Unfit for 90 in KC

by Dave Clark on Oct 17, 2009 9:33 AM PDT in Sounders: MLS Regular Season

Sometimes people pass things on that I have missed. In this case it isn't a minor detail, but a rather disturbing statement from the KC interim coach Peter Vermes. Thanks Leo.

He admits in public that his team is unfit.

"The thing that is hard for me to swallow is when we lose the game based on fitness," Vermes said. "And you can just see that we’re just not fit enough to carry the game for 90 minutes."

"To see that our team is like that at this point of the season is a little bit disappointing. I think the guys realize that, too; they’re dying out at the end of the game."

Vermes has been associated with the coaching staff of the club for three years, and so some of the blame must reside on him, but if their organization is similar to Seattle's his previous role was to be a scout. He has to find fitter talent, and honestly a team of professionals must be able to play 90 minutes.

Does this mean that the Sounders bring on speed late? Maybe start Levesque and Jaqua rather than Zakuani and Le Toux, and then in the second half bring on Zakuani, Le Toux and Nyassi in order to take advantage of a team that has admitted that they have fatigue issues?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that teams should play their own game, their own style. During the match the Sounders could make adjustments to what they see. But Sigi needs to force the Sounders style and identity on the match, and not over think.

Seattle is a better team, there is no need for a gimmick to win this one

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If a team has fatigue issues isn’t it better to play your regular fast players earlier to get the opponents to a state of fatigue earlier in the match? Keep Seba and Nyassi on the bench for if/when that happens, but I see no advantage in not starting Zak.

by Ben R on Oct 17, 2009 9:57 AM PDT reply actions

Ben, I’m of the opinion that you play the players most likely to get you a victory the longest. So often though I have been told that there is an advantage to having the fast players come off the bench late.

I believe the concept is that the player(s) may be only 10% faster early in the match, but late they would be say 25% faster as fatigue sets in and they are fresh.

by Dave Clark on Oct 17, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions

I think the advantage of bringing on fast players is diminished if you haven’t run the team ragged in the first place. If you’re allowing KC to run at three-quarters speed for the first part of the game, the fatigue will not accumulate as quickly, extending the time they’ll be able to hang with the Sounders.

So I’d favor having at least one fast player in at the beginning and then adding more between the 60th and 70th minutes. What I’d really like to see, other than goals obviously, is consistent attacking pressure by the Sounders, forcing the KC defense to chase them for big parts of the game. Soaking up attacking pressure is a difficult, exhausting way to play and even very good teams will slip up here and there, giving up scoring opportunities. If we can force KC to play that way, I would feel very confident of a Sounders victory.

by CarlosT on Oct 17, 2009 3:32 PM PDT reply actions

I’m wondering if that “admission” was a little bit of psyops by Vermes — KC looked less prone to fatigue than we did, especially in the second half. Still, we were able to gut it out, in a game that, had the bounces gone our way, should have been 5-2 or better.

by James Walley on Oct 17, 2009 7:45 PM PDT reply actions