First of all, I'd appreciate it if you make this about the debate and not about the debater: OK, now back to the debate. My main point is that what we saw last Saturday was not fundamentally different from a typical Kinnear team or even a typical Yallop team. I think oftentimes numeric formations are over-emphasized. What we really need to evaluate tactics are vectors, so that we understand the movement in a flowing, fluid game. But as a poor man's substitute for that, we can talk about tendencies of movement. And fundamentally, Kinnear set the team up in this way: CM's: primarily defensive, either both back (empty bucket) or one or the other a bit more forward at times in an interchanging role (double pivot) Outside mids: attacking, inside to fill in the attacking central space generally not occupied by the CM's, and forward to create numbers in the box Outside backs: overlapping to provide the width that the outside mids are generally not providing Forwards: Typical one's a 9, one a second forward type From that basic template at times it might look like a 4-4-2, a 4-2-2-2, a 4-3-3, a 4-2-4, etc. depending on how the attacking outside mids are choosing to attack at any given time with the space provided for them. I have heard this same basic template called all of those things, including last year under Kinnear (e.g. last year, with Hoesen and Hyka on the outside, Danger called it a 4-2-2-2, Matt Doyle called the same thing a 4-3-3, etc.). And this is basically what I saw from the team last Saturday as well - this fundamental template, though Stahre does have his wrinkle where a CM sometimes drops all the back to the back 3 and both outside backs may push up. That is his most aggressive tack and is a little different, but in the end it is just trading a supporting CM for an outside back in the attack. Regarding possession and this "your possession infected brain" putdown thing, I've already established, that while it's not my preference to generally disregard it, I'm OK with a bunker and counter or press and counter system and I think those systems can be successful and even fun to watch if the counter is good. But even then I think it is good to have some ability to hold possession in your back pocket, at least a little bit, because it can help you at times, like in the 2nd half of that game. I'm not sure that Stahre will prioritize it very often, and here again, getting back to my main point, I think he is similar to Kinnear. Here is where I do think Leitch was a little different. And BTW this idea of "possession for its own sake" is a strawman that people use when they want to put it down. No one who values possession in soccer does it just to ratchet up the possession numbers in the stats box. They do it because it is a valuable strategy on the basis of a simple fact - you can score when you have the ball, and the opposition cannot. Finally, 1) just because Stahre is similar to Kinnear philosophically or tactically, it doesn't mean that he isn't a good coach or can't be successful. And 2) if Stahre does have more success than Kinnear, I don't think we can necessarily conclude that Stahre is "that much" a better coach (like by the same factor as their records). I'm sure Dom would kill, kill, to have had Vako with the team when he was here - he is a game changer and makes coaches look good. And then you have a rebuilt back line (though Dom should take some of the blame for playing guys like Francis back there) Magnus, and an in form Danny Hoesen. I'm sure Kinnear would love to have had all of those things.
Wasn't an insult, I actually have a preference for keeping possession as well but also realize it is not something you can magically do out of the gate. And it is not something that necessarily works on its own especially if your players are not superior to the opponents. Most any team can keep possession for a while in their own third and middle of the field when the other team isn't frantically pressing so that's not enough, in fact it is absolutely nothing. There is a reason you see the team doing a lot of Rondos, and it's not because they are practicing for bunker and counter, it's because they are practicing possession in the tighter areas of the final third. Still, they are not there right now and will continue needing some work. We need to give the coach and players some time. And no, games on Youtube are not going to tell you how Stahre is going to coach longer term. What will tell you is the players' ability to become more technical and intelligent. It may not happen especially with Wondo in there, he's sort of a possession killer. And no, Leitch didn't have the answer for possession either, he had the players doing some stuff that worked until teams started to figure it out and make adjustments, and at that point it no longer worked, because Leitch really doesn't have a lot of experience coaching at a higher level so he had no real solutions.
Yes, it was. "You possession infected brain" is an insult. There are no two ways about it. An "infection" of the brain is generally not considered a positive thing. As I said, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep it about the debate and not start putting down the debater. Once again, my main point is not a "possession" thing. We've already been through that debate a few times. My main point is that based on what I've seen so far, Stahre looks similar tactically and philosophically to Kinnear in terms of how the team attacks. I don't see where he is "way more advanced than Kinnear". I went into some detail about the basic fundamental components and tendencies in the Kinnear attack and how we saw, roughly speaking, the same kinds of things in the game against Minnesota.
Yeah, you're right because: Stahre likes to have his outside mids cut in and attack. Oh wait, Kinnear too. Stahre likes to play two defensive-oriented CM's. Oh wait, Kinnear does too. Stahre likes to get attacking width from the outside backs, since the outside mids are pinching in. Oh wait, Kinnear does too. Stahre likes to either press or bunker. Oh wait, Kinnear does too. Stahre doesn't so much value possession. It is more about quick counters on offense. Oh wait, Kinnear too. When discussing defense, Stahre will emphasize the notion that all 11 players defend. Oh wait, Kinnear did too. Stahre's teams are known for having better GA relative to the rest of the league than GF relative to the rest of the league. Oh wait, Dom too. Nevermind!
Kinnear had the keeper mainly booting the ball on goal kicks. Kinnear had the CBs playing it over the top, or at least past the CMs (i.e. vertical). Kinnear couldn't get his players to combine in the final third. Kinnear has the outside backs overlap all the way to the end line and cross balls in, not get involved in the buildup. Kinnear vacated the most dangerous area of the attacking third (the space at the top of the box) instead of overloading it. Kinnear told his players to separate and find space, not drop in and support the ball. But yeah, Mr. Insulted, Kinnear is exactly like Stahre.
Kinnear is gone. Stahre is here now. Lets give a full season before we call him the "second coming" of Kinnear
Not so much the "second coming" but he appears to be similar tactically and philosophically. I was mainly reacting to the notion that he is "way more advanced" than Kinnear. If it's a sample size thing we don't know that either, and based the limited sample, not seeing it. BTW Leitch only had a half season and no preseason and yet many people have "decided" he is a poor coach.
Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd make this about the debate and not the debater. So far, not seeing much difference (Dom's last game with the Quakes - home against RSL vs. the Minnesota game last weekend), though Bings did like to show off his leg and kick it a little further. So far, not seeing much difference. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017/05/07/breaking-out-quakes-attack-clicks-rout-timbers "The quartet of Hoesen, Hyka, Ureña and Wondolowski combined for 14 of San Jose’s 17 shots on the evening, forcing four of Portland goalkeeper Jeff Attinella’s five saves. “The freedom and the interchange that we have, it’s a great thing,” Wondolowski said of San Jose’s front four. “I thought that we’ve been playing well at times throughout this whole year, but it was nice, especially offensively, to finally click and to see the final result.” Quakes outside backs under Kinnear rarely went to the endline and crossed. Lima rarely does it. He generally cuts in (and usually has a shot or two at goal per game). Francis would tend to cut in and was actually pretty good with the ball, but really did not have a good endline cross at all - it was usually embarrassing when he'd try, Sarkodie did not do it - he would generally stop his runs at the top of the final 3rd and maybe cut in a little bit. The only Quakes outside back who does it with any regularity is Salinas, and Dom almost never played him at outside back. And Colvey, whom Dom banished to Reno. No, generally the idea in the Kinnear offense was for an outside mid to cut in to fill in to occupy that space, and in the double pivot, typically one of the CM's (usually Godoy) would also move up centrally as well. Lima also cut into that area took plenty of shots from there last year under Dom. If you watch the "Axis" video you can see Stahre instructing the team how to attack. He wanted them to play through and wide. And it turns out that the Quakes had most of their success with wide attacks (first two goals came from crosses from wide areas). I don't know that we have any evidence to support this. I haven't heard or seen any quotes to support it, and I don't see any significant difference yet in movement patterns. I think they are similar in that they generally want to play quick counterattacks. If Stahre has the team supporting better, you'd expect better pass completion rates. In the two games I compared, the Quakes had better pass success rate in the Kinnear game - better in attacking half, equal in final third and better in crosses.
A goal with a 15 pass build up is so emblematic of a coach who doesn't value possession!!!!! Several teams in the first two weeks couldn't sustain a full 90. They got tired, they probably got a little complacent with a big lead. That is not a style of play.
Um, we had possession in the low 40%'s...........at home.........against Minnesota. One play does not make a style of play. Seems to me that Minnesota was also a team playing "in the first two weeks" when we played them. So that should level out the whole "we got tired" thing. But sure let's take a look at the Quakes possession numbers this year after some number of games.
You're right on the differences, but @JazzyJ is right on the similarities. A couple of posts back you said that we'll need to see more and wait on what the team looks like late in the season to really have a grip on the plan. I think that's the most on point comment in this running debate. The team is a work in progress. Patience grasshoppers. The flower hasn't bloomed yet. I certainly saw some positives last week, and not just that we had better players. There's more fluidity to Stahre's system than we ever saw from FrankWatDommism (excepting the '12 season). So I'm hopeful. But we've got a long ways to go. It could all turn to crap, or we could become the most deadly team in MLS, or (much more likely) we end up a mid-table team with a bit of flare when we aren't playing the big boys. Time for a beer. Go Quakes!! - Mark
JazzyJ, I don't really care what you appreciate, or consider to be an insult. (1) That's not goal kicks you're showing, it's all passes. And why include a different player (#15 Ockford)? When you take that out, it's clear Bingham was booting the ball WAY more often. But it still doesn't include goal kicks. (2) Similarly on the CB distribution, the passing chart isn't that useful to discern differences. See all those passes back into the (top of the) box? That's often for Bingham to boot the ball. Add those to your CB long ball numbers. See how there are way fewer in the Stahre game? If you analyze in a bit more detail, removing the noise, and ignoring Ockford (at that point the Quakes were just trying to play the ball out of danger any way possible) then we see a total of 5 long balls by the CBs during the Stahre game, and a couple of those were at the very beginning when they were testing the other team and try to catch them sleeping. And the eye test from actually watching the games provides a similar sense of lower reliance on long balls. Of course time will tell. (3) You cherry pick one example, the Portland game where things supposedly "clicked" (why not use the same RSL game???). Yet the goals that were scored in that game were a lucky pinball scrum, and 2 assists by Jungwirth to Wondo (not involving the other 3 attacking guys at all). (4) Maybe Kinnear just had a sequence of bad career breaks in rarely getting a hold of technical players who could play centrally, combining and creating. Instead he always seemed to end up with fast, defensive guys on the outside and tall guys in the middle, just luck of the draw probably. (5) I don't feel that strong to argue for Stahre here, but I will point out that the dangerous area at the top of the box is not where Kinnear's outside players cut in. It was more to the side, and usually to cross the ball or take a shot, not to combine. I'm talking more about what some people call the "Zone 14" but I don't feel we have seen enough from Stahre to show he will favor making plays in this area. I just know Kinnear didn't exploit it. (6) We only need the evidence of eyes to see that Kinnear teams don't create numerical advantage or combination plays in attack. Again, perhaps we don't have enough data on Stahre to see if he is different in this regard, but there ARE signs in the movement of the players as well as some things they are working on in practice (Rondos, and generally looking to move the ball around in tight spaces).
Yes there are certainly lots of gray areas and of course it's likely we will be somewhere in the middle with some good stuff and bad stuff as well. This still isn't a team with top MLS talent and Stahre is probably not a brilliant world-beating coach. The main thing is to get the team moving in the forward direction after all these years of sitting still if not drifting backwards. The best case is probably that Stahre has some new ideas and helps establish a solid foundation for the team. The problem is this sort of thinking where some coach who isn't already at a high level (i.e. NOT Preki) can come in with some possession or stylish attacking mentality or whatever, and not only get the team winning more, but also establish the permanent culture and playing style of the team, from scratch (the team after last year is really starting from ZERO). So that is why I am arguing so vehemently against the idea of a coach-driven identity, it's extremely unlikely to work especially if the coach doesn't have a strong track record (e.g. Leitch), and so with that kind of approach it's most likely the team doesn't actually gain any sustainable forward momentum at all. So while Stahre might not be the best coach for where the Quakes want to end up, he could be just good enough for where they're planning to go. Hopefully.
Hey! No talking about my age! We'll see, of course. My hope is that Stahre gets us playing in a more progressive style. That we actually develop a style, that we play not only organized, but also creative soccer. I don't expect us to play brilliant soccer out of the gate, but I do expect to see progress from the beginning of the season through to the end. We're much too early in the season to draw any conclusions yet, but we looked good for most of our first game. Playing the Sporks in Sporkland is going to be a real test. And yes, I expect us to finish middle of the table with a bit more flair and style than in previous seasons (excepting '12). Go Quakes!! - Mark
Another Rondo video posted today. Either these guys are trying to develop the possession stuff, or they are trying to fool other MLS teams into thinking they are trying to develop the possession stuff. Prepping for KC! #WeAreSanJose https://t.co/uKtCreYRTV— San Jose Earthquakes (@SJEarthquakes) March 12, 2018
That's too bad, because personal attacks like "your infected brain" / "you're a poopy head" stuff lowers the maturity level of the conversation, and it is considered bad form in these forums. And you don't need to do it. Your arguments are good enough that they can stand on their own. Including Ockford was a mistake but by removing him, it becomes more apparent that Tarbell's distribution is more long-ball than I thought. I don't know why you'd want to focus only on one aspect of GK distribution (goal kicks), when the more relevant question is - is the keeper setting up the team to play it out of the back or is he just whacking long ball? Bingham averaged 9 long balls per game last season for the Quakes. Tarbell had 11 in the Minnesota game (from whoscored.com). And Bings had the same number as Tarbell (11) in the RSL match. As I indicated in the previous point, in the Minnesota game, Tarbell actually exceeded the average per game long ball total for Bings in 2017. So no, the argument that it was just backpasses to Bings for long ball doesn't hold water when Tarbell actually exceeded Bings's average long ball per game rate. When someone writes an mlssoccer article about a team's tactics, it is not about the tactics for a single game. You are usually going to get one of those articles per year, and it is not "cherry picking" to call it out. Teams don't reinvent tactics for every game. Dom started the same front 4 in several games (including the RSL game over a month later), and there were multiple times when Matt Doyle waxed poetic about the Quakes vaunted "4-3-3". But if Kinnear was "unable to get his players to combine in the final 3rd" we should expect lower final third passes and pass completion relative to the 2018 game against Minnesota. But in the RSL game, the Quakes had almost exactly the same number of passes in the final 3rd (108 to 106) and exactly the same success percentage as this year's game against Minnesota (68%). He tried to play technical, central-driving players at outside mid as much as he could. He played Dawkins there regularly in 2016, MPG played there more often than anywhere else, Hyka almost always started there for Dom. He played Hoesen, a forward for nearly all of his career, there. Heck, he even tried to play Innocent there. As I said, Dom would kill to have had a player like Vako. Hyka was going to be his big attacking outside mid in 2017 (he's so creative, let's give him the #10 shirt!), and Hyka is having a hard time getting a game right now. Jesse has signed not one but two DP's for that positions since Dom left. Kinnear's teams got the same kinds of numbers in the attack. Two forwards, outside mids tended to cut in, outside backs provide width on either side, and typically one of the CM's pulls up for support (usually Godoy). With Stahre it's the same kinds of numbers, just a slightly different makeup. You might have two overlapping fullbacks and 0 CM's supporting, as one is dropping all the way back to the back line to allow both fullbacks to push up, and the other is providing cover above that. So, a little bit different makeup, but the same numbers. You are basically just trading a CM supporting at the top / center of the attack for an additional outside back joining on the outside.
Yeah I know, except you rarely saw it with Kinnear or prior (even as a warmup), and they are doing it more than just warmups, and they are doing it with different setups. And the academy teams did not use to do Rondos at all, not even for warmup.
For the record I don't consider it an insult, "possession infected" is not a bad thing in my opinion, not like a disease or something. It's perhaps that way if you are being defensive and thinking that someone is ridiculing possession like say Mourinho would do with Guardiola (who is clearly possession infected). But I gave context, pointing out that a possession "style" is actually difficult to develop properly and rarely can a coach simply will it into action effectively. So if you are not willing to consider the context in which the characterization was made then it is out of my hands. Long ball distribution on back passes is in large part a measure of how much high pressure the opponent is applying. Whereas with goal kicks it is a restart so you are able to get into your initial attacking formation and build from there. Goal kicks to me therefore are a better way to gauge the *intent* of how you are trying to play, not how you are being forced to play (by high pressure). It's too small a data set and as I already mentioned the Quakes were trying to clear out everything during the last 15-20 minutes or so (we can argue over the wisdom of this, but I think it was already too late to change and there wasn't any leadership on the field to change the tempo as I have mentioned). And again, I think the long ball on a back pass or recovery is often game dependent and not really indicative of the intent to play a certain way so we should look for more, including the important eye test, before arriving at any conclusions. Since Kinnear is a low threshold we should see a meaningful difference. With Bingham it was standard procedure for the CBs to just circulate the ball in the back until they got frustrated at nobody showing for them, and then they back passed to Bingham who would boot the shyte out of the ball, often to the opposite backline or even keeper. That was a normal thing under Kinnear. If we don't see that with Stahre/Tarbell, I am going to claim it's an improvement in terms of possession regardless of what the stats might say. The cherry picking was about a game where we were an attacking team (or at least a better attacking team), and scored 3 goals. How many times did that happen under Kinnear? Rarely. Only 6 games with 3 or more goals, out of 85. Even with more data, these stats can be deceiving. Are they combining and moving the ball into more dangerous areas, or just making futile passes around the perimeter. Time will tell. Yet he wouldn't play TT there. Valid points here, there are only so many ways you are going to get attacking numbers involved and it's always going to be some moderate variation at best. It's not as much about who gets involved as it is about where and how. We'll ultimately get to assess this by the number of goals we score under Stahre and the quality in attack. Kinnear teams often looked like they simply didn't have any ideas about how to break down opposing defenses. If we see the same from Stahre, it will be time to start considering the hire as a failure to progress.
We'll see how it plays out. I don't really want to do a point by point rebuttal anymore. You are mostly relying on qualitative descriptions / observations that are not yet born out in the data, or not as easily verified in the data. Kinnear's teams not scoring 3 very often - sure, but I think he didn't have the talent that Stahre has. As I mentioned, Jesse has signed not 1 but 2 DP's at the critical wide mid attacking position in the Stahre / Kinnear system. And at least one of them is reallly good. So Stahre may have more success, but the basic patterns of attack are similar in my mind. FTR, I'm not saying that Stahre is a bad coach. He seems to be a good coach in the way that he is purposeful about tactics and seems to try to make them clear to the team. I'm mainly getting at my opinion / prediction is that he is stylistically and philosophically similar to Kinnear. That is not necessarily a bad thing, just a choice. I also don't think that a better record will necessarily prove that Stahre is a better coach than Kinnear, or Leitch, for that matter, because Jesse is upgrading the roster pretty significantly.
Agreed on many parts of this, the main difference in our thinking may be in the process that Fioranelli is putting in place, with Stahre hopefully building a foundation that can elevate the team including start to establish an identity longer term. I suspect Kinnear didn't buy into a lot of this stuff, including training methods, video analysis, youth development and generally making the team more European from top-down approach. So I think that is a big philosophical difference that starts off the field and transitions to on the field with attacking style being one aspect of that. I think this must necessarily involve possession because that is a big part of being a dominant team which Fioranelli has stated is a key tenet. And also I have stated that youth development is going to be hindered if players are not in a possession system since they aren't getting enough touches or constantly using their brains otherwise (off the ball).