Sigi Schmid's Ever Changing Tactics
Last Saturday, the match featured four seperate formational/tactical systems. As noted there was the lopsided 4-diamond-2, the traditional 4-diamond-2 and the concave 4-3-3. In the final moments we also saw a fairly typical pull the forward for a CB move to upgrade the defense. Seattle Sounders FC Coach Sigi Schmid is in fact trying new things, doing it in games that matter, and he's earning points while trying to learn the best way forward for the team until the Summer Transfer Window opens.
Today Sigi was asked about the midfield diamond and this was part of his response;
A system is merely a conduit to allow the players to best use their abilities and that’s what we are trying to do.
Not to get too excited, but that is awesome. Sigi has been a coach that found players to fit his system, but right now he doesn't have those players and he's trying to find ways to feature his best players and amplify every one's abilities. The experiment I liked the best was the late shift to the concave 4-3-3 with a front three from left to right of Mike Fucito - Fredy Montero - Nate Jaqua. It wasn't just great because it got my favorite player on the ptich with the team's best offensive player, but it was an effective way to feature the midfield at the time. It also had a greater than 6 footer out there for set-play work late.
This concave 4-3-3 puts Montero in that trequartista role, but it also pulls Alvaro Fernandez and an if healthy Brad Evans into more central positions than even the diamond. Putting two of Fucito, Jaqua and Mauro Rosales (if healthy) up top to start would ensure a little bit of speed, provide a scoring threat still on the bench and allow for a shift to the more typical system as well. With the forward line pushed wider than typical the fullbacks wouldn't need to go as far past the centerline helping reduce the effect of counters.
| Fucito | Rosales | |||
| Montero | ||||
| Alvaro | Evans | |||
| Wahl | Alonso | Riley | ||
| Ianni | Parke | |||
| Keller |
While it looks slightly like a diamond the width of forwards and the role of Montero gave it a 4-3-3 feel. Two months ago if someone suggested this as a way for Seattle to move forward I would have laughed as it would have been outside of Sigi's system. Those thoughts can disappear. Sigi will look for ways to win, without regard for his long tested systems.
(On the diamond midfield…) "I don’t know. We might switch back this week so you don’t know. It’s just a matter of, again, you use the talents of the players that you have. We wanted to see how it would look with Mauro [Rosales] underneath so we wanted to take a look at that. We wanted to open up some space on the flanks for our outside backs. I thought [James] Riley got forward at times. Tyson [Wahl] got forward at times as well. We just figured it suited our personnel a little bit better. […] A system is merely a conduit to allow the players to best use their abilities and that’s what we are trying to do."
The rest of Schmid's quotes include a health update
(On importance of upcoming games…) "Obviously [they are] important games because we are playing teams in our division and that’s always important, measure ourselves against Dallas, measure ourselves against Salt Lake in Salt Lake is going to be important for us. But the first task at hand is Dallas at home and we want to do very well."
(On FC Dallas…) "They still have a lot of threats. Obviously Brek Shea had a good season for them last year and he’s still a good player. The players up front for them, Marvin Chavez has been playing up front. He’s fast. They’ve got good team speed. [Fabian] Castillo, the other forward, has good speed, good quickness as well. They bring in [Eric] Avila off the bench. He’s another guy who is pretty quick. […] They are a team that is trying to adjust also and they’ve had a good streak. They’ve had quite a few home games in that streak and they took advantage of their run at home. We need to do the same."
(On three matches in one week…) "Well, today we didn’t train very hard, making sure we get some energy back. It’s just a matter of everybody managing their bodies. A three-game in a week schedule is something that we’ve experienced often times in the past, especially last year and we will experience that again in the future. It’s a matter of you got to look at your individual players. Some guys might need a rest. Some guys can come back on pretty short notice. Obviously we have got some guys who are injured who we are still trying to work back into the team so maybe that will give us the opportunity to rest some people as well."
(On Sounders FC injuries…) "Mauro [Rosales] feels fine after the game so we will see how he feels tomorrow but he was fine today and did what he had to do today, normal stuff. [Brad] Evans was in training today and so he said he felt fine. We will see how he feels tomorrow. [Erik] Friberg was in training as well so he feels fine. And again, each day we will see how he feels."
106 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Your 4-3-3 looks good on paper
but I have a hard time seeing Sigi actually start Fucito, especially at left forward/wing. He looks at him like he’s Fredy’s little brother.
Jaqua would be on the right, as per Sat Night
and he has time as a right mid during his career.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Where would Rosales and/or Friberg fit into the 4-3-3?
Both seem to fit best into the Montero role as the trequartista, but without his shot making ability. I don’t know that either make me feel comfortable defensively in the RM or LM roles.
I guess that was the point though… his best, healthy players fit into the 4-3-3 so that’s what he used. If his best healthy players fit well in a 4 <4> 2, then that’s what he’d use. Count me excited.
If you can't shoot you aren't a treq
I had Rosales up top
Friberg could be either LM or RM. He isn’t good with feet on chalk.
But your last portion is key.
I guess that was the point though… his best, healthy players fit into the 4-3-3 so that’s what he used. If his best healthy players fit well in a 4 <4> 2, then that’s what he’d use.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Definately Montero's cover in two forward roles
but in this he isn’t. Fucito doesn’t have the short passing skills for the fine work there.
He’s mid to long passes are fine, and his experience as a Left Mid and Forward kind of lend themselves to the Left wing.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Oh, i'm not convinced it will happen at the start
and it certainly isn’t going to be our projected lineup for the matchday card.
But it is probably something that Sigi has explored mentally.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
FIFA
Not that it is indicative of real life, but I run the 4-3-1-2 with the Sounders on FIFA 11 and Montero shines so much in that free CF role. I would love to see more of it from Sigi’s side.
Has Sigi
A system is merely a conduit to allow the players to best use their abilities and that’s what we are trying to do.
been replaced by a Chuck Knox “Play the hand you’re dealt” cyborg? Because yes, that’s awesome.
You will hear us on Brougham, you will hear us on Occidental, you will hear us on King. We are all around you, there is no escape.
I'll wait to get excited...
until he starts a game with that principle in mind.
yeah and with that lineup
i would love that lineup! i just dont think it will happen
He stared the last game with that in mind
That the results didn’t work did not mean he didn’t change from his standard system
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
really?
…starting Levesque doesn’t represent putting your best 11 on the field and tooling the system to the personnel. I’d argue the same goes for Wahl vs. Gonzalez. He may be “trying” to tune the system to feature his best players, I’m happy to see him say so and I’m happy he experimented at the end of the game…. but this TF nonsense is 1) nothing particularly new and 2) antithetical to that sentiment. He started the game with a pretty clear example of letting the system make a questionable personnel decision.
the lopsided diamond was new
did reflect a change and is not something that we have seen before
The total package was a shift away from his standard system
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
which doesn't change that underlying point...
…that Sigi attempted to stick with one element of his system (i.e., the TF/WF frontline) in order to change it less, and in doing so started a weaker player.
weaker player than who?
How much change should a coach implement in a single week?
But I do note that you are now admitting that he did change his system. Even the traditional diamond is a change for Sigi.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Fucito...
rather clearly (imho)
…seeing any of Neagle, Estrada or Montano given a chance would at this point be more than justified.
by nimajneb on May 23, 2011 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
...and you'll note...
…that i never said the system WASN’T a change, but rather that it did not completely adhere to the best player principle.
How much change? – that wasn’t exactly the point being argued… but as it happens, given the sounders’ recent play I would have preferred to see that bit of change prioritized over shifting the midfield.
You said
I’ll wait to get excited… until he starts a game with that principle in mind.
which is what I found odd, because the system changed. He did it with the idea that he was putting his players in the roles that would, to quote sigi, " best use their abilities"
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
but not with the best 11 players
…he modified the scheme considerably for Toronto and D.C. as well. Sigi is clearly willing to shift to meet demands of fitness and try to change the system to suit, but that’s not the ideal stated above.
Again, the ideal he mentions
A system is merely a conduit to allow the players to best use their abilities and that’s what we are trying to do.
Is not what you are saying it is. Best 11 is a nebulous concept.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
your words...
Not to get too excited, but that is awesome. Sigi has been a coach that found players to fit his system, but right now he doesn’t have those players and he’s trying to find ways to feature his best players and amplify every one’s abilities.
I’m following up on that.
The translation I think you are looking for is that he is finding himself constrained to a particular set of personnel given the circumstances, and that he will change the system to suit the players on the field and take advantage of their strengths. That’s good. Heck, given the absence of Zakuani and the need to best utilize Fernandez and Rosales it’s near imperative. However:
He’s also choosing to demand his personnel fit into a"big" TF and a “small” WF with the effect that he forces a player into a role for which he’s lakcing the appropriate skills at the MLS level. That’s bad, and that’s moving in exactly the opposite direction to the flexibility articulated above. He did that at the start of the game on Saturday, and I’ll wait to get excited about his mouth service to change until he doesn’t.
Except Levesque didn't work as a Target last match
What he did was find a way to feature a few players and their best abilities. The rest of the roster was formed around that.
Carrasco was in as a right mid. Something clearly different. But what it allowed was for Riley to get forward more often. This permitted him to cross lofted balls to Alvaro in open space at the elbow.
Montero was at the top of the 18, and Levesque was over on the right elbow. Rosales was about 25 yards out and centered.
Alvaro could dribble in, pass short to Montero, pop it up to Levesque or drop it back to Rosales.
This sequence was repeated several times and is not something we would see as often with a Jaqua or White in the Target role.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no...
…and inasmuch as Levesque was not a TF, that only adds weight to the point that he shouldn’t be starting.
but im pretty sure levesque was started with the intention of him being a TF
not that i agree with that
Why would you think that they system wasn't intentionally changed
when all indications are that it was?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
are you arguing that...
Levesque wasn’t given the start for the big/small pairing?
Whether that is Sigi’s traditional target/withdrawn setup is somewhat immaterial if Levesque was nevertheless intended to play a bit of a hybrid role… and there were certainly points in the match where he was asked to fill some “target” responsibilities as an advanced, big forward.
I'm arguing that the system was intentionally changed
And it was done so to highlight players’ best abilities.
Alvaro at the elbow
Montero withdrawn
Riley with more freedom to attack
Rosales with ball at feet
Levesque with opportunities to poach
Wahl for set-plays
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I am able to acknowledge all of these...
…and it doesn’t change two things:
1) Levesque got the start in keeping with tall/small elements of the usual system.
2) That decision has the opposite effect to the innovation you state above.
I’m happy that Sigi is willing to tweak the system to the benefit of players on the field.
I’m not happy that he lets his traditional positional tendencies make bad personnel decisions for him.
Dave’s post: Sigi’s innovating to let the tactics be defined by personnel.
Ben’s post: In part, but he’s also doing the opposite: letting personnel be defined by tactics to the detriment of the team.
If that’s picking nits I’m not ashamed to be holding the basket.
who's ben?
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 24, 2011 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
that would be me...
I sometimes re-reverse my handle.
I might suggest...
Not referring to yourself in the third person. But that’s just me.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 24, 2011 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
1) purposes of parallel construction
2) bullet point summary
The various reasons not to refer to oneself in the third person to not really apply to the comment in question. Otherwise, I agree!
or… ahem…. the great and powerful nimajneb agrees?
Yeah, they kind of do
As referring to yourself in the third person almost always makes you look a little too self-satisfied. Since “me” would work perfectly well to avoid confusion. But, hey, that’s just Jeremiah’s opinion.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 24, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Nimajneb notes...
that Jeremiah used the third person in a sentence within a paragraph of prose, which is not the context of the comment in question.
Beware oh great and humble writer/editor because I’m so very much going to go grammar nazi on your next post ;-)
You're right
none of what you’ve said to day is smart ass.
better the former...
…than the latter. I haven’t treated anyone any differently than they treat me. It appears that the main thrust of your replies to me has been to criticize me rather than make any real contribution to factual debate… even when in the most blindingly obvious case the comment in question is tongue-in-cheek (the above).
You can only aspire to be a smart ass….
Factual debate?
Who should play is a factual debate? It’s rosterbation at its finest. It gets nowhere. ESPECIALLY when someone (you) takes a pompous holier than thou attitude and starts getting into the “You just don’t get my superior logic” BS.
the arguments behind who should play SHOULD be factually based.
“sigi has done well on other decisions so you shouldn’t criticize this one” is, factually, a logical fallacy.
“There are so many players missing, it’s unreasonable to criticize a decision between players who are available is, factually, a logical fallacy.
You, spending much of your breath in this thread attacking me rather than making any rational point is partially a logical fallacy (ad hominem)… but mostly just sad.
You realize that about half of your comments are roundabout ad hominem attacks, right?
Meanwhile I have seen zero actual ad hominems directed towards you.
You should spend more time making better arguments and less time trying to shoehorn the better arguments of other people into logical fallacy boxes in which they don’t fit.
by Aaron Campeau on May 24, 2011 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions
such as?
…and, as I stated before, I treat people as I am treated.
accordingly, your first comment addressing me:
Seriously, if you think Roger was the problem in that game I just really don’t know what to say.
To which I pointed out quite legitimately that you were putting words in my mouth. If I came about as abrasive in doing so and you’d rather I didn’t, you might want to tune down your sarcasm.
Lifesmanship
I highly recommend that anyone with a question about what is going on here should take a look at the comic writings of Stephen Potter.
by Abbott Smith on May 24, 2011 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Pick any two of three CBs
And, oddly, I didn’t put who I expect to play tomorrow.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
"...players to best use their abilities"
I’m curious then, has Sigi defined specifically what Levesque and Jaqua’s abilities are?
They offer different things
Jaqua wins headers, most often at midfield. He gets double-teamed in set-plays freeing other players to put head to ball (see the goal). His short passes inside the 18 are effective. His defense as a forward is better than most in MLS.
Levesque offers defensive presence, role flexibility, a hint of speed and an ability to coach on the pitch due to his knowledge of positional awareness.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Levesque is also 90-minutes fit...
…which is something that can’t be said for everyone on the team. I’m not exactly thrilled by him when he’s on the field, but starting Rosales was a tactical risk since he couldn’t go 90 minutes, and I’m sure Sigi didn’t want to end up effectively playing a man down at the end of the game again.
by ubelmann on May 23, 2011 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
90 min of what?
Lot’s of running, lot’s of bad passes, occasional good pass and maintaining defensive shape most of the time. This is not good enough for the MLS anymore…the talent level has gone up…
Levesque strikes me as a replacement-level player
If the team had even one more healthy player, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation because he’d be buried on the bench. But the only real options to replace him to start Saturday’s games were probably Jaqua, Fucito, and Neagle. Neagle’s coming from second division soccer, so he’s probably pretty close to replacement level himself. Playing Jaqua for 90 minutes on Saturday before two games later this week would practically be asking to re-injure him, and Fucito I don’t think is even going 90 minutes in the reserve games yet.
I’m really not in the Roger Levesque fan club, but I can see why he started on Saturday. And we won the game after all, right?
Neagle’s coming from second division soccer, so he’s probably pretty close to replacement level himself.
How could you tell?
Montano, for all that he is not a complete player, offers the ability to create scoring opportunities with his skill on the ball sand strikes fairly well.
Estrada has good touch and passing skill… hasn’t been given a real opportunity, and his main weakness (strength on the ball) isn’t something Levesque particularly excels at either.
Neagle is coming out of the second division player in that he was a young player in need of development… if you’re going to use that line on him you’re labeling better than half the players in the league as “probably pretty close to replacement level.” We know from that lower division time and his preseason/reserve work here that he can strike a decent ball. Is he a better option than Levesque? How can you tell?
Sooner or later you have to give this kind of player minutes to see what they have to offer.
If neither Fucito nor Jaqua were 90 minutes fit, they were at least fit enough to fill a spot between the two of them judging from recent playing time.
And we won the game after all, right?
…in stoppage time, with our second shot on goal of the game.
so, “not really”
Some people do go to practices and reserve games
Montano and Estrada are not first team ready, not yet.
Although Estrada has looked much better as a CAM with the reserves. Montano hasn’t started reserve matches, to think that he’s ready to start on the first team is to overlook everywhere he’s lacking.
As for Neagle, I expect the team sees him more as a winger than forward (though they brought him on for his scoring touch), and he has decent skills there, but much of what he does is what Levesque does- right space at time, solid defensive energy, better shooter than passer.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Agreed
But I reckon Neagle has far more upside, is much faster, and is far more of a threat in front of goal.
I love Levesque to death, so I’m staying out of the rest of this discussion. But it would be nice to see Neagle and Fucito get some of those Levesque minutes. I’d be ok with seeing heavier doses of Levesque during the Open Cup matches.
by ABTsportsline on May 24, 2011 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Montano and Estrada are not first team ready, not yet.
…so we should play someone else who isn’t suited to first team duty?
Obviously I can’t make it to Tukwila all that readily, but then I didn’t claim they WOULD be superior options but rather that the only way to test that effectively is with game opportunities… and the points concerning Montano are derived from his on-field play last year.
to think that he’s ready to start on the first team is to overlook everywhere he’s lacking.
Let’s be equitable and list everyone else’s deficiencies?
As for Neagle, I expect the team sees him more as a winger than forward
…and the personnel on the field could have been shifted quite readily to accommodate that…
Montano is about 98% awful and 2% genius at this point.
People focus way too much on that 2%. And I like Neagle, but let’s not act like he’s some sort of savior.
Levesque was fine on Saturday. He’s no one’s favorite option but he’s ridiculously fit and this team has two games against two very good teams with Jaqua and Fucito still well short of 90 minutes fit. The lineup Sigi put out there was designed to severely limit a solid KC attack with the assumption that Seattle would be able to get something past a horrendous KC defense. Seriously, if you think Roger was the problem in that game I just really don’t know what to say.
I’m as hard on Sigi as anyone, but come one, give the guy some credit and take realistic stock of the situation. This team is having to deal with an absurd amount of attrition at some spots that are really hard to fill. That they’re still getting results largely where they should is impressive.
by Aaron Campeau on May 24, 2011 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
You must have me confused with someone else...
…because “savior” is a pretty grotesque distortion of my comments above.
Levesque was bad on Saturday. He gave the ball away regularly, his passing was off and failed to effectively link together with other offensive players. He was far from the only problem with the offense (and I’ve never implied otherwise— thanks for the strawman), but… “Seriously, if you think Roger wasn’t ‘A’problem in that game I just really don’t know what to say.”
I’m as hard on Sigi as anyone, but come one, give the guy some credit
…I’ve given Sigi a great deal of credit, and indeed I’ve done so in this thread…. but “He’s in a hard position” or “He’s done other things well” is not a logical response to my argument.
According to what your posts are saying
Not a single thing that anyone has said is a “logical” response to your argument. In fact, what IS your argument? That Roger Levesque shouldn’t be playing? It’s been buried under so many smart ass responses I can’t find it.
you're calling my responses "smart ass"?
I think my case has been pretty simple. Levesque shouldn’t have started. The reasons typically given for starting him are adherence to the system.
Not to pile on...
But seriously, I’m not getting what your point is? Is it that Montano, Estrada or Neagle should be playing over Levesque? Is it that you want the Sounders to ditch the two-forward formation? I see some points in here, but I’m not exactly following what it is that you would like to see done.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 24, 2011 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Is it that Montano, Estrada or Neagle should be playing over Levesque?
Yes, but more Fucito.
Is it that you want the Sounders to ditch the two-forward formation?
I want Sigi to ditch the big/small pairing except when Jaqua and White are fit/available/in form.
So to boil it down...
You’d like to see Sigi start Montero and Fucito alongside one another?
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 24, 2011 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
yes, or...
Rosales and Montero up top and Fucito on the wing.
I think we tried that before
pairing Montero & Ljungberg together, no?
I’m intrigued by having the playmakers in those positions as well, but I think the past has proven that it throws Montero off his game a bit. Too many overlaps, too similar style, plus you lose some girth & weight up front to throw around. If we played teams with big CBs like RSL, Columbus, etc – we’d be slaughtered.
That said, Fucito and Rosales are not Ljungberg, so on the other hand maybe it’s worth one shot? They also aren’t 90-fit either, so this experiment would have to wait any way you slice it.
by ABTsportsline on May 24, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
not really...
yes, it’s two players that you need to sub. One of them is at a position you will want to sub out later for Jaqua, ideally,, regardless.
If the fitness is too much of an issue I reiterate that there’s every reason to give Neagle a shot.
If we're going to start Neagle
We should have done it against a team like SKC, not FCD
by ABTsportsline on May 25, 2011 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Neagle is getting minutes...
…in the reserve league. I haven’t seen him, but I have no real reason to believe he’s much better than Levesque. If Levesque had been in USL last year, he probably would have done just fine, and someone else might have brought him in and some fans would be champing at the bit for Levesque to show what he’s got. This seems like a classic case where fans overvalue a player just because they haven’t seen him. Unknown is not the same as better, and you don’t have to give anyone first team minutes if you don’t feel they’ve done enough in practice and in the reserve league.
And there are no style points in MLS. We won, we were short-handed, I’m not going to wring my hands over Levesque vs. Neagle or Levesque vs. someone who can’t play 90 minutes.
I have no real reason to believe he’s much better than Levesque
You have no real reason to believe he’s not.
I’ve couched my advocacy for minutes given to the reserves with every possible qualifier- we may get no better performance, but we KNOW that Levesque’s on-field performance has been lacking, and there is very little means to test the alternatives without putting them on the field. All of them have had moments in reserve play, preseason or chances last year which suggest they deserve a look when compared to the performances criticized here.
And there are no style points in MLS. We won, we were short-handed, I’m not going to wring my hands over Levesque vs. Neagle or Levesque vs. someone who can’t play 90 minutes.
Fair enough, but the same sort of perspective can lead to less effectiveness down the road- say, playing an ineffectual Sanna Nyassi for the better part of two legs in a playoff round. We all want this team to get/be better… so even when the results tilt somewhat fortunately our way it’s more than reasonable to discuss ways in which that could happen.
It's fine that there could be upside, but there could be downside, too
Just because a player is an unknown doesn’t make him a good choice over a known player. Sure, if we know that Neagle is at least as good as Levesque, then it would be an obvious choice to play him over Levesque. But we don’t know that Neagle is as good as Levesque—he could be worse. Looking up this thread, it seems silly to have spent so many words on taking a risk to marginally improve over Levesque’s performance. It’s not like he’s starting over Montero, Alonso, or Flaco.
He's starting over Fucito...
…not to put too fine a point on it.
Fucito's not 90 minutes fit
Starting Rosales and Fucito kills any kind of tactical flexibility late in the game, because they both have to come out around 60 minutes in. That gives you only one sub to take out a midfielder or a defender. If you happen to be trailing late in the game, you wouldn’t, say, be able to take off Carrasco and Wahl in order to put more forwards on the pitch.
As I said below...
Even if you doubt Fucito’s fitness, you are already planning to put Jaqua in at the end of the game.
You are up against one of the weakest teams in the league (putting aside how much has been due to being stuck with away games). You have had a dysfunctional offense for the past few games, and your projected starting forward is an offensive black hole.
1) Restricted subs
or
2) a starting forward who averages under a shot per game?
You might be planning to put Jaqua in...
…but you’re not necessarily putting him in for Fucito. And shots per goal for a guy who plays more than just forward is a pretty worthless statistic.
per game...
…and bringing up pass completion or possession statistics wouldn’t exactly be doing Levesque any favors.
I do not have anything against the man. I think that he is even somewhat useful as a defense-minded player with positional flexibility… but this entire conversation focusing on Fucito’s fitness, sub restrictions and the uncertainty of reserve players is rather understating the point:
Levesque has been [b]bad.[/b]
Sure, Neagle could take the ball and deliberately dribble into his own net. That would indeed be worse, but is it really all that likely?
Montano’s work IN LEAGUE PLAY has offered more on offense. The limited time we’ve seen Neagle in substitute play this year suggests he’s no catastrophe, and he’s shown well enough in lower leagues/reserve play to suggest he strikes a decent ball.
The claim that it’s risky to promote a reservist is self-perpetuating… they will always be reservists if that’s all the opportunity you give them.
OK...
Just felt compelled to track down something that would add some level of objectivity to this debate so I turned to PowerStats101.
I’m not the biggest fan of their methods, but I will give them credit for creating a somewhat simple and relatively telling metric by which to measure players. If Levesque was as bad as you claim, he’d have lots of turnovers, few take-aways and generally horrible score. As it turns out, his score is not very good, but it stands up well to everyone we’ve been talking about other than Fucito.
Here’s the per 90 scores of some of the players we’re talking about:
Fucito: 14.4
levesque: 7.12
Jaqua: 5.03
Carrasco: 4.86
Estrada: 0
Neagle: 0
Montano: 0
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 24, 2011 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
given sample size...
there’s really no way to compare those marks to anyone I’m suggesting should start over him except for Fucito… and that unfavorably.
Their giveaway number for saturday is definitely undercounted.
If you think that Levesque is so bad..
…that the only way he would be worse is to dribble the ball into his own net, then you aren’t serious about evaluating what he brings to the table.
by ubelmann on May 24, 2011 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Give me one valid reason to think that two forwards as small as Montero and Fucito could succeed in this league.
by Aaron Campeau on May 24, 2011 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions
They don't play two forwards very often
Their standard is a 4-1-4-1
And yes, they use a small for the 1
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Fair.
FC Dallas succeeded with a lone striker though, and Montero is wasted up top alone on this roster and I frankly don’t trust Fucito’s skillset without a big man alongside. He’s the type of player that needs to exploit space and there’s not really anyone on this roster to make it.
by Aaron Campeau on May 24, 2011 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Which gets back to splitting the two forwards very wide
and bringing the CAM up into a WF
For the Concave 4-3-3 (Graham insists this isn’t actually a 433)
Because without a big to create space there needs to be significant separation of the players to challenge unique angles.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
You're kidding right?
a 6’4" forward should be scoring goals with headers not just winning headers which he doesn’t on offense or defense e.g. Portland goal…I’m shocked you say he’s double teamed because if he is being double teamed, they’re not scouting him well enough. Also, Montero scored on Columbus while being double teamed…what does that say about Jaqua’s ability to head the ball?
And all the qualities you describe for Levesque are excellent for a sub not a starter. As long as these guys are playing the bulk of the minutes, we will continue with drab, 2-1, (DC), 1-1 (Col) 1-1 (Port) 1-0 (KC). Notice the trend here….1 goal / game average.
A 6'4 player that scores on every headed opportunity doesn't play in MLS
He would be in the EPL.
Montero scored a header from a set-play while double teamed? Was he dramatically out of position?
Why those four games? Why didn’t Toronto count?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
But Alvaro...
who is well south of 6’4" has scored off of headers and come close to scoring on the few headers he’s had. You can’t say the same about Jaqua…double teamed or not.
Didn;t comment on Toronto because I didn’t watch that game…however, you have to consider that game an aberration…Sounders have only scored 2 or more goals 3 times in this MLS season…only 25% of the games have we seen 2 or more goals…so much for free flowing, exciting soccer.
because the only judge of a player's effectiveness is goals
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Why do people think being tall means you should be good at headers?
Tall, gangly players rarely have the fast-twitch muscle fibers in their legs that allow for quick, tall jumps. Witness someone like Jaqua compared to Parke or Ianni in the air. As Dave pointed out, the ones that do are usually overseas and getting paid much better.
I value Jaqua for what he does on the pitch that doesn’t involve scoring – because I feel he does that very well. I do acknowledge he’s still in an attacking drought, however, and we need some production.
by ABTsportsline on May 24, 2011 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Come on man
You’re telling me NBA players don’t have “fast-twitch muscle fibers in their legs that allow for quick, tall jumps”?
You are 100 percent correct that being tall doesn’t necessarily make you good in the air but there are plenty of ways to work on jumping high.
NBA players have a different muscular make-up
Soccer players have to run constantly for 90 minutes, which puts a different requirement from muscles on players. This is definitely splitting hairs here, but yes there is a difference in development and strength of muscles between NBA & soccer players.
Your second sentence was my point though, so I guess I’m confused why you challenge me, but then agree….
by ABTsportsline on May 24, 2011 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
My point was that
You can’t unequivocally say that Tall+Gangly=Lack of Fast Twitch/No Jumping ability
Regardless, I think height in soccer is greatly overstated. 8 inches of height can be made up with 8 inches of vertical. The same is not necessarily true in sports you can use your hands. The taller you are the longer your arms tend to be, magnifying a taller persons advantage. A 6’4 soccer player can easily be out umped by a 6’ foot person because he doesn’t have the “length” advantage.
Very good point
Also, it’s much easier to muscle a player in the air in soccer than it is in basketball. My only complaint about Jaqua’s aerial ability is that sometimes smaller CBs are able to physically push him out of the way in aerial battles. I’m not saying he’s soft on set-plays, but that his longish form can sometimes be a detriment when someone is jumping directly into your chest. Oft-times it’s contact that would be called in other leagues.
i dont get some of your points
yes jaqua wins headers but most of the time those headers go to the other team..
and if levesque offers defensive presence then why is he being played at target forward over other players who are better at playing forward
well said...
I’m sure they’re super nice guys but I don’t think they belong on the field for more than 15 min…if that. I cringe when I watch a game and hear Arlo wax poetically about them…
There can be value in forwards that provide defensive pressure
It would also be hard to argue that he was used as a target forward against KC. He wasn’t holding the ball up, he wasn’t on the receiving end of a ton of lofted crosses.
I’m not saying he’s the best player on the team.
I’m saying that people who think that certain players have no ability are clearly not watching the players on the pitch.
Say a CDM is poor passing out the back… it would make sense to start a more defensive forward in order to put pressure on them.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on May 23, 2011 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
A forward defends by pressuring high
And forcing the defense to pass around or up faster than wanted/allowed. A defensive forward us NOT a withdrawn, anti-attacking player. This is one of the few things Levesque does better than anyone else on the roster (at least that we’ve seen in this role). It generates turnovers deep in the attacking third. Were he a bit better offensively we’d find many more opportunities from these.
Nos audietis in somniis
Nos audietis in altum
by Seattle Coug on May 23, 2011 10:37 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Personnel
I think that we can all agree that the Sounders primary 11 and primary 18 roster players are not who Sigi has left to work with. The nature of the MLS is that 3rd year teams don’t have the luxury of carrying reserve players who offer a complete package of MLS ready skills. Each reserve player offers some strengths and some weaknesses.
Break it down into component parts:
Passing
Movement with the ball
Movement without the ball
Scoring ability
Defensive ability
First touch
Heading
Awareness
Leadership
Experience
Maturity
Speed
Creativity
Work rate
Decision making
etc.
Each player will present an imperfect mix. Each person evaluating their skills will have different biases.
Sigi and the coaching staff have considerably more experience evaluating players than I have. They also see the reserve players more than any fan. We may not always like Sigi’s biases and may wonder whether he biases work rate, maturity and experience too heavily. But at the end of the day, his livelihood is on the line and until he stops earning results, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his decisions. This team has made the playoffs in its first two years of existence and won 2 US open cups. They are preparing to enter their second CONCACAF tournament. And even with the absolutely ridiculous number of injuries to key offensive players they are still earning results. They are not playing pretty football, but they are giving themselves a chance in the face of dire circumstances.

by 

















