Sigi Schmid - should there be a role for him with the national teams?

OK, first things first.

Really?? You think so. In that case, players like Eddie Lewis, Frankie Hejduk, and Kasey Keller should have – oops, sorry, using the conditional again, can you please forgive me – should have a hard time making the USMNT at all. Either they were stuck on the reserves (Eddie CERTAINLY wasn’t playing against his “peers”) or riding the pine (Keller) or not even getting to the subs bench (Frankie). No, the STRONGEST case a player can make for a spot on the USMNT is whether they have the talent, the athleticism, the brains, and the fitness to play at the international level. In fact, club performance can be a really misleading indicator – a “false positive” in the case of players like a Jason Kreis, a Jeff Cunningham (and perhaps a Steve Ralston).

Apologies for my imprecision in the use of that word. But it seems to be awfully awfully important in your view.

Yep, I was right – another “strongest” argument.

You bet it’s highly debatable.

Since you seem to be interested in term paper like information, I went back and did a little research. Sigi started coaching the Gals in 1999. Since 1999, the Fire and Galaxy have faced each other 14 times in MLS league and playoff play. Galaxy has 9 wins, 3, losses, 2 ties.

You know, on the surface this seems dominating, but is it really? You’re a computer guy, probably have taken some statistics courses in your time – is this really a “definitive” sample to begin with – or even more precisely, a definitive sample whose results can REALLY be attributed to THE coach of the ONE team being THAT much better than the OTHER coach??

Also, had two or three games gone the Fire’s way, we’re looking at more or less an even matchup across the 4 year period. Now don’t give me any of the conditional crap; part of understanding a statistical situation is to assess whether a series of events COULD and therefore SHIOULD be considered significant in their differences.

For the record, here are the games where they faced off. By the way, ALL of the victories, for either side, except one, have been decided by one goal. Year, date, and results. Results are for Galaxy.

1999

04/17 – 1-0, loss
06/12 – 2-1, win
07/31 – 1-0, win
09/11 – 1-0, win

2000

06/21 – 1-1, tie
08/19 – 2-1, loss

A great home and home series that year, between two evenly matched teams.

2001

05/30 – 4-3, win
08/25 – 3-1, loss
10/10 – 1-1, tie
10/13 – 1-0, win
10/17—2-1, win (OT)

The August game was the only game in four year history of the rivalry where one team completely overwhelmed the other – and it was the Fire who did it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 10/17 OT loss was a bitter moment for this Fire fan as we – that is the players NOT Bob – controlled the game and had a perfect chance to win it and didn’t get it done.

2001

04/06 – 2-1, win (OT)
05/11 – 1-0, win
06/08 – 1-0, win

On the surface, total dominance by LA. But dig a little deeper, and things are much more interesting. In the April game, the Fire had (1) no Whitfied (2) no Bocanegra and (3) no CJ Brown after the 68th minute. Brown’s sub, Billy Sleeth (now THAT’s doing somewhat more with less, doncha think??) miskicks a clearance allowing Ruiz an easy finish. In the May game, the Fire dominated the run of play. Only the June game can be considered a stinker, in that we were up a man late and couldn’t score. But by then, the casualties had begun to accumulate, as the team slouched toward it’s inevitable fate.

Of course, it’s intellectually MUCH easier to simply say, “Oooh, look at the record….” But the numbers are just a skeleton; there’s a lot more meat on the bones than that.

 

Karl said, "Since you seem to be interested in term paper like information, I went back and did a little research. Sigi started coaching the Gals in 1999. Since 1999, the Fire and Galaxy have faced each other 14 times in MLS league and playoff play. Galaxy has 9 wins, 3, losses, 2 ties.

You know, on the surface this seems dominating, but is it really? You’re a computer guy, probably have taken some statistics courses in your time – is this really a “definitive” sample to begin with – or even more precisely, a definitive sample whose results can REALLY be attributed to THE coach of the ONE team being THAT much better than the OTHER coach??

I have taken enough statistics to know they can be skewed any which way you want them. But it takes a lot of work to try and skew a record of 3-9-2 in favor of the losing coach. And as an English guy, you should have known from reading my previous posts that I have never said that Sigi is “THAT much better” than Bradley. I have maintained that they are very equally matched coaches, besides a significant difference being in their head to head records.

Karl continued “Also, had two or three games gone the Fire’s way, we’re looking at more or less an even matchup across the 4 year period. Now don’t give me any of the conditional crap; part of understanding a statistical situation is to assess whether a series of events COULD and therefore SHIOULD be considered significant in their differences.”

Karl, in an earlier thread you rebuke a poster in this way, “In the meantime, you're welcome to engage in the "shoulda woulda coulda" imaginary fantasies that support your oft-expressed shallow and intellectually empty opinions.”

I agree with that statement. Hypotheticals are largely a waste of time and space. For every conjectural event that could have led to a different result, there is an opposing conjectural that might have led to yet another. It is an endless spiral, and considered by most (including even you sometimes) to be inane. Yes, in statistics you can also delve into hypothetical scenarios. But they are among the weakest arguments, especially when the overall picture shows a clear picture. The picture you help to paint clearly shows that LA teams coached by Sigi have dominated Chicago teams coached by Bradley. Instead of crafting pointless hypothetical situations where Chicago “coulda” evened the score, it might be a better use of effort to understand why Sigi’s teams have fared so well against Bradley’s. Do you have any insights to that end, or are you insisting that in fact LA has not dominated the Fire?

Karl ends by saying, “Of course, it’s intellectually MUCH easier to simply say, ‘Oooh, look at the record….’ But the numbers are just a skeleton; there’s a lot more meat on the bones than that.”

I don’t think it is intellectually superior to beat your head against a brick wall, either. The value of statistics is in helping to understand things in a different light. For example, the closeness of the games between the Fire and Galaxy help me to confirm my earlier opinion that these are two well-matched teams, and also well-matched coaches, but one team and one coach definitely appears to have the edge over another. But no matter how I skew the statistics in this sampling, I cannot see how they show that Bradley is even with Sigi in head to head match ups over the past 4 years.

I’ll finish this post be reiterating what I have said previously – in my opinion, Sigi is a marginally better coach than Bradley. If I had to choose right now between the two, based on a number of factors, including Sigi’s success against Bradley, I would choose Sigi. Because I don’t have to, nor does anyone else, I look forward to the next 4 seasons of MLS to see what comes of this great match up.

 

I decided to handle Karl’s tangent in a different post.

Karl - “In that case, players like Eddie Lewis, Frankie Hejduk, and Kasey Keller should have – oops, sorry, using the conditional again, can you please forgive me – should have a hard time making the USMNT at all. Either they were stuck on the reserves (Eddie CERTAINLY wasn’t playing against his “peers”) or riding the pine (Keller) or not even getting to the subs bench (Frankie).”

Your argument here is severely flawed, as Lewis, Hejduk, and Keller have all proven themselves in club play – and against their National Team peers - well before the situations they found themselves in during 2002. Since I never said that these players are selected by how they are performing at the club level right now, in that point of your argument you are blindly jousting with windmills. In the future, please try to keep the arguments you direct my way to points that I have actually made.

Karl continues, “No, the STRONGEST case a player can make for a spot on the USMNT is whether they have the talent, the athleticism, the brains, and the fitness to play at the international level. In fact, club performance can be a really misleading indicator – a “false positive” in the case of players like a Jason Kreis, a Jeff Cunningham (and perhaps a Steve Ralston).”

All of the qualities listed above are required of truly exceptional club players, among others. When they apply those qualities to their club play, they are eventually called into camp, where further assessment is done. This is where the “false positives” are weeded out from the real talents and the team is formed.

 

There was another game the teams played that week, by the way.

Just to put the complete overwhelming on the 25th in perspective.

 

Sigi's fat.

 

Dan you make an appearance!!!

You should come around more often.

 

Fortunately for him, only in the midsection.

Will he need a cardiologist like Cruyff??

 

How the fuck does ANYONE let their stomach get to be that way? Holy fucking sheeit!

 

Yes, we can just wait and see if they do well at the international level and then make these claims.

Based entirely on MLS performance, none deserved to start for the Nats. Ralston and Cunningham were fighting for bench spots.

You left out the biggest false positive, Jeff Agoos.

 

Why the fuck does anyone give shit. As much as I hate the Galaxy it's clear who coach of the year was, especially after MLS Cup VII.

 

Um, I should have looked at crewtoon's pic first.

http://www.ibiblio.org/footy/2001/0815_kc_la_wj/tn/sm_thmb_WIZ-LA-110.jpg

Eeeck.

 

In conclusion, Sigi's marginally better. The Nats could have success with either one in 2006. However, the coach most likely to be around and not in the hospital having triple bypass surgery is: BOB BRADLEY.

 

Couple arguments in favor of Bob -

1. He's the natural successor to Bruce Arena - though we might be ready for a wholly different approach in four years.

2. His son is the natural successor to Kenny Arena. Really, his kid was looking good when he was, I dunno, 11.

 

P.S.

Cruyff's a cardiologist? That amazes me - since he smoked himself thin.