Don't engage in anti-social media, but read your postings on today's p.c.. You're close, real close. It's not the player's inability to adapt to a formation change.........you're just about there. Time to connect the dots.
the thing that bothers me the most about Curtin's commitment to the shape is that he feels like trying something new is "complicating"— Kevin Kinkead (@Kevin_Kinkead) April 12, 2017 You're a Uke Drew, we should speak the same language.......
What am I reading? You want me to say that the coach can't adapt and is tactically stiff? The players don't fit the system? Earnie missed on a bunch of signings? I think I've been saying all of that for the better part of a year.
A bit defensive that. Well, I read that you're a CB. Makes sense in a way. What "you're reading" is a bit of encouragement.......... You're on to something:
I don't know what this thread was meant to accomplish but Tannenwald is having a bit of a twitter meltdown on the goalkeeper account if you guys want to check that out.
He's so condescending. And while his argument that the Union are underfunded with Jay Surgarman is, overall, quite true, it's not exactly the smoking gun no one's seeing. And it's certainly not an excuse for the team's performance under Curtin. It's not as if the Union's payroll was dead-last in the league by a mile. In fact, in 2016 we were a few spots above the team who spent least: FC Dallas (the year before I believe the team the spent least was Red Bull). So the point is well taken, but the analysis is bullshit.
I really can't blame him sometimes. Every idiot on twitter has a hot take they want validated, and JT's more of an objectivity-is-important kind of guy.
Here is a little blurb about how the crew see formation changes.... Heading into their home clash with Toronto FC on Saturday, Crew SC head coach Gregg Berhalter has used utilized three different shapes and 18 different players through the first six games of the season. "We want to do it by committee," Berhalter said following Tuesday's training session. "It’s not just one guy’s job; we rely on multiple guys to help out. ... I think it starts with our opponents adapting to us. It’s our counter-adapting. Teams are trying to become familiar with what we do and they’re trying to stop us from doing what we do best. We have to stay one step ahead of that." So how many steps ahead of us are our opponents? Miles?
My issue with the whole "if the team spent money" argument is that, well, the team has spent money. No, they haven't spent Atlanta type money but look at the play-off positions in the East right now (I know, early days). Chicago spent money on Schweinsteiger and Orlando has Kaka (however, he has been hurt most of the year). So you have NYCFC and Atlanta that have more than 1 DP that is outside of the Union's price range. The issue is tactical and also a matter of personnel. Our TAM signs are underwellming to the extreme. Even if you ignore Atlanta's DPs they nailed two out of their 3 TAM signings (and will likely be 3 for 4 when Guzan shows up). Chicago, Columbus, New England, and Orlando have made the most of their TAM signings as well. The issue isn't that this team doesn't spend money, but that it spends money (both league and ownership money) poorly. Our 2 DPs are midfielders and 3 of our TAM signings are midfielders. Add that to a max level salary midfielder and a GA player and we are already at 7 players for 5 spots with 6 of them being max+ salary players. Meanwhile, we get a left back that is willing to show up on a developmental contract (so 60k or less) and grab a center back whose last competitive game was 4 months after Landon Donovan retired the first time (and he hasn't been bad, but people questioned LA for signing Donovan and he was out of the game less time than Gooch was). And while Columbus uses TAM on Ola Kamara and Houston uses it on Romell Quioto we grab a player from the 4th division in England that also played in Thailand. So we have a glut of expensive midfielders that don't fit together, a paper thin backline, and we have two totally different styles of forward that are both questionable when it comes to whether or not they can score double digits. I other words, the roster is a mess. However, that doesn't save Curtin from criticism since he continues to shove players into a 4-2-3-1 despite the fact that it doesn't get the most out of the players. A good coach could take this roster and do something with it, I mean you should be able to do something with that midfield and be able to at least control a game and create chances. But if the coach can't think outside of a 4-2-3-1 and put the players he has in a position to succeed, then he needs to go. None of this absolves Sugarman either, but his "unwillingness" to spend on players isn't the issue since there are plenty of teams that spend similar amounts on DPs as the Union do and are doing fine.
I listened to the podcast today. It was good. Just two guys and a dog talking about the Union before the wife gets home and sends the buddy packing. If I knew other people who like the U enough to talk about, I'd do the same. As it is I come off slightly unhinged to the neighbors who once took their 12yo to a match. "Hey that was a fun time at the soccer game" "yes it was except I was so angry about the sub selection. Did you see Sugarman sitting there not giving the team money for signings? HEY come over and do a podcast with me!!!" "Um, I gotta go, I hear my wife calling."
Well this seems like the article some were waiting for: http://www.phillyvoice.com/patience-virtue-philadelphia-union-cant-afford/
Was watching Portland and Vancouver today. Portland has a star player that they got as a.young DP (Charra), a star player they drafted (Nagbe), two star players they got from smart scouting for value (Valerie & Adi), and a bunch of solid role players. They even have a former fan favorite doing color commentary (Borchers). Vancouver hasn't had as much success, but they're competent and respectable. They've spent on DP's with varying success (Montero looks good so far), but they have plenty of long-term contributors like Waston, Laba, Teibert, Ousted who have been around the team for years and can be relied upon. What definitely struck me is that both those teams have scooped up former Union players (Okugo, Sheanon, Harvey, Jacobsen) who were never going to be stars but can be reliable and steady role players. People that build a culture, etc etc. I've just been thinking about the weird adherence to the 4-2-3-1 when there hasn't been any adherence to...anything else in the entire club history. I wonder if it's an attempt to have *something* for these academy kids to hold onto, since the Union have essentially spent the first 7 years of their existence setting everything on fire at the end of each season.