Interesting analysis, but I don't think that washes with the Rapids personnel. I'd argue that a LaBrocca-Pablo pairing more than matches an Olsen-Carroll pairing in making up for defensive responsibilities that Gomez doesn't take. Maybe looking at the entire midfield (Cooke and Clark are certainly more offensively minded outside mids) and the less experienced outside backs (combo of Kimura, Harvey, and Ihemelu, who is more suited to the center of defense) makes it less likely to employ a 3-5-2. Taking the team as a whole then, it makes sense why Smith would prefer a 4-4-2, which means putting Gomez almost up front rather than in the midfield. It still doesn't account for why they never even used Gomez as a sub (other than injury). There were definite times last season when the Rapids needed more offense and could have used Gomez, but didn't. I'd say it has more to do with workrate and effort than any lack of personnel for the Rapids, another thing Forbes did mention.
I doubt we'll be seeing Guerrero, Harvey, and Clark on the field at the same time. If Smith pushes Clark forward, my guess is it'll be as a place holder until someone else comes in. I like Clark and I like Harvey. My guess is that competition will hurt Guerrero more than Clark or Harvey, because time is less on his side.
I thought about that a little. I think LaBrocca and Pablo were pretty much the same as Olsen and Carroll. The difference is that Clavijo played Gomez with one forward in front of him instead of two. That may push Gomez too far up the field, or it may hurt him by depriving him of a player to pass to. My guess is the biggest loss to Gomez was having Jaime Moreno in front of him. In any case it seems that both here and in DC the coaches felt that Gomez needed two midfielders behind him at all times. I don't think the backs were the problem in regards to playing a 3-5-2. Our outside backs are easily sat in favor of anything that works. The bigger problem is Cooke in particular - maybe Clark but he's pretty active. I just don't see many coaches giving Cooke the responsibility of the whole right side of the field. I think work rate and effort are the exact reasons that Gomez didn't get played as a sub. It's not outlandish for a coach to want subs to bring energy to a game. Could Gomez be relied upon to bring energy to the late stages of a game? You almost never see older players start to wind down their careers by becoming late game subs. Is that a result of not wanting to play the role? Of not getting the opportunity? Or, of the role itself demanding less finesse and more effort?
Lotsa good analysis in this post. I would take umbrage with your contention that our backs did not limit a 3-5-2. Our backs limited everything but their opponents scoring goals. Moreover, as you suggest, Cooke would be useless in this formation. His mobility is limited and his defense scary. His one trick is crossing the ball it is not controlling one side of the pitch!!!
We'll never know because he was never used/tried in that role. If it was thought he wasn't suitable to come on as a sub, then why make him one? Why was he even on the subs bench?
By-gones... The interesting question to me is, why don't older players start to wind down as late game subs?
Congrats on acquiring Guerrero. He was a good player for the Quakes, wish we had never of traded him to DC.
Good job to the guys who pushed this trade through. I thought Ivan Guerrero was the top player on the Quakes when they surprised us at home last year. I agree with those who have said Ivan is better at the LM spot. His speed up the flank and all the way to the end line is very helpful. I also like the idea that Smith is trying (according to Dismemberment, who I assume has seen some of their training sessions) of having Clark slotted more up and centrally (almost as a forward). Makes me wonder if a 4-5-1 will be implemented that when on the attack often transforms into a 4-3-3? Anyways, I think this was a positive step.
Maybe we could purchase Beckham from AC Milan for 250 mill after he gets injured... then he could show up and sit on the bench and train while he heals only to gripe until we let him play for England for friendlies and whatever else he wants then bend over backwards for him so that he can train in the off-season with a real team in a real league then gripe until we transfer him out of this god forsaken league.
Ok, so we got a left footed starter (let's just say for arguments sake), thus giving us some left footed depth on the bench. Fair enough. We're $200K light on the salary cap to fill an attacking mid and second forward position that really have not been resolved (at least in my mind). With all his time at mid for the Rapids, how many assists/goals does Mehdi have? Is he really going to be the answer? We won't be able to use the DP slot unless it's to trade to another club to get a quality player that costs less than the $400k that would apply to the cap. So no DP player this year. Maybe this constitutes a decent recovery, but I'm not sure that I see where the Rapids are any better at this point than they were last season. From the team that ended the season as starters, we've essentially swapped Petke for Guerrero (assuming he plays defense) and Bouna for Perkins. Or if you like, Guerroro (at a much higher salary) replaces Clark, Harden for Petke, and Perkins for Bouna? Are we really any better? So far this looks like lateral movement to me.
Well said Waterboy. So far we've managed not to take any steps back, added some depth, and freed up some salary cap space. What we do with that space is really what's going to determine if this was a good enough offseason for us to take a step forward. (I was going to say that it would determine if this was a successful offseason, but after the last couple of offseasons just not taking any steps backwards is a decent success)
Great Posts Everybody! Kudos to Jasonma and Malaga. Now I'm wondering what we're going to do with that money under the salary cap? Possibilities - 1-Nothing 2-Pick up a decent role player 3-Use salary cap money plus other options to procure a DP. What other options do we have? IMO #2 is the way we will go and it will be to add depth to the front line. Maybe this would be a better post under a different title?
Agreed the team is still not whole. But, I do not agree that they have not changed. IMO they have improved by subtraction; Condoul, *Ward, Erpen, Burciaga & McManus and improved by addition; Pickens, Harden & Guerrero. Significant holes remain. A midfield general upgrades any team but they are few and far between. We have appropriate defensive coverage in Mastroeni & LaBrocca for a truly attack oriented CM. While we are never going to find another Valderrama an upgrade to Ballouchy is out there and could be found. Maybe a new, feistier more confident Ballouchy is the answer. My concern regarding this type of player, a true attack oriented CM, is Emperor Gary. Does he want one? His treatment of C. Gomez worries me that the Emperor hopes to structure an English style side, and I don't mean one of Arsenal, FC or Man U quality & style. I am impacted by the low quality, rough and tumple teams that Emperor Gary played for and coached in his limited English league days. While I am comfortable with Casey and accepting of Cummings, 2 new forwards are absolutely necessary. At least 1 of these must be experienced and proven. So after the current Drop/Add has been totaled, we are improved, but still at least 3 players from being a quality MLS side!!! *Ward - Shockingly, the Chicago FIRE have him in camp. They are using him as a wide midfielder and he has actually looked O.K. Maybe the bright sun of Bradenton has blinded me!
My two-bits --> it's about the money. In a league like the MLS it's hard to pay someone $150k a year to be coming off the bench in that sub role.
The problem is, I don't think the Rapids are at a point where just "managing not to take any steps back" just wont cut it. The team can't tread water and have a solid season. They need to make strides, not steps, forward. Now, is this a signal that things are going to change, a small baby step in a larger forward direction? We'll see.
Yeah but you rarely see it in any league. But, why not pay someone that much if they could reliably come off the bench and give 15 to 20 minutes of brilliance?
I'd be curious about how often it occurs in other leagues. There may not be a lot of 32 year olds coming off the bench but then again how many 32 year olds are there as a whole? I'd be curious how the ability to loan a player comes into play in terms of a player starting or coming off the bench. I can't imagine a lot of players winding down their careers are interested in being a sub. You know you've only got a year or two of playing left, why ride the pine? So if they find themselves in that role, push for a loan. And then it's the old if someone doesn't want to be there, why keep them around cuz you're probably not going to get their best. Sure, there are the Snowcrofts of the world, getting old and patiently waiting around for a game or three here or there. I'd be curious if there wouldn't be more like him expect for things like loaning a player out or pressuring to be sold. Look at Dean WIndass. The guys older than dirt, a 3rd world leper version of Teddy Sheringham. You'd think he'd be happy to collect his paycheck and have a one or three more chances to play in the prem. Naw, he gets frustrated at not getting playing time and gets himself sold to Oldham. Ya, OLDHAM; a couple divisions down just so he can play. And speaking of Teddy Sheringham, the same sort of thing. You'd think he'd say "geez, I'm 42 years old; I'll be happy to get in 10 minutes here or there". Same thing, buggers off to Colchester cuz he's gotta play.
Possible starting line up on opening day ? ............. Pickens ........... Harden ... Gibbs ... Ugo ... Harvey ............... Pablo ............ Cooke .... Ballouchy ..... Guerrero ...... Cummings & Casey .....