One area where Houston really kick's our asses that hasn't been mentioned yet is depth. They have a lot of it and we don't. Even without our current injuries the quality of our depth was suspect anyway.
Wasn't trying to do that. Just seems you defend his selections a lot when it was apparent to at least me that he didn't have a clue. As players have been injured he has been forced to play the ones he should have been all along. I guess a question would be the old one of swapping rosters. How different would Dallas and Houston look if coaching staffs and GM's (heck FO's) were swapped. There are a lot of usefull parts here and Kinnear would figure out pretty quick which ones to keep and which ones to get rid of. Soccercaptain made good argument that SH just does not understand how to do that and there is no indication he will. As for calling for his termination I am not for it. I think a new club president who knows what he is doing should make the call on GM and coach. If the coach is fired now it is just more sleight of hand.
Not when there are only 11 minutes left in the game and the team is down by 2 goals it isn't. I fully realize that we've seen nothing of Marosevic to this point in the season, but is there any other reason - beyond the obvious favoritism continually shown toward Saragosa, that is - that you wouldn't put your only remaining OFFENSIVE sub out on the field in that situation? Just what in the hell is Saragosa going to provide from an offensive standpoint? (And before anyone points out the one that he got his head on, save it. Did he finish it?) So what if Marosevic isn't suitable for a straight swap in position for VDB. Kid is supposed to be on the team for his offensive ability - two words never to appear in a sentence about Saragosa unless immediately preceded by the word no - right? So why not just get him out there and give him a chance? What the hell do you have to lose that late in the game? Once again, the team was already DOWN by 2 goals. You want to make some argument that Saragosa would be good in a role if they were protecting a 2 goal lead instead, then fine. Give it a shot. But, in my eyes, that was just one more example of the bus driver's misguided man-love for a player who has an extremely limited skill set.
Wondering about that myself. He did not look good at all when they were carting him off on the board. He was very much in pain at that point.
I saw him leave the stadium after the game. He was limping pretty badly, but not using crutches. I doubt he will play Saturday.
This has been pointed out twice now so I will just say that I am not in favor of him as an offensive sub but was glad that he didn't start and was the third player off the bench. It would have been much better if when that happened they had a lead as that and spot starting is his best role. Did anyone groan when Christopher Sullivan gushed over him? I usually like his comments. I guess if you don't see a player every game you don't get the full picture.
*raises hand. Not only did I groan, a few demonstrative adjectives were added to voice my displeasure with Sullivan's statements.
I've split the attendance related stuff off to its own thread here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1067574
I just know you are a little smarter than this....Houston doesn't play that negative shit at home....they save it to bore the fcuk out of the fans when they play away.
Missing Clark and Ching, and playing their 3rd game in 8 days, on the road, nothing wrong with what Kinnear rolled out there. It's not as if he had to worry about FCD building a 2-0 lead forcing them to change their tactics.
I probably don't know how to "read" the game as most of you, but I can't really see anything wrong with Kinnear's strategy. He allowed Dallas to maintain possession early, knowing full well that goes nowhere, then sent another player up to midfield to apply a little more pressure and clog the lanes, and countered on offense (quite effectively I might add). The team had already played a game earlier in the week, was on the road, and ultimately came away with the three points. I was mad at the result, I was dissapointed in the crowd, but I was never bored with the game and or its flow.
Neither was I...thats because we are fans of the game. The average American sports fan who doesn't understand soccer just won't be impressed with this game at all, won't understand the nuances or Kinnears low pressure tactics. To grow the game in this country these "tactics" should be banned by Garber. I was sitting with Gordon Jago at the game and we talked about "low pressure" a tactical plan that went a long way to killing the Sidekicks and MISL as a viable entity. He agreed with me. In the late 80's MISL was a wide open end to end game and then the coaches got involved...brought in low pressure on the road (as Kinnear has done) and former 6-5 type games became 3-1, 4-2 and effectively killed the league and marginalised what's left of it. I remember when Mooch (God rest his soul) was coaching Colorado and everytime his team came to the Cotton Bowl it was always low pressure and nearly all games ended 1-0 either way....just can't sell this crap to the great unwashed, couldn't then, can't now. I prefer to look at the big picture: the continued growth of the game, of MLS, of TV ratings...none of these will happen playing this crap on the road. NONE.
But all teams in American sports employ defensive, time killing tactics. Especially with a lead. Just watch your average NBA or NFL game. And I think the average sports fan is savvy enough to pick up on this. With very few exceptions, the teams that are able to defend leads are the one who are successful. And after all, Houston did score 3 goals on the night.
england, I disagree that you can't sell the sport or MLS with the type of soccer Dynamo played last Sat. at PHP. Look how Arsenal plays (vs. their own talent/league level of course) and yet they will often only win 1-0 or 2-1. It's not like if Dynamo didn't play that way the game would have been 5-4. Also, Burse had to make 2 or 3 very good saves (1 on Kamara in the first half, and an outstanding double save in the 2nd), or it could have easily been 4-1 or more. Just by the very nature of soccer and the difficulty in scoring, it's going to be 3-2 at best, sometimes 4-1, but mostly 2-1, 2-2, 1-0, etc. type scores no matter the tactics employed by both teams. Idiot U.S. fans who can't equate this to a similarly scored baseball game or a 14-7 football game, and also factor in the numerous scoring chances that don't create a goal, you won't win those fans over anyway with the scoreline. They will need to learn to appreciate the good tackles, the great pass, the good passing combinations, the dribbling skills, etc. Also right now MLS isn't worried about those fans. Right now they are trying to get the soccer fans in this country, of which there are many, to become MLS fans and come to the games. How many guys/people in DFW get up every Saturday and watch the EPL but never go to a FC Dallas game? A lot. If you could get half of them to come to the FCD game, and add them in to the normal FCD fans, and right there you probably have 15K per game. Red Bull draws terribly, but when the USNT plays Argentina, or when Brazil plays a friendly vs. whomever, Giants Stadium is packed. Those are the people MLS is trying to win over right now.
england, I disagree that you can't sell the sport or MLS with the type of soccer Dynamo played last Sat. at PHP. Look how Arsenal plays (vs. their own talent/league level of course) and yet they will often only win 1-0 or 2-1. It's not like if Dynamo didn't play that way the game would have been 5-4. Also, Burse had to make 2 or 3 very good saves (1 on Kamara in the first half, and an outstanding double save in the 2nd), or it could have easily been 4-1 or more. Just by the very nature of soccer and the difficulty in scoring, it's going to be 3-2 at best, sometimes 4-1, but mostly 2-1, 2-2, 1-0, etc. type scores no matter the tactics employed by both teams. Idiot U.S. fans who can't equate this to a similarly scored baseball game or a 14-7 football game, and also factor in the numerous scoring chances that don't create a goal, you won't win those fans over anyway with the scoreline. They will need to learn to appreciate the good tackles, the great pass, the good passing combinations, the dribbling skills, etc. Also right now MLS isn't worried about those fans. Right now they are trying to get the soccer fans in this country, of which there are many, to become MLS fans and come to the games. How many guys/people in DFW get up every Saturday and watch the EPL but never go to a FC Dallas game? A lot. If you could get half of them to come to the FCD game, and add them in to the normal FCD fans, and right there you probably have 15K per game. Red Bull draws terribly, but when the USNT plays Argentina, or when Brazil plays a friendly vs. whomever, Giants Stadium is packed. Those are the people MLS is trying to win over right now.
It's so ironic that you're picking the Dynamo to complain about this (over and over, on our boards and yours, and apparently to Dom himself ). This is one of the things that we are proud of about the Dynamo, they don't have the reputation of going on the road and settling for a tie. We like to see them aggressive and going after away wins. And we get mad at the New Englands, KCs and NYs of the league that seem to always come to our stadium and spend the night defending. But we don't get hysterical about it, go on rants and attack their coach. We understand that's just a tactic of soccer, as well as other sports. And as other people have said, we did have 3 hot, muggy games in 8 days, and were missing several of our stars. And we did score 3 goals. If FCD would have put one of their chances away earlier in the game, the tactics would have changed a lot.
Because MLS somehow compares, even a little bit, to the NBA or NFL? No they're not, especially when you've got so many years of "soccer is boring and low scoring" having been drilled into their heads to contend with. Would love some examples of teams who are able to defend leads yet are not successful.
I was thinking St. Louis Rams "Greatest Show on Turf" era didn't worry too much about defense and were successful. Showtime Lakers maybe. MLS is a team sport just like NBA and NFL vying for a piece of the pie. Those leagues weren't as popular when they started. Different times I know, but MLS is still only 13 years in.
This guy probably has Houston, their SGs, and FCD's season summed up pretty good. http://s527.photobucket.com/albums/cc360/oscarinfw/FCD_13june09Houston/?start=20
So, essentially the exact opposite of what you said previously. The question you raised was in reference to teams who are able to defend leads yet are NOT successful - not teams who didn't really think about defense but who were successful, anyway. I would still like some examples of the former. The problem with that analogy is that MLS isn't trying to capture fan support in the 1930's. While I do not believe MLS is in direct competition with any of those other leagues - because that is not the target market they should be going after right now - that analogy simply does not work because it's been several decades since those leagues started and they are both currently wildly popular. I see the point e66 was making re: "negative" soccer, however. It just isn't going to capture those people who have been raised on other American sports and who do not have a soccer background. But right now MLS should be way more concerned with the existing market that is out there for them: those who love soccer but have not yet embraced MLS.