Fully aware of all those check boxes, that you've wonderfully and so correctly listed, Sir, but we still need a pedigreed striker. I know our roster is not full and I know we still haven't found one. So, if they do nothing in the summer transfer window, then we'll have our answer, once again, of how they fall one increment short each time. Now, tell, me.... have you ever had that dreadful feeling in any one of our 5 cup failures that one more player might have put us over the top?
Of course, the point is that they don't use all their resources. You can have 3 DPs, we have one. We've got a lot of allocation money stocked away, I believe. Gaining more with the JJ trade. They eventually used their Sporting partnership to get a player from their B team. Etc, etc, etc. They can and should be doing more.
A player that didn't even make the 18 yesterday. Neither did the top 5 pick (AKA: nice magic bean) that we got for Parkhurst.
For 2 of the finals against LA, I felt we were serious underdogs, so that one more player would have had to have been a significant one (at least, that would have been my thought going in). In 2 games against Houston, I thought we had the talent to win, but just didn't execute (players and coach) on the day.
I've never thought the "one more player" refrain made any sense. You can't make the team 2% or 5% better and then say, Okay, now our close loss would be a win. That just ain't how it works. You can't put the extra player on the field as a 12 th man, so that "one more player" would not have made any difference unless it was someone who could have beaten out one of the first xi, or maybe someone who could have beaten out one of the subs. So it would have had to have been a significantly better player than what we had on the roster. You can argue that they should have found some significantly better players, but that's different than arguing that just using that last spot would have put us over the top.
Having more quality players over the course of a season allows a coach to distribute the minutes better, still pick up most of the points they would have picked up, and be fresher for the playoffs. In any one game in the middle of the season does it a big difference? Maybe not, but over the course of a season it can make a difference when the one game that matters is after the other 38 or so games.
in 2002 and 2014 we were underdogs, no doubt. In 2005, we were the better team, but we just didn't play like it. We stopped doing the things than made us successful and got all conservative and bunkery. Then Pando-Freakin-Ramirez... The two cups against Houston were more evenly matched, although most pundits were giving them the edge in 2007. The "One More Player" theory would have made a hell of a difference the year we lost in the final (2005, I think) where we had 14 players on the whole team who had played more than 200 minutes in the entire season. The excuse given by some as to why we lost to a team who barely squeaked into the playoffs (while we had the second-best record in the league) was that we were "tired." Now if they had one player, not even a star, but a guy who was good enough to start a couple of games here and there when we had a Sat-Wed-Sat schedule, a guy who could have been used as a tactical sub, a guy who could have given rest to some of those guys who were "tired" it might have made the difference. Oh yeah, we had open roster spots and cap room at the time too.
Okay, I wasn't following closely in 2005 and I don't remember anyone saying they were tired -- but I certainly could have missed that. I do remember a year when they used 14 players but I thought it was more recent (2007?), and again I don't remember anyone -- management or players -- using "tired" as an excuse.
Thanks, Monty, it was 2007. Looking at that link, it's mind-blowing that after the 13 outfield players the next guys were Gary Flood and Joe Franchino. Flood was dismissed from the team early in the year for getting drunk at a Red Sox-Yankees game (he's from Lawn Guyin) and getting into it with fans. Franchino (who was also involved) was suspended for "personal reasons" and while still with the team, didn't play for the rest of the year. None of those other guys on the roster played any significant minutes at all. And by mid-summer, several decent, rank-and-file MLS players (Todd Dunivant, who later got capped, was one IIRC) were traded within the league. Why couldn't the Revs have picked up someone who could at least play?
Was that the year that Heaps came out and said he was OK with the team not doing much during the window because they "didn't want to ruin the chemistry?"
The better way to think of the "best use of the available roster spots" issue is to consider that Revs aren't maximizing their use of the "difference maker" slots at the TOP of the roster. i.e., the very same type of players that most here agree would put them over the top. Instead of arguing about unused roster slots as being reserved for practice fodder players -- the frame of reference should be that those unused roster slots should, each season, be filled with one or two or three "difference makers" with potential to impose their will on a game (i.e., MLS Best Eleven (or even Best TwentyTwo) equivalent). There are a few metrics to support this. Consider each of the recent seasons, and how many of each/any of these did the Revs have on their roster: - MLS Top Eleven players, or - legitimate Nats players, or - MLS All Stars, or - MLS MVP/nominees, or - Other MLS Awards (Golden Boot, Defender/Rookie/Newcomer, etc.), or - or even the subjective "real DP" (i.e., needle mover" to use Revs own words) - etc. It has really been about a decade since the Revs have carried enough "difference maker" players at the top of the roster to regularly have at least one or two in the running for any of these on a regular annual basis. Most recent years, Revs have been at zero, with the occasional one-off occurrence. (JoGo Def of Yr, Tierney AllStar coach choice, Lee MVP nominee, 1 yr JJ DP) If you evaluate it this way (which has nothing to do with how much is spent on salaries, just has to do with the overall roster quality independent of spend), then the number of "difference making" rosters slots that have gone unfilled by Revs in many recent seasons is a depressing/alarming/concerning pattern - if you care about winning it all. Having players like this on your roster usually requires carrying players with, relatively speaking, higher salaries. I know the Revs are carving our a specialty in the "steals and deals" mid-tier range, but they need to strive to make a real mark at the top end if they actually want to win it all, as opposed to wanting to win to be "just good enough" for whatever.
Um ... thanks, I think? I do happen to know Heaps was a player back then. I said nothing about him being a coach or a roster builder. He was asked by FDA (maybe?) and was quoted in an article at one point either that season or in that time frame about the lack of moves and that was his answer. The answer was mocked here pretty strongly. It's the same question that's asked in other sports (especially baseball) in the U.S. when a team doesn't make roster moves and quite a few players do speak up about it (for or against).
Correct. I'd rather have the guys that are going to wind up being 24-25 on our roster actually be 26-27 (28?), because you've got better players in the Top 15 now available to you on your roster.
2007 was also the cup final we were leading at half time off a 20' Twellman header then somehow let them back in it and collapsed in the second half. Ngwenya had the scrappy goal to tie it (but what has he done since? He is a Pittsburgh Riverhound these days), then DeRo with the winner. DeRo at that time was without a doubt class of the league's strikers. He was a game changer for sure, though Twellman was even better. While the revs of course lost, I remember Ginger was denied a sure equaliser late, right on the doorstep by a great reaction save by Onstad who played out of his mind, IIRC. I've blocked out most of the other details but without a refresher, would characterize '07 as one of those "them's the breaks" finals losses rather than "what if we had another game changer?" IMO. We had Twellman, Ralston, Parkhurst, Larentowicz and Joseph plus Reis in goal. That is enough talent to win a MLS Cup if tactics are managed properly. Houston was without Ching and Clark on the day. They were there for the taking, even with DeRo. It could have gone either way, just didn't go our way.
Really? That "chemistry" quote that is mocked so often here came from a player? I always assumed it came from someone in management. And again, I'd be really surprised if a player (Heaps in 2007) was commenting on the lack of movement on the roster, but if you say so . . .
Well yeah. How could anyone argue with the idea that if you can improve the players in the top 15 you have improved the team. I'm a huge KAD and I agree with that.
It was from Heaps during our "glory days." But that's the point. When people keep bringing up that players 2X to the end of the roster don't play, we get that. We'd just like to see them get better players at the top of the roster, push the others further down, let them develop as loanees or USOC games. No one here is saying bring in a 26th player on the roster who will ... well, be player 26.
Well I can't vote in the poll as I came too late to the party and realize we are 2 games in, but wanted to make my prediction anyway. My prediction is the revs will finish the 2016 regular season with 54 points, good for second in the East. I see the revs having a surprisingly solid campaign with fewer seesaw periods of results than the past couple years. While some games will be decided -good or bad- by a moment of individual brilliance, an unstoppable free kick, a lost mark, etc, our midfield will largely dictate how the season goes in terms of results. If we allow free runners like in Houston there will be dropped points. If we close down passing lanes, press high and generate opportunities like yesterday, there will be points gained. We need to be more clinical in the final third, but I am cautiously optimistic overall (as long as Rowe isn't 1v1 with an opposing keeper). While optimistic for the regular season, this is tempered by my expectation of another disappointing USOC run that ends too early. The revs will make a decent playoff run to the conference final where they will lose on a late penalty that is an indisputably bad call, a harsh reminder of the fallibility of MLS refs. Excited to see how accurate my magic 8 ball really is!
I know there's a long way to go, and the Revs are a streaky side. But given the first three results, my 31-35 point prediction seems wholly reasonable now....
The first 5-6 games are almost never a good indicator of the kind of season they will have. For whatever reasons, they almost always start off slow.
Oh, there's plenty of time, and we did had similar results in the first three games of the last couple years. But it's inauspicious....