Some coaches are capable of making such adjustments during games. Others, once or twice a season. I guess now we know why he's never excelled at tactical substitutions, he doesn't have the necessary time to analyze the situation. On the plus side, he can still maintain that he's reacting to situations more quickly than the Player Acquisition Dept, which *finally* seems to be aware we could use some reinforcements in central defense.
Yes, I said that - but I never suggested it was an excuse for anything (IIRC, someone [you?] suggested that winning the USOC was their best chance at qualifying for the CCL and I commented that winning 4 or 5 straight in the USOC wasn't an easy task). Not really what I was saying. I think Heaps is more of a stick-to-the-program and do-what-we-do-best kind of coach, rather than one who likes to make tactical changes very often based on the situation or the opponent. But, that's the kind of approach that can make it harder to break out of slumps like this (so that probably does agree with what you were saying!). Much as we like to make Coach K. jokes, I would think that Steve Nicol, by far, is probably the greatest coaching influence on Heaps. And, a lot of Nicol's approach involved sticking by veterans who had come through for him in the past and sticking with formations that had worked in the past - i.e., stay-the-course when things get rocky.
Actually that was me. I know how it us, all of us NNNs look alike! My point was that it was a hell of a lot easier to win 4 or 5 games over a span of a few months in the USOC than it would be for our team, as currently constructed, in the form we were in when we got booted out of the Cup, to do that than it would be to win the Supporters' Shield. That was my argument. Obviously finishing at least second in the division (so we avoid the midweek play-in game) was my biggest concern, but now it would seem more likely that we could hope to make the play-in game and then to go to someone else's stadium and knock them off. Then of course, we'd have a 2-leg series against a rested 1 or 2 seed, so that won't exactly be easy either. But winning one play-in game will probably be enough to earn both Heaps and Burns nice contract extensions. So put another way, Heaps knows what he likes and likes what he knows, and even if something isn't working, he's gonna keep trying and trying, and maybe this time it will work. Either that, or he just doesn't have the tactical knowledge or creativity or ability to rely on and trust someone who does have ideas. Either way, he can't base his entire game management strategy on waiting until Jermaine Jones gets healthy. I don't follow college basketball much at all, but it seems pretty clear that Coach K is one of the all-time best in his field, running a top-notch program for many years. They are the defending champs, IIRC. The disconnect here is that Heaps' whole connection to him is tenuous at best, having been a practice player and bench-sitter on his teams close to 20 years ago, in a totally different sport. I'm sure Heaps was a hard worker and a "student of the game," which all coaches like. But this is like me pretending to be a NFL expert because I was Bill Pacrells' next door neighbor (I wasn't, this is just an example), and I would occasionally stop by and say hello, and offered to water his plants and feed the cat while he was away. And the fact that the Krafts publicly said that a good reference from Coach K was the most important selling point that convinced them to hire a totally inexperienced coach for his first-ever coaching job is what makes everyone want to rag on Coach K. It's less of an indictment on Coach K or Heaps than it is on the Krafts.
One thing that concerns me is that Heaps doesn't appear to me to rely on too much council. He also seems to operate mostly on the analytical process.... which can be very smart, but conversely, he doesn't ever appear to audaciously abandon that at times and consult his gut. The gut thing is something I feel is also needed at times, like, when Belichick didn't call the time out after Lynch ran it to the half yard line. That was one of the most brilliant displays of gut poker I've ever seen. I think 99 out of a hundred coaches call the time out. I just can't picture Jay doing a similar thing in the soccer context.
You said it, no me. Well sure, you can take my statement and put the most negative spin on it possible. I don't necessarily endorse it, but sometimes sticking with what's worked in the past does pay off. Nicol was a mule in sticking with his veterans and generally it paid off for him. A new formation, major lineup changes, etc. would almost certainly involve taking a few steps backwards while the team adjusts to the changes. Would we be okay with that? So, do you agree with my point or did you not really read beyond "Coach K"?