I was perusing the MLS Cup and USMNT thread and I came across this interesting comment by Ghost: Ghost here brings up a very important question for us internet nuts in evaluating players and possible future nats coaches. How do we project possible future players or coaches into the team? Do these folks have the right stuff? To be specific here: How difficult is it to compare Wolff and Eskandarian? IMO it's not fair to project Josh Wolff's invisibility in the MLS Cup. It's also not fair to say that Esky is a better prospect. Why? Because their performances are so dependent on how their coaches set their respective teams up that to then project how these players might produce on a different stage (international) and under a different setup (that of Arena) is really really really hard. Let's look at the game and the two teams. First DCU. As Eric Wynalda astutely pointed out on yesterdays broadcast, Peter Nowak has in mind a certain way to play and he stuck to it all season regardless of injuries or call-ups or whatever. Those of you who remember the season's first TV game (Quakes @ United) basically saw the same thing in that game as they saw yesterday. That "thing" that system of Nowak's focuses on basically destroying the opposition's midfield creativity. He puts five guys in the midfield. He sets up those five guys so that they take away the other team's ability to attack, reducing the other team to basically route 1 soccer. They cut down on short through passes. They cut down on any opposing player dribbling through midfield into the final third of the field. Thus the opposition's forwards are cut off, rendered invisible. What happened to Wolff yesterday also happened to Donovan (playing as a forward) in week one. In the week before yesterday's game, reporters and folks here would talk about the speed advantage KC's forwards had over the DCU defenders. But they failed to see that Nowak's system rendered that speed advantage moot as long as United's defenders knew how to position themselves. Nowak's been doing this all season, as I said above. As a DCU fan, I've watched most of those games on TV. As the season went along it became apparent to me that the main thing holding United back from dominating MLS was playing time together for the players in the system. This was aggravated by both injuries (like Nelsen was out for several weeks) and also a bunch of the players had hardly any professional time (Esky, Carroll, Adu, Gros, etc). But I kept seeing glimpses- halves of games- where it started to click (like in the first game). Then, about two/three months ago, it started clicking big time and the team's confidence began to grow. Then I started looking for opposing coaches adjustments. You know what? I saw exactly one coach- one out of nine coaches in MLS- who seemed to have a clue on how to attack Nowak's DCU. Steve Nicol. In the last two Revs/United regular season games, Nicol had started out in a 442 and promptly was dominated by DCU. But in each game Nicol adjusted to a 352 and he got his players to play differently. Then came the semifinal game which so many have said was one of the best games in MLS history. It was made good because Nicol attacked DCU from the get-go and he attacked United form multiple places on the field by a whole variety of players. It helped that Nelsen wasn't there. But more importantly he had all his players moving forward aggressively because he learned from experience that one to three players attacking DCU just get shut down. Because he learned this, John was able to deliver a relatively short cross into Twellman for that volley goal and quite a few times NE was able to menace DC's goal. (Though it must be said that although NE really put pressure on DCU in that game, they never scored again except in unusual circumstances- the Carroll hand ball PK then that god awful marking on Noonan's corner kick goal. So you could say that DCU's gameplan worked reasonable well still.) So before MLS Cup I was thinking that, hey, Gansler's a smart guy. He would have seen what Nicol did and would put together a game plan of similar nature. Well maybe Gansler's not that smart of a guy. He just played right into Nowak's plans. And so Wolff and Arnaud got cut off. But that was only half of it since by so easily conceding the midfield to DCU and it's one touch passing, they started to chase DCU's skill players and as with most professional teams, you can't do that for long before the goals started flowing. So in spite of The Demanator, game, set, and match to Nowak's DCU. Esky looks great and it's not just because of Moreno, but because KC's defenders were on their heels and through the system that Nowak imposes, that normally happens which leads to forwards getting good looks which, invariably leads to forwards gaining confidence. So while I think Esky should be looked at for the Nats, I think 1) you can't evaluate Wolff from this game but 2) you can evaluate Nowak and Gansler. I said this on the "Arena replacement" thread and I'll say it here: Nowak's system is what made Chicago so good for years. And it's the system which Sarachan doesn't do anymore and neither does Bradley, and both of them are the worse for it. To go further: Nowak was the true brains of the Fire, not Bradley. I'll go even further: by 2006, if Arena steps down, the coach with by far the best resume in MLS will be Peter Nowak- if Poland doesn't take him first. What Nowak has that Arena also has is that he makes his players more effective then they are normally. They love to play for both coaches because they bring out the best in them. What's more, they can blend in highly skilled players like Moreno with less skilled guys like Petke (or Wee One in Arena's tenure) and have them work together. And this quality is what determines success in international play for a team like the USA, who, although talented, will never be confused with England or Spain in terms of talent for several years now. Arena, Yallop, and now Nowak. The three best MLS coaches so far.
U.- I generally enjoy reading your posts, but this one seems more like a victory exultation than a coaching analysis. While Nowak certainly deserves credit for the way his team plays, some of your rhetoric is way over the top. Just to give one example, you make a point of mentioning DC's injuries, even though they were among MLS's healthiest teams. That's particularly remarkable in light of the recent histories of Jaime Moreno and Ben Olsen. Meanwhile, you condemn Bob Gansler's coaching performance without acknowledging that four of his premier players (Klein, Meola, Simutenkov, and Preki) were unable to start on Sunday. DC's starting line-up consisted entirely of all-stars, major allocations, and high draft picks, while KC's included several players that nobody else wanted. Gansler did an amazing job this season. He took a rag-tag collection of players and led them to the US Open Cup title, while falling just short of the Supporters Shield and MLS Cup. DC won the big one, but let's not treat a missed handball call as destiny. After all, Nowak's record against Gansler in MLS Cups is still only 1-1, and on both occasions, Nowak's team had better horses.
It's called the afterglow, take it easy on us DCU fans who have suffered for a few gawd-awfull years. Also note that DCU had to call up a PDL player and give David Stoke serious minutes due to injuries so I think the MLS's healthiest team is a bit of a stretch. Especially considering that 3 players were injured the entire season (Q2, Q1, Tiago Martens) and each could have figured into starting roles had they been healthy. Also, Meola (and Simutenkov I believe) were on the bench for the final, not injured. I think Skip's central point is valid, that is, the Nowak system was only solved (partially) by Nicol, by attacking from multiple points and putting more pressure in the midfield, where DCU usually dominated once the system was learned by all. Gansler did nothing tactically to break down DCU in the final.
Actually, this game came down to one thing - flanks. The best way to attack a 3-5-2 is through strong play on the wings. That's one of the reasons Nicol could adjust - because he actually has a couple of decent wide players. KC didn't. The one guy who did play well on the wings, Burciaga, looked like a world-beater. DCU's system isn't all that complex. Clog the middle, force turnovers, and use quick passing to create opportunities. No rocket science there. They just executed well at the end of the season and into the playoffs. I've been screaming this for a while, but one of the big deficiencies in both MLS and the US team are players who are comfortable out wide. Some teams have one guy who is really good and at his best out wide, but none of them have two really dominating players from the wings. Look around the world, and you see a different story. Teams have realized that wide players are back in style and a critcal element to a successful elite team. Arsenal - Pires, Ljunberg, Reyes. Chelsea - Robben, Duff. Madrid - Zidane, Figo, Beckham. Barcelona - Deco, Xavi, and even Ronaldinho plays wide a lot. Inter Milan - Van Der Mayde, Stankovic. PSV - Park, Farfán, Beasley The consistent theme here is that when you go up against the world's elite, and if you are the unfortunate sucker who has to devise a defensive scheme, the first area of concern is their wide attacking players. In MLS, that's pretty much your last area of concern. Kudos to Nowak for recognizing that league-wide weakness and putting a system in place to take advantage of it. Boo to Bradenton, youth teams, college soccer, and MLS for failing to develop decent wide players. If I were the coach of an MLS team, identifying two very good wide players would be my first order of business. I'd be on the lookout for the next Brian Mullan - a college forward who has exceptional speed, loves to take people on one on one, and a never-ending workrate. Then I'd look for two very good wide defenders. Again, I might have to think unconventionally. Maybe that professional wide defender is actually a college forward or central midfielder with great speed who has shown he can cross. Or even more likely, I use a number of my SI spots on those positions. Finally, I'd start building the middle - where the US has shown it can develop talent. Had KC had any consistent wide play against DCU, Nowak's 3-5-2 would have been exposed on the flanks and Piotr would have had to make some adjustments. KC didn't, Piotr didn't, and it was game over after 3 successive goals.
Nobody is taking anything away from Gansler. The horses he had got him to the final. Its not like he lost players right before the game. KC had a great season, but Gansler has also had years to build his team and get the players that fit his system. Nowak led DCU to an 8-1-1 finish, with a team he inherited. Remember, Esky and Carroll barely got on the field last year, Moreno has been poor for 3 years, Stewart was terrible last year and Namoff was a nobody. Nowak deserves all the credit he gets for getting essentially creating superior horses. KC simply got outplayed and out coached. Gansler failed to adjust to the DCU game plan. Skip's point about Bradley and Sacharan is a good one. They seem fairly average without Nowak steering the ship.
It's worth reminding people that KC did spring Matt Taylor into space on several occasions. When he got there, he didn't remind anyone of Chris Klein. That's why I said they were "among MLS's healthiest teams," which they were. In spite of all the whining about Stokes, he started a grand total of three games. The PSL guy was with the team for only one.
That's myth-making ... Namoff was one of Hudson's favorites and a high second-round draft choice by Rongen. Eskandarian and Carroll were long-time youth national teamers, the absolute cream of this country's crop. Unless you think Moreno's back was healed by Peter the Miraculous, he was given superior horses. I just love this hindsight ... Nowak gets credit for sticking to his guns, but Gansler gets blamed for "failing to adjust." In 2000, was it Gansler who stuck to his guns, while Nowak failed to adjust?
And this is where I think the injury bug really hurt Gansler and KC in the end. A healthy Klein on the right would have given KC a much improved chance to attack DC.
A second thought, I think the biggest mistake Gansler made was in goal. I'm not going to bash Bo - he's a good pro, and a solid man, but Meola is a different class - in talent, leadership, and experience. Bo came on when Tony was injured and did a fine job for a team that was playing well. Gansler stuck with him in the playoffs after Meola was ready to return - this is great loyalty, but in my mind was never good coaching. Bo didn't cost them the championship - but Meola brings those intangibles.
Nowak deserves immense credit for taking a dysfunctional set of players (Stewart epiptomizes the dysfunction; he is very solid, as this year showed, but was dismal in the constraints of last year's horror on the field) and getting them to play consistently well together. It has been evident for the last 2/3 of the season that the DCU players were coming together as a team and this resulted from the coaching strategy. Now, one major consequence has been the disciplined shape at the back. Give the Revs all the credit that you want to, but they played against a severely depleted DCU team. Yes, perhaps their flank play kept them in the game that lacked Kovalenko and Nelsen, but those two guys direct things and keep the defense aligned, compact and focused. I agree with Nutmeg about big time champions needing two strong flank players, but even they can be overturned by a compact defense unwilling to be pried apart.
What you'll notice though is that most of those guys (Beckham being a possible excpetion) are not your typical get it wide and cross English wingers. Most of those guys like Robben, Deco, Ljunberg would be effective players centrally as well, they play out wide because the team already has effective players centrally. The very best teams have systems where any one of a number of guys could be your two front running forwards at a particular moment in play. They are so loaded with gifted attackers that they take turns drifting in and out of the center of the action trying to create chances. Robben may be a winger, but I'm pretty sure Fulham was convinced he was everywhere on Saturday, and they were probably more right than wrong. It's why I think Beasley's crossing problems have always been overplayed on these boards, one because he's not as bad as his reputation, and two because it's not nearly as important as people made it out to be. This relates to the US in that eventially, if it comes down to using a strict winger on the right like Klein or Mullan or a non-winger but talented #10 type attackers like a Martino, Gaven or Dempsey, the US may ultimately down the road be better off going with the #10s.
But D.C. had a whole bunch of trouble with New England at home the week before. I hate to be snarky, but regardless of how good any team was, somebody was going to be MLS Cup champions this year and get all the credit. It's been one of those seasons where I had difficulty discerning whether anybody was better than anybody else. New England was within a hair of making the final after struggling to make the playoffs, and yet frankly I wasn't particularly surprised at New England's strong bid. In the attack they have as much talent as anybody in this league but suffered through a back line where at times during the year, Steve Ralston was their best defender. Kansas City was probably the best team when looking at the whole year, but the Klein injury really hurt them. Chris looked like he was bidding for MVP consideration at the time. DC had everybody in place during the last part of the season and then they came on strong. Columbus had virtually no injuries or callups in the 2nd half and they came on strong. The Metrostars were probably the best team in the league the first month and a half. Even the Fire were contenders until they lost Beasley and Razov and then they really had problems when they lost Mapp later in the year. San Jose was mostly unlucky losing close games and generally playing better than their record indicated. It's just so filled with parity that tiny little things shift the balance of power. Some people like it, I'm not as thrilled with it.
Is it that they are "not comfortable" out wide or simply not good out wide? I think it's the latter. Landon Donovan may have been a central player his whole life but it's not a stretch to say that he'd be a damn good winger damn fast. (In fact, I think that he is already.) It's just that we have very few players with the classic winger virtues of being fast, nimble, and technical. I think that this is voros's argument, too, only put somewhat differently.
An addendum - note that Nutmeg's list contains no English players aside from Beckham and no German players. Broadly speaking, England & Germany train their youths like we do in the U.S., with the emphasis being team play & quick passing, not lingering on the ball. Ergo, no wingers. It's not entirely a bad thing, how England & Germany & the U.S. operate, because there are many advantages to having a nation of fit, disciplined, hard-working, unselfish guys who are happy to get rid of the ball in a hurry. Just don't expect a lot of good wide play from your national team, that's all.
Well I think my extension would be that the fast, nimble and technical players generally are preferred in the center of the field in most countries these days. It used to be in England and Germany that your most similar players to your forwards were your central defenders. Their job was to get in front of the net and knock the ball in and muscle folks out of the way trying to keep them from doing so. Nowadays you see guys coming through the ranks as forwards that are technical marvels: Ronaldinho, Tevez, Reyes, Cristiano Ronaldo. Not until they reach teams until there's players who can come close to matching their talents do they ever play on the wings. What you then get is something other than strict wing play, you get basically an extra attacking midfielder who starts out wide but could wind up anywhere as the game progresses. As they get older and reach their peak, often they move back centrally. My guess is that the lesson to take from this is that to train World Class wingers nowadays, you train them as Attacking Midfielders or Withdrawn Forwards (like the Beasley and Robben roles at PSV) so as to develop their all around game. Otherwise you wind up with guys like Kieron Dyer who don't progress a whole lot past the point of being very fast.
I guess you could simplify my last post by saying that the modern game seems to be evolving to the point where your two wingers and the attacking midfielder all play the same position, with the manager simply arranging them with regards to quality and footedness.
Re: More DCU-gushing No, you're absolutely wrong. IF we could clone all the players from Chicago's great teams from before and have these two imaginary teams face each other, then we could evaluate Sarachan v. Bradley. Is it possible that Nowak the player made Chicago great? Is it possible that Andy Williams couldn't carry Nowak's jock? Is it possible that DCU had the healthier, more talented team in MLS Cup? I think so... Yes, I agree: Talented players matter far more than coaches. OK, now you're just DCU-gushing. Hey, I'd be happy if my team won MLS Cup, too. A few injuries here and there, Moreno getting a little older, Nelsen leaving the team, and you're looking at a different proposition in the future. Nowak MAY have a successful record, but he may not, too. Take a breath, think, and then post... Let's see a body of work, first. I'm a HUGE fan of Piotr's. But if DCU takes a precipitous decline in the standing next year, will you make the same statement?
I see it happening differently. I see two hard-nosed players in the middle of the field who are there to beat the snot out of opposing central midfielders first, and add to their team's attack second. Usually, their addition to their team's attack is to get the ball wide as quickly as possible, with an occasional through ball to the forwards to keep teams honest. Rarely do they take guys on the dribble themselves. I have no problems with your assertion that the wide players I listed could just as easily be #10's. In many cases, they were. I would say, however, that in today's game, they cannot be slow #10's. You wouldn't put Valderrama out wide. These players also defend a lot more than your traditional #10's - even guys like Zidane, Pires, and Robben. So yeah, the modern game's winger has the skills of an attacking midfielder (did you see that frickin' stop-and-go move Pires pulled off on his goal?) combined with the speed, fitness, and tenacity of the classic winger. Fun job.
Probably true, in general. It's funny, though -- my kid just finished an entire U12 season playing forward, rather than his customary right mid position. And he is dying to switch, because he found right mid to give him so much more freedom (as well as touches on the ball) than did forward. On his team, the outside mids get to do the fun things, while the forwards either make decoy runs or chase down through balls. So it does depend what system the team runs.
Watch Donovan get put in a Ljungberg role for Leverkusen in January. And I wouldn't be surprised if Freddy eventually assumed this type of role, too. Gaven - same thing. And if he ever shows an intensity for the game, Justin Mapp could be that type of player sometime in the future.
Hoo-boy! Some interesting, thoughtful comments here. Here's what I have to say in a general reply: MLS is a coaches league, more so than most every other league in the world. What I mean by that is because of the salary cap and the small rosters most of the team every year have roughly the same amount of talent. Because of this, the difference between the teams is more dependent on the ability of the coaches than in most any other league you see. So I just made a big assumption here. If you agree, fine. If you don't, well we just have to disagree and you aren't about to change my mind so don't waste your time here. Yes, there are occasionally unusual differences in player quality, but less that one thinks if one looks at the rosters much. The big difference lies in how the coaches execute their plan(s). I can even narrow this down: most every coach is fine as a talent evaluator and there are enough good players in the world that no coach has a real advantage over the others in securing talent abroad. So top dog status in MLS is determined by how sensible and realistic a coach's plan is. There are two factors that I see to this right off the cuff: 1) Does he have the right players to carry out his plans, 2) Does he have the right players to make inevitable adjustments somehow during the season. Take #1, is the coach's plan realistic. Most coaches pass this test, but at least once a year we see an unrealistic coach. last year that coach was DCU's Ray Hudson who built his team around two old guys, Etcheverry and Stoichkov, who no longer had the body and who's frustration poisoned the rest of the team. Now Ray's plan wasn't ridiculous, as he proved that it could be at least partially successful with Miami. But with DCU he failed to have the proper personnel and he demanded too much from rookies like Eskandarian or Carroll (who never saw the field for Ray). Ray's successor, Nowak, did however had the right players for his plans, and they were largely the same players as Ray had. Yes there were some major differences like Moreno, but first of all Jaime had tuned out Ray two years previously and more importantly you have to look at the rank and file players to see if the plans fit the team well, not the stars. Obviously, Nowak handled the young players on DCU better than Hudson did. He gave them a chance to succeed and they proved that they had the talent to do so. I'm using an extreme example with Hudson and Nowak; I do so because it helps to see what a coaching change does to player performances. But you can look at each team and see for yourself how well the coach used his players. IMO Gansler did very well in this regard. Then you come to my 2nd point: adjusting on the fly. This is hard for a coach to do as they have a basically sound plan and they are loathe to change it. It comes down to evaluating your opponent and the significance of the game and deciding if a change in tactics is necessary for that game or should you stay with your basic plan as a learning experience. Go back to DCU first. Nowak, as Wynalda said, did the same thing all year. Even with injuries and callups, he stayed the same tactically. He did this (one hopes) because 1) he needed most of the season for his players to get on the same page as he and 2) it wasn't so important to win every regular season game as it was to develop that understanding in preparation for when the games really meant something, the playoffs. So by late August, the team got it and they became a fist of a team, to use a Rayism. This BTW included using as a winger Kovalenko who isn't really a good winger but who is (when he's not whacking at legs or the ball with his hand) quite a heady player and who understood that he needed to play defense first. (Go back and notice that Dema's assists and goals take a sharp dive after he stopped playing central mid and moved to wing.) Actually United doesn't have very good wingers- besides Dema, Gros- who has promise- is RAW, and Stewart,- who's smart- has lost a lot physically. They are potentially vulnerable on the wings, but no team really challenged them there except the Revs. So Nowak got his team in place and then- what happened- no other team was able to keep up with his team. They started winning on the road (unlike KC at the end, BTW.) And teams just lost over and over and their coaches just wouldn't adjust, except as I noted on the opening post, Steve Nicol's Revs. Finally, the Cup game and Gansler went down also. But can coaches adjust? Yes, good ones do. Take Bruce Arena in the last world cup. Some of us here know that Arena has a certain style of play. He likes the 442, etc. But in Korea he varied his games plans depending on his opponent. He had to if he was gonna make a decent run at the second round and beyond. But the adjustments all were variants on his basic plan so the players could follow along with his strategy. Only the best coaches can do this. I think Nowak can be in that category. I now have my doubts about Bradley seeing how they faded in his two years with the metro. Gansler? Yeah he did a good, nay, great job adjusting his strategy to deal with the big injuries he had. (Applause all around). But he didn't adjust to changing circumstances- like in the Cup or in San Jose. Old folks may cringe when I type the next sentence: Bob Gansler is to MLS coaches what Steve Ralston is to Nats players. He is the Line of excellence that defines a coach on his ability to coach internationally. He's good enough to win an occasional MLS Cup when his players are really hitting on all cylinders. He will always have decent playoff teams even in off years. He would do okay in CONCACAF play but nothing special- which means he may very well lose in the Hex. But a great coach can get his measure and take him 8 times out of 10. If i compared Gansler to some other coaches, I'd say that 1) Steve Sampson is below the Gansler Line , 2) Sigi is probably above, 3) Yallop is definitely above, 4) Bradley? I don't know. I sure hope he's better, but obviously have my doubts, 5) Nowak, I really have doubts to since he's so new, but I think he's way above, 6&7) Sarachan and Rongen are below. So yeah, I know I'm out ahead of predicting greatness for Nowak. It's fun- come and join me.
Those guys plus Beasley are the 5 young American winger types that come to my mind. Not a bad group in all. Although I think Justin will always be a role player due to work rate/defense issues, and is Gaven fast enough for the job? I watch this type of player a whole lot because my kid plays that role. To see what it takes. He's miscast, actually -- he's sufficiently fast & technical, but he lacks the mindset of a take-on artist. Too worried about making a mistake, too unselfish. (Unselfish is often a very damaging trait for a winger.) So he'll eventually end up in more of a central role - win the ball, make the pass. Good wingers are gunslingers. Look at Beasley, will run at anyone. Or Freddy. However, not everybody wants to be a gunslinger. Eventually, his youth coaches will realize that ... in the meantime, what the hell, he's getting to do a lot of stuff.
Ursula - I for one will hold off on predictions of greatness for Nowak. I only predict greatness for coaches after they already achieve it. However ... this spring, I advanced the notion that Nowak was a feel-good PR hire who needed more coaching seasoning to be of real help to DCU. Yes, I blew that one. Good on ya, Peter. I actually rooted for your team, and believe me, it's hard for a Chicago guy to root for those guys in black.
But I also think the game is moving away from having slow players in most positions on the field. Really it's starting to be Keeper, Centerback and maybe one of the forward roles and everybody else needs to move fairly well. I think it's mostly the end result of total football. Almost everybody's got to attack, almost everybody's got to defend and to do that you have to be able to get around. Of your list Deco, Figo, Beckham, Zidane, Vander Meyde, while they can all run, none of them are real blazers even in their primes. Kieron Dyer and even Brian West would bury every last one of them in a foot race. But they're fast enough to be able to take advantage of their technical skills on the wings. I suppose the idea would be that foot speed gives you the chance to be a great winger, but it's the skills and techniques that tell the tale from there. So I think the trend is to see less and less specialization in attack and more and more variability. I think it's likely a result of the All-Star Team nature of the top clubs that's it simply easier to integrate a bunch of players playing like they always have, then to pin players at that level down to a specific role. Like I said, Beckham is somewhat of an excpetion. A side benefit is I think it makes for more entertaining matches as well.