D.C. remembers Hudson :: South Florida Sun-Sentinel

I'm not even going to read the article. Anyone who says the coach doesn't make a huge difference in this league isn't paying attention.

 

you know i like it that the guy is writing about soccer positively and that he knows his stuff. and hes a good writer, but i hate that topic. Hudson DID do more than we thought he did, but most of it was negative NOT positive changes.

our coach this year, was an inspirational leader who made good choices. he didnt need amazing players or "target forwards" all he needed was a group of guys who sucked last year.

so to hudson, youre a good guy, to novak, your a good coach.

end of story

 

Much as I've criticized him, Hudson deserves a lot of credit for finding Gomez. When he spoke of being handcuffed with regards to player transactions, many people took that to mean that Payne was forcing Marco down his throat, when it could also have meant that we couldn't afford the $1 million asking price.

 

I too criticized him, but I agree that he deserves credit for finding Gomez.

He also deserves credit for drafting Eski and Carroll (too bad he didn't give them more playing time).

 

I wouldn't get all bent out of shape by this article. It's a standard smooth-the-ruffled feathers kind of piece.

Ray CAN take credit for a lot of the players. True, he didn't play Carroll, but he didn't play Stokes either. He apparently was important in scouting Gomez, but he used an allocation for Earnie and played him out of position. No doubt we did much better this year under Peter than we would have under Ray, but there is a time to look at the positive side and this seems to be it.

If it's true that a lot of players called him after winning (and, I assume, not to gloat) that says something about how they felt about they guy. And his calling Peter with congratulations showed class.

I think its time to remember the good things, forget the not-so-good things, and think about getting that fifth star next year.

 

For me, the main problem that DC has faced over the past 3 or 4 seasons has been lack of a dominant striker, as Jaime began to fade in Rongen's last year, and no replacement was ever found.


If Jaime played as well as he did this season, for Hudson two years ago, DC would probably have won the MLS Cup, or been highly competitive. I say this, simply because Hudson's midfield and defense were very good. What was missing was the dagger.


Now obviously Hudson misplayed some cards. Ivanov was wrong. Bringing in Stoich was also a mistake. But his hand was also forced in some other ways. Earnie Stewart was forced upon the team (he had the choice between DC and Dallas). I understand that many on here feel Earnie was a really important player, but I'm positive Hudson would have rather spent that money on a finisher instead of Earnie. Why? Because that is what he was talking about for two years, that "dagger".


Now, I'm not trying to underestimate Nowak's job here. I think he did a good job, especially considering how he handled Adu. However, to say that the reason DC was so great this year was Nowak, does a great disservice to Jaime. DC would have been much worse without Jaime, then they would have been without Nowak. And I'll stand by that. In other words, Nowak isn't a tacitical magician who can exploit his opponents weaknesses easily. He instilled a structure, that without Jaime, woudl have been just as "bad" as Hudson's team was.

 

this is exactly what i meant by the good things he did.
but you cant forget the throwing away of jaime, and the utter sh!t we played last season.

 

Right. This was Hudson's team. He just didn't know what to do with it.

 

I have always told my wife and she always agreed with me about this,

Hudson is a good coach (he needs the right team), however DC was not the right team for Ray, and Ray was not the right coach for the team we had in DC.

It was just a mismatch in coach and players.

 

I wonder if some of the difference doesn't have to do with Ray's being more of a manager and Peter's being more of a coach, in the sense of a teacher.

Ray seemed to be of the view that these guys are pros, and they should know what to do when they're on the field. Peter seems more involved. A good example is when a sub is going in: With Ray, the guy seemed to stand there by himself. With Peter, he's there, arm around the sub's shoulders, talking to him -- especially Freddy, but also the others.

I never saw them at practice, and that would be the real test. Anyone have any information on that?

 

It's most of the players Hudson had, but it's very much Nowak's team.

 

Except even Hudson doesn't bring up Gomez here.

He also takes credit for Ryan Nelsen who I believe was on the team when he took over as coach, and was also being heavily shopped so that the club could sign Paul Dalglish, the scoring power that can't get a game, much less a goal, anywhere.

I'm willing to bet that the Kovalenko trade was initiated by Chicago due to their salary cap constraints, and let's not forget that Earnie Stewart chose DC when he came to the states, United did not actively pursue him while he was at NAC Breda.

I'm sorry, Mr. Hudson, but you're clinging at straws here. Let it go.

 

Come to think of it, it makes Ray look even worse that this was mostly his team.

If the team was so good and it wasn't Nowak's ability, than they could have gotten past Hudson's ineptitude and won games. But with a lot of the same players, Nowak was able to get it done.

 

I think some people have touched on it, but no one has really emphasized what I think is the big difference between Hudson and Nowak.

If I remember anything about last year's team, it was my consistent frustration that they seemed not to have any idea HOW to play well together. There was absolutely no consistency--in roles, in lineups, in approach, and, not surprisingly, in results. Every game seemed to be a crapshoot in lineups and strategy. And by the end of the season everything was in disarrayh.

Novak did something Hudson never did. He instituted a system, he defined an approach. And he stuck with it. It took time to find exactly the right players for the the right roles. It took time for the players to understand those roles. But he never wavered from his vision.

Hudson, in my mind, tinkered constantly hoping to stumble onto the magic combination. The fans had no idea what exactly he was looking for. I suspect the players didn't have any idea either. I'm not sure Hudson knew himself. He took a team that played shockingly aggressive, beautiful, team-oriented futbol in stomping the Metros in NY late in the season and broke up that lineup to play Etch and Stotichkov together in the playoffs, with disappointingly predictable results.

While Novak relied on the team and system to produce chances, because he had drilled the players into familiarilty and comfort in their roles, Hudson seemed to sit back and wait for that 'bit of magic" he was constantly looking for--relying on veterans to provide it. When it wasn't there he suggested it was a missing individual--a dagger. Youngsters were not to be trusted because they had not proved anything to him in the heat of battle, never mind the fact that they weren't given a chance. Novak, however, clearly had an idea of what he wanted from each player and position and apparently was willing to let young players prove to him through practice that they understood what he wanted out of them.

To me, Novak's comments after the Cup win say it all. He talked about trusting in his vision and the players buying into it. Clearly it didn't happen right away (as his regular season record was only marginally better than Ray's). but I can point to instance after instance this season when he had a chance to waver (e.g., when injuries and cards created circumstances where our personnel didn't favor the 3-5-2, when we went into a tailspin after an encouraging start, when he subbed offensive players in late in the game when we had a lead (something Hudson never did)) but didn't--he believed his system of possession, attacking, and pressure would eventually give this team the best chance to win.

And by the end of the season I think it was clear from the way we played down the stretch--with confidence and poise--that the players believed it, too, and that it did.

 

A lot of what you're talking about, PCC, was discussed a lot at the beginning of his tenure when he spoke not of who would be playing what position, but that it was more important that players knew exactly where they were supposed to be at any given time. This is why our counter attack was so good this year. By the end of the season, there was always someone on the wings to start the break, always a triangle pass to get out of trouble, and always a defender to clear out a cross.

By my count, we started a 4-4-2 once this year, May 22 against Colorado. I think Nelsen was out with the NZ team and we started Namoff, Petke, Stokes and Prideaux and lost 2-1. Then we went back to the 3-5-2 and won in NE.

 

I've already stated the difference, Moreno, and I've been stating that DC needed a forward that could finish for the past 4 years. It's pretty simple. With him putting in MVP performances, day in day out, all the pieces fell into place. I would have liked to have seen what Nowak would have done without Moreno's performance...1st round and out probably, like Hudson's team.

 

Except it was Hudson who mismanaged Moreno so badly after his knee injury that Jaime was afraid to play on it.

You can't argue if Hudson had an MVP Moreno, because they are mutually exclusive.

 

Jaime's resurgence made a huge difference season, but it was hardly the only factor. Alecko's breakout season certainly had a lot to do with it too, as did our rock solid defense (when Nellie was healthy anyway) and the midfield play of guys like Gros, Carroll, and Adu in addition to what we had last year in Dema, Benny, and Earnie. Take away any one of those and we would not have been that successful. This team adjusted to Nowak's discipline, built good chemistry and self-belief and just gelled at the right time.

And even if Moreno were the sole reason for our return to glory, you'd still have to give Nowak credit for that. Do you think Jaime would have gotten back in shape under Hudson? Somehow I doubt it.

 

No, Moreno came to the Metros, and went out with a whimper, even under Bradley, who expressed great frustration with him in an article two weeks ago. I think the onus falls on Jaime right there, as he fought with Hudson, and showed no class with the Metros, who gave him a great opportunity.


The defense was rock solid under Hudson too, as was the midfield defensively.

And the player didn't have to be "Jaime", it could have been anybody. I said before the season started, unless DC gets strikers who finish, it will be the same story that DC was for the 3 seasons before that. Lots of chances created, but oh so close. This season started out like that also, there were threads galore on the DC board. Dema at one point was your best finisher...


Nowak seems to be a good coach. Great motivator, tries to inspire his team. However, the play of Jaime is what made the difference for this team, and not the coaching difference between Hudson and Nowak as has been a common theme on these boards. Jaime's play allowed everyone else to look good. He had an incredible season. I just wish he played like that for the Metros last year, we def. needed him. Again, without the play of a dominant striker like Jaime, Nowak's team this year would have been average, just like Hudson's teams. I don't think the opposite (DC with superJaime, but without Nowak) combination would be average.

 

Well, love him or hate him, Ray is an icon down here.

He might be the best known soccer figure in Florida history!

 

Moreno developed serious back problmes during his time in New York.

The defense was "rock solid" because United had 8 people behind the ball at all times.

You say it could have been anybody. Well a huge part of this season was Alecko Eskandarian. #1 pick in the draft and Hudson sat him.

Another guy that the team could have used was Carroll. Didn't get a minute.

The smartest thing Ray Hudson did was not play Stokes, but I'm going to scratch that up to his bias against young Americans rather than a strategic move.

It is ridiculous to say that Ray Hudson's teams could have won MLS Cup if they had an MVP candidate for forward. It's a fruitless argument because the same could be said for almost any team. What if the Rapids could score a goal? They would have been MLS champs. What if KC had an MVP candidate up top and had gone up 2-0 on United; game over. What if the Metrostars MVP had managed to score a couple goals or create a few chances since he became nonexistant in the late summer?

Due to the level of parity, of course any team can see a great jump in results even with a modest increase in talent. Jaime Moreno's talent was here, and Ray Hudson drove it away.

 

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.