At this point it is a fair question. We have watched two years of mediocre soccer or worse, punctuated by one hot streak at the right time. We see occasional flashes of skill, buried in mounds of plodding mediocrity. We see repeated end-of-game collapses and a team that can't seem to lock down points in hand. I know about the coaching, and it doesn't help. But I am begining to wonder if the problem isn't deeper than that even.
both or neither. neither - who is over rating us? certainly no other team seems to rate us that highly. then again that's probably what won us the mls cup, a series of teams that underestimated us and we managed to actually put together a few decent games. both - we fans expect 1998 style play and victories, but the reality of the league precludes that from happening again (for now). of course the team is performing more like san jose circa 1998.
Well, for one, team managment. You don't stand pat unless you think you have the talent to compete and win. And this is not just Steve, its also Doug's legacy.
Underperforming. For whatever reason, the team was playing better early in the pre-season (Saprissa games) than they have with additional "coaching". Remember we had some combination play up the left side in the preseason (Sturgis/Gardner) -- but that was shut down by what must have been one heck of a halftime talk by SS. Over-rated? Sure, even with the low expectations I had for the team we haven't even lived up to that. We added so little in personnel who could immediately help to the team in the offseason. I was expecting mediocrity this season with at least three 1-touch combinations a game, a little flash and flare. Instead we get a whole lot of send it over the top and pray.
Underperforming. Based on our players: 1. Hartman: US NAt 2. Tyrone: Jam Nat 3. Dunivant: US NAT 4. Albright: US NAT 5. Peter Vagenas: uhmmm...has watched a nat game. 6. Donovan: da US NAT 7. Cobi: Admittedly aging, but was bringing it up until this year. US NAT. 8. Herc: Soph slump, but one of the top 4 strikers in the league last year. 9. C-Glen: TnT Nat 10. Nags: Arsenal. nuf said. 11. Ugo: I think he was capped. at least good enough to get a camp-call. 12. Kirk: U-20? Nat team. 13. Chub-boy: hate to say it but... was on the u-17.. (right?) There ya go, we could field a team of Nat team players. What other team could do that? (wait, no need to spend an hour checking, you get my point.)
with the MLS heavy NAT games lately, most teams in the league could field a mostly NAT team. i still think the team lost a lot of steam after Hamilton's death. until then, the Galaxy were looking pretty good, much better than NE.
Its a bit of both, we without a doubt have a quality bench now, yet our ingenious coach is both playing the wrong players, and playing the right players in the wrong position. Nagamura as left wing, and Vagenas as "center/attacking midfielder". On the otherhand, our team doesn't have versatile players that can play almost any position. Thus we aren't as good as we like to believe. An example is Vagenas. Who is no doubt not a versatile player.
I was thinking about this after the game too. In the past, I’ve always believed that we were underperforming, but now I’m really considering the possibility that we are just not very good. However, distinguishing between offense and defense is important. Despite the late goals, I think our defense is good. Giving up the late goals is emotionally hard, but because of that, I think that it tends to make things look worse than they really are. After all, our substitutions have tended to be attacking substitutions, so it’s not like we are bunkering at the end of games. Our defenders: Vagenas: solid starter as D-mid Dunivant: Borderline nat Marshall: Jamaican nat, and candidate for 2005 defender of the year Albright: Borderline nat and 2005 best XI Ihemelu: inconsistent starter Hartman: Borderline nat Given this group, we should be good. Goals Against per game (through this weekend) NE 0.33 DC 0.75 CHV 1.00 KC 1.00 LA 1.00 DAL 1.50 CHI 1.67 CLB 1.75 HOU 1.75 NY 1.75 RSL 2.00 CLB 2.67 Tied for third best – we are pretty much performing at the expected level. Could be better, but certainly not underachieving. On the attacking side, the situation is different. We pick 5 attacking players from this set. Landon – great, nat star Glen - unproven Cobi – was great, now? Herc – one great year Grabavoy - unproven Gardner - unproven Nagamura – unproven as an attacker Our expectations for this group depend a lot on how things pan out. Can Cobi still play? Will Herc have a great second year? Will the unproven players prove themselves? The answers to all these questions could reasonably turn out to be “no”. Goals For per game: DC 2.50 COL 2.33 DAL 2.25 HOU 2.00 KC 1.75 CHI 1.33 CHV 1.33 CLB 1.00 NY 1.00 LA 0.75 RSL 0.75 NE 0.33 Tied for second worst If the answers to the questions above are all negative, then we aren’t underperforming, we just are not a very good team (outside of Landon and the defense).
Good post, but you have to also take a step back and look at the bigger picture. New England is at the bottom, we can all agree that Twellman, Noonan, and Dempsey are good players, and goal scorers. But right now they are having trouble putting some balls into the net, does this mean they are an over-rated team? Or just underperforming? You do make a good point when you say our dependance on Cobi and Herc is hurting us. LA needs a new injection of blood, our team is getting old, and some of our younger players are either not playing or not playing their position, which has to be taken into account. This is where Steve's coaching comes in.
NE, for me, is definitely underperforming in terms of offense given all their attacking talent. I haven't watched them much, but maybe they have shifted to a team focus on defense, which has helped the D but hurt the O.
Actually, for the sake of discussion, they have stayed with the 3-4-3, so they are actually playing more offense-minded, just lacking a playmaker. And maybe, just like LA, they too need some new blood.