Luke is emblematic of how widely I diverge from RSLSoapBox's ratings (which I think suck). But they probably think my ratings suck. http://www.rslsoapbox.com/2016/10/27/13432606/player-ratings-galaxy-3-1-rsl They gave Luke a 5, which I found astounding. He was borderline MotM for me as a sub. He came in he was closing down LA's passers (which we had done very little of), creating turnovers. Frankly our whole team improved the instant Javi left the pitch. There was more defense, more movement, we had a midfield presence and our entire team shifted forward. Some of that was to make up the deficit, and some of it was LA tiring, but some of it was Luke shoring up the midfield. I thought he had a very strong shift. Luke is an MLS starter. He's not a star, but he's an MLS starter. Jordan Allen has the potential to be an MLS star, and he should have gotten a lot more minutes this year. See previous rant. Last year I sat down with my former boss (who has a suite at Rio Tinto) and we talked about the season in a post-mortem kind of way. Our conclusion was the team was never a Cup contender and Cassar was misguided at not developing our young players more, and may arguably be bad at it. This year - I think we'll arrive at the EXACT SAME conclusion. It's Jeff Cassar Corbin all over again. Burning minutes his vets's legs don't have to try and salvage his job. His tactical plan isn't working, I'm not even sure it's in evidence. This is all wrong right now.
Agreed. Even the best teams in the world pickup new players after winning. Whether it's a better starter, or better subs, teams need to retool after each season. Everyone behind them is going to be doing the same thing, so to sit back and do nothing, means you'll just fall behind eventually. It's better to be ahead of the problem, then fall behind and suddenly have to try and catch up. I personally don't think Luke would be a starter for most title winning clubs. I think he's close, and is certainly a first/second off the bench type of guy, and one who would be able to get the occasional starts for rotation/injury. I just don't see him as quite good enough for most teams pushing for a title.
So if you were the coach and was told "Reach the playoffs or hit the road" you would play the younger guys even if it cost you your job?
Depends on the situation. Glad and Allen I absolutely would. If we didn't loan out Saucedo I would've give him some minutes as well. Not starts, but at least more that the 1-2 games of charity minutes. I wouldn't be starting guys like Sandoval or Olmes though.
Remarkable! You might be the only person I know who would choose unemployment in order to give a couple of guys more playing time.
Yes but I'd attempt to get ownership to buy into the idea that we aren't winning more cups and need to play the kids up front, so the goals could be set more realistically. If management is deluded it's not a job worth staying at. If they can be objective and see long term, then it's a good situation.
In the case of Jordan Allen, management has to understand that a typical coach isn't going to play him at the 10 when Morales is there. Only coached who are absolutely certain of their position will do that, and even then it depends on their temperment. But it takes a unique coach to play someone other than Allen in that spot when Morales isn't available.
You're presupposing that playing those guys automatically guarantees you that the team misses the playoffs, which is poor logic at best. Quite frankly Allen has the talent and he should have been starting every single game where Javi or another midfielder was not healthy and he should have been the first or second off the bench every single game. If you can't recognize that they I don't know what to tell you. He should have ALWAYS been ahead of Luke who is at best a middle of the road MLS player with no more upside than what you see right now.
The only definite in the scenario is that he did reach the playoffs and he did it by relying on the veterans. None of us know what the result would have otherwise been. It's his job. He must have felt there would have been less success playing the younger kids more. My whole reason for asking the question is that rational people, given the ultimatum "Make the playoffs or hit the road", will make the decisions to maximize the chances of making the playoffs. They are not going to risk their jobs. There are less than 2 dozen HC jobs at the highest level of soccer in the USA and Canada combined.
I love how you assume that we would miss the playoffs by playing a couple of youth. Anyone watching games could see that Javi regularly couldn't go 90 minutes game in and game out. Cassar claimed Allen is the heir to Javi. Now if you were to look at this situation, logically Allen subbed in and occasionally started for Javi, correct? Oh that's right, Mulholland started in this spot more than Allen. So based on our coaches statements, why was Allen not given more time in Javi's spot? Who the hell knows, because apparently saying one thing and doing another is exactly what a coach should be doing. You've also got Saucedo, who IMO, is the most suited to be Javi's heir, and what did we do? Oh that's right, we sent him out on loan, instead of actually giving him some meaningful minutes compared to someone who is mostly past it, and couldn't give 100% in the minutes given to him. The overall problem was the coach, period. Allen is not even remotely an AM, and anyone with a brain can see that. Meanwhile, Cassar claims that Allen will be played at AM, while giving the majority of his minutes to every other spot that isn't AM. He also decides to loan out our one and only AM backup in Saucedo for reasons unknown. Cassar relied on veterans in almost every game, whether they actually performed or not. You had guys like Wingert and Olave stinking it up. Javi is a player that can barely go one game a week, and he'd often play him more than that. Cassar claimed to go to a 4-3-3, then preceded to play a 4-2-3-1, which didn't maximize the strengths of the players. For someone that supposedly only had the bar of making the playoffs, he completely botched everything with the team. His player management was abysmal. He often didn't line up the players to counter teams we were playing against. His subs were often wrong, and baffling given the current situation of the game. His player rotation during congested schedules was almost non-existent. In regards to players he would say one thing and do another wrt Allen and the AM slot. When you'd have someone like Javi who would more often hit the first defender instead of get it to the middle of the box we didn't change the FK taker, AND didn't adjust tactics to at least have someone posted closer for when Javi didn't hit the ball right. I could go on and on, but at the end of the day, Cassar was absolutely terrible. I can't think of any reason he should stick around. The only reason we were even in the playoffs is because we punched above our weight at the start of the season, and other teams didn't capitalize while we were completely mediocre for the rest of it. For someone that supposedly had to make the playoffs to secure his job, he barely did the minimum, and for me that is unacceptable. He did nothing all season to give me hope if he sticks around. He was often clueless and wrong in his subs, he has no idea on how to manage game minutes for the aging vets, he has no clue where the youth should even play, and plays them in the wrong position after saying where they will play, and he has no idea how to adjust a team at halftime regardless of how we're doing at the time. IMO, there is no redeeming quality of Cassar that warrants us keeping him. There was never a time I thought we would do better. The sooner we get rid of him, the better.
I'm going to say this one more time, the only reason this team made the playoffs is because other teams in the west regressed. By every major statistical measure I've done (and shown in various threads here) this team is no different than last year. We did not improve and if you think we did you have some seriously rose tinted glasses. Making the playoffs (in terms if setting a bar) was only achieved by other's more significant failures than any real amount of success rsl had in 2016.
All of those words because you misread my post. I do not/did not assume the team would have a worse result by playing youth. The hypothetical scenario was a HC given an ultimatum, and then choosing the best strategy: play the vets or play the younger players. It's obvious that Cassar felt that the results this year would be best if he relied on the veterans. It worked. So, why in the world would anyone say he made a mistake by doing that?
The only relevant outcomes in my scenario were make the playoffs or not. I have not claimed the 2016 team is better than the 2015.
I think the overall strategy was a mistake because we completely regressed for most of the season. Do you really think we barely backed into the playoffs by playing the vets? Are you convinced that excluding the youth gave us better results? I'd argue that it isn't the case. We clearly didn't do anything over the past couple of months, and if we benched some of the vets in favor of youth it may have had a bonus in two areas: the youth gets results due to wanting more playing time, or the vets get benched and realize the need to perform to keep their starting spots, and actually perform. If the HC was given an ultimatum to make the playoffs, he barely succeeded. If I were the owner, I wouldn't renew Cassar based on the last 3/4 of the season where we regressed. He did nothing for most of the season to keep his job. He rarely made smart roster rotations, his subs were often baffling and late, and his general starting lineups didn't make sense. If DLH had any sense, he'd cut Cassar and look for someone who may do a better job.
this is where the problem lies. DLH and Cassar both seemed to truly believe this team was capable of winning trophies. I see this across a lot of the fanbase, too. People think we have loads of talent. I'm not going to say we don't have good players, but we have some serious holes in this team that were always going to hold us back from a championship.
This if any team benefited from Vancouver being so god awful it's us. Not to mention we also benefited from a Portland team unable to win on the road.
I'm not arguing to keep Cassar. I'm mostly presenting counter PsOV to arguements for firing him that cannot be substantiated or don't make a whole lot of sense. Sadly, that covers many of them on these boards. Like you, I'm not convinced playing younger players more would have resulted in a worse outcome....it's something we will never know. However, given the team made the playoffs, I don't agree that his reliance on the vets can be considered a mistake nor do I think he should be fired because of it.
I've asked this before, but I'm still wondering: What is RSL? The contending team of the past was about the diamond and possessing the ball. The team's identity came from that. This team has no identity, and doesn't seem to have one as a goal.
Only in the context of the ultimatum "make the playoffs or hit the road" was it a mistake for Cassar to not play younger guys more? That's the only scenario I projected and have commented on. Certainly the scope of real world considerations is much, much broader. For example, had the ultimatum been "establish a clear formation, strategy, and identity for which we can make strong personnel decisions with the goal of being a top 4 team in 3 years or hit the road", the answer is "NO, he didn't really do that." But, tbh, I really think the only thing he needed to achieve this season was to make playoffs. That was the "vision" communicated to him from the higher levels. Which is part of the problem. From DLH we see some of his probable vision for the broad organization through his involvement with the Monarchs and the future training center. What I am not seeing, and maybe I'm just blind to it, is the vision for the senior team itself. Edit: @The Franchise said it more succinctly in the post above this one.
My problems with Cassar is that there was a clear lack of anything. I honestly can't recall a time we had a clear identity under his 4-3-3. It didn't matter if players weren't performing or not, he largely played the vets in his formation(which is really a 4-2-3-1, but claims is a 4-3-3). His subs were often not there. I honestly can't think of another coach that flat out didn't use all 3 subs in a game as often as Cassar. The times he did sub were often formulaic and generally wrong. Whether it was when the sub was made, or what players were being subbed. Even the in the post game, Cassar often didn't have an answer. Sometimes he was flat out saying he didn't know what to do. Other times he would claim the product on the field was good, yet we just didn't get a result. Here and there, sure, the effort doesn't match the result. But we went a good 2/3 of the season not getting a result. At that point, luck has nothing to do with it. Cassar was also the guy who claimed Allen was the heir to Javi's spot, yet played Mullholland there more. This year Javi was a guy who couldn't regularly go 90, yet somehow managed to go 3 in a week routinely. You'd think that if Allen was supposedly the successor to Javi, we would've been seeing regular 10-20 minute sub appearances throughout the season. That never happened. Instead, Javi would walk around the last 20 minutes of games while we'd sub everyone around him. In the times that Javi didn't start, or actually got subbed, it was almost never Allen. It's just part of a long list of reasons you can point to that shows Cassar has no idea WTF he's doing. Would more youth have put us in a better position? Honestly, I don't really know. The problem is, Cassar didn't really give our youth a chance, and didn't fully utilize our roster to maximize it's potential. There were plenty of opportunities to give guys like Allen more chances, yet he failed to do so. Ultimately the formation, roster, and tactics fall on the coach, and he routinely failed to deliver. If we actually re-sign him, then I will lump DLH in the boat as a failure as well. I just can't see how you can look at the last couple of years, and see Cassar as someone worth keeping. I could understand if we were seeing positive overall progress, but it's clear this hasn't happened.
I have a good friend who was a member of the 2016 Monarchs team. He's now a former member as RSL didn't extend his contract. Here is an interesting story he let me in on with that team/organization: My friend was a late signing in 2015. The season was already a game in when he was officially announced with the team so he never got a pre-season or anything of the sort. Still, the setup of the program was made to him that it was for development of academy and prospects and recovery of first team players. As the 2015 season wore on, it became clear that this approach wasn't going to win games. Which is fine if the organization was willing to accept defeat for development. They weren't. Towards the end of the season, players and coaches were being put on the hot seat to win. But at the same time, Freddy was being forced to play first team players at the direction of more senior management. This resulted in the Monarchs not making the 2015 playoffs. In 2016, my friend had a full preseason with the team. Did the trip to Costa Rica, became a big part of the team/club, etc. In the weeks leading up to the season, RSL management said that they wanted to take a different direction with the Monarchs this year. It was about those players on that roster. The focus wasn't going to be on the first team players recovery nearly as much and the academy players would be limited. This resulted in the Monarchs having a decent opening stretch and chemistry being established. Then first team players got hurt. Inevitably, the first team coaching staff, again, forced Freddy to rotate players. But then it wasn't just limited to injuries (again) but also just other players. The Monarchs went on skids where they couldn't win or even score. And ultimately ended up right back where they were at the end of the 2015 season. I share this because I'm seeing a trend of short-sighted management killing long term development. It makes me nervous that even though we have (and are going to have more) the pieces to really build a club, small knee-jerk reactions/goals are going to hamper this club. This season and the way Cassar managed it certainly, from the outside looking in, appears to be another case of it
That has to be rough as a player. You're giving it your all during practice and games, only to be sat because someone feels the need to play RSL players in recovery matches. While I can get wanting to do that for players on the mend, it's going to send a message to the Monarch players that they ultimately aren't that important. In doing so, you're going to see the team suffer as a whole because of it.
This happened MANY times. My buddy told me Freddy was pretty good about managing it, but he said you could tell there was a bit of a sense of annoyance. This is where it was interesting to talk to my buddy about first team players. Which of them were actual professionals and which were assholes. By this I mean which first team players treated playing with the Monarchs like an opportunity rather than "punishment". I was shocked/ashamed at how many players were in the latter.
To me there are 3 philosophical approaches to running the Monarchs, with various mixes of the 3: 1. Win games 2. Place holder for Senior team players who need playing time 3. Develop players who are close to MLS level. It seems like the management are not all on the same page. The MLB model seems to work for them. Development is the primary purpose. Occasionally a major leaguer will go down for rehab or demotion for lack of production. Winning is not the focus, but the Manager gets the opportunity to showcase his skills.