I don't know why people have such a hard time accepting that a guy who was an extremely disciplined player and who obviously knows the game would be a pretty good coach right off the bat. United has always had decent talent on the roster, even in the immediate post-Arena years. What we lacked was discipline and passion. With Rongen, we had neither. With Hudson, we had plenty of passion but absolutely no discipline. Nowak brings both, and the team responded in kind. We had a few bumps along the way with various roster changes and injuries, but you could always tell that this was a different club this year. Even if we hadn't won the cup, the foundation was laid this season for future success.
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread I disagree here. I don't think it was a matter of the team peaking at a good or bad time. I think it was more of they were finally understanding/implementing his vision of how to play the game. It just took them most of the season to be able to do it for the full 90. Though I could be wrong and he was just lulling the rest of the league into a false sense of security -dave
I never saw either of them play, but from what I understand both Rogen and Hudson were pretty good players in their time as well. Obviously it hasn't translated as well for them (though Rongen has had success with the young Nats). My worry at the beginning of the season was simply that he was an unknown with no comparable coaching experience to speak of. I have no such qualms going into next season (again regardless of the post season this year) as he showed us that he is using what made him a great player (work ethic, vision, and skill) to make him a coach to watch over the next few years (I won't say he is great yet, but he may try to take that title from Bruce in a couple of years). -dave
COTY was decided before the playoffs started, as were all the awards. Nowak made the final three because of DC's late season surge.
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread That's a good summary IMO. I think we also had a bit of luck on our side. No significant injuries. Imagine if things didn't go well-Earnie didn't get the benefit of the offsides call, Esky didn't hand the ball, we lose the extended PK shootout. At the same time, I thought overall we deserved the Cup, but it's not like we dominated from start to finish. There's still a lot of work to do in the offseason, like has been said w/Nelsen gone. Will never take away from this year though.
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread But then again, who did? What I think makes Nowak a great coach is his vision and getting it across to the players. He saw what he had as a team going into it before the season started and knew he could win with the talent on hand. He told us as much at the first Supporters meeting. If we get a quality replacement for Nellie I see us as a very dangerous team next year.
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread Just about nobody. Cept for Columbus it seems, who went on a tear later in the regular season. What I think makes Nowak a great coach is his vision and getting it across to the players. He saw what he had as a team going into it before the season started and knew he could win with the talent on hand. He told us as much at the first Supporters meeting. When I met him he was the most hard-core soccer person I've ever met. The guy was completely focused about positioning and playing 100%. The stuff he's demanding out there goes beyond the basic level of conversation we often have here IMO. Because in soccer where you are, and what you're doing, especially in the midfield, is one hell of a complicated thing. It's never an exact science. It's hard to teach positioning and maximum effort and get it across to the team unless you really know what you're talking about. Nevertheless that's what he seemed to focus on in the brief time I talked w/him. I've said before we should sign him to a long-term contract. Whether he wants to stay in DC that long, I have no idea. I don't believe in getting rid of coaches-I believe in consistency both player-, coach-, and office-wise. Sure there's time to get rid of people-but now is certainly not the time. OK that's my speech for the day-ok that was enough speech from me for a month.
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread Not at all. I'm sure I'm one of the few people that believes the champion of the league each season is the team with the best record, the Supporter's Shield winner, this year Columbus. The MLS Cup winner is exactly that, the MLS Cup winner. It is a competition held at the end of the year. It uses the playoff system to decide who plays whom eventually leading to the final game. It is because MLS Cup often includes the "hot" teams at the end of the year that I discount it as being the ultimate championship game. To me a team that proves its ability over 8 months is better than a team that proves it over 8 games. B.Arena said that most of MLS's season is meaningless, and it's exactly because the league puts little emphasis on having the best record. I happen to agree with that assessment. Look at Steve Nicol and the NE Revs over the last couple of seasons. They get hot in the final third of the year because they know that they only have to come in fourth place out of five teams, then go on a run through the playoffs. Yes, I realize they haven't won yet, but they've come close a couple of times now. I wish the league would bump up the money for player bonuses equal to winning MLS Cup. I wouldn't mind seeing it graduated as according to position of teams at the end of the regular season - i.e. winner 25k/player, second place 15K, third 5K, fourth 3K, etc. That's a discussion for another board, but I thought it might clarify my thinking pertaining to this discussion. Getting back to the point. You and everyone else is exactly right in saying PN did exactly what was needed to win MLS Cup this year. The team came together physically and mentally right at the right time of the year. If I'm a coach, and that's the formula for success, why bother worry about the first half of the regular season? Why use discovery or allocation money in January, when it might be more valuable in July? Why hurry back a key player from injury, even if it means losing a couple of games mid-season, when I could have him back totally healthy for the end of the year run? Because it's the off season, and we've got time to ruminate (49 days until D-Day 2005!), let me put this question forward. Would everyone feel the same about the success of the team if the regular season went exactly opposite of what actually occurred with the exception of the playoffs and MLS Cup? Obviously with 10 wins and 11 losses DCUnited might have ended up in fourth place, not third, but assume the playoffs and MLS Cup went exactly as it did this year and DCUnited did bring home the cup. I realize that changing the records of one team effects the other teams and their standings, but let's say those other teams also magically kept their records. In this hypothetical, DCUnited would have backed into the playoffs, going 2-6-2 (8 points), in the final third of the season. Looked at in that fashion do you call this a good team with a good coach, or a lucky team that got it right in the end? Again, it doesn't matter, this is just a mind-numbing exercise to pass the time away. PN & Co. did what it takes to get the cup and for that I'm extremely happy and grateful.
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread I think your last paragraph says it all for me. I like trophies. I don't give a damn about shields. Tim
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread Let me put it to you in simple terms (no sarcasm intended): Who feels better right now, Columbus or DCU? Thought so.
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread Dice, when the League sets the rules that way, then will be the only time to categorically state that the Supporters' Shield winner is the champion. The way the rules are set now, DC is champ. Teams would probably play differently (as you imply) if the Supporters' Shield were the championship trophy, so it is invalid to say that cumblowus is the champ because they drew their way to the shield. I don't know whether Piotr would probably have had the team playing differently if the rules were different because he looked at the season as a marathon warm-up to a sprint finish instead of winning the marathon warm-up. GM
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread The shield is a trophy too, they just call it something else. I think Diceson is right though, the league doesn't put enough emphasis on it for either the teams or the fans to really care that much. If the value was reversed (the shield was where the bonuses were and the cup was just a feel good trophy), I think most people would see it differently. I personally am torn. I like the idea of the EPL style no playoffs, but that won't work for us until we go to a single table. Since that isn't likely to happen for a long time, putting more emphasis on the Shield is hard to do since it benefits the team(s) in the worst conference (i.e. one good team playing four bad ones 4 times a year versus one good team only playing four bad teams twice a year). In the end though, like it or not, a coach has to attack what has meaning. DCU and NE (though not as well as previous years) did it right in the Eastern Conf by coming out at the end to make the playoffs. In contrast the Scum and Cows (who were on top of the Conf most of the season) sputtered out at the end. Planning and strategy means a lot in this sport. -dave
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread Double exactly. If the season were set up where the "shield" was all there was, fine, we'd pull a Cowlumbus. As it is, we reign supreme. It's good to be King. Tim
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread I don't have time to read the rest of this thread, but I'm hoping others have corrected this statement. It's amazing how little some people understand the Laws of the Game (especially those who cover the team so closely).
Look, we didn't lap the league twice here--in terms of overall dominance, this wasn't the equal of perhaps the "99 team. But that said... ...there are a couple of people here who are placing entirely too much difference on statistics (overall won-lost) or whether we won a championship or not to judge if Piotr Nowak is a good coach. 1. DCU played as well or better throughout the ENTIRE season (with only a bad slump in the middle) than any other team in MLS other than KC. In the first third of the year, we couldn't finish and we had some sloppy defense (where we shut down teams and then would give up a late goal). I know, I know, they still count in the results coloumn. But I'll compare our overall play during the season to any other teams (other than KC). I bet if you could create a "dominance index" of which team had the better of play, DCU either would have finished first or second this year. Columbus was awful impressive the last third of the season. But the first third of the season was all about luck and bunkering. I know they got results--I don't begrudge them that. But Diceson, you're making it sound like DCU was nothing special until a late sprint at the end. Instead, this was a team that outplayed everyone the first third of the season and mostly outplayed everyone (and certainly won against everyone) the last third of the season. And then was outstanding in the playoffs. If you look at the season in 4 parts (3 parts to the regular season and then the playoffs), DCU was outstanding in 3 of those parts. Our record does not fairly reflect on the effort, intelligence, aggressiveness and run-of-play by DCU during the season. 2. I hate to say championships trump all but....whoever once said that MLS is a coaches league (D-tron? Ursula?) was absolutely, completely, insightfully correct on that one. Look at the list of coaches who have won MLS championships: --Arena (2 and set the table and cooked the meal for Rongen); --Yallop (2) --and then a couple of coaches who've won singletons (Bradley, Schmid, Gansler, Rongen and Nowak). There are teams that have been consistently good under several coaches (LA, Columbus) but have mostly been unfullfilled. On the otherhand, one only need to look to SJ and DCU to see two sides who--with the right coach--dominated the league and won a lot--and then with different coaches went through some sad times. This truly is a coaches' league--more than the Premiership or Bundesliga or Serie-A or La Liga. Having a great coach trumps everything in MLS. Rongen may have won b/c of Arena (and what he left Rongen). Bradley is considered to be one of the best coaches at developing young Americans--and yet Nowak's presence on that team may been a huge factor (in terms of coaching success). Gansler has shown he's a fine coach--repeatedly. In short, it appears that having a great coach in MLS is the huge factor between piling up a nice W-L record (like LA has done) or winning championships (like DCU and SJ have done) and winning matches when you need to. And if you buy the argument that Rongen won on Arena's coat-tails and that Nowak was a co-coach in Chicago (which may or may not be true) than what you're really saying is that if you look at MLS Championships, Arena, Yallop and Nowak are double-winners (or better). I have no problem arguing that Nowak made some rookie mistakes and is still learning while also maintaining he's a great coach.
I don't think he is that far off. Outside of the DCU fan base, there are few that will agree that we were dominating teams early in the season. And in the end, it is the nay-sayers that have the numbers to back them up. Dominating a team for 75 minutes (our average) but letting them take advantage in those other 15 minutes kinda negates all the other good play. As i've said before though, I don't think that was the fault of the players or of Nowak. It was simply a matter of the team adjusting to a new style both on and off the field. -dave
I'm not arguing that life is unfair or we were by far the best team in MLS. And ultimately, life in the league is determined primarily by W's and L's. But that said, this was supposedly a league of parity this year where everyone beat everyone else. That part is true. But how many games the first third of the season would an objective observer say Columbus had the run of play (irregardless of the result)? Two games maybe ? (and that's being generous) How many games ALL SEASON would anyone say that Colorado had the run of play against an opponent--three or four perhaps? Metro was hot and cold all year. Chicago was hot and cold all year (mostly cold). San Jose would look like a champion and then look like a chump (that and injuries are the primary reason they barely edged into the playoffs). Dallas--I have a hard time arguing they consistely outplayed many teams b/c while they improved, they mostly sought to defend and then get a counter off of EJ or ROB--one need only compare them to KC to see how glaringly different they were in terms of performance with somewhat similar systems. LA--difficult for me to appraise b/c I think we had the better of play most of the time we played them and didn't see many of their matches otherwise. Revs--they're a team that actually performed better than their results I think. I think a relatively unbiased observer would say that DCU had a significant edge in performance over the opposing team in at least a third of our games this season--probably more than that (and that includes some early matches where Columbus got the late PK or Ruiz hit a late goal or we couldn't finish). How many games would someone look at and say we looked like the weak sister--badly outplayed and clearly inferior to the opposition? Probably 5 or less all season. Granted--there might be other games that were very close where the other team was marginally better or we were marginally better. But I'd argue that only KC had fewer "stinkers" all season than us and we had more dominant matches (including KC) than anyone in the league. Now a dominant match doesn't have to mean winning 5-0. It could even mean losing--but having more chances, run-of-play and dominating the game. But b/c players were learning the system, b/c Nowak made some rookie errors with the roster, b/c some guys were hurt (and we couldn't cut or trade a Quintanilla or Martins) and b/c the cap and limited draft picks meant Nowak pretty much had to improve from within--rather than using 2-3 allocations to bring in new talent...that meant we were an impressive but flawed team early. I can't fault the coach for most of that. If you look at W-L, Diceson's argument is a strong one. But if you look at level of play and performance against other teams, we consistently outplayed almost everyone all season (even if we lost). That makes a real statement about the coach.
Joe, I just don't buy the line that MLS is a coach's league. It's the players that make the difference. The extent to which the coach is able to consistently motivate them to play to their potential is what distinguishes the good coach from the bad coach. Another distinction to make is the coach's defaullt style, i.e., attacking vs countering/bunkering. The attacking coaches: Nowak, Cheatin' Bob, Sarachan, Kinnear, Rongen, Ellinger, Yallop, Arena, Zambrano, Hudson The countering/bunkering coaches: "Bunker Bob" Gansler, Schmidt, Nicol, Clarke, Hankinson The mystifying coaches: Sampson (allegedly an attacking coach), Drooler (a countering coach, but who the hell knows why he does what he does). It's the attacking coaches who have won the Cup (7 out of 9). It's the attacking coaches who usually win the Shield (5 out of 9). Attacking takes player talent. Futbol is about the players. GM
Joe, I actually agree with you. Just saying in a year or so, very few will actually remember this as the W-L-T numbers are all we have to jog our memories (though 6-2 will stand out for a long time ). My other point was simply that in the grand scheme of footie, being dominating during a match means nothing if you don't do something with that domination. And this was our problem a good portion of the year. We played a dominating game for most of regulation, but we would consistently make one or two mistakes per game and most of the other teams were capitalizing on them. -dave
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread I think this sums up Peter's attitude and "coaching" style as well as any post here. Peter is one of those individuals who was just born to coach. That he happened to have been a top-notch player is almost beside the point. But it has made his entry into coaching a lot easier and he will always be able to say to his players -- been there, done that, get your head screwed on tight... etc. As a person born in DC, DCU prior to the formation of the Fire were my team in MLS, so I am happy you have him. Enjoy him during his stay. Because he WILL return to Chicago one day.
Re: The Off-Season Near News and Rumors Thread Not to knock coaching experience, because I think it is valuable, but major parts of coaching one can get from everyday life, if only you know how to apply them. Communication, leadership, ability to connect and make players believe... some of these things are what makes a successful person. Piotr has these things, plus all of his professional experience and so his coaching experience becomes largely unimportant. I think future seasons will bear this out--and would even if we had lost.