New Coach, New Players

Discussion in 'D.C. United' started by ursula, Feb 2, 2004.

  1. ursula

    ursula Member

    Feb 21, 1999
    Republic of Cascadia
    An interesting experiment is being conducted this off-season by the two worst teams in MLS' eastern division last year. One team has responded to it's showing by moving fairly quickly to change it's personnel while retaining the coach and thus the same leadership that brought them to where it is today.

    The other team has done basically the opposite: changed it's coaching staff and let go of the two players with the most leadership weight before really looking at changing players (the notable exceptions of moving marginals Devin Barclay and Galin Ivanov).

    Which course of action will prove the better? At this point, who the hell knows? This is especially true in evaluating DCU since Peter Nowak has no coaching history for us to judge him by. (This is the main reason why I've not contributed much here lately. I want to see Nowak in action a bit before guessing where he's going.)

    However, my bias is towards favoring what United has done. C-bus has done an interesting job in changing players. For the most part they've kept the same core group (except McBride) and they do seem to have a talented group of players. But they had a very talented group last year and it seemed obvious to me that it was their coaching that let them down. Greg Andrulis may have an outstanding soccer mind (I don't know) but it seems like the longer he's coaching that team, the less the team responds. (Sort of like DCU with Thomas Rongen.)

    United meanwhile has cashiered almost all of the leadership from last year. (Except for the defense. And I'm saying that Stewart wasn't a leader last year compared to Marco or Hristo.) With such a change there's bound to be some surprising changes in our conceptions of the worth of various players. For example, take Brian Namoff. His rookie year under Rongen showed him to be a raw but promising midfielder. His next year under new coach Hudson had Namoff virtually disappearing in Ray's transforming him into a defensive player. With United having a bunch of young players the odds that Nowak will either transform a player or that a player will perform at a much higher level of ability (or lower) than we expected is highly likely.

    At this point I like what United has done more than C-bus. I'm glad Nowak is gonna see the players in practice before deciding who to move. I think the odds of a real transformation is more likely with United. We'll see.
     
  2. Cweedchop

    Cweedchop Member+

    Mar 6, 2000
    Ellicott City, Md
    I'm with you Skip..

    I think the more you can keep a team and it's core of players together (regardless of whether or not they performed to satisfaction) makes a team stronger in the long run..

    All you have to do is look at recent United teams to see what negative effects overhauling a roster year after year can bring.. Nothing much..

    Of course, there are a few exceptions, but in those cases, the spine of the teams remained intact (Chicago of 03' is a prime example of that)..

    I guess time will tell who made out in the long run between Columbus and DC but recent history in MLS tells you that the more teams stay intact, the more successful they become..
     
  3. Red&Black

    Red&Black Member+

    Aug 30, 2001
    Lot 8
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Burkina Faso
    that would seem more a case of timing than a general rule. it is certainly possible to keep a core group of players past their value. i would agree that united's core is worth another chance but i have seen clubs that rode their horses too long.
     
  4. ursula

    ursula Member

    Feb 21, 1999
    Republic of Cascadia
    Yes, one could say that United was one of those teams that kept their core, or rather part of their core- Etcheverry and Moreno rather than the defense (Goos & Llamosa)- around too long. But that's hindsight.

    With the Crew it's interesting as they have several core players who've been with them awhile like Mais & Cunny who have been around other major players like Martino and Buddle and Busch, all of whom are now three year vets along with the odd but good Hedjuk so it's not so much that they have cut the heart of the team unless you think West was a core player. (Yes, I made that into one sentence. Yet another reason for me to hearing soon from the wrath of revelation.) :) But still, what new ideas will a Manny Lagos bring? Hell, Hristo Stoichkov at least brought a couple of victories last year, but he sure couldn't overcome the stagnation of thought that was the United offense. I don't see Andrulis all of a sudden make magic in C-bus, but Nowak will surely bring different views than Hudson did to the offense and that's a good thing. (And I'm not just taking pot shots at Ray there folks.)
     
  5. Marco10

    Marco10 Member+

    Sep 9, 2002
    To me this is really a grand experiment, although I don't think Andrulis could coach his way out of a paper bag. Still, my basic premise is that coaches are only good for a swing of 2 wins or losses a year in terms of game decisions, but are much more influential in actually creating the team. Something like a swing of 12-15 points.

    There is quite a few similarities in DC and the Crew's situations and personnel as well. Both have smallish, but dynamic keepers in Rimando and Busch. Both have old school central defenders in Clark and Petke, both have dynamic right backs in Reyes and Hedjuk, both have dynamic but questionable right mids in Lagos and Olsen, Both have converted offensive players playing D-mid in Mais and Dema (or have Kiwi alternatives in Elliott and Nelsen), both have questionable youth international left mids in Garcia and Quaranta (or Adu), both have young US international central MF'ers in Martino and Convey, and both have old pros at forward in Cunningham and Stewart alongside youth stars in Buddle and Esky.

    Honestly looking at the rosters, I'd give the edge to Columbus, but not by a whole lot. I think judging by postion if the teams were to play today, Cunningham and Stewart, Garcia and Quaranta, Martino and Convey, Clark and Petke, Hedjuk and Reyes, Busch and Rimando are all a push, but that's based on a bit of prayer for Stewart, Quaranta, and Convey. I really hope Bennie returns to form over Lagos or Paule, I'm pretty sure Prideaux is better than Denton, Nelsen is better than Fraser or McCarty (or Wingert, Marshall, etc.). However, I think Elliot has the edge over Namoff or Carroll, and Buddle has a clear edge over Cerritos, or Esky, etc.

    Seriously, this is a good test for who's management style will win out in the end.
     
  6. JAnderson14

    JAnderson14 New Member

    Oct 5, 2000
    Crofton, MD
    I think the biggest thing we needed was a new philosophy. Remember, our offensive woes didn't just come from poor finishing...they came from being a slow, plodding, predictable offensive unit altogether. The likely change to a more dynamic offense will make our forwards look better, because they'll get more chances (and those chances will be better than the ones in the past).

    Our lineup has some large holes, it's true. We don't have a real left midfielder of any sort. At left back, we either have Prideaux (who we all agree can't be relied on to be in a position where he has to carry and distribute the ball) or Namoff (who would be better off as our defensive midfielder). At defensive midfield, we have Namoff (who hasn't played there consistently since Rongen), Carroll (who is essentially coming in as a rookie), or Kovalenko (who just isn't a defensive midfielder). Our frontline is full of second forwards, and the only guy we have that can lead the line (Martins) is injured and inexperienced at MLS level.

    All that aside, I think Nowak's moves will take place once practice begins. Looking at our roster, I think we're set up best for a 442. I'd only make a couple moves, though...pick up a left back (Broome is useful enough there, as long as we don't give up too much for him), figure out who's going to be on the left side of midfield (Stewart? Carroll, if Namoff becomes our defensive midfielder? Quaranta, if he ever steps up?), and maybe a forward. Other than that, I think Nowak inherits a good group of players that just had the wrong coach. Hudson was a mismatch for our roster looking back, and his hands were largely tied on making moves. I think Nowak's playing style fits our players, and I'm optimistic about his making a good transition.
     
  7. Marco10

    Marco10 Member+

    Sep 9, 2002
    Editted a bit, but I think the gist of the post is still there, and I'd have to say that while I agree with some of it's merits, the premise of the post is false. For example, how could this not be Hudson's team? He brought almost all of them in! The only hold-over starters were Olsen, Convey and Nelsen (arguably Quaranta and Chino too). Other than that, he brought in the entire roster practically.

    Another thing is this slow plodding offense thing. Obviously, that has some merits, but realistically United has had no forwards for three years and an underperforming MF for about the same time. That will all change with just a new coach? We'll all of a sudden become a dynamic offensive team? Hope so. But doesn't seem too likley. Just looking at the East, who would you say has the better players offensively? Twellman, Moore, Ralston, Cancela, Kamler, Noonan; Or Cuuningham, Buddle, Martino, Testo, Garcia, Lagos; Or Magee, allocation, Gaven, Guevara, Lisi, Clark, Digimarino; Or maybe Razov, Ralph, Beasley, Williams, Mapp, and Whitfield?

    Seriously, a coach can only do so much. Players win games. I agree a new philosophy will help, but some more effective talent will help a lot more. I'm not so sure Nowak will be enough to make our boys actually decide to win for their living.

    Just a thought or two in response to an apparent blaming of the coach for all of United's woes.

    I'm pretty excited about Nowak too, but I'd be shocked if he turns lead into gold so to speak. (Just an expression, I couldn't think of a better one. Don't get all bunched up. I love our boys too!)
     
  8. GrillMaster

    GrillMaster Member

    Aug 31, 2000
    Alexandria, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'll give you Carroll, but Namoff?? I think Namoff has been more of a player the last two years than Elliott. Simon has been living off his reputation for two seasons of unproductive set piece kicks (a former area of strength for him) and a seeming inability to play creatively in midfield -- even on a team of midfielders playing all sorts of positions.

    Simon will get beat by a Razov just like Namoff did last season. I think Bryan is faster and has an equally powerful foot (now). Bryan is on the career upslope while Elliott is going down.

    Simon is a gutsy player who will get stuck in. But he doesn't seem to be around the ball as much as he used to.

    Maybe I'm too critical of him in reaction to other fans thinking he's still one of the greatest things since sliced bread. Good role player, but an unspectacular one.

    I think Andrulis made a big mistake investing in both Elliott and Lagos. Lagos is creative but is now too injury-prone and can give only about 60 minutes. Elliott is insufficiently creative to help Columbus' offense, and he has holes in his defensive ability -- but he'll be out there every game running his tail off.

    It could prove that Martino may settle into being more of a pro with a couple of grizzled midfielder vets around. However, didn't Mais. give them that last year? Yeah, Andrulis made a mistake and has got to be one of the favorites (along with Sigi) for an early exeunt, stage left.

    I think, on balance, that DC has a stronger team than cowlumbus -- DC has the defense and the midfield, cowlumbus has the forwards, DC has the more talented depth but coaching is a push now that both teams have added solid assistants.

    GM
     
  9. JAnderson14

    JAnderson14 New Member

    Oct 5, 2000
    Crofton, MD
    I should say that I did have a problem with Hudson bringing in players that weren't his type of player, but at least part of that was down to players we couldn't move. Hudson still made mistakes in who he brought in, but at the same time he didn't exactly get total freedom to make the team into what he wanted.

    Do you think the two are unrelated? Sure, our forwards haven't been anything above mediocre for the past 2 seasons, but even mediocre forwards will score goals in the right system. Look at Jamil Walker in San Jose...essentially, he's Ali Curtis but with fewer pinball-esque runs and less experience. Our transition from midfield to the attacking third was so easily defended that no forward in MLS could have helped. We have a problem at forward, but the bigger problem was the entire team's philosophy on attack.

    Under a more dynamic setup, I'd take our midfield over anyone in the East (save the Revs). Chicago thrives on a well-drilled defense, a superb effort from the midfield to win the ball, and brilliant forwards. Without Beasley, that midfield looks pedestrian at best as far as the attacking side goes. Columbus is overrated...aside from Martino, they're in the same boat as Chicago (were Chicago poorly coached). The only advantage they have on us there is that they actually have someone to play left midfield. The metros relied on lots of defensive-minded players who could get the ball to the skill players (Guevara, Mathis, Magee) quickly. The only player I'd take from their midfield is Ricardo Clark.

    New England is the only Eastern team with a complete starting midfield...everyone else is papering over cracks by playing defensively (or in the case of Columbus, by just sucking). For our starting midfield, I only see one weakness: no one to play out on the left. If we can solve that, I'd rate our midfield as at least equal to Chicago's. Olsen is as good as anyone on the right, Convey seems to finally be blossoming in a central role (if his U-20 and U-23 performances are any indication), and though I'm not exactly comfortable with him there, Kovalenko did quite well in his new role as a defensive midfielder. Fill that hole on the left, and suddenly we can compete rather than playing keep-away and hoping that we convert one of our 3 half chances while our defense hangs on for dear life.

    And the only reason we can say this is because Nowak has never coached before. If he can't outcoach Andrulis, well...we're in trouble.

    ***

    My main point is that a new style of play will make our current forwards seem less like crap and more "Well...they're ok. I guess." If we can get a good forward, then I'd be all for it but something tells me we're going into this season with the same guys. And if they aren't motivated right now, then they'll never be motivated. For every single forward we have (the guys that are exclusively forwards, at least), this is a make or break season. If Cerritos doesn't succeed this year, who else in MLS will take him? If Eskandarian or Quaranta can't produce this season, they'll probably both be written off as busts and shipped off a la Jason Moore. Freddy Adu, Earnie Stewart, and Q2 can all play other positions, so at least they have alternatives (and no one would write Freddy off as a bust after one season).

    We can be a good team with mediocre forwards. Our midfield has some scoring punch (Olsen, Kovalenko, and possibly Convey if he can carry his youth nats form over), and our defense is still stellar. It's not ideal by any means, but it's better.
     

Share This Page