Barrett Out as Coach for 2017

The guy is hardly a giant, 5'11" but plays much smaller than that. He's a finesse player, not a banger. At what point in his career has he ever looked like a guy who is going to get in a scrum in the box and win a header? One of his specialties is supposed to be set pieces, why would you take him off of what he does well and put him where he doesn't?

Put it another way, Brad Davis is listed as the exact same height as Maidana. Would you jam Davis inside the box trying to win header off of corners or would you have him taking them?

 

Have to disagree w / you Dynamaniac
I noticed he was willing to challenge in the air in pre-season. He is less afraid of contact in aerial battles than Bruin. He scored in the first game that way.

Did you really think his corners were any better than Boniek or would be better than Alex taking them?

Do you think Boniek or Alex crashing the box would be better?

Maidana is no Didier Drogba but his skill as a set peice specialist isn't any better than Alex and Boniek and could have added more value in the box on corners rather than either of tjose two.

 

ok that first goal was a fortunate collision of three players including Maidana after a flick on by Wenger but Maidana is about the same height as Raul R and the same weight.

bottom line alot of players, including
Maidana needed better direction and put in a better position to help the team in specific tactical situations under Barrett.

 

Yeah, I did. That's half the reason the Dynamo got the guy, to take the Davis role on set pieces. And no, I never saw the guy as a physical challenge for balls in the box guy. Although, given the guy only started 21 games and rarely went anywhere near 90 minutes it is somewhat of a moot point.

 

Just a note, keep on topic and keep politics out of this subforum. I've already handed out one red for this. Thanks guys.

 

Oh. I'm going to miss you, @Westside Cosmo !!

 

I really hope that is not what they are aiming for, they need work on attracting the larger percentage of the population cause the traditional Mexican football fan will never desert their allegiance to their teams no matter how many latinos the Dynamo put in the team. It would be like asking a Millwall supporter to attend an Arsenal game - never happen

 

If AEG had gotten GDS instead of putting him at LA, I guarantee you they would have 1-2 thousand more per game. 'Course with this years team and coach he would have mailed it in and somehow quit mid season begged off for a transfer.

 

Few thoughts:
(1) Yes, Maidana should initially have been given the dead ball role of Davis. It's pretty obvious from the nature of his stats and the role we started him in, that he was intended to be successor to Davis on the wing and taking dead balls.
(2) However, reality check is what then happened. You don't want to be stubborn and hand a weak dead ball striker dead balls all season just because that's supposed to be his role. That would be one of my complaints about, say, the defense, that we took forever to acknowledge what was happening and try something different.
(3) Once he drives you insane and is replaced, you might as well find a use. My thoughts then would be that (a) height doesn't correlate to aerial usefulness -- Twellman was a force at similar height however (b) you need to have the will and perhaps the ups to be such a force. I don't see Maidana as being a banger or an "ups" guy. Compare to Clark there.
(4) That being said, and I just haven't paid close enough attention to who all goes in on kicks besides the big fellahs, but maybe enough tall players and they have to respond tactically to it in useful ways even if he's not likely to score. The tall people in the wall are not put there on heading skill necessarily but perhaps just because they are tall. And it's not always about "you" but sometimes about decoying so someone else is freed.

 

I am all for keeping learning and progressing throughout life, but (a) that's more of a development task than a first team one and (b) if a first team needs that much work the easier solution is change personnel. Teaching is what a college coach does who has his team roster when practice begins and can only make lemonade from the lemons on hand. Emphasize it too much and it sounds like you aren't willing to make the necessary changes spending the necessary cash. Also, you also can't teach tall, fast, unusually skilled, truly talented or at least unusually gifted.

The funny thing to me is I'd thought of "teacher" as combined assessment/slam on Cabrera before they even said what they did. U17 residency and RGV is a teacher resume.

I want a senior player coach who can game manage for a change. That actually has little to do with being their friend and teaching them more soccer, it can be dictatorial. I want x player with y qualities to go in and create mismatches and either score himself or set up the striker. There might be teaching before the fact but during the game what I need is not teaching but a decisive sense of what to do whether it makes the players happy or not. It can involve being ruthless, unpredictable, and responsive to the game. It may even involve pitting rosterees against each other to attract what's necessary from the bench. Part of the reason Cameron and Holden came in like they did is they knew if they played well enough they'd take someone's job.

 

You'll probably misinterpret what I'm saying, but I may be agreeing with both.

I believe Mexican fans would come see a big star like Dos Santos. If that means that I believe on the Mexican Yeti fan, so be it. On the other hand, a big star like Dos Santos will also bring fans of soccer, period.

Mexican fans are not going to come see some unknown Mexican player.

 

I agree that the players need to come in at a minimal level to perform where we'd like them to. I don't doubt that the majority of our players are not at that minimum level. At this level, the type of teaching needs to be focused more on the tactical and psychological side of the game than the technical and physical side. If they haven't developed those two by now, then its probably not going to change too much.

 

To underline what I was saying yesterday, at least one problem here is the lack of specialist quality or special qualities. Whereas once upon a time we used to have people pretty good at their jobs and/or with special attributes, it is now fairly average all around.

For example, Ching compared to any forward now.
Onstad compared to the keepers.
Clark in his prime versus what we've gotten at CDM lately.
Davis at wing versus now.
Davis or Moffat taking out of box shots versus now.
Davis or DeRo taking deadballs versus now.
etc. etc.

You can teach competence.
You can try to teach someone with competence to be better at it, slowly.
You cannot teach a forward to be tall or fast.
You cannot teach a wing mid to have speed and/or great touch.
You cannot teach overnight someone how to dominate on defense.
You cannot teach a slow defender to be fast and mobile like we need.
You cannot teach some of the other positions to be excellent at their jobs, at least not overnight.

I am not dissing teaching as a concept, it might be of marginal benefit. But to me players and teams usually have a bandwidth within which game management, teaching, and effort can achieve slightly different results. You are not busting that bandwidth with teaching with 25-30 year old players. At most you are maximizing potential. Which is arguably a good thing but ultimately limited to the range of possibilities for the players on hand. I don't think we have a very good team at all, which limits that range of possibilities even for a teacher.

Upgrade the roster is primary, then try teaching.

 

My two cents you might get a burst out of GDS but you'd also get one out of Beckham back in the day, Neymar, Messi, Rooney, Zlatan, et al. You probably get no real bump for someone like Torres. That suggests it's not really about nationality but about quality. You sign stars people want to see, or at least have them come to town, people will buy tickets. You sign a mediocre Mexican the Yeti doesn't care.

DeRo, Ching, Moffat, they would do memorable things. The horrifying stalemate machine that has followed, not only do we not have stars, we just grind, and there isn't really anyone here even capable of blowing your mind, and we used to have that on a MLS budget. That and we won.

The three things I think matter. Winning. Players capable of doing neat things which are worth paying a ticket to see, and not just stalemates. And truly special players who will cost. You want to move the needle offer some of those three.

I mean, off the top of my head, Ching's 4 goal game in the opener, and that time he biked in the clincher on DC. Compared to that now, I'm supposed to be buying tickets for a stalemate machine that plays for 0-0 or 1-0, and of late can't manage that half the time at home. What do they think I am paying for?

 

Wade was not given a fair shot, but we all know that life is not always fair. I think Wade could end up like Jesse Marsch if give a chance like Marsch has been given.

 

I don't think dropping down to RGV does him any good in terms of career trajectory nor would I take an even more subservient role within an organization that just bypassed me. There is no route back up. They told him no. So I'd either go to SJ or someplace they want an assistant, and bide my time again, or apply for head jobs in MLS and Scandinavia (like Berhalter). He could go minors too but if you do that, just like as a player, there's a risk that people don't see you as MLS material again, and you're making a pretty heavy bet you dazzle as a coach to come back here. Even if you do a good job, if the team gets mediocre results, you may have defined your niche, like that level or college.

That's all assuming what he wants is to coach pro. If he sits down and thinks about it and wants to coach college or minor league ball, less pressure, have at it. I don't think the current coach at my alma mater has ever won conference or even made NCAAs since he took over. Well behaved kids and winning records most of the time and they'd probably leave you be, at many places.

 

Where does all the faith come from? He ran people out in a conservative vanilla formation and got conservative vanilla results. He didn't show any knack for game management, again, what he got was basically whistle to whistle grit, not wins from genius subbing. He was risk averse on young players and voila sat on a decent CB until 2 games left. He gave the team stability but you see that meant nothing in terms of points per game and table position. He is competent in the basic sense but winning at this level requires more, including particularly a sense of how to use a bench and take calculated risks.

For an assistant grit is fine. For a head I think teams would be looking for playoffs or at least out-performing what people's sense of the team was. If he wants MLS my sense is he will likely have to take another AC job and then take a whack at another interim stint if it runs aground while he's there. But we as the 19th best team weren't impressed so I am befuddled why any other team would look at his record and think, oh, hand him the reins, he wins.

 

I thought that the team looked better under WB than Coyle, but fell off in goals, which is fixable by getting goal scoring players, and creators.

I know that you believe in instant results, but there is a bedding in period in becoming a manager. Marsch was not good at Montreal, and you'd have hated him, but he was able to look much better at RBNY for example.

We won't know anytime soon of his ceiling. but WB is not a poor manager now.

 

Spare me on instant results, we were in almost every game after WB came in, and had about 5 or so we could have won with less risk aversion. There is a point where too conservative tactics start leaving points on the table. And that's without adding anyone. If we were losing 5-0 I'd understand the "blame the roster for everything" ethos. Once he disciplined it and made it defensive, it would often be 1-0 or 1-1. The thing is there was no second gear or he was playing one note, whatever metaphor you want to use.

You're saying give him more people but my sense based on the game management is that when we are inevitably in some tough game with even a better roster, he still isn't going to have the stones to chase wins. QED. I am glad this is over.

I am sure he'd have a better record with better players but so would most coaches. To me if your success level is too tied to talent that suggests talent and not you are what matters. It should really be, is this someone who could win with 10 bums off the street. Barrett is no better a coach than the bums he's handed.

Last thought: have you considered the contradiction between "we are going to be cheapskates" and "this coach will do better with better players?" I think we need an aggressive miracleworker and not some conservative system coach, because our roster may need all the help it can get. Or did we forget our fading fortunes as spending left us behind and we kept trying Domball with journeyman rosters.

 

I don't think the fanbase would go with it, but what if we actually spent time getting young players with potential. Since Cabrera is supposed to be such a great teacher, we could get players like Luca and Memo and intersperse them with some vets and build them over the next two or three seasons. I think the fans would be ok with that and at least the FO could say "We have a young squad that we are trying to build and it takes some time." Then if it doesn't work, they can throw it all on the coach like usual and we can continue what has become the status quo. There has to be some...Oh, wait...all of this would require a FO with some cajones.

They would have to be willing to take the initial heat and they would be taking a risk by allowing the coach, who they touted as a teacher of the game, to mold younger players and bring them along. Which they don't have the backbone to do. It's borderline depressing. I agree that the bandwidth with the current team is extremely limited. So the other thing they would have to do is overhaul the roster which they are not inclined to do.

 

Perhaps in the reserve league era. Then there are as many as 30 people under the Dynamo name, some of whom clearly are not intended for first team use that year. They play in their own league but the roster is unified and fluid and if they earn PT or we have a crisis, they can go into the lineup. Or they can sit or be released or loaned out of the organization if they don't "take."

But this is the RGV era. The first team is smaller, everyone associated with it needs to be game ready because the numbers are shorter, and people who need seasoning should go down. If a player is ready to risk they get lumped with the first team. So under that dynamic, you earn your way up by offering a tactical wrinkle or by raising your game to our level.

I think there is value to youth but it is more in that this team needs speed and athleticism, and a longer window to contribute to the first team, and cheaper payroll costs to start off because I am not paying them a 10 year veteran's price. I could understand throwing a can't miss kid out there a little early and seeing if they get it with more playing time. "I think he's the future and I think it would be good for us to 'blood' him early and get him experience, maybe before he's earned it 100%."

But the first team needs to be ready to compete with other first teams, and if we're not sure if the kids turn out and are ready for that, off to RGV you go. It's better to be playing than sitting. I agree with quality youth for certain purposes. I don't agree with youth for youth's sake. That's what minors are for. Sign another RGV crop, add it to the old crop, watch what happens. Pick the kids who earn it. That team needs a teacher. But what the first team needs is people ready to play first team ball, and then a coach who can identify ready talent and game manage (and maybe teach a little).

Only exception I'd make to this is maybe in a year where you think you're screwed and are in cap transition, and want to wait for the cap situation to settle just so, you leave a few more kids up and don't spend your cap, and leave some room for summer signings or trades or transfers. Kind of like how we ended the season. Except if you're going to act that way you might as well play the kids so you have a full grasp of the roster.

My main thing is we've had an academy for nearly a decade, and RGV, and they need to start being judged on first team contributions. It's all well and good if Dynamo Academy U16 plays Dallas Cup like any other club team, but they need to start producing professional ready soccer players or changes need to be made. I'm more like if Lucatero and Memo and all these others can't hack it, at some point someone needs to be accountable.