Perfect observation! I find it quite appropriate that Hudson uses Kip (Colvey) as a “winger”. But unlike Kip Winger’s “She’s only seventeen” lyric, Kip Colvey’s is “He’s only USL”. Fun fact: Kip Winger is from Denver. Maybe Hudson should start him instead.
Now faced with a dilemma, watch the game I recorded or just delete? FWIW: Kip Winger did have value, he gave Stewart from Beavis and Butthead the name on the shirt that he wore. The jury is out on Kip Colvey unless he's given us a new Watts/Palguta.
It’s fun to watch as a drinking game. Last night, I drank two shots of tequila every time McBean fell over when he touched the ball... which was more/less every time he touched the ball. Was sh*tfaced by half. Try it, it’s fun!
On the bright side, the Rapids have cured their backpass problem. I have many a time heard folks in the stadium complain about that. Now they just turn it over. I wonder if they are playing a rugby strategy. When they have it deep in their own end, they boot it down the field. If Badji gets it, great. If not, they have the other team back deep in their own end, and then they try to press to recover the ball in more favorable territory.
while we suck- i been watching the rest of league more with the news espn + app, let me say I have not been impress with most of the teams/games around the league- - sea/col game- boring, lafc/dallas- avg, min/van- other snooze fest- van/san -nothing to write home about. lots of teams have problem
My impression after last night is this group of players simply isn't good enough. Certainly better than 2017, yes, but there is a severe lack of quality and sharpness that prevents us from competing in games. Hudson's lineup choices really need to be brought into question. You have guys like McBean and Colvey getting regular minutes, but guys like Boli, Serna, and Sjoberg rot in the bench. You've also have a Aigner, a Bundeliga level talent, that he won't even let into the 18. Colvey should never start a game again. He really stood out among everyone for being particularly awful. He doesn't make the runs he needs to when we're on offense, which is made that much worse by the fact this formation places so much importance on wingbacks. He also loses his marks frequently, which is usually because he wanders out of position and doesn't track back to cover the flank. Don't even get me started on his lapses in concentration on the ball. He's an average USL-level talent that is clearly not capable of playing MLS-level soccer. If we see Colvey continue to get significant minutes, its extremely damning of Hudson's judge of talent. We've had all this talk from the club about making every position competitive, but it sure looks like our coach is just playing favorites rather than actually putting the best guys out there. Da Fonte and Watts anyone?
Agree. And would add McBean to that list (and likely Wynne). But remember that Hudson started Colvey a few weeks ago at home. He had to be subbed out at half as I recall due to several mistakes and fully ineffective play. At the time, I thought for sure that was Hudson’s litmus test for Colvey and was relieved that we may not have to endure Colvey starting again (and he’d be relegated to a USL project player based on that performance). But what does Hudson do? He starts him again, on the road, against the conference leader. To nobody’s surprise, he failed again. Several more parallel examples of useless McBean starts to add to the convo. There’s plenty of proof on what he brings (or doesn’t bring) to the team. Yet 10 games in, he gets starts over the likes of Boli, Mason, or Aigner. We’re talking *obviously* different levels of skill (by order of magnitude). Yet Hudson selects him. In other words, we may already have proof of Husdon’s selection criteria. And it seems to go beyond basic misjudgment of players. Other than McBean’s family, who can rationally think he’s a bigger threat than Boli, Mason, or Aigner? Even Hudson knows that. Smells more like his selections are driven by his love affair with pet players, his stubbornness to make some BS point to more skillful players, and other unidentifiable things that result in questionable line-ups or even complete head-scratchers... like last night. Hudson has now had 10 matches and keeps doing the same thing with his selections. And that is what now makes Hudson fully questionable as well, if not on thin ice... at least with the fanbase. I would not be surprised if there are similar player conversations going on re: the same issues.
The player choices seem a bit Pablo-like. Hudson wants 100% buy in to the plan, players who practice hard, and players who are going to press and run run run. Enzo Martinez seems to be the model, since he appears to have quite the motor.
I suspect that Hudson judges players more on how well they work his system rather than on talent. This probably prejudices him against players with a lot of experience at a high level because they are more likely to do what's worked for them in the past. It's kind of like a manager who doesn't want smart people working for him because they are more likely to question his decisions. Unfortunately for the Rapids, this is the point of the season where teams begin to figure out the other teams weaknesses and exploit them. If they know a player is likely to give up the ball under pressure, they'll be on him all game. No system in the world is going to protect a player who can't perform at a high enough level.
We were talking about this last night. Pablo was not a good coach. However, if Pablo had the current talent level--clearly seems improved this year--I think the Rapids would have a better record this season. They used to play good defense. Even if he had this year's Badji it would have helped.
to be fair mason did get hurt (ankle?), so he might getting back to full min. Aigner is done, Boli- i have no idea why he not getting more min- as for Colvey- he only getting min- because of - hariston is out plus the other like blomberg
I think the above is spot on. After letting Hudson's continual player selection woes marinate over the weekend, I think Sal's observation is the driving force to Hudson. He certainly must know he has players available for selection with higher skill levels than Colvey, Wynne, McBean, etc. (so it doesn't seem like this is about him misjudging players). If so, this means he's more willing to go with "system players" and the "go-getters" regardless of their skill level. Many coaches place weight in this. But (and it's a BIG but) it seems Hudson takes it to extraordinary levels, to the point of placing the club's success and well-being at risk. Taking this thought a step further... To me, it seems that Hudson's player selection style is more appropriate and common in youth coaching or in coaching teams that have a clear void in high level talent/players... FOR EXAMPLE, teams like the Bahrain or New Zealand national teams, or for example, USL teams like Wilmington or Real Maryland... you know, the only coaching experience on Hudson's resume'. Is his lack of higher level coaching experience (and managing higher-tier players) already raising its ugly head as Hudson's #1 achilles heel? Thinking aloud.
Addendum to above post about Hudson's love of the go-getter system players... I also think the above observations from Sal could also speak to how Hudson and Aigner possibly got into their spat. Regardless of Aigner's personality traits or ethics, it has become quite apparent over the past 3 months that Hudson is a stubborn individual who likes to protect his own ego and views. Guess how someone with these traits of stubbornness reacts when someone of equal or higher level experience/knowledge might question the coach... even if it is fair, insightful, productive input. The result: defensive, entrenchment mode as a way to preserve ego. And since Hudson is in power, not Aigner, his go-to move simply be removing Aigner from the mix to preserve his own image. ("How dare he question me?! Ship him to the gulag!!" ) I've had a few managers over the years who behave this way whenever someone raises a fair critique about mgmt. affairs. The "How dare you question me!" managers. They tended to solve the issue by ignoring the claim and blacklisting the subordinates who raised it. On the other hand, past good managers usually took the fair critique as productive input from their staff and the group collectively moved forward positively. A lot of speculation, I know. But where there's smoke, there's often fire. And we've seen a lot of smoke in the past few weeks.
Rep. and a story. At a fairly high level youth coaching clinic something related by a very successful college level coach: "Sometimes I'm sure it can be very frustrating to you when a parent seems to think they know more about soccer than you do, let me tell you there is a situation that is much worse ... that's when they really do. Hopefully part of why you're here is to keep that from happening." (In quotes but paraphrased from aging memory, and possibly related to Hudson & Aigner as postulated above.)