I don't think I ever said that Leitch "reverted". He settled into more of a 4-4-2 but I think that is not nearly as important as people make it out to be. 4-4-2 with Salinas pushed up half the time looks like an awful lot like 3-5-2. The attitude / intent was the same - to try to be more aggressive and take chances rather than to play "afraid to make a mistake". Fundamentally I agree, and this is the point I was trying to make: the Quakes tired themselves out trying to play on the front foot on the road. I think there is an extra bit of fatigue on the road that exacerbates that issue. That's why I'm saying that if you want to play this way, you have to work on it over multiple years. It is harder to implement than bunker - counter. I've said that multiple times. But if you don't work on it, you'll never get there. And if you don't fall on your face at times you'll never get there. And if you just always play it safe you'll never get there. It's like those days where you're skiing and you never fall. You're not improving. The road tie in Vancouver was not at all "regressive". They played like they had been playing the whole time. It wasn't a conservative game plan just because it was a 1-1 game. That was a game where we were lucky Vancouver didn't have 3 or so goals, but Tarbell stood on his head multple times. That's true. That is a difficulty with the slow build-up. How are you going to get good chances? It takes work, it takes skill, it takes time. That's why teams don't do it, and they tend to default to bunker and counter. It is just much, much easier - stay back and break. But if you never work on the more possession-oriented style, you'll never get there. It takes a great deal of commitment and resolve - a kind of swimming upstream, a willingness to accept some short term failure. It appears that we don't have that kind of resolve to be that kind of team. In my mind there's no reason we couldn't have continued in that direction, starting with the baseline of making the playoffs, and keep at it with several roster improvements and offseason time to do the work to improve at it.
SKC dominated possession, SJ bunkered for stretches (but also attacked periodically), and Leitch had the defense playing arguably it's most effective and hard to break down (exceeding even the subsequent league games when he switched to a 4-4-2). So that's what I meant that it wasn't diagnostic of Leitch's "possession", "attacking", "aggressive" or whatever you want to call it style. It was actually more like of how JazzyJ would expect Stahre to play against SKC.
Looks like they’re full up. Sucks, closest the Quakes have come to San Diego and I’m boxed out thanks to the Scum...
I think that's right. That was one game where Leitch did bunker a bit, especially as the game went into extra time. It was more of a Kinnear type of approach. Just because it stayed tied doesn't necessarily validate the approach however. I think the Quakes were very fortunate that it stayed 1-1 (IIRC) through extra time. SKC had way more chances.
Well Leitch did revert to some extent because the 4-4-2 is fundamentally simpler as a defensive formation. It requires you to deny space between the lines, not to press and force turnovers as the opposition panics under pressure. So you don't tend to win balls as high up the pitch with a 4-4-2 and consequently it takes longer to get into scoring position (assuming you aren't booting the ball over the top every time). As a result your possession stats can actually improve without any meaningful improvement in your scoring chances. I'm tempted to call that "less aggressive". The only difference between our thinking, then, is that you think we have already quit on the "have to work on it over multiple years" whereas I think we are continuing to work on it under Stahre, although within certain confines. You are saying that an incremental approach is not going to work, as you have to make an all-out results-be-damned effort or risk reverting to the mean via entropy. I am saying that results-be-damned is unrealistic, for example it risks the results being so poor that everybody (not least of which the players) lose confidence in the project before it bears ripe fruit (and I would hold up Leitch seeming to have lost some confidence himself).[/quote] We played a 4-2-3-1 with Godoy and Ceren as DM's. Moreover, Sarkodie at right back. Possession was in our favor 60-40 but given the overall picture I view it as regressive compared to "Leitch 1.0". But ... you are assuming we are no longer continuing in the same direction, even if we are not taking the exact same road that Leitch was heading down. In fact, we have made roster improvements, getting rid of guys who are probably not going to be good in possession (Cato, Sarkodie, even Urena), adding players who can combine (Erikkson) and focusing on young players who have skill over brawn (including the risky selection of Marie as a high draft pick, not to mention signing a bunch of under 20 year olds which I assume isn't because we plan to turn them into defensive stalwarts in a bunker and counter system). Maybe there were experienced coaches out there available for hire who have a strong focus and history of insisting on playing a possession game. If so, your argument that hiring Stahre represents an abandonment of change could be right. Absent that, we might wait and see (and the wait could be several years, maybe post-Stahre, as giving up hope is much easier than accomplishing this change that we are both hoping for).
I think that's close but at this point I don't know if the goal is to play "possession-oriented attacking soccer" (and it doesn't necessarily have to be, but that would be my preference). IOW I don't know what they're working on over many years. The best I can tell based on what Jesse is saying is that they want to be the "smart" team, however that manifests itself in terms of style of play. Whereas when Leitch was coach, and I presumed that Jesse and Leitch were in agreement on the direction, I felt like "possession-oriented attacking soccer" was the direction.
What I've been trying to say is that "possession-oriented attacking soccer" is the result of a process in which you have the players learn to properly position and move as a group, and then the rest sort of flows from that. This is hard because it is mostly mental and requires the players to be aware the entire time and to be constantly thinking and adjusting. Many players are simply not accustomed to it. Some will never be able to grasp it. I think Leitch didn't really have that completely figured out as there are actually a bunch of critical little pieces that must fit together first. You can't ignore these little pieces and take short cuts, and you need experience and tactical insight to guide it. While you are playing with the pieces and putting them into practice, it may not look like you are progressing. It is a process because the players aren't world class, and against many opponents they simply will not be able to pull it off because they lack the technical competence. So they will have to "revert" in those cases. But, some of the observations from the preseason games are indicative of a development in the little pieces, as Lurking and others have pointed out, for example with the midfield pivot supporting the center backs and the isolated wide option on one side and an overload on the other. So I think the whole thing comes down to a process to build from bottom to top with a specific purpose where possession is the ultimate tool vs. a brute force method where you are trying to keep possession of the ball first and then figuring out how to do something with it.
Yeah but I have no reason to believe that "possession-oriented attacking soccer" is the goal (and again, it does not have to be). Stahre is not dogmatic about that in the least. He says "I'm flexible" and "to win is fantastic", which suggests a do whatever it takes just win mindset. And similarly I have seen no statement from Jesse to indicate that's the goal. And in their 1 on 1 interview when they discussed tactics and philosophy they concluded, brilliantly, that in soccer "you have to defend and you have to attack".
Saturday's match vs. LAG at Irvine will be live streamed. "The LA Galaxy will participate in two preseason friendlies this week, traveling to Santa Barbara to take on USL side Fresno FC on Thursday, Feb. 15 at Harder Stadium (7:30 p.m. PT) before hosting a fixture against rival San Jose Earthquakes on Saturday, Feb. 17 at Orange County Great Park in Irvine, Calif. (2 p.m. PT, streamed live on LAGalaxy.com)." (https://www.lagalaxy.com/post/2018/...ason-two-preseason-friendlies-weekly-schedule)
As I already stated, "possession-oriented attacking soccer" is the means to an end not an end in itself. It is how you play naturally when the foundation has been properly set and all the little pieces have progresses to the point of being effectively utilized against equal (and maybe even superior) opponents with the players using their brains.
I would say that the "end" is winning championships, i.e. winning, and "possession-oriented attacking soccer" is one of the means. Some would say that they don't care about the means (the "just win" folks) and others would say that the means matters ("I hate losing, but winning just for the sake of winning, that doesn’t interest me either. We’ve got to win in a certain way, with a certain style" - Preki). Those are just different points of view - neither is necessarily "correct" while the other is "incorrect". Now if "possession-oriented attacking soccer" is your chosen means, then sure, to your point, it takes a lot of work and commitment and perseverance to get there.
There is also a big gray area between. You can outplay your opponent with "possession-oriented attacking soccer" if the circumstances allow it, and play to win when the other team is clearly superior. The tradition and identity of the club will certainly benefit if the choice is toward attacking vs. "just win" when facing an opponent more or less equal to your team (which in MLS is quite often). That's how I will be judging Stahre and Fioranelli -- how the team plays against opponents that don't appear superior to us on paper. This is precisely where Kinnear failed -- in having the team play scared/reactive vs. confident/proactive, the players themselves must have taken on that attitude and the results reflected it. Should the time come when Preki has something to show for his coaching efforts, we can discuss the veracity or relevance of his words.
Right, and this is what I'm waiting for - for the team to be given an identity, even if it's not "attacking" (though that would be my preference). Right now I have no idea what it is. Agreed on that. I'm particularly interested in how they play on the road because that's the hard part, even when the other team is comparable in level. No, Preki's coaching career has been mostly quite successful. He was what I would call extremely successful at Chivas USA, especially under the circumstances, earning a strongly winning record over 3 years or so with a poorly supported team. And that team played an attractive attacking style. I remember them coming into Buck Shaw while Preki was coach and really taking it to the Quakes, just completely played them off the field. It was embarrassing. He then had a short stint at Toronto and did not last the 2010 season, and yet his record at Toronto was really better than they had done in their entire existence until just fairly recently (2015 season). He then went on to coach Sac in its first year, and merely won the USL Championship, playing an attractive style with good movement and purposeful possession. The next year was good also. He coached at St. Louis last year and did not really improve the club's record. That seems to be his only blemish on what has otherwise been a successful coaching career in terms of results and style of play. Where he tends to get into trouble is not in the coaching / winning / style of play stuff, it's that he may not be the easiest guy to get along with. But that's not a soccer thing, that's an interpersonal thing.
Just set it to mute and watch the stream. I'm sure all of us have watched enough soccer to know what is going on for the most part.
From Galaxy homepage: LA Galaxy vs. San Jose Earthquakes Saturday, Feb. 17 at 2:00 p.m. PT Orange County Great Park Stream Facebook (LA Galaxy) Youtube (LAGalaxy) LAGalaxy.com The LA Galaxy take on San Jose Earthquakes in 2018's first Cali Clasico. The match will kick off at 2:00 p.m. PT at Orange County Great Park.
Los Angeles Galaxy vs. San Jose Earthquakes preseason game Orange County Great Park - Irvine, California Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:00pm PST GO SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES!!! -G