That's because you heard [read] what you wanted to hear [read]. I've criticized Nicol, Burns, Heaps and Kraft when I've felt it was merited. You and Monty seem totally shocked on the occasions when you notice it.
Complaints about: Full roster -- not merited. Summer losing streak -- not merited. Full coaching staff -- not merited. Lack of SSS -- not merited. Not using the Sporting partnership the first year at all -- not merited. Barely using Rhinos -- not merited. Lack of transfers during most windows -- not merited. Not putting in our names for these lotteries -- not merited. Because there might be someone else who comes along! I've stayed out of this discussion except to wish the best for Diego, but if you want me to comment ... well, there you go.
I certainly haven't said all those things aren't merited. Some I've felt aren't that significant, some I've felt might have more to the story that we don't know about. Some I've totally agreed with (like lack of transfers, summer losing streaks, etc.).
The bold part is always the case. Unless you have reliable contacts who tell you things. there will always be a certain amount of speculation to these things. The question is how plausible the reasoning is for whatever your conclusion may be. But it can't be a fallback to disregard any theory with less-than-100% certainty you disagree with, but often that is the case. One of the things I appreciated most about Sunil Gulati, when he first left the League and joined the Revs was that he sat down with us and let us speculate about various mysteries of league policy. he wouldn't come out and say that the discovery claim process is X, but he let us say what we thought we knew, and then he'd clarify what was missing or incorrect. By contrast, when asked about some of these things, the Revs FO has pretty much universally responded with "you obviously don't know what you are talking about," even if what we thought was 90% correct.
It's not a fallback position for any theory, but it the case of something like not having a 3rd assistant coach, why is it reasonable to assume any particular explanation.
Well, it's kind of like starting the game with 10 players. You have to ask why they would deliberately put themselves at a disadvantage. Some people suggested the costs of having another assistant being a factor. Yes, saving money is all well and good if you are a USL team that gets 3,000 people a game, but in a league where this is not the norm, you have to come up with a better theory than "we don't absolutely know for sure." At one point you suggested that Heaps didn't want another assistant, but I have no idea why he wouldn't, as long as he would pick him.
Why is it reasonable to ask why you're the only team (I believe) that does things one way? Why is that acceptable? Trend setting is great, but this isn't how you go about doing it.
Because more isn't always better. I'm not sure if it is a better way or not. It's certainly not unacceptable just because other teams do it differently. I think it probably comes down to how teams use their overall staff - maybe their trainers and secondary staffers are more involved then they would be on other teams - I have no idea. OTOH, most teams use assistant coaches to scout in some capacity - and I've always agreed with those who criticize the Revs lack of scouting personnel. I don't know why they don't have more coaches, but there are a number of possible explanations, so "saving money" (especially because it's not a very significant savings) doesn't seem like well-founded assumption at all. This is clearly a case where we have to accept the fact that we don't know - until someone can get Heaps, Burns or Billelo (or a reporter) to elaborate.
"A number?" I'm no mathematician, but is zero a number, or is it just an integer? But regardless of that, what are some of the possible explanations? The only one I've heard is that Heaps doesn't want an assistant. Like he's Sir Alex Ferguson, someone whose forgotten more about tactics and team building than most coaches ever knew.
And yet in SO many situations it is. Teaching and coaching seem fairly obvious. I'm sure every budget challenged school administrator has tried to hire "top notch" teachers who will be "equally effective" in their 30 student class room as the rich school district's "average teachers" are in their 24 student class rooms. A very slim minority succeed. Otherwise, my 40 member tug of war team will take on your single member team any day... This should be the easiest of topics for them to elaborate upon. I feel fine postulating they are cheap lazy or both. They have every means at their disposal to clarify and the topic is years old; old enough that we shouldn't be wondering.
And yet they don't . . . maybe the Krafts don't care what a dozen disgruntled BS posters think about how they prioritize and how they allocate resources. Unless attendance falls (and currently it is healthy and growing) or unless press start asking questions, they aren't going to feel the need to explain their management decisions any more than they already have.
They almost certainly don't care. So we agree there is no harm then? I don't have to allow for infinite possibilities I can just assume what I like? I certainly don't care if I offend them.
possible reasons the Revs don't want as many assistant coaches as other MLS teams: 1) they are cheap and don't want to pay them (since we know the Krafts are cheap, this is the leading explanation) 2) Heaps is too insecure to have potential rival authority figures around (doubt it) 3) Nobody that they wanted to hire would accept the job 4) They just don't think it would help at all with results - which would be flat out wrong, since we have Bilello publicly stating that they couldn't do scouting for a central defender (which they still need) because of their deep MLS Cup playoff run two years ago. Maybe this is true but it'd be incredibly stupid on their part. Any businessperson should recognize that even if they are turning a profit, there is always something they could do to be even more successful. Revs saying "ehh, we're breaking even, we don't need better PR(or results/coaching/staff/scouting)" is like Apple saying "ehh, the iPod is doing pretty well, let's not invest in this iPhone." A public relations strategy from the Revs that goes beyond "what videogame is player X playing this week" could do a lot to drive a deeper affiliation between hardcore fans and the team/brand.
People like rkupp and some others have complained that I'm too harsh on the Revs, acting like they are absolute morons. And yet... this is the perfect example that proves that they really are! There are only 2 explanations: They are idiots and don't know any better, or they do know better, and maybe privately admit to themselves that they could be doing better, but they are too cheap, lazy, indifferent, or any combination of those, to change things. A lot of this stuff falls under the "put 5% more effort/money in, and get 50% more benefit," and yet, they just don't do any of these things. But KIASB! Oh yeah, Coach K manages to get by with 3 fewer scholarships than other top programs, not to mention, fewer assistant coaches than allowed by NCAA regs, but he does just fine, right?
How very witty. We've already had that discussion. Don't tell me you don't remember? What exactly would this 3rd assistant coach (4th team coach, 5th if you count the fitness coach) provide that they don't already have? Scouting goes without saying, but I've already agreed we should have more scout(s). Maybe they just need someone to ask them? Agreed and rep'ed. It's the job of the media to ask the questions (and insist upon answers) for the information that they think their readers/listeners would want to know. This isn't exactly a major issue. Have any of the people assuming the answer even bothered to email someone at the Revs, ask them at a supporter's meeting, Meet the Revs event or season-ticketholder event? I go to most of those events and listen to inane question after question; if people really want to know, ask. Or maybe they'd rather just assume it fits into their existing world-view. You feel you're equipped to declare that "There are only 2 explanations", yet they are the ones who are idiots/morons? Really? Explain how a 5th coach (Heaps, Soehn, Roy, Downing, Coach X) would get %50 more benefit. I'd love to hear that. Never give up on a good punch line, eh?
Nicol never had more than 1 assistant either, right? I only remember Mariner. Indeed, did any revs coach ever have more than 1 assistant (besides a GK coach)? Haven't looked at the staff of Clavijo, Rongen, etc. I am curious whether that's been a rev policy forever so to speak or more of a coach's preference.
How about a coach that specializes in tactics since Heaps' understanding of tactics is poor? How about a defenders coach since our defense is poor? In fact, why not have specific coaches for each position? FWD, winger, AMID, DMID, central defense, fullback (just like GK). Just like the Pats have coaches for each specific position. It seems to me that the players we draft don't improve very rapidly if at all (Rowe was good when we got him; Neumann hasn't improved; Farrell still makes the same mistakes; Alston didn't improve much when he got here, etc.). Perhaps lack of individualized coaching is part of that. For instance at Leicester, players get individualized analysis of 1 v 1 matchups and stuff like that (link). The more individual attention players get, the better they'll become.
I don't disagree with your premise but players at Leicester, other similar clubs have a greater football intelligence. This means they're more likely to grasp tactics and understand the analysis. Apart from Jones when he was here and perhaps Lee and Caldwell, the revs are devoid of these types of players. Secondly, while having positional coaches would be cool, it would also be unprecedented. Apart from perhaps the richest clubs in the world I don't think you'll find many clubs with NFL-style position coaches. It's a pipe dream anywhere, let alone here. On enhancing the revs staff, I don't expect unprecedented changes, I just want more effective, whatever that looks like.
Lots of talk about what Krafts don't provide Heaps. I've never heard discussion of what they do provide -- how about the value of the team analyst? “We do a lot of research and we have [team analyst] Tim Crawford, we break down every penalty kick that any opposing team takes,” Revolution head coach Jay Heaps said. “We try to give our ’keeper the best information we have on penalty kicks. Tonight, he went against one of his best friends in Le Toux and he read it. Brad also had a huge night.” “Our statistician Tim does a very good job of getting us the footage and plots of where guys go,” Knighton added. “It was just a matter of taking a look at that and knowing where guys go and making a save or two in the shootout.”
I do agree that it's great that the Revs have a data analytics guy. I think the Krafts must see the value of data analysis from their businesses and maybe from the NFL as well, and applied it to the Revs, and it's great.
When they were out hiring for that position, they got quite a few plaudits from people here about it.
According to this article yesterday, only 9 MLS teams have data analysts. http://www.vocativ.com/342542/data-works-but-u-s-soccer-is-too-broke-to-buy-in/ According to the MLS website in May, only 9 teams have data analysts, plus 12 teams that have performance analysts (which seems like people just watching videos, not doing data analysis). Orlando, Dallas, RSL, and LA (!) have no data or performance people according to the MLS website. http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/05/04/soccer-analytics-mls-mlssoccer-com-takes-you-behind-curtain
All those teams you mentioned have strong academies, maybe they don't feel a need to use Analytics at the first team level. Perhaps the analytics is done at the academy level and they're even more sophisticated? That still surprises me given how broadly used analytics is across sports.