No of course they are. It's a matter of someone having to be responsible for actually accomplishing the wished for acquisitions. Picking players you might like to have is the easy part. Someone has to take responsibility for discovery lists, discussions, agents, negotiations, roster compliance, getting the correct paperwork into MLS central and all that jazz.
In the past, the league had a list of players available from player agents. Those agents shop those players out to the GM's with videos and selling points. From what I heard, coaches and GM's get a bonus or a kickback for signing these guys. That is how Doyle discovered Geovani , Dawkins, Zura , Pierazzi and Innocent. Its not like Doyle ever went to Siena or Livorno to watch Emeghara play a match. He certainly didn't find those guys because he had a PHD in or with his "technical director" title.
You should read Christian Pulisic's article if you haven't already. He said one reason it's really, really important for a good young American player to go to Europe is because they have to fight everyday in practice, while in the US those same players are the 'stars' that know they'll get playing time regardless.
Interestingly, unlike most MLS rosters where there seems to be an almost sense of complacency, Europe's top leagues have bench warmers who are fighting for a top spot every day. You don't have too many players challenging Wondo, Dempsey or Bradley in MLS. Those guys have would have trouble getting off the bench in Europe. Michael Bradley especially was riding the Roma bench when TFC signed him. The same with Giovinco at Juventus.
That may have been done, but I don't think it has anything to do with present times and what Leitch's role as TD is now. And it's also not relevent to the need to ensure signings happen logistically and within the rules.
I doubt much has changed as Doyle was fired in 2016. I read Peter Nowak did the same things in Philly. I just don't see the fruits or the necessity of this TD role.
I think the "fight every day in practice" has become kind of a cliche. It's that, but not just that. I think it's just that you get better playing with better players, period. Training with, competing against a better opposing team, watching and learning from better players, etc. All of those things. It's like a musician or actor going to New York to try to "make it". They may or many not make it but when they come back and visit you are often surprised at how they have kinda gone to another level, because the level is just higher there. You'd better learn to swim better or you're going to sink pretty fast. That said, 1) you have to first be good enough to get on a team with better players, and 2) MLS is closing the gap. I mean if you are going to play in Norway, I'm not sure you are really gaining all that much vs. playing in MLS, which is getting more and more competitive every year. If you are Christian Pulisic, by all means, go to Europe. He's good enough to be playing at the highest level in Europe. If you are David Bingham, and you have an offer to play in Norway, meh, I don't know if it will make him a better player necessarily. If I were him, right now what I'd want most is to be playing. He can't afford to be sitting much longer.
All of the TAM / GAM stuff has made the job more complex. There are more deals to be made and more machinations of the cap to be applied.
You also play in more games. Some leagues have reserve league games and then there is the European and the domestic cups as well as the league as well as preseason games. There could be over 50-60 games a season and even part timers pla extensively.
Hmmmm. . . okaaay. In all seriousness though, ever since I saw that title, I’ve always wondered what that person in the Quakes’ organization actually does, how much s/he gets paid, what are their responsibilities, accountability, etc.
I think the methodology guy became the assistant coach for a while. Not sure if he's gone back to methodology guy. It is probably nearly full-time job for him to try to figure out what he should be doing. Actually I would guess that he would be involved in determining what they are going to do with analytics, training methods, player development, etc.? Though that sounds like it could overlap with TD.
And with Doyle at the helm, our slicing and dicing was dramatically on the incompetent side. I have a lot more confidence in Jesse/Leitch. We have actual scouts now, or at least a guy who talks to scouts. That a yuge improvement! Yuge! Go Quakes!! - Mark
I was responding to the trend in the thread about athleticism and hard work being traits of American players. I don't disagree with anything you expanded upon here.
In Sweden we usually dont have managers but a coach or "trainer" that focuses on tactics, trainings and "bringing the team together". But ofc the coach is involved in signing players, he talkes every day to the sport-director about what kind of players he want in the teams and might have a "wish-list with players". The sportdirector and the headscout then try to find suitable players and then the sportdirector, the board and the coach mutally agrees on what players to sign. You never sign a player that the coach doesnt want, but also you never sign a player that the sportdirector or the board doesnt want in the team.
Its pretty much the same in Italy. I can't imagine our new "coach" won't be consulted on signing any new players. I guess he is stuck with the existing one s though, I.E. Shea Salinas.....
I highly doubt that by the end of next season, Stahre will think he was 'stuck' with Shea Salinas. Shea provides a lot of value at little cost. Every MLS team needs guys like him.
While I understand JazzyJ’s trepidation about his “playing style”, I’ll be okay with it if the Quakes become a serious contender. There was Domball before Kinnear even came back. Only Leitch broke away and the team just could not play effective defense in the short time he coached. What I’m interested in is goal differential. It looks like Stahre knows how to improve that and that’s more important than having the best defense or offense in the league.
The only style I saw the Quakes play in the MLS era that I really liked was Dom's 2005 team. That team had some classy skills. Wade Barrett even told me they were a better team because LAndy was gone and I believe it. Maybe they needed a player like LAndy to make the difference in the playoff round but during the season, they were on fire. I haven't seen a player like DeRosario ever since. The 2012 team was exciting and scored a lot of goals but the 2005 club was a lot more skillful.
A big part of the problem is that Leitch didn't really seem to play against opposition and adjust his tactics, and if he did try then he was woefully incompetent in that respect. The attacking style worked well in some games and could still work well at the right time. But this team isn't Barca so you are going to face teams that are simply better and then you need to find their weaknesses to exploit.
That's true, but as I've been saying, I don't want a "flexible" coach at this point, who is just so brilliant that he makes all the right tactical moves. Sounds ridiculous right? Why wouldn't you want that? Well, it's because with that "we'll do whatever it takes depending on what the other team does" philosophy, you tend to not develop a style of play of your own, one that you commit to and get good at over many years, and develop throughout your system. I mean "brilliant" is fine, but at this point I'd prefer "dogmatic" over "flexible". Like Oscar Pareja for example. He's pretty dogmatic about how he thinks soccer should be played. I remember one game in CO when Pareja was there, and the Quakes came in and bunkered and punted, and he said after the game that he felt "sad for soccer". I kind of poked fun at him at the time but now I really wish we had a coach like that. My ideal scenario: Jesse says OK, Earthquakes soccer is attacking soccer, and we are going to be a team that goes for it. We may be bad at it initially or sometimes (like we were sometimes bad at it last year and sometimes good at it) but we're going to commit to it and get better at it every year. That way, when your "brilliant tactician" coach leaves you still have a team and a system that is geared to play a certain way, and you're not beholden to how brilliant your next coach is. I mean it's great for Stahre and his career. He can be the brilliant tactician that, through his brilliance, got results in SJ on the way to his next bigger, better gig. But where does it leave us?
...or the Quakes do well and he doesn't leave because they are winning and everyone is happy. Since 2000, we had a 4-4-2 system which went through multiple coaches. Exactly the way you like it. Except, there was a problem. We had a GM who didn't know how to find players for the system and a coach(s) who couldn't adjust. In the end, there is no right or wrong system, just a preference. With the right culture, coach, and players, you can win or lose with any system. The key is creating the right culture. Trust in Jessie!
I would agree that you need identity in terms of how you play so it can unite the organization from the youth to the first team and transcend coaching changes. I don't know if "attacking" would work for that. The teams with transcendent identities are more comprehensive in terms of style, e.g. Ajax, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid, Bayern, Juventus, etc. Of course they also tend to be large clubs as that certainly helps provide the money to make it work. That said, I think one "style" that definitely needs to be incorporated for a team that wants to be known for developing players is a possession style. I don't think you can develop players unless your players are getting a lot of touches and using their brains instead of brawn to break down the opponent defense. So I guess if we should be insisting on one style that will help our team with its new identity of prioritizing player development, it's that we play possession based soccer.
Stahre has never really stayed at a job for more than two years or so, and just cut out on his contract at Häcken after 1 year. I wouldn't expect a long tenure, and in fact if he's winning he may be looking for the next challenge sooner rather than later. As I wrote in the tactics thread recently, the formation is not that important. It's how you play it - your philosophy. The Quakes played the 4-4-2 in 2012 a lot differently than they played it in say 2010 or 2016. So no, it wasn't anything like "exactly the way I like it". And most of the time, it's been pretty defensive, which is not my preference. That's true, culture is important. And in fact that's part of what I would like to be defined as "What is Earthquakes soccer"? I like a lot of what Jesse is doing with development and connection to Reno, etc. But what exactly is the "culture" that Jesse is creating? I think he has something in mind and I hear hints of it in what he says and I see hints of it in what he does. But I'd like to hear it articulated clearly; not with a lot of obtuse phrases and oddly formed sentences as he tends to do, but just very clear and easily understood. As for system, sure, no system is "right" or "wrong", but I have a preference for an attacking style of some kind, or maybe a possession-based style - something that I would consider attractive soccer. And I also believe you are better off if you stick with one system. That way you can develop and acquire players to fit it, you can work your whole club system to get better at it, and it doesn't get all flipped around when you hire the next coach who has different ideas. This is beyond right or wrong, just personal preference.
Yes, I agree. I have been using "attacking" as a kind of a generic proxy, as there are many ways to "attack", and I had also been thinking of a possession-based orientation like Barca, etc. I kind of thought the Quakes were going to go in that direction because Paul Holocher is a big proponent of the Barca system, and because Jesse was talking about "imposing our will" on the opposition on the road. One way to do that is to try to starve the other team of possession. I took those things as hints, but when I watched Stahre's teams play I saw kind of the opposite, and I haven't heard him emphasize possession at all in anything that he has said so far.