The answer, according to Andrew Hush, is "no".
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=524551&root=mls&cc=5901
He notes a few of the most ridiculous salaries (e.g. Nik Besagno's salary) and notes "Is it possible to reliably put such varying price tags on unproven players? According to the figures, plus what we have seen with our own eyes, no."
Well Andrew, I think the answer actually depends on what you mean by "reliable". His belief seems to be that MLS overpays based on "potential" (e.g. Project 40/Gen Addidas players) but that "the question of how much money an individual can make from a career in the league is pretty much answered as soon as he puts pen to paper on his first contract." So, the league isn't rewarding those who prove how well they play on the field.
I think Hush is a little guilty of arguing by anecdote, selecting some of the worst offenders (and he's done yeoman's work in sorting through those). So, I decided to look at Nik Besagno's draft and see if, in fact, MLS got it completely wrong in determining what to pay its players.
In the 2005 draft, there were 17 players that were put on developmental roster spots, earning a salary of $16,500 or less. They've had MLS careers of 1307 minutes, each. However, 11 of them (65%) are no longer in the league. The 6 who remain earn an average of $44,000 (only one is still a developmental player-- Amir Lowery).
There were 22 senior roster players out of the 2005 draft who played in 2005 (Tony Lochhead of New England would eventually play in 2006). They've had MLS careers averaging 2803 minutes. 9 (41%) are no longer in the league. Those that remain in the league have an average salary of $88,000.
We can break down the senior roster players into two categories: "high" salary (i.e. more than $40,000) and "medium salary (i.e. between $33,000 and $40,000) players. There were 9 high salary players, who have gone on to have careers averaging 3,111 minutes. 2 (22%) are no longer in the league. In contrast, the 13 medium salary players averaged 2590 minutes and 6 (46%) no longer ply their trade in MLS.
At first glance, it appears that MLS was, in fact, wise to pay the developmental players little and the senior roster players more. What's striking is that, even among the senior roster players, you've still got a very high rate of failure: MLS teams pick guys that don't stick in the league over 40% of the time. This could be impacted by guys that decide to play overseas (Will John, for example), but that's not a huge factor.
So, when Hush asks if there's a reliable way to put price tags on paper, I again go back to the question: what do you mean by reliable, especially when even the "good" players fail 40% of the time? Talent identification is a tough game, but it looks like, overall, the salaries paid do recognize who contributes on the field. Of course, that leaves completely open the question of whether MLS couldn't be doing a better job here.
But what about Hush's assertion that players' salaries are essentially set for life when they sign their first contract?
I'd consider 3000 minutes to be a pretty decent career for a fourth year MLS player, so I looked at each group of players to see if the 2005 developmental players who went on to log 3000 or more minutes were making substantially less in 2008 than their 2005 senior roster counterparts. Here's what I found:
Average 2008 Salary of 2005 High Earner who Played 3000 Minutes: $92,000
Average 2008 Salary of 2005 High Earner who Did Not Play 3000 Minutes: $110,000
Average 2008 Salary of 2005 Medium Earner who Played 3000 Minutes: $65,000
Average 2008 Salary of 2005 Medium Earner who Did Not Play 3000 Minutes: $55,000.
Average 2008 Salary of 2005 Developmental Player who Played 3000 Minutes: $74,000
Average 2008 Salary of 2005 Developmental Player who Did Not Play 3000 Minutes: $29,000.
A couple of things stick out: the 2005 high earners who have stuck around MLS but not had great careers are doing well-- this is largely the effect of Besagno and Kirk. But the other effect at work is that Besagno and Kirk are clearly still in the first contracts. To know if Hush is really right, we'd probably need to look at a few more years-- AND see what happens with Kirk and Besagno after their deals end this year. You want to tell them not to get too used to high life...
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
CONCACAF Champions Cup Failure-- Is It the Salary Cap?
Jeff Carlisle has a few ideas about how to make MLS sides more competitive in the CONCACAF Champions Cup after yet another semi-final failure.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=524521&root=mls&cc=5901
He notes that the salary cap puts MLS teams at a disadvantage. Well, that's definitely true with the Mexican clubs. But what about Saprissa? I imagine they've got a good salary budget but also that it's not ridiculously out of line with MLS. But MLS teams still haven't done well against Costa Rican squads.
If we can afford better players, why aren't we doing better? Costa Rican squads even pull off upsets of Mexican teams, something that MLS teams have only done once since the current home and away format was implemented in the 2002 tournament. In fact, the Costa Rican teams have done SIX times in that same time period.
So what's up? I can think of a few reasons:
(1) MLS players aren't used to the refs. Latin American refs aren't as likely to let the same challenges go as MLS refs do. You can also make the argument that CONCACAF refs simply suck, but frankly that's another question. MLS defenders need to be aware that the games will be called tightly and that home teams will generally get good calls. And... they need to adjust their games accordingly.
(2) MLS players aren't used to the playing style. I remember DC United going down to Mexico City in 2005 with a fairly good squad. They got their rears handed to them 5-0. The much-maligned David Stokes had clearly never seen anything like it. And Mike Petke, who might have, still got himself sent off. This is one of those things that I expected would be better with DC United this year. They've got guys who have played in Libertadores. They've got a healthy South American contingent. And, to their credit, I thought it looked like they knew what they were doing down at Pachuca. But it still wasn't quite enough.
(3) MLS players aren't used to the environment. Playing at Pachuca is hard. Playing at Saprissa is hard. Even Toronto's BMO Field isn't going to compare to the hostility of the crowds. But again, I thought MLS was moving in the right direction by getting more players who are accustomed to these environments. There's just one problem...
(4) Fitness does matter. Last summer's Superliga games between MLS and Mexican opposition may have been glorified friendlies, but they didn't feel that way. If you can draw anything from them, it's that fitness does matter. At this point, some idiot usually says "That's just an excuse." No, it's called an explanation and if you don't understand the different intentions behind excuses and explanations, nothing written in a blog is going to help you.
So, I do wonder if MLS teams wouldn't have better results if they were fit. For that reason, I think Carlisle's suggestion that MLS give CCC teams a few more bye weeks a little self-defeating. The teams would probably prefer not to play on Sunday and then have to fly to Costa Rica, but the fact is that they need more games ahead of the Cup matches-- not fewer. But yes, MLS might want to try to schedule a bit more with Cup ties in mind...
(5) Dollars go further in Central America. I read somewhere that the top salaries in Costa Rica were around $15,000 a month. There are tons of MLS players who make more than that. But if that's the case, then why aren't our guys better than their guys? There's no doubt that if pure dollar amounts were the only thing that mattered, a lot more of the Costa Rican (and dare I say Mexican) stars would be here. But I'm willing to bet than $225,000 goes a lot further in San Jose (Costa Rica) than it does in San Jose (California). As much as the American dream may be attractive to soccer players, living like a prince in your home country also has to be worth something. Macroeconomic factors do have an effect on how attractive players are (as the recent exodus of American players illustrates-- nothing like a cheap dollar to make Nate Jacqua a hot transfer target....)
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=524521&root=mls&cc=5901
He notes that the salary cap puts MLS teams at a disadvantage. Well, that's definitely true with the Mexican clubs. But what about Saprissa? I imagine they've got a good salary budget but also that it's not ridiculously out of line with MLS. But MLS teams still haven't done well against Costa Rican squads.
If we can afford better players, why aren't we doing better? Costa Rican squads even pull off upsets of Mexican teams, something that MLS teams have only done once since the current home and away format was implemented in the 2002 tournament. In fact, the Costa Rican teams have done SIX times in that same time period.
So what's up? I can think of a few reasons:
(1) MLS players aren't used to the refs. Latin American refs aren't as likely to let the same challenges go as MLS refs do. You can also make the argument that CONCACAF refs simply suck, but frankly that's another question. MLS defenders need to be aware that the games will be called tightly and that home teams will generally get good calls. And... they need to adjust their games accordingly.
(2) MLS players aren't used to the playing style. I remember DC United going down to Mexico City in 2005 with a fairly good squad. They got their rears handed to them 5-0. The much-maligned David Stokes had clearly never seen anything like it. And Mike Petke, who might have, still got himself sent off. This is one of those things that I expected would be better with DC United this year. They've got guys who have played in Libertadores. They've got a healthy South American contingent. And, to their credit, I thought it looked like they knew what they were doing down at Pachuca. But it still wasn't quite enough.
(3) MLS players aren't used to the environment. Playing at Pachuca is hard. Playing at Saprissa is hard. Even Toronto's BMO Field isn't going to compare to the hostility of the crowds. But again, I thought MLS was moving in the right direction by getting more players who are accustomed to these environments. There's just one problem...
(4) Fitness does matter. Last summer's Superliga games between MLS and Mexican opposition may have been glorified friendlies, but they didn't feel that way. If you can draw anything from them, it's that fitness does matter. At this point, some idiot usually says "That's just an excuse." No, it's called an explanation and if you don't understand the different intentions behind excuses and explanations, nothing written in a blog is going to help you.
So, I do wonder if MLS teams wouldn't have better results if they were fit. For that reason, I think Carlisle's suggestion that MLS give CCC teams a few more bye weeks a little self-defeating. The teams would probably prefer not to play on Sunday and then have to fly to Costa Rica, but the fact is that they need more games ahead of the Cup matches-- not fewer. But yes, MLS might want to try to schedule a bit more with Cup ties in mind...
(5) Dollars go further in Central America. I read somewhere that the top salaries in Costa Rica were around $15,000 a month. There are tons of MLS players who make more than that. But if that's the case, then why aren't our guys better than their guys? There's no doubt that if pure dollar amounts were the only thing that mattered, a lot more of the Costa Rican (and dare I say Mexican) stars would be here. But I'm willing to bet than $225,000 goes a lot further in San Jose (Costa Rica) than it does in San Jose (California). As much as the American dream may be attractive to soccer players, living like a prince in your home country also has to be worth something. Macroeconomic factors do have an effect on how attractive players are (as the recent exodus of American players illustrates-- nothing like a cheap dollar to make Nate Jacqua a hot transfer target....)
The Caig Diet
A quick look at last night's MLS action:
(1) Don't Be Fooled. Yes, DC United won last night against the best Mexico team of the last decade, pushing their record against Mexican teams to 5-0-4 at home. But DC only scored after Pachuca stopped caring. It's a pattern we've seen again and again-- MLS teams might get on the board when the Mexican teams let up a bit, but don't read anything more into those goals. Sure, there are upsets. Chivas definitely didn't want to lose to United in last year's Copa Sudamericana (especially not after having played nearly half the match with a man advantage). But at the end of the day, DC United could have all of the possession they wanted, but they weren't able to make Pachuca pay until it no longer mattered. Last night was an awful performance, perhaps further hindered by the ref, but United's got no one else to blame for their ponderous, disjointed attack.
Instead of the quicker attack that we saw in Mexico, DC United played slowly. Gallardo wasn't able to make as much use of his ability to distribute quickly. And Emilio hadn't put his shooting boots on when DC's string-pullers did get him the ball. And for a team with a real free kick threat in Gallardo, it was disappointing to see Burch waste a decent free kick late in the game. But it was just one of many.
(2) Don't Be Fooled, part two. Despite a 3-0 scoreline and some fairly negative commentating from Brian Dunseth on Fox Soccer Channel, Houston put together a decent first half of soccer against Saprissa. Houston's passing is incisive just outside the box (especially when compared to United's more intricate midfield play) but they did, as Dunseth pointed out, lack the final pass. However, while Dunsenth attributed this to the field, Houston suffered the same problem in its home match last week. I'm not sure quite what it is-- Houston is putting together some great, truly great sequences, but hasn't been putting them away enough.
But what really caught my eye was Tony Caig's poor play. His distribution was distractingly bad. It's tough to fault a goalkeeper for a deflection, but it looked to me like Caig got down fast enough. He simply didn't make the play. Caig's a great example of why "being on the books of Newcastle [or insert big European team here]" doesn't matter. Big teams make mistakes too. Probably more often than their successes, if youth rosters are any indication. But Caig has been terrible, a few reflex saves notwithstanding. I wonder how much longer he has a job with the Dynamo?
Then the Houston we saw in the second half was a shadow of its first half self. The game was over from the 46th minute, despite what the scoreline said.
3. Don't Be Fooled by last week. I didn't see the KC-Revs match, but it confirmed something for me: yes, the Revs are fine despite their shortmanned shellacking by the Fire last week and, in fact, are going to be a good team. Can their young Gambians (who each contributed a goal) keep it up? I think the odds are going up rapidly. And if they do, when the Revs get Twellman and Ralston back, coach Nichol is either going to have a headache or the best team in the league.
I don't really have any opinion on KC but dropping three at home isn't good. I found it interesting that new signing Trujillo didn't even enter the match.
(1) Don't Be Fooled. Yes, DC United won last night against the best Mexico team of the last decade, pushing their record against Mexican teams to 5-0-4 at home. But DC only scored after Pachuca stopped caring. It's a pattern we've seen again and again-- MLS teams might get on the board when the Mexican teams let up a bit, but don't read anything more into those goals. Sure, there are upsets. Chivas definitely didn't want to lose to United in last year's Copa Sudamericana (especially not after having played nearly half the match with a man advantage). But at the end of the day, DC United could have all of the possession they wanted, but they weren't able to make Pachuca pay until it no longer mattered. Last night was an awful performance, perhaps further hindered by the ref, but United's got no one else to blame for their ponderous, disjointed attack.
Instead of the quicker attack that we saw in Mexico, DC United played slowly. Gallardo wasn't able to make as much use of his ability to distribute quickly. And Emilio hadn't put his shooting boots on when DC's string-pullers did get him the ball. And for a team with a real free kick threat in Gallardo, it was disappointing to see Burch waste a decent free kick late in the game. But it was just one of many.
(2) Don't Be Fooled, part two. Despite a 3-0 scoreline and some fairly negative commentating from Brian Dunseth on Fox Soccer Channel, Houston put together a decent first half of soccer against Saprissa. Houston's passing is incisive just outside the box (especially when compared to United's more intricate midfield play) but they did, as Dunseth pointed out, lack the final pass. However, while Dunsenth attributed this to the field, Houston suffered the same problem in its home match last week. I'm not sure quite what it is-- Houston is putting together some great, truly great sequences, but hasn't been putting them away enough.
But what really caught my eye was Tony Caig's poor play. His distribution was distractingly bad. It's tough to fault a goalkeeper for a deflection, but it looked to me like Caig got down fast enough. He simply didn't make the play. Caig's a great example of why "being on the books of Newcastle [or insert big European team here]" doesn't matter. Big teams make mistakes too. Probably more often than their successes, if youth rosters are any indication. But Caig has been terrible, a few reflex saves notwithstanding. I wonder how much longer he has a job with the Dynamo?
Then the Houston we saw in the second half was a shadow of its first half self. The game was over from the 46th minute, despite what the scoreline said.
3. Don't Be Fooled by last week. I didn't see the KC-Revs match, but it confirmed something for me: yes, the Revs are fine despite their shortmanned shellacking by the Fire last week and, in fact, are going to be a good team. Can their young Gambians (who each contributed a goal) keep it up? I think the odds are going up rapidly. And if they do, when the Revs get Twellman and Ralston back, coach Nichol is either going to have a headache or the best team in the league.
I don't really have any opinion on KC but dropping three at home isn't good. I found it interesting that new signing Trujillo didn't even enter the match.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
There's just one problem with the plan.
DC United coach Tom Soehn has the perfect plan to come back from 2-0 down against Pachuca in tomorrow night's Champions Cup tie:
"If you let them have control of possession, [Pachuca star midfielder Giménez] is a big problem," said Soehn. "If you can dictate the terms a little bit more and have control of the ball, I think that in some ways he becomes a liability because his first thought isn't always defending."
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=523916&root=mls&cc=5901
I think Soehn's certainly right. If DC can dictate the terms to Pachuca and have control of the ball, they might just have a chance.
There's just a small problem with that scenario. MLS teams, so far, haven't shown that they know what to do with possession. It's a flaw that stretches from the MLS dregs all the way to the US national team: if you let American teams have possession, they don't know what to do with it and you can counter them mercilessly. By and large, you can even foul American teams pretty hard and be safe because you know they haven't traditionally been all that strong on set pieces.
I've seen evidence that this is changing. Witness the US crushing Poland on set pieces. Or even look at DC's first half in Mexico. And, with all of DC United's new additions, does it even make sense to compare them with MLS clubs of the past?
I'm optimistic that United is capable of a stronger, more dangerous possession game than we've ever seen from American teams. But if they do succeed in dictating the game to Pachuca instead of just racking up garbage possession, make no mistake: it will be a first for the league. Yes, the Mexican league is still stronger than MLS, but isn't it time for an upset? I'll be at the match tomorrow, undoubtedly standing on my chair yelling if it is so.
"If you let them have control of possession, [Pachuca star midfielder Giménez] is a big problem," said Soehn. "If you can dictate the terms a little bit more and have control of the ball, I think that in some ways he becomes a liability because his first thought isn't always defending."
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=523916&root=mls&cc=5901
I think Soehn's certainly right. If DC can dictate the terms to Pachuca and have control of the ball, they might just have a chance.
There's just a small problem with that scenario. MLS teams, so far, haven't shown that they know what to do with possession. It's a flaw that stretches from the MLS dregs all the way to the US national team: if you let American teams have possession, they don't know what to do with it and you can counter them mercilessly. By and large, you can even foul American teams pretty hard and be safe because you know they haven't traditionally been all that strong on set pieces.
I've seen evidence that this is changing. Witness the US crushing Poland on set pieces. Or even look at DC's first half in Mexico. And, with all of DC United's new additions, does it even make sense to compare them with MLS clubs of the past?
I'm optimistic that United is capable of a stronger, more dangerous possession game than we've ever seen from American teams. But if they do succeed in dictating the game to Pachuca instead of just racking up garbage possession, make no mistake: it will be a first for the league. Yes, the Mexican league is still stronger than MLS, but isn't it time for an upset? I'll be at the match tomorrow, undoubtedly standing on my chair yelling if it is so.
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Road to MLS Cup XIII, Week Two
1. Lots of goals. The average was four goals a game. In fact, this has been a pretty fast start for goals-- the league is averaging 3.3 goals a game over the first two weeks. Compare that to the period from 2002-2004 when the league averaged around 2.2 goals a game over the fist couple of weeks. Those years are rightly seen as tough years for MLS from a quality of play perspective.
So is this recent jump in goals a result of bringing in high-priced attackers without bringing in comparably excellent defenders? Maybe. MLS newbies have done pretty well. But last year, when some of the best newbies joined, the scoring average was actually down for the first couple of weeks (JP Angel, of course, arrived a few more games into the season). But the big jump in goals scored from 2.2 of the 2002-2004 era to around 3 goals a game actually first occured in 2005-- an expansion year. So I think the number of goals we're seeing is due to two things: (1) great scoring talent and (2) diluted defending. A number of teams look fairly disjointed defensively, including the Fire, DC United, Toronto, San Jose, LA, Houston, Dallas, Real Salt Lake, KC... Wait-- I could probably just name the entire league.
2. Speaking of defending. I said it last year, but the imports are going to show MLS defenders a little bit about free kicks. Free kicks are much more dangerous than they've ever been in this league. Case in point: Toronto's big signing, Laurent Robert, sent a long (40 yards or so) free kick towards the end line-- it looks like it's hit way too far. The United defenders gave up on it. But Jeff Cunningham didn't and suddenly the ball stops arching and just drops to him. He heads the ball across the goal and it hits the cross bar. You could see the players and the fans sort of looking at each other and saying "WTF just happened?"
So is this recent jump in goals a result of bringing in high-priced attackers without bringing in comparably excellent defenders? Maybe. MLS newbies have done pretty well. But last year, when some of the best newbies joined, the scoring average was actually down for the first couple of weeks (JP Angel, of course, arrived a few more games into the season). But the big jump in goals scored from 2.2 of the 2002-2004 era to around 3 goals a game actually first occured in 2005-- an expansion year. So I think the number of goals we're seeing is due to two things: (1) great scoring talent and (2) diluted defending. A number of teams look fairly disjointed defensively, including the Fire, DC United, Toronto, San Jose, LA, Houston, Dallas, Real Salt Lake, KC... Wait-- I could probably just name the entire league.
2. Speaking of defending. I said it last year, but the imports are going to show MLS defenders a little bit about free kicks. Free kicks are much more dangerous than they've ever been in this league. Case in point: Toronto's big signing, Laurent Robert, sent a long (40 yards or so) free kick towards the end line-- it looks like it's hit way too far. The United defenders gave up on it. But Jeff Cunningham didn't and suddenly the ball stops arching and just drops to him. He heads the ball across the goal and it hits the cross bar. You could see the players and the fans sort of looking at each other and saying "WTF just happened?"
Friday, April 4, 2008
Bizarro World (Continued)
The Revs crush the Dynamo and, in turn, are crushed by the Fire.
The Galaxy are crushed by the Rapids and, in turn, crush the San Jose Earthquakes.
None of these results are, by themselves, really all that surprising, but put together, they sure make a decent case for the existence of karma. Or at least an ESPN Primetime Curse.
Each game was interesting, although truth be told, the Fire-Revs matchup was a much better match. Even when the Revs lost Jeff Larentowicz to a soft red card in the 7th minute, the Revs continued to threaten Fire goalkeeper Jon Busch. For a team that lost 4-0, New England looked pretty good. Their young additions Nyassi and Mansally created problems for the Fire-- Mansally's skill created a few of New England's 11 corner kicks. The Revs have always had a fairly sticky midfield with Shalrie Joseph, with the ball always landing at his feet, but the young players, in addition to offseason addition Mauricio Castro, seem to give New England an element of surprise that they lacked, even with since-departed better players like Dempsey, Noonan and Dorman. It's hard to take much out of a match with an early ejection, but in bizarro world MLS, I found myself thinking that New England established themselves as an excellent team, even in a disasterous defeat. With Taylor Twellman in the lineup, you just know they would have finished at least a couple of their 11 corners.
The Fire, on the other hand, still look flawed. The Fire defense looked vulnerable and I have to think they'll be punished in the future. The attack looked, I suppose, better. New Polish attacker Thomasz Frankowski scored a pair of goals that I'm not sure Chad Barrett would have finished, but Chad Barrett scored a decent goal himself. Blanco got involved and showed his ability to hold onto the ball and kill the game. But despite the offensive fireworks, I found myself unconvinced by the Chicago attack. They've got an absolutely loaded midfield with Blanco, Mapp and Rolfe, but it didn't quite seem to click. I'm especially curious if Frankowski is going to continue to score goals. On the plus side, Barrett had a couple of nice runs and showed better decision-making.
But then again, I've got a soft spot for guys who suck. I want to believe that Chad Barrett is going to be a star, and, no, not just because he looks vaguely like Wayne Rooney. I remember feeling similarly about Matt Taylor of Chivas USA. Formerly of Chivas USA, at least.
Speaking of guys who aren't very good, how about Alan Gordon? On the same day Chad Barrett scores, Alan Gordon of the LA Galaxy gets a secondary assist in the Gal's win over the San Jose Earthquakes. But the predictions of those who said that Gordon would become a 10 goal scorer on the back of David Beckham's crosses look to be off by about 8 or 9 goals. I really want to see Gordon succeed-- I just have doubts about whether it will happen.
But his Galaxy got a much-needed win against the expansion Earthquakes. It was a poor match. The Earthquakes looked completely disjointed: their was no midfield to speak of, so defenders took to launching balls towards the relatively weak Quake forwards. Ronnie O'Brien, at times one of the best players in the league, was curiously absent. For a team that was supposed to have a solid core defensively, the Quakes seemed to lack a little nastiness. I know they're probably looking for a marquee attacker, but I half wonder if they wouldn't do better going after Pablo Mastroeni, or at least someone like him...
The Galaxy deserve some credit, too: both goals were scored because David Beckham can pass a ball and Landon DOnovan is quick with great vision. In other words, they were scored for reasons that make sense given how the team was constructed. Donovan's speed was, in particular, necessary for both goals-- he was simply doing what he does best. Beckham did fine, although some with high expectations of him may still claim to be disappointed.
The Galaxy are crushed by the Rapids and, in turn, crush the San Jose Earthquakes.
None of these results are, by themselves, really all that surprising, but put together, they sure make a decent case for the existence of karma. Or at least an ESPN Primetime Curse.
Each game was interesting, although truth be told, the Fire-Revs matchup was a much better match. Even when the Revs lost Jeff Larentowicz to a soft red card in the 7th minute, the Revs continued to threaten Fire goalkeeper Jon Busch. For a team that lost 4-0, New England looked pretty good. Their young additions Nyassi and Mansally created problems for the Fire-- Mansally's skill created a few of New England's 11 corner kicks. The Revs have always had a fairly sticky midfield with Shalrie Joseph, with the ball always landing at his feet, but the young players, in addition to offseason addition Mauricio Castro, seem to give New England an element of surprise that they lacked, even with since-departed better players like Dempsey, Noonan and Dorman. It's hard to take much out of a match with an early ejection, but in bizarro world MLS, I found myself thinking that New England established themselves as an excellent team, even in a disasterous defeat. With Taylor Twellman in the lineup, you just know they would have finished at least a couple of their 11 corners.
The Fire, on the other hand, still look flawed. The Fire defense looked vulnerable and I have to think they'll be punished in the future. The attack looked, I suppose, better. New Polish attacker Thomasz Frankowski scored a pair of goals that I'm not sure Chad Barrett would have finished, but Chad Barrett scored a decent goal himself. Blanco got involved and showed his ability to hold onto the ball and kill the game. But despite the offensive fireworks, I found myself unconvinced by the Chicago attack. They've got an absolutely loaded midfield with Blanco, Mapp and Rolfe, but it didn't quite seem to click. I'm especially curious if Frankowski is going to continue to score goals. On the plus side, Barrett had a couple of nice runs and showed better decision-making.
But then again, I've got a soft spot for guys who suck. I want to believe that Chad Barrett is going to be a star, and, no, not just because he looks vaguely like Wayne Rooney. I remember feeling similarly about Matt Taylor of Chivas USA. Formerly of Chivas USA, at least.
Speaking of guys who aren't very good, how about Alan Gordon? On the same day Chad Barrett scores, Alan Gordon of the LA Galaxy gets a secondary assist in the Gal's win over the San Jose Earthquakes. But the predictions of those who said that Gordon would become a 10 goal scorer on the back of David Beckham's crosses look to be off by about 8 or 9 goals. I really want to see Gordon succeed-- I just have doubts about whether it will happen.
But his Galaxy got a much-needed win against the expansion Earthquakes. It was a poor match. The Earthquakes looked completely disjointed: their was no midfield to speak of, so defenders took to launching balls towards the relatively weak Quake forwards. Ronnie O'Brien, at times one of the best players in the league, was curiously absent. For a team that was supposed to have a solid core defensively, the Quakes seemed to lack a little nastiness. I know they're probably looking for a marquee attacker, but I half wonder if they wouldn't do better going after Pablo Mastroeni, or at least someone like him...
The Galaxy deserve some credit, too: both goals were scored because David Beckham can pass a ball and Landon DOnovan is quick with great vision. In other words, they were scored for reasons that make sense given how the team was constructed. Donovan's speed was, in particular, necessary for both goals-- he was simply doing what he does best. Beckham did fine, although some with high expectations of him may still claim to be disappointed.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Pretty Futbol and Efficiency-- Bizarro World Edition
In a reversal of roles of sorts, an American team danced with the ball, moved effortlessly around the field and put on a dazzling attacking display, yet failed to score a goal.
The Houston Dynamo couldn't find a way to take advantage of their possession last night against Costa Rican champion Saprissa. Houston looked good. At the end of the 0-0 draw, I thought that Houston must have had nearly 20 shots. A look at the box score this morning confirmed it: Houston had 17 shots.
Part of the problem was that few of them were on goal: only 4 of 17. But not every dangerous opportunity that Houston created ended in a shot on goal (especially Ching's late header just over the bar), so the bigger problem is that none of them went in.
There was a lot to like about how the Dynamo played: DeRosario looked dangerous. New striker Franco Caraccio looked decent. In fact, about the only Houston player who looked bad was newcomer Geoff Cameron. It turns out that playing for the University of Rhode Island is not good preparation for playing the Costa Rican champions. He wasted a couple of possessions for Houston late in the game, when they most needed to press. It wasn't really Cameron's fault: he's a young player fresh out of the completely different college game. Houston's lost a little attacking depth this year and injuries to Stuart Holden and Brad Davis made it even more apparent. But Houston needed a late game changer, and it didn't have one.
The real question is how surprised we should be by all of this. Houston can be fairly said to be unlucky that at least one of its close calls didn't go in, but Saprissa, despite conceding possession entirely to Houston, had a couple of equally dangerous chances (Saprissa actually put more shots on frame-- 7 to Houston's 4).
But the simple fact is that MLS teams aren't better than Costa Rican teams yet. MLS teams have struggled mightily, compiling a record of three wins, three ties and six losses against Tico teams. Series victories against Costa Rican clubs in the Champions Cup are uncommon, although Houston beat Costa Rica's Puntarenas last year. Simply put, MLS teams are still underdogs. And when Houston goes to Costa Rica, it's fair to say they'll be heavy underdogs. That's why it was a real shame that Houston, for all their pretty futbol, just couldn't get the goals last night.
The Houston Dynamo couldn't find a way to take advantage of their possession last night against Costa Rican champion Saprissa. Houston looked good. At the end of the 0-0 draw, I thought that Houston must have had nearly 20 shots. A look at the box score this morning confirmed it: Houston had 17 shots.
Part of the problem was that few of them were on goal: only 4 of 17. But not every dangerous opportunity that Houston created ended in a shot on goal (especially Ching's late header just over the bar), so the bigger problem is that none of them went in.
There was a lot to like about how the Dynamo played: DeRosario looked dangerous. New striker Franco Caraccio looked decent. In fact, about the only Houston player who looked bad was newcomer Geoff Cameron. It turns out that playing for the University of Rhode Island is not good preparation for playing the Costa Rican champions. He wasted a couple of possessions for Houston late in the game, when they most needed to press. It wasn't really Cameron's fault: he's a young player fresh out of the completely different college game. Houston's lost a little attacking depth this year and injuries to Stuart Holden and Brad Davis made it even more apparent. But Houston needed a late game changer, and it didn't have one.
The real question is how surprised we should be by all of this. Houston can be fairly said to be unlucky that at least one of its close calls didn't go in, but Saprissa, despite conceding possession entirely to Houston, had a couple of equally dangerous chances (Saprissa actually put more shots on frame-- 7 to Houston's 4).
But the simple fact is that MLS teams aren't better than Costa Rican teams yet. MLS teams have struggled mightily, compiling a record of three wins, three ties and six losses against Tico teams. Series victories against Costa Rican clubs in the Champions Cup are uncommon, although Houston beat Costa Rica's Puntarenas last year. Simply put, MLS teams are still underdogs. And when Houston goes to Costa Rica, it's fair to say they'll be heavy underdogs. That's why it was a real shame that Houston, for all their pretty futbol, just couldn't get the goals last night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)