Discussion in 'New England Revolution' started by ProseLtd, Aug 13, 2002.
Risk is lacking reward, Latest moves not providing punch By Frank Dell'Apa, Globe Staff
Not a bad piece, but I still think a critical examination of the "Revolution: Seven Years On" needs to be a bit more expansive, perhaps over a series of articles.
Still too much input from familiair outside parties in the piece though, those with vested interests in the club rather than having the story told from a more dispassionate voice.
and, Missing their mark
agreed. both of the pieces in today's paper seem like they were edited with a pair of scissors. once again, you feel like he's never really expressed the goal of the piece and stated its case clearly.
and how did todd go from "i'd make that trade 6 days a week and twice on sunday" on cybersoccernews to...."We were chasing results. Was it the wrong decision? Maybe it was." to me, sounds like he's willing to make different statements to different audiences....a tad chameleon-ish.
again todd, you don't want to be responsible for all the things that happened in the past and all the people that made those decisions......then at least acknowledge what's happened over the years b/f you got here, learn from them, and stop repeating this history. its been done before....you're doing it now...and that's why you get folded up into all baggage we already carry.
interesting parts of "missing their mark":
"The Revolution have been the league's prime example of how not to do things, at least on the playing field."
??? let's not forget about the "front office's" role in what happens on the field, frank.
"Still, the instincts of Jonathan Kraft in identifying talented players have been above par..."
well, this speaks for itself.
"The Kraft family absolutely cares about the success of the Revolution on the field."
if you've invested the $$ wouldn't you? isn't this stating the obvious. the problem is really do they care about their FANBASE & success on the field.
"This seems to be a cursed franchise but the reality is that the wrong people have been making personnel decisions. And even when they get the right guys it becomes a coaching issue because the players are not being used properly."
Steve Gans, a Boston-based former soccer executive
this is the most correct sentence of the piece. it should have started the article off and then all of fda's points should have been supporting evidence.
Was that supposed to be an article, or was he just paraphrasing what we've read from other sites in the past? You'd almost have to have read the other articles in the Herald and cybersoccernews (was that the place?) to follow what he wrote.
I think the best way to view these articles and others of similar nature over the past month is not to go line by line or to put too much stock in any one phrase. It's best to just step back and attempt to see the larger picture to which all this points.
I think the bottom line from all thats been said is clear:
We have had the players, coaches, management and ownership support but we just haven't been able to get it together because__________?___________.
The reason why I just leave a blank is because no where have I ever been able to decern a clear reason why this team has never been able to get it together. Sure, we all have used retrospective reasoning to point to the first draft in the hands of a coach who didn't know American players, annually selling off draft choices for short term gain, Zenga's cappachino machine and Gumbys dribbling into the ground, etc etc etc ad nausium. But all this begs the question. If we really knew why we have been the worst team in league history I truly believe that ownership would have changed things a long time ago. One thing this farnchise has made--regularly--is changes. Hell, at the beginning of the season, because of all the changes, all the pundits were predicting we would have home field advantage for MLS Cup 2002. Then the wheels fell off--again. Why? I just don't know and if I did I would be the Coach of the Year.
I'm ready to stop throwing rocks at players, coaches, management and ownership and just accept that the Revs have just not gotten it together---pure and simple. Will they ever--probably and I will be in my familiar seat at "what ever" name the stadium is being called that season. For now I will just enjoy them as Boston's reincarnation of "The Boys of Summer".
I would say this phrase pretty much sums up what the problem is.
It's too bad FDA doesn't like to rock the boat much because a more inflamatory piece -- like Gus' article -- in the Globe might actually get the Krafts to do something.
It's a shame that Will McDonough isn't a soccer fan.
This is a fairly profound (and accurate) commentary.
From the Globe:
"Still, the instincts of Jonathan Kraft in identifying talented players have been above par, and though his coaches have not always agreed, Kraft has allowed them almost total freedom in making personnel decisions. Kraft's early favorites included Galderisi and Brazilian forward Welton, who became personae non grata though they were highly regarded by fans and/or teammates."
Like Jonathan Kraft knows enough to come in out of the rain...
And of course, Frank forgets that the reason Welton was let go was because he was the odd-man out with the foreigner situation. Given what we knew then, most fans supported the decision. Of course, we thought that Leo Squadrone was Diego Maradonna, but hindsight is always 20-20.
And Galderisi was a useless piece of crap when he was here the first time, and although he scored a few goals at Tampa, I could have scored with Valderrama feeding me. And of course he reverted back to his useless self when he returned here in 1997. McKinley was by far the better player in the deal.
Todd Smith quote from the Globe:
"The ownership has invested a lot in bringing soccer to New England and we are lined up for the best soccer events in the country because of the success of the US national team here and the great support of the fans.''
See, the best "soccer events" doesn't cut it for me. OK, the USSF throws us a bone in the way of a few US Nats games, largely to reward Krafty for his MLS investment. That's nice, but the thinking in terms of "events" is what the biggest problem is.
In New Jersey, the big "event" was the Roma-Real Madrid friendly, which drew a big crowd. But it's far different to run a one-off event than a regular season, where people need a reason to come out every other week. That idiot Zolfinger blasted the Mutts management, which despite the fact that a gang of drunken chimpanzees could probably market the team better, it is a very different animal than getting a big crowd for a charity game with 2 world-class teams.
The Revs never treat each game as part of a sequence that makes up the season. I can't remember them ever showing out of town scores, even in times like this where there is ceertainly interest in the Columbus result. Actually, I take that back. The only time I remember is at the Open Cup, when Spurlock wouldn't stop badgering Craig T until we found out the other scores... But the Revs are no more than an "event" like the Rolling Stones concert, except they are younger and not quite as mobile.
I wouldn't expect anything to change until this attitude changes.
It's still all Stapo's fault!
In the first week of the team's first training camp in Boca Raton, Fla., in 1996, forward Giuseppe Galderisi and others objected to coach Frank Stapleton's three-a-day practice sessions. Stapleton exerted his authority by refusing to give in to what he considered rebellious players, but in doing so had to part with Galderisi, who went on to thrive with Tampa Bay.
That seemed to set the tone for the Revolution.
Galderisi did okay in Tampa. He didn't really "thrive."
For the Revos (twice), he was much less than Chacon is now.
No question the organization got off to a terrible start on the pitch. Stapleton and Galderisi are a footnote to that history, no more, and not relevant to anything going on today.
''It's been a revolving door for players and coaches over the years,'' Smith said. ''If things are substandard, you have to be willing to make changes. If this team had won the MLS Cup, nobody would be saying anything about bad decisions. But the decisions of Day 1 are still having an effect seven years later."
Tell the guys in DC that nobody complains about bad decisions if you've won a Cup.
We probably don't have a single player on the roster who played for Zenga. The only players who were on the team LAST year who play significant minutes are Heaps, Pierce, Joey, and maybe Sommer or Wolde (haha). We picked up 6 or 7 players in the dispersal draft, we had 10 draft picks (including #2), and we've added Semedo, Kante, and Griffiths since the season started. At what point do we stop blaming the state of the team on six year old personnel decisions? At least FC told us at the beginning of the year "no more excuses, no more waiting until next year, no more rebuilding, this team should win."
Condition of turf worries Rhinos' visitors By Jeff Diveronica
FDA's two articles just make me want to yell a lot at the games.
Those that do not know history are destined to relive it.
FDA's point is that the organization has continued to make the same mistakes from Day 1.
Kanu is correct.
Look at the teams that have been (more or less) successful most years and what have they had?
A core group of talented players who has been the focal point of the team from the beginning. Not only does management realize this, so do all of the GMs and coaches they have had.
The most successful teams have had one or two core people who have been there from the beginning and around whom the entire team has been built.
DCU: Etcheverry & Moreno
LA: Cienfuegos & Jones
To these core players has been added a supporting cast who complement what they do. And even when players have been replaced (see Chicago) there is a core conception of the kinds of skills needed to effectively compete.
Other teams have fallen short of the first group, but have either found their way eventually, or at least made a good run for a year or two.
Colorado, KC, and San Jose fall into this group.
Then there are the Mutts and us.
What the more successful teams have had -- and we haven't even come close to getting -- is a kind of "virtuous circle institutional memory" (pardon the jargon). By that I mean that the entire organization, from the OO to the coaches has understood that a core foundation was necessary to establish a winning tradition. Even though some of the "stars" on the top 5 teams have seen their luster fade in the past 7 years, their presence has enabled their teams to build a kind of pattern that is able to adapt.
OF course, DCU is having very hard times, but this is due to not only injuries but also decimating the core of the team for salary cap reasons and/or Wrongen's insanity (take your pick), but as long as Payne is around, I'd bet big bucks that DCU contends for the title a lot sooner than we ever will.
And what was the core of the Revs from the start?
Lalas, Burns, Jim St. Andre, Beppe Galderisi, and three -- count 'em three -- CANADIAN internationals, all coached by Big Frank (pathologically ill-suited for this job), GMed by Brian O'Donovan (a very nice man, a good business manager, but not a soccer guy), and Sonny Kraft who, as Tom Hill suggested, doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain.
And since then, we have never found a core, but virtually every year have panicked and made decisions that never took place within a conceptual framework that had any semblance of coherence.
This, ladies and gents, is one monster hole to crawl out of.
What to do now? Find a core player like some of the above people, get some supporting players, and DON'T HAVE A COACH OR GM WHO TRIES TO IMPOSE HIS "STYLE" ON PLAYERS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE SKILLSET OF SAID PLAYERS.
Who's best to do this? Big Daddy Kraft is going to have to find a serious, GM one with "gravitas" enough to refuse to report to "Sonny" first and certainly not one who lives in NY and spent much of the spring in Manchester (England, not "by the Sea"). This GM will then find the best US coach available and then MAYBE we can get off to the kind of start we should have had 7 years ago.
How come we never get a representative from "House of Guitars" at our games???
Todd Smith runs the soccer show. Gulati may be a waste of money, but he's not the problem. And what sports organization in the world has management that doesn't have to "report" to ownership?
I realize that this is the season for bitching about the front office, but as for the comments about "Sonny", does ANYONE on this list know enough about Jonathon Kraft to be making comments about how dumb he is? Or even how much he knows about soccer?
I don't either, but I suspect the problem isn't one of intellect, but one of priorities.
Jonathon Kraft does not strike me as being a dummy at all. In fact, he will likely one day be running all of the family's business interests including the Pats and the Revs too if they haven't unloaded the franchise by then.
I think he's a VERY sharp guy, much like his father.
The question, I guess, is about priorities and I think the Revs on the field results tell you what those are.
Well, perhaps my "come out of the rain" comment was a tad unfair for a guy who grad-jee-ated from Hah-vid, but I have met him a few times, including a business meeting that had nothing to do with the Revs and soccer, so I have a little bit more than heresay to go on.
Yes,it may be a case of "priorities," and I suppose it is his royal prerogative to decide what to prioritize. However, the idea of not understanding why some Rev fans would be upset that he didn't wear a Revs hat at a game, but that of the other, "more important" team, says a lot. It also speaks volumes that he'd go on the radio so unprepared as to not even know when the next game is or the team's website. Even if you don't know off the top of your head, a smart person would ask someone before being put on the spot. In the corporate world (a place that the junior CEO of Intl Paper should be familiar with) it's called "media training."
And finally, if he rates the Revs as not a priority, how can he expect fans to decide that the Revs are a priority when it comes to ponying up for season tickets next year?
I don't know, maybe they think it's a captive market for the most part. How could the Bruins let Bill Guerin, their most popular player, leave? Because they figure the fans will come anyway.
I think that, like most businesses these days, the emphasis is on controlling expenses rather than increasing revenues.
Could they do a better job within the current budget? I certainly think so, but I would have to take the team administration, rather than the ownership, to task for that (why didn't Todd Smith, or someone, have a Revs hat to pop on JK's head, why wasn't someone whispering the date of the next game to him when he was asked, ...?).
Because they decided not to replace that intern when he/she left to go back to college. $6/hour is a lot of money. That's the point--if Sonny doesn't do this on his own, someone in the organization should make sure he is prepared when he goes in public to represent the Revs.
While many of the other MLS teams are actively trying to grow their fanbase, the Revs seem to be trying to maximize their profits from the existing set of fans.
As someone who interned for the Revs a few years ago, I can tell you that you overestimate that pay close to tenfold... The pay is as much of a joke as you all make the front office out to be.
So why don't you tell us about the front office now?
That's the whole point - there aren't any profits, and there won't be for quite some time, if ever!
They clearly are trying to minimize their losses, yes, from the existing set of fans.
I would guess with the stadium completion and all that entails, the Revs were presented with a minimal budget this year. I think there was a belief that the stadium would market itself, so no "additional" spending was necessary (if you add some percentage of stadium construction to the Revs expenses, the increase in budget would be fairly large). If the team had played .500 ball, which most of us predicted would be the minimum result of the offseason moves, I doubt we'd be talking about this.
Now that the Krafts have the questions answered about the "stadium construction costs/financing/luxury seating sales", they will be in a better position to evaluate whether more revenue can be brought in with more investment in the Revs.
I think the attitude for this year became clear when someone asked Revs representatives about why no tshirts with season ticket renewals this time, and the reply was "we're giving you a new stadium"!