot of money on players, but, more importantly, making good choices about who they spend it on (at least from an "effectiveness" standpoint), and who the supporting cast is. They also happen to be fortunate enough to have the greatest ever American player playing for them (whom they stole). But it wasn't always that way. They finished 5th, 5th, and 6th between 2006 and 2008, with a roster including players like Donovan and Becks. Even the expansion Quakes from 2008-2010, were more successful, with their bad "complacent" selves and miniscule payroll. :--)
And, yet, it was more players -- in particular Clarence Goodson and Jordan Stewart -- that stabilized the team and its results down the stretch.
. . . which explains jettisoning Mike Magee for Robbie Rogers. When you spend a lot of money, your margin for error increases dramatically.
That was a blip in what has been an otherwise series of competent moves, starting with the signing of Arena. If the margin is that wide, then I don't know how LA 2006-2008 and NY (really until this year) managed to miss so badly. The data in MLS so far shows that there is not a strong correlation between salary expenditure and results. All else equal, sure, more money is better. But competency and smarts are the most important factors by far IMO.
Take Jerry Jones, for example. There was the success from that great Herschal Walker trade and subsquent drafts, but since then, not much to be proud of in spite of all that $$$
So, what you're saying is that the Quakes' brain trust is incompetent, or not very smart? Because the Galaxy are in the playoffs, while the Quakes are not -- again.
Umm, I think you are being selective with your time span. As I mentioned, the expansion Quakes from 2008-2010 performed better than the DP-laden Gals did from 2006-2008. And in terms of recent results, the Quakes proved to be the better team last year, in the best objective measure that we have, which is the regular season. This year they blew it by "standing pat", but hopefully they learn something from that. And still, they finished a massive 2 points behind the Gals this year (oh, the outrage!), and outplayed them in LA in the crucial matchup at the end of the season, and had the Gals scared and on their heels until the final whistle.
I think you're projecting. You are the one selectively comparing different three-year time spans. I can play that game. Galaxy fans had it better in 2011-2012 than Quakes fans did in 2006-2007.
I disagree a bit there with you Jazzy... LA invested a lot more resources in their academy a lot earlier than we did and it is bearing lots of fruit for them now in Opare, McBean, Zardes, and Villareal. Those guys are all now on minimal MLS salaries that save them tons of cap space and are contributing MLS minutes, providing depth, and starting and succeeding in open cup and CCL matches. That doesn't necessarily show up in total salary comparisons.
OK, quiz question #2 from JazzyJ Quakes Reeducation Camp. Which team, the Quakes or the Galaxy, had more points over the last two seasons? The point is not that there is one "correct" point of comparison. You are projecting that. The point is that there are many, and they give varied results. IOW, I haven't provided my points of comparison because they are the definitive comparisons. It was simply to make a point: who appears to be the more successful team - depends on when and how that comparison is made, and it isn't nearly as one-sided as one might think. In any case, we both actually agree(!) that the Quakes "standing pat" was an issue this year. Fair point, and is actually consistent with what I've been saying about the Gals being competent over the last few years, once they hired Arena, got rid of bozos like Lalas, and actually hired professional people in their organization. And as I've said, they are finding the right supporting cast for their "stars" with good pickups like Juninho and of course the academy guys. The Quakes could trump them immediately by pulling Tommy Thompson out of Indiana and putting him at a-mid. :--)