http://www.cybersoccernews.com/mls/rapids/030502rap-metadv.shtml Very much worth the read for all fans on this board... Joe nailed this one right on the head, if you ask me. Solid analysis including consideration of all factors involved, mixed in with biting, opinionated writing. This is the kind of journalism that is so dearly lacking.
In the immortal words of the fans during the Bad News Bears, "Let them play, let them play!" Hankinson does seem to be involved in over-coaching, searching for an edge with a formation as opposed to using the players he has on the field, tinkering with tactics like it was still the preseason, and making it look as though we don't have a real style, we just adjust to the teams we are playing. It's called reacting, not dictating the tempo of play, and from watching almost any sport, this is a strategy that results in more losses than victories (It might resemble catenaccio, though, but that seems to work for the Italians). I would love to see Hankinson stick with a consistent line up for 5 weeks, allowing the players to develop their style on the field, subbing strategically and giving those subs an opportunity to affect the game (85th minute is usually a delaying tactic when you are in the lead, not an effort to spur on the offense, even if we do have overtime). What do you think our team could do if we fielded this line-up five weeks in a row (barring injuries)? Zizi-Spencer Chung-Mastro-Becks-Hendo Rizo-Stewart-Fraser-Hart Garlick Bring Carrieri on as a sub midway through the second half (between 60 and 70 minutes) for Zizi, Spencer or Beckerman (moving Spencer back to attacking mid) depending on who is having the toughest time getting into the game, or Schmidt later on. This team has a chance to win every week and by the end of the run of five games, I would expect that we would begin to see a cohesive style and maybe even string together a win or two or three. Just a thought, but from a fan's point of view, it is frustrating not knowing what to expect from our team from game to game, mainly because we don't know which team is going to be on the field. It may be easy to nitpick from the stands, but as was noted in the article, this is a pattern that has developed over Hanki's tenure, and it hasn't worked, just look at the results.
Shoot me now so I don't have to watch the Rapids lose another game tomorrow due to idiotic coaching. I think anyone here can see that the lineup Malaga suggested, with the possible exception of Becks, is the obvious lineup to go with. Anything else (assuming everyone is available) is bad coaching. If Hankinson goes into tomorrow's game with a new lineup, win or lose I'll be calling for his job on Sunday...
Guilty As Charged The only consistent thing about Hanki is his inconsistency. If It Isn't Broken, Don't Fix It!
I think the key is not changing both tactics and lineup simply because one or two players are unavailable -- or because of one player on the opposing team. Successful managers come to a team with a desire to develop a particular style. They find players to fit that style, then manage a team that understands and lives by said style. I think part of the problem is that as Curcurio suggests, there is no commitment to anything other than an ongoing system of experimentation. Again I point out that this is a management technique more often seen with youth national and select programs than it is with a professional club. For all of Hankinson's desires to the "clockwork orange" dream of "total football," he hasn't even shown a commitment to trying to make it work. For all of the rebuilding that has been done in Hankinson's first two seasons, we've yet to see an establishment of style in this club. Yes, the team is better today than it was two years ago. But compared to the rest of the league, we haven't budged. That Carrieri came out and complained about Hankinson is one thing; that the kid complained about not knowing what to do on the left flank makes it clear that not only did Hankinson neglect to prepare Carrieri for this role, he's neglected to educate the entire team of what the responsibilities are of each and every position on the field. Mastroeni's comments after the first game echo this idea; I believe he said something along the lines of "we had players who didn't know their responsibilities." It's time for Hankinson to set this team on a course and make a commitment to working with the players he's got. There can't be any excuse for losing a player like Grimandi; they may have set the team up to focus around a central combo of Gilles and Pablo, but the reality is that they went through the entire preseason with Frenchy playing a minimal amount of minutes. Then they start the season and instantly change their tactics and approach, with Hankinson loafing off the excuse of the Rapids needing more time to adjust and prepare. Yes, Grimandi was a great disappointment and he screwed the team over. The end result of this however, is no different than if we had lost Grimandi because he tore his ACL in the preseason. See also: San Jose, DeRosario. We have enough talent and enough depth to at least be a mid-table club, and we've got enough of a foundation from which we can indeed build a real future here. To do this takes a real commitment, not just to personnel but to developing a system that the players know without needing to have it drawn on a whiteboard week after week. We've had Chung, Henderson, Spenny and Carrieri working together in the attack for over a year now, yet changing formations and strategies continue to prevent them from finding the right rhythm between them. Heading into the match at Metro, I'm not as concerned about the result as I am that we see an attempt to build upon what began in the second half against San Jose and was (mostly) seen against DC. Today's article in the Post mentions the possibility that Mastroeni may not play due to a leg injury, in which case we may see Rizo or Hart step into Pablo's role. WHY? Both of these players have been established as defensive wingers throughout the preseason. Bring someone off the bench to do Pablo's dirty work if he's not capable. Yes, putting Matt Crawford, Steve Herdsman or Natt Borchers into Pablo's slot would be a step down and perhaps a weakness that an opponent would look to exploit. Yet there's the difference: the Rapids would not be forced to change their play because of a redistribution of talent on the field -- only their opponent would, if they felt it necessary. I think right now it would be much more important to see the Rapids develop a consistent understanding among all of their players in their regular positions. Do we really need to see Rizo slide into Pablo's slot this week, only to move back next week -- not to mention any other accompanying lineup changes to replace Rizo at left back? It's time for this team, and our manager, to make a commitment and stick with it.