Steve Patton is asking the wrong guy with these questions. Craig doesn't handle that side of the team, Joe Cummings does.
This is interesting. I know the first sentence, and I knew the first part of the second sentence, but that last bit after the comma is new. Which teams aren't trying to play close to the top of the salary budget? Why not?
I know we've been over this ground before, but this quote from Craig in response to "squeaking into the playoffs" is disturbing. "CT: We finished the season in very convincing style. Look at our final three home matches.... 6-1 over the Rapids, 2-0 over Dallas and then 2-1 over Chicago. Then beating Columbus, an unbeaten club over a stretch of eighteen matches. Finally taking who I felt was the hottest team in MLS to kicks at their home ground... this really doesn't feel like squeaking in to me. The only people that thought that were not paying close attention." Dan
It is only fair to Craig to also provide this quote which comes later in the interview: CT: There are many challenges that we face as a team and as a league. One big one is to find methods to make the regular season more meaningful.
To me this speaks more to the issue (much bandied about on these boards lately) of the relative unimportance of regular season MLS games, rather than anything specifically regarding the Revs. In fact, the question was an MLS question - not a Revs question. Overall, I think Craig was very clear and forceful in his endeavor not to answer any of the questions (except maybe his perspective on the Revs/DC games). Not an iota of new information here.
Interesting--I got just the opposit reaction to his answers. I'm not sure what you expected him to say. His answers were brief and clear. The fact that there is a lot we all would like to know but which are matters best kept close to the vest of team management is a reality. One bit of NEW information was the confirmation that SN will be back as coach in 2005
I agree...there were a number that were as direct as you would expect from Craig. Others that you would never expect a straight answer on, but he gave reasonable answers. The one on Pablo I thought was as straightforward a 'no' as I would think you would ever get. The answer to TnT's status as well as was as straight forward as you would expect. What answer, exactly do we expect as he balances the needs of the organization and the player if any discussions are going on?
Gulati announced that weeks ago in Globe and Herald articles around the Eastern Conference final, for those that weren't paying attention.
well it should be expected, I mean he has coached the Revs into 3 straight Eastern Conference Finals. Your definition of squeaking may be different then his. Revs didn't back into the playoffs, they beat the teams they needed to to get in there. It was very exciting to watch.
I'm not disturbed. I felt the same, in a way. The team had a skeleton crew for most of the year. The last month when Nicol had choices--and could play everyone in their natural position--the team put a run together.
Absolutely. The Revs were fun to watch at the end of the season. They qualified directly and didn't 'back' in. However, they were very close to not making the playoffs. If they have a similar season in 2005, I don't see them even making the playoffs regardless of how great a final run they might have. My concern is that in his answer, he didn't allude at all to the poor results over the first 2/3 of the season. Dan
"CT: We finished the season in very convincing style. Look at our final three home matches.... 6-1 over the Rapids, 2-0 over Dallas and then 2-1 over Chicago. Then beating Columbus, an unbeaten club over a stretch of eighteen matches. Finally taking who I felt was the hottest team in MLS to kicks at their home ground... this really doesn't feel like squeaking in to me. The only people that thought that were not paying close attention." It's also a little disingenuous to only look at the last 3 home games. You could just as easily say "Look at our final three away matches.... 2-3 to the Metros, 0-2 to Chicago and then 0-1 to DC." Each of those games was considered a "must win" game at the time, although the Metros game was slightly less urgent because there were more games left at that point. At the end of the day, the Revs were fortunate to even get in to the playoffs. They had to count on other teams to beat Chicago, becase their own play over the last 6 games was exactly .500, which was not enough to do it on their own. Granted, it was an improvement over the season as a whole, but it isn't enough to justify thumping your chest. This team has some serious problems to address if they plan to be competitive next year. To suggest that things aren't really as bad as they seem is either lazy or dishonest.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can look at the same situation and come up to so many wildly varied opinions. That said, I think that our situation is understated by Tom Hill. While I think the run at the end of the season could be considered to be overall a positive, I agree that something must be done. And while there have been calls for that in the past, it might be considered more crucial now than ever. Consider that we lost two valuable players (if they weren't good they wouldn't have been selected). That depletes an already 'weak' side. Additionally the player pool has been weakened by the addition of two teams who will be competing for what remains. It is less likely than before that our situation will dramatically improve. It shall be interesting, to say the least, to see if SN can work magic in light of the increased challenge. I certainly hope he can.