Manchester United Aftermath: Adrian Hanauer Says 'New Philosophy Starts Now'
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 22, 2011 6:01 AM PDT
in Sounders: Friendlies
Email
Print
Adrian Hanauer has been around soccer most of his life. Never has he had to endure something quite like the Seattle Sounders 7-0 pasting at the hands of Manchester United. He did not enjoy that part, even admitting to being "humiliated," and does not intend to allow it to happen again.
In talking to him just about 24 hours after the loss -- plenty of time to think it over and long enough to have a pretty astute sense of the public reaction -- he stopped well short of promising to forgo future midseason exhibitions, but he did promise a different attitude if the team does play them.
"We wanted to reward the players and even Sir Alex Ferguson after the game told us it was good for the lads, that they’ll never have another chance to play against Manchester United," Hanauer said. "But it's not our responsibility to give them that chance. It is our responsibility to put on a good show for the nearly 70,000 fans that came to see us. We let people down for the final 45 minutes.
"Even though we’ve gotten away with it in the past, a new philosophy starts now. We’re going to make some substitutions, but it won't just be rewarding guys for being on the team."
Personally, I'd be happy if this marked the end of the Sounders playing midseason friendlies. But I'm pretty sure that when Hanauer meets with the rest of Sounders management, they aren't going to feel the same way. When more than 67,000 people show up to see your team play, you usually aren't inclined to question what brought them there. You're more likely to figure out how to get them back.
To some degree, the veil on friendlies has been lifted. Wednesday's dismantling showcased what can happen when a far superior team faces off against one that isn't necessarily looking at it as a competitive match. It can get ugly. Hanauer knows that if people are going to keep coming back for these friendlies, the Sounders can't just be someone's patsy.
"I feel like there were some positives to take from the evening," Hanauer said. "The fans, the event, the atmosphere, Manchester United for most of the game and our team for 45 minutes was good. We miscalculated a little bit. We probably weren’t as focused on competing as we should have been for the second half and we got punished for that."
If there's one thing that does give me hope, it's that I really doubt this desire to put on a good show will come at the expense of being competitive in real competitions. As much as Hanauer and Co. may have been embarrassed by Wednesday's outcome, they know the best way to salve their wounds is by winning real matches in real competitions. This organization likes winning above all else. To doubt that is to be blind. If it happens to cross over into a desire to win even meaningless friendlies (as long as it's only one a year), I think I can live with that.
156 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree that friendlies are basically pointless, but we can make them a little better
As of right now, the only positive that comes from them, in my opinion, is that they get people to the Sounders games. I think that we should still schedule one friendly each season but instead of focusing on getting one of the top teams in the world in order to sell the most possible tickets (I know that they want to be able to compete against the best, but I just don’t see that being plausible, ManUtd 7-0 and Barca 4-0 (that being said, we did play a great game against Chelsea)), we should look to get some of the teams from around the CONCACAF nations. This would serve two purposes, first it would help us grow the game in the eyes of the different countries and their fans which is good because Seattle is a mixture of many people, and second, it would let us play against clubs that use different styles so that we can be used to them when we could possibly play them in the CCL (think scouting). Well, there is my three cents (it would be my two cents, but I had a little more to say).
Writer for InLaxWeTrust | Twitter: @danshirley | Blog: CBBMetrics
No, but Chelsea
played possession soccer, electing to maintain possession, take a few quality shots, and bury them. It was a classy move on their part to keep the score down, yet get some training in. Man U, on the other hand, decided to go for the jugular, putting in one of the world’s greatest players in the second half against a bunch of kids and showing that they are all about winning, not building bridges. If I’m in the coaches seat, I tell the team after 3-0 they are to take zero shots the rest of the game and focus on playing flawless possession ball.
Personally, preseason friendlies are fine. Anything else just distracts from a crowded schedule. Once we get squad size up a bit (and quality), I’m all for revisiting this.
Whose preseason?
The problem is that preseason for us is the exact opposite of the rest of the world. Friendlies work for every other league because their preseasons more or less line up. Its a training game for all involved and a fun showpiece.
For us, they will always fall in the middle of our season unless we shift to match the rest of the world.
(And I agree about the Chelsea game. We were clearly outclassed, but it was enjoyable to watch and they didn’t push up a lopsided scoreline like they could have)
by Dylan Vanderhoof on Jul 22, 2011 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions
And by opposite of the rest of the world
you mean, some of the world
As not opposite of Scandanavia, maybe Russia they are trying to shift, not opposite of Mexico, nor the Middle East or dozens of other nations.
Not to mention the dozens of nations that take a break in the winter.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Jul 22, 2011 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"If I’m in the coaches seat, I tell the team after 3-0 they are to take zero shots the rest of the game and focus on playing flawless possession ball."
So if you were on the field, you’d rather be patronized? You’d rather a team play keep away, passing all the way forward, then all the way back, essentially taunting you? Or would you rather they treat you like a real team, no matter what the scoreline says?
This is my biggest problem with the attitudes of fans after the game. The Sounders got their asses kicked; deal with it. But to whine about Manchester United running up the score and playing unsportsmanlike soccer is nothing more than sour grapes.
So stop. Seriously. Stop bitching about Rooney playing the second half — it was a preseason game, Manchester United can tinker with lineups however it wants. Stop bitching about the goals — at least the Sounders were treated like a real soccer team, not patronized like a team of six-year-olds. Just move on.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 22, 2011 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 10 recs
Wow
always such a pleasant guy, aren’t you?
Don’t really know what the heck your point is here except to try to belittle other’s point of view. If you choose to simply ignore and move on, that’s your perogative. Mine is too be disappointed with a Man U team I’ve always liked quite a lot and a Sounders team that keeps scheduling games in the middle of a very busy season. That’s my perogative. If your focus was to simply call me a a little bitcher and a child…… ummmmm, who’s the child again?
by swansuite on Jul 22, 2011 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Did he say either of those things?
No, he pretty clearly did not.
You’re allowed to express your opinion publicly, other people are allowed to criticize it. And frankly I find the assertion that one team of professional athletes should treat another team of professional athletes as though they needed their feelings spared an opinion that’s open to criticism.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
The FO did that last year...
We brought in teams that were still good quality but more realistic. The problem is that those teams are less popular, and not nearly as many people showed up. In fact people complained that they were not “big enough” teams. People just have to understand that playing a friendly in the middle of our season is not going to put on a good show. That is why they dont do it in other parts of the world.
When the second half teams came on it
became clear that Ferguson was approaching this game different than Schmid. The players beat us, but Ferguson turned it into the spectacle it was.
What?
These aren’t 8 year olds. These are grown ass men. You want Man U to stop scoring? Then stop them from scoring.
I think when Rooney gets the ball unmarked in front of goal he shoudl have just winked at the keeper and walked away
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Had the Sounder just left a yacht infront of their goal
for the second half I think it would have been a very enjoyable game.
by Derek R on Jul 22, 2011 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Love Sigi, but the blame lies in one place
I agree that Man U could have played a little less agressive in their counteratack, but Sigi is the one that put the children on the field. These are professionals. Schmid acted like a newby to the world of professional football. If your going to play with the big boys, then you better be prepared. That’s my take on it.
EVERY COACH DOES IT
Arena did it. Soehn did it. Nowak did it.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I have no problem with the subbing
My only problem is the manner in which the defense was subbed. That could have/should have been done in waves rather than at once.
the blame is a bit much
they do this in every friendly. This time it bit them. It only makes sense in hindsight and moving forward that they maybe play their starters a little more. Oddly, no one was saying these things when Sigi announced that everyone would play.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 22, 2011 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm with ya here, makes sense...
…but if you’re committed to playing everybody, why not Ford? He might give up a few goals?
by BrooklynPreacher on Jul 22, 2011 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
People seem to overlook the fact that Rooney had three fantastic shots. His touch and fire with the left foot to the opposite corner was a thing of beauty.
If everyone does it
How come not every MLS team loses 7-0? Is our depth really that much worse than the other MLS teams?
(rhetorical, if it wasn’t obvious) ;)
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
That's the thing people are missing.
United is capable of doing this every time they play an MLS team. So is Madrib, Chelsea, Barca-all of them. Wednesday night was just kind of the perfect storm, and I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t happened before.
We’re talking about a sample of one meaningless game. Don’t read too much into it.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
So, why didn't they ring up seven against the Revs?
That’s what I think is bugging most people — not that we lost, not even that we lost handily, but that we got stomped by a much larger margin than anyone else.
by regnaD kciN on Jul 22, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't know why they didn't score as many against New England
but I do know that even today Owen is still saying that they were in unusually good form that day.
The Revs did empty their bench.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
The Revs didn't empty their bench
Hi there, first time posting, but I had to respond to the assertion that the Revs cleared their bench.
According to this box score they only made three subs:
Sigi, on the other hand, made 15 subs!!
I’d say that’s a slightly different strategy. Sigi and Adrian know they messed up here. They didn’t give the fans in the stadium and on television a good show for half of the match. That was a mistake, and they know it. Based on the comments above, I don’t expect that to happen again.
well they started two bench players
and had a few others injured.
New England played every healthy player on their roster
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Sorry, the links didn't seem to take. Let me try again
actually, they did empty their bench
six guys came off at halftime and only two guys went the full 90.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 22, 2011 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
You're right, of course!
But it appears the Revs used about 9 subs vs. our 15. It’s clear that the difference between the first 18-20 on an MLS roster and the last 6-9 is pretty significant. Certainly that’s the case for the Sounders at least. To me, I wouldn’t have minded a substitution pattern that allowed playing time for the top 18 – 20 on the roster, but I think it was the last 6 guys on the field who were really ripped apart by Rooney, Park, Nani, etc., especially from minute 69 on. The scary part is, it really could have been worse than 7-0. For a while there, it felt like Man U. would score a goal a minute for the rest of the match.
I'll take our last 6-9
over almost any other MLS team’s middle 6-9. RSL might be the lone exception.
The last 6-9 didn't support your point...
…on Wednesday though, did they?
once you get past the first 15 guys on teh roster
It’s really not about whether you emptied your bench or not. It’s about how well the other team took advantage.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 22, 2011 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions
They have supported my point
in the reserve league, in open cup play, and in MLS matches when they’ve been forced into action.
The lone exception is when they faced Manchester United on a night Man U was clicking on all cylinders in the 2nd half. Do you think that’s the best indicator of relative talent?
The reserve league ...
…is more an indication of our second 11 vs their second 11. With usoc play, there have usually been a healthy # of starters mixed in. Alonso played both games this year. Parke, Riley, friberg, fernandez and montero all started against LA. I don’t think either of these competitions prove your point that “our last 6 -9 are better than most MLS teams middle 6-9.”. If the statement were “our middle 6 -9 are better than most MLS teams middle 6-9” I would agree. Once you get past the top 18-20 on any MLS roster though, I think there’s a big drop off.
you're really grasping here...
To base any semblence of analysis on this game is just ridiculous.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 23, 2011 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I was replying...
…to agtk’s assertion that our last 6-9 are better than most MLS teams second 6-9. That’s an extreme statement that I don’t think can be supported, by USOC play, the reserve league or this latest friendly.
If you agree with his statement, please tell me why. I just don’t see it.
eh.
I think almost all of our guys would be occasional replacements/rotational guys for a lot of other teams. We really are an incredibly deep team. I think King is a good example of this: he was buried beneath everyone else on the depth chart, maybe slightly above Seamon, but he’s had a fairly regular role with DCU since being traded over there.
I’m not arguing that our bottom guys are definitely better than everyone else’s middle guys. Part of me saying “I’ll take ’em” is that they are the guys we know and love. Graham’s got Sounders roots, Montano is bursting with potential, Estrada is really young and still developing, Seamon is fairly capable and could probably be a fringe rotational player on a shallower team, Noonan might be starting in another city, Jaqua contributes, Tetteh has potential, Boss is Boss, and Ford is really the only one I don’t know. Maybe Scott belongs on this list too.
Those guys have all (save Ford) had extended time in reserve, preseason, USOC, and CCL action. Most of them have acquitted themselves extremely well. I mean, the MLS Sounders have yet to lose a USOC match. I just don’t really see any other clubs with matching depth, except for maybe RSL, or possibly LAG.
by agtk on Jul 23, 2011 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Didn't work, but you can cut and paste if you're interested
Maybe somebody can give me a tutorial on how to post a hyperlink. The button didn’t seem to work.
Because they didn't finish as many chances?
Just because they’re capable doesn’t mean they’re going to do it every time.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
It's a 'ludicrosity' that a lot of the league will have though
unless you’re to assume all MLS fans are reasonable and fair. (ell oh ell)
Comparisons between Man U and the various MLS teams they played will invariably be drawn. As ludicrous as those conclusions may or may not be, NE’s result and our result against Man U will be compared.
But we’re talking in circles here. I don’t think anyone on S@H actually thinks we’re that bad of a team; we all know we’re better than the scoreline indicated. We all know the starters hung well with Man U and it was 1-0 at the half – that’s not the concern.
It’s the “show” we put on while on the world stage that disappoints some of us. Playing Man U in a televised friendly is honestly probably the most singular worldwide-exposure event we’ll get short of playing in the Club World Cup.
So it’s a pride issue, really. Don’t think I could be dissuaded from that position, frankly, but I’m over it. Only posting at this point for conjecture and Sounder discussion.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
It's ludicrous indeed...
,,,but I had to wince (and then laugh a bit) when a MU fan posted that, while not a good team, the Sounders weren’t all that much worse than New England.
Did Rooney play in the first or second half that game?
Only two of their goals were scored by people I wouldn’t consider starters for Manchester. Given that their starters are clearly better than ours, obviously Rooney and Park will be levels of magnitude better than our players that don’t even make the 18 on gameday…
I'm with you, Jeremiah, and Dave
It’s not S@H readers that need to be told though. For the most part we’re all educated here.
Bah, I’ll leave it.
It’s just like showing off something new to your friends. If you rave about how great it is, then they come look at it and it takes a poop on their shoe and screws their mothers, you’d be embarassed too :)
I guess more importantly, some of us just need to chill out with club pride – myself included.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
2nd Half, ManU allstars VS Sounders scrubs
by Milo1 on Jul 22, 2011 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
They should just remove the Sounders from the equation and bring in two big names to play against each other.
I don’t see why the Sounders need to play a friendly. Let’s just host a game and let the ticket sales come in for that. If we had Man U play Man City, I’m sure we would still get 65k out for the game.
by Brian23 on Jul 22, 2011 7:58 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Issues with that...
is that it costs twice as much to bring in 2 teams (we have to pay them to come here) than just one team. So the profit is lower but i still think it is a good idea.
I'd really like to see what the revenue models are like....
When looking at 2 “big names” vs. 1 “big name” visiting for a mid season friendly… Pay for season tickets, and wasting a Wednesday night surrounded by red shirts was not my idea of fun. I’m glad to have seen full stands, but that’s about it. Also, I don’t understand why we can’t negotiate with big clubs. If we fill the stands for a pre-season match, they get more exposure in a market well known for being soccer friend, sell more jerseys, etc. Seems like a good deal for them.
not exactly following...
Are you suggesting we try to get EPL teams to play us during our preseason? I just can’t see why they’d do that. Only way it makes sense for them now is that they can play a bunch of these games. Even if they wanted to play a one-off friendly, there’s no way the economics make sense.
As for games feature two foreign clubs, the early returns suggest the upside is far more limited.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 22, 2011 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions
That may be the case.
Again, I really have no idea what the costs involved are. As we continue to discuss what we saw this week I am sure a lot of other season ticket holders not reading S@H have the same feeling of “why do this at all” … One way I could enjoy a “mid season break” is something where two other teams are involved. Might not be even worth considering…. Though I’d enjoy it non the less.
The break wasn't part of the original schedule
it was forced on Seattle due to the Real Madrid-Philly friendly.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Don't forget travel distance
The only reason the PL clubs can economically come here and do this in their preseason is because they do tours through 3-5 US cities. If it was a one-match friendly, the travel costs & jetlag would make it prohibitive and unreasonable. Remember how far we are from the UK and Europe?
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Much like MurrayD said that makes much less business sense. If they bring in two marquee names they’ll have to pay both of them and the can’t sell any more tickets than they did on Wednesday so it isn’t like the revenue would increase much if at all. At that point it isn’t really worth it for the FO at least not nearly as much as a game like Wednesday’s was. I’m not convinced friendlies are all that interesting, but if we were able to have a situation like this week where we didn’t have another game to prepare for and we ran our starters out for 60-75 minutes, that would be much more interesting and entertaining than the 2nd half of this game was.
Boo! Tomorrow AM. I want all things now!
On the crappy turf...
I would have been pissed (so would a lot of fans) if sigi keeps our starters out there for another 15-20 min and someone gets hurt. Then people would be yelling at the FO about why they wasted our players in a meaningless friendly.
The only positive outcome is like the Chelsea game, they pass the ball around alot and dont really take a lot of shots. But you cant expect a team to do that.
Everyone keeps saying that
First, leaving the starters in to play longer and a starter getting injured are not mutually exclusive. I’ve seen this argument referenced here several times now, but what about if we had left starters in longer, put up a better show, and no starter was injured? Entirely in the realm of possibility.
Second, a starter did get injured (although I don’t think it was due to turf). Evans had to leave due to a reaggravated hammy. So technically we didn’t walk away completely unscathed.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
So is he really saying that next year we are going to bring in a Real Madrid or Inter Milan type team and compete to win the game or try to play on their level? What’s worse, legitimately thinking you can compete and getting drubbed 5-1 or running out some kids and getting beat 7-0?
I don't think he's under the impression they can beat these teams
He just wants to put on a more honest show than they did this year.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 22, 2011 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This.
No one expects to win the friendly. You just want to save face and put up a good fight.
People want to see a good match. A good match is usually quasi-competitive. I’ve never watched a blowout and thought “this is a good game”
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I loved the 2001 Mariners season until Sept
And the Sonics season of 95.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
You're a glutton for punishment, Dave :)
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
There were a lot of blowouts those seasons
I loved every single one of them
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
It takes a whole different level of fandom to enjoy watching your team be blown out
I applaud that. I’m far too emotional about my teams.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Supporter Shield Winners!
"The fans are excited. And the stadium, well, it ignites with explosion."
by DarthGreedo on Jul 22, 2011 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Definitely a fun summer.
Losing in the playoffs didn’t take anything away from it for me.
"The fans are excited. And the stadium, well, it ignites with explosion."
by DarthGreedo on Jul 22, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
There's no evidence...
… to suggest that we were going to get drubbed by ManU in that second half had we left our starters out there. It was 1-0 at the half, and we could have actually been ahead.
I really can't help but feel like people would have been really disappointed had the starters continued playing
They hung with them for a half and looked quite good, but if those same teams stay out there for the entire game I’d be amazed if United doesn’t win by two or three goals.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
A 2-3 goal victory was in line with my expectations
Losing by 2-3 goals to Manchester United is what I think a lot of people expected. You can take a bit of pride in that.
by Dizzo on Jul 22, 2011 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I was expecting 4-1
And to be honest if we had managed to score one goal it would have numbed some of the pain too.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I predicted 3-0
On the basis that Barcelona > Man U > Chelsea
And the...
…amazing thing was that we could have scored five goals on ManU.
We just could. not. finish.
Here's the thing...
If people had to choose between the starters continuing to play until about the 65th minute and keeping it competitive OR bringing on the reserves to get absolutely demolished, everyone would have picked the starters remaining on the pitch. No question.
While some don’t care the score was 7-0, I do for the simple fact that most in the media aren’t distinguishing between the two halves. Most reports said, “the Sounders got demolished today by ManU,” which isn’t accurate. Our reserves got smacked around. Our starting XI hung with them. And that’s why you had Sigi and Adrian say things would have been done differently had they had the opportunity to do it over.
7-0 makes the Sounders as a whole look bad, but the onus is really on the reserves.
by nicktjacob on Jul 22, 2011 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"If people had to choose between the starters continuing to play until about the 65th minute and keeping it competitive OR bringing on the reserves to get absolutely demolished, everyone would have picked the starters remaining on the pitch."
In hindsight I would have preferred a more gradual phasing in I suppose, but I think you’re overreaching with this statement.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
But...
… you weren’t as excited or invested in the friendly as many were. Not saying you didn’t care that we lost 7-0, but that it didn’t hit you as hard as it hit some.
I felt like I got punched in the gut in the immediate aftermath, but a little perspective the morning after does the mind right.
by nicktjacob on Jul 22, 2011 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
But would you have felt more punched in the gut
if we tried staying “competitive” and ended up with an injury to Ozzie, Riley, Mauro or Fredy that impacts our chances at the Supporters Shield, MLS Cup, USOC and CCL.
Call me crazy for wanting to avoid a symbolic, Pyrrhic victory when we have the potential for sustained success in front of us.
by SmartAssCoug on Jul 22, 2011 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
How does playing starters until the 70th impact our CCL/MLS/SS chances?
We don’t play another competitive match for nearly a week. Ironically, probably the most rest we’ve had in two months…
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Recall the injury Alonso reagrivated against Boca last year
He’d missed 2 games already to that point. Started against Boca, but re-injured himself early in the first half. Over the next two months, he missed 5 straight MLS matches (we went 1-4-1), then subbed in for 2 others (where we 1-0-1).
We just saw Connor Casey suffer a season ending injury on the same field with limited contact involved.
If one of our starters got injured and is missing around a month, they would be out for both CCL play-in games and 4 MLS matches. Anything more than a month injury would also impact the USOC semi final.
by SmartAssCoug on Jul 22, 2011 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Got my numbers mixed up
During his time out we were only 1-4-0, then 1-0-1 when he played limited action as a sub for around 20’ each match.
by SmartAssCoug on Jul 22, 2011 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Ehhhhh
The field thing doesn’t hold much water. Achilles injuries aren’t like MCL tears or ankle sprains. My senior year in college, one of my buddies was finishing up conditioning during preseason. He was running in a straight line, with running shoes on, on turf that was brand new the year before. There was a large popping sound and his next step sent him tumbling to the ground. Achilles injuries can just happen.
by TheTank123 on Jul 22, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
To be clear, I'm not saying that an injury of any kind would happen, or is even likely to happen
But you can forgive Sigi wanting to get the guys out. He’d just seen an injury sustained to a rival’s impact player just a few days before, and he’d have to be thinking somewhat of a similar injury scenario occurring in a friendly last year.
by SmartAssCoug on Jul 22, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll give you this...
I don’t blame Sigi at all for wanting to give everyone on the team a shot at playing ManUtd. In my mind, that makes him a damn good manager. I’d feel like CRAP if I were on the reserve team and let my coach down like that after he gave me the privilege of playing.
That's the other side of the argument
As great of a “reward” as it was to let everyone play, how good can it possibly be for some of these guys’ confidence to be routed in such a manner?
That it was against Man U can only offer so much solace; other MLS reserves that have faced Man U didn’t get spanked so bad.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
So it's not so much that we lost 0-7 against Man U
It’s that we lost 0-7 and the rest of MLS didn’t lose 0-12?
by SmartAssCoug on Jul 22, 2011 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I know what you mean, but what makes a game meaningless?
Why, at the root of thinigs, do we play, if not to play well and win?
by BrooklynPreacher on Jul 22, 2011 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
The fact that this game didn't count in the standings of any competitions is what makes it meaningless
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Believe me, I get that...
But much of being a fan isn’t rational…for many of us anyway. And a humiliating loss that does not affect the standings still feels humiliating.
by BrooklynPreacher on Jul 22, 2011 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Its Meaningless
because I did not care about it!
What I find interesting (and somewhat gratifying)...
…is that, while many here were brushing off the result as meaningless and exactly what anyone could have expected, the quotes from Sigi and Adrian make it clear that a) neither of them were expecting such a result and b) both, far from considering it meaningless, were pretty upset about what happened and determined to never let such an embarrassment happen again.
So when Sigi and Adrian disagree with you
it’s really just a dog and pony show and they secretly agree with you.
I’m sure it’s a comforting thought, but I think Occam’s Razor says they really were embarrassed and disappointed.
Nos Audietis
I'm sure it's a mix of both, and I'm also sure they were legitmately surprised, embarrassed and disappointed.
But that doesn’t really change the way I feel about it.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
They have to come out and say that.
And I’m not saying they just shrugged it off, but I think it’s somewhere in the middle — not the end of the world, worst loss ever and not just “oh well, whatever.” But both Adrian and Sigi have to put on that face no matter what because they had just charged quite a few fans quite a bit of money to watch the match.
I don’t buy that this was the most embarrassing match of Sigi’s career at all.
i think they were honest embarrassed
Not saying they think it’s the end of the world, but these guys are pros. they don’t want to lose 7-0 to anyone.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 22, 2011 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think he believed it when he said it
just walking out of the locker room. I suspect after a night of sleep it’s now only in his top 10.
Nos Audietis
That seems like a fair conclusion
At the time, I didn’t buy him calling it the most embarrassing loss of his career. I can think of at least one game — LA Galaxy at Qwest — that would be worse. But then again, emotions run high after any game.
Injuries can happen any time
To insinuate that if our starters played another 20 minutes they would have gotten injured is not a reasonable assumption. They were as much at risk getting injured in the second half as they were in the first.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The probability of injury increases as do the minutes played
A player on the field for 5 minutes is less likely to get injured than someone on the field 30 minutes, who’s less likely to get injured than someone on the field 90 minutes. That’s not to say the 90 minute player will definitely get injured and the 5 minute player will definitely not.
But is it worth the risk?
To me, the difference between losing to Man U 0-7 with backups and losing 1-4 with starters isn’t significant enough to take that risk. Hell, i was a bit dismayed that we had Riley come out to start the 2nd half even just because of the number of minutes he’s logged already this season and the clear lack of depth behind him.
by SmartAssCoug on Jul 22, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm with this guy
I know many here don’t like friendlies, and perhaps that alters perceptions of attitudes after the match. If you didn’t care about it, obviously you won’t care about the result. Not everyone shares that apathy toward friendlies…
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
This game will turn out to be the biggest positive for the Sounders in its history.
A turning point in the organization that will enable them to build and compete with teams like Man U in the years to come.
First, it shows that the Sounders already have a few players who are close to that level. Second, it shows that the Sounders have many players who aren’t even close to that level.
It shows that offense is cool, but defense is what wins (or at least prevents you from losing). The sheer number of talented, physical yet fast defenders on Man U is staggering. We had 0 defenders of this nature out there. (unless you count Alonso, but he still has some physical limitations).
The team needs to find a defender (or two) that fit this mold. Especially considering the fact that the Sounders would like to play an aggressive attacking style, there back line needs to be spectacular. Give me a DP defender and trade some of our pieces for another high quality defender and I will be happy. (Wall, Fucito, Gonzalez, Ianni, Parke, Davis, Tetteh, Montano – are all legit trade bait)
Lastly, as good as Alonso has been, he can’t do this every game – he’s got to be rested occasionally. Is Carrasco good enough to back him up? probably not yet. I can see why there are many rumors about the Sounders trading for another defensive mid.
by handofgod on Jul 22, 2011 9:23 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
If the Sounders make any personnel decisions based on this game I will eat Paul Allen's yachting cap
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Point by point
1 – the Sounders already knew that without this game. They aren’t incompetent at judging talent.
2 – Seattle actually has a good defense. There is no need to continue the myth that they don’t. Also, Hurtado was out and it seems people have forgotten how good he was in 2009 and that he once had a trial with one of the Milans.
3 – Seriously, the backline is really good at the MLS level and has been from day one.
4 – There are no rumors about the Sounders looking for a defensive mid. There are rumors that Defensive mids have been offered to the Sounders.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Defensive DP
I am one of the people who was so desperate for another offensive DP at the start of the year, but I’ve come around. I think a defensive DP, with the team firing the way it is right now, wouldn’t be a bad move.
by Ruben Pagan on Jul 22, 2011 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Manchester showed out lack of depth at D, not lack of quality
I personally thought the defense in the 1st half was very good. Parke and Ianni did an excellent job. I think we could have prevented at least a few goals in the 2nd half if Hurtado and Wahl were available to play.
The most glaring problem that was exposed was our lack of depth at RB. Estrada did an admirable job trying to fill in at RB. I hope to never see him play there again. We really need a young RB to backstop Riley. I used to think we were set at CB, but after watching Graham in his last few games, I’m wondering if we can count on him for future Open Cup and CCL games.
Yup
Scott and Graham were simply overmatched and got no help from either Estrada or Tetteh.
Evans at RB
with our depth in the midfield, I see no reason as to why Evans can’t be cover at RB. Also, Levesque was playing there early in the year? Sigi said the plan was for Evans to finish the game at RB, until he got hurt… again. Evans was at RB in that Gold Cup game a few years ago. I know that isn’t exactly a great example, but it does show that it is a possibility.
Should also mark the last shred of remote hope for Terry Boss, so there's that at least
Also burn the yellow jerseys, thanks.
by lemonverbena on Jul 22, 2011 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree about the jerseys
The first thing I said to my wife after the game was that they should burn those yellow uniforms. After a national television humiliation, why would we ever want to be seen in those uniforms again?
As for Boss, I don’t think he’s the replacement for Keller that we need. I hope we have some real good ‘keepers that we’re considering for next year after Kasey retires.
Why not try for somewhat lesser clubs?
If the friendlies are to continue, and I’d say that would be a season by season decision (I’d vote for no friendlies next year if we play in the Open Cup and CONCACAF Champions League….if no champions league, then one would be alright) then why not go for a mid-table side in the Premier League, La Liga, or Serie A. You still get a club from a major European league, might be getting a club that wants to expand its North American fan base (so would want to put on a good show, but not desecrate the home club like ManU did) and you have an entertaining and competitive match.
As soccer fandom continues to grow in Seattle, I think its likely that SSFC can bring in clubs that aren’t as big as Chelsea, Barcelona, or ManU, but still have recognition. Hell, a friendly against Fullham would be fun (some American connections, Keller’s old club). I think there’s options out there to maintain friendlies if there’s support for them but keep things more balanced in terms of competition.
Follow me on the twitters @AlanHoffmann
Well, we tried that last year
And people, I think rightfully, were pissed that they paid friendly money to see the likes of Celtic. I don’t think people want to see foreign teams for the sake of seeing foreign teams. I think they want a spectacle. We can go round and round about how good Wednesday’s spectacle was, but I’ll be shocked if the lesson they take away from it is “don’t bring in big clubs that might embarrass us”
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 22, 2011 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions
People were pissed be brought in Celtic?
If Celtic’s not a big club, then I apparently need to re-adjust my notion of what a big club is.
Follow me on the twitters @AlanHoffmann
by 51dimes on Jul 22, 2011 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would rather watch paint dry
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 10:00 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Celtic doesn't compare with the truly big European sides
They have notoriety, because they are a big fish in the small pond of the SPL and their derby with Rangers. However, they haven’t made noise in Champions League for quite some time and are only moderately competitive in Europa League.
Plus they fail the totally unscientific player name-recognition test. When they came to Seattle, I had no idea who their players were, just like Chivas and Boca Juniors.
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.
this exactly
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jul 22, 2011 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Fail Name-recognition test?
But they’ve got Lumbergh! Sorry, I meant Ljungburg…
by Sobchak on Jul 22, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yes
for the simple fact that Freddie Ljungberg was still a Sounder when Celtic came to town last year. He didn’t join Celtic until December, nearly 6 months after he left Seattle.
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.
For me it was the money
I don’t mind watching Boca or Celtic, but charging Man U/Barca prices to see them is not cool.
I’m actually in favor of 51dimes idea for the future (bring in mid-table teams), but charge ticket prices accordingly.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
DC United has Everton this year
They’ll get less than 15k
Portland hosted West Brom, and didn’t sell out.
KC hosted Newcastle, and didn’t sell out.
Small clubs are a complete and utter waste
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Jul 22, 2011 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Apparently Exeter City want's Kirsten to arrange a NW tour for them next season!
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Port Vale came here and played the PDL teams
Exeter should too
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
LOL, now that's way to small of a club
I guess my other point would be, if you draw the line at Celtic then you run out of “big clubs” to play against fairly quickly. I don’t believe the Sounders have invited a Serie A team yet so there are options for more big clubs from Europe. I’d like to think clubs like Aston Villa or Tottenham have name recognition to a certain degree. But if you limit it to just the really big clubs (and if the Sounders don’t play better in them) the novelty of these friendlies wears off even for those that like them now.
I think most of the people in this community (myself included) would like to see friendlies scrapped. But if they are to continue, I think steps need to be taken for the Sounders to be more competitive. As meaningless as they are, I’d love to see SSFC win one of these friendlies. Small clubs may be a “complete and utter waste” but getting killed by big clubs doesn’t have much merit either.
Follow me on the twitters @AlanHoffmann
Spurs and Villa are both bigger and better than Celtic.
Hell, Chivas is better than Celtic. Celtic are famous, but they’re not that big and not that good any more.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 22, 2011 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but they bring out the Irish-Americans
Which is what they were clearly trying to do by bringing them to Seattle.
Soccer is about the next game
I actually enjoyed watching ManUtd (especially the first half), enjoyed the 67,000 and am simply sorry that our reserves got pounded the way they did. I don’t mind one large midseason friendly with the likes of ManUtd, RM or the Gunners, even if we get our clock cleaned. I can’t afford to take my kids to England, much less tickets at Old Trafford similar to what I have at RBP. All my kids are talking about is that they got to see Wayne Rooney and Rio Ferdinand up close, that is their takeaway from this. I say bring on Ronaldo next year. Bring on SF Panama.
by Brougham Hooligan on Jul 22, 2011 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I was pretty distraught by the soul-crushing whooping we got Wednesday...
I mean, I know it was just a friendly, but it hurts me as a Sounders fan to see “Man U Demolishes Sounders” headlines on ESPN and the like.
That said, I would love to one day (hopefully sooner than later) be able to stand toe to toe with Premier League teams.
If we gotta do mid season friendlies, I say go big and play smart. And thank you to AH for recognizing the silly friendly-related agony of many of us fans.
by BrooklynPreacher on Jul 22, 2011 11:16 AM PDT reply actions
I'd like to see two friendlies a year
One preseason match a week or two before the season starts. Keep the Community Shield against an MLS team, but have this one against FMF, J-League, K-League or similar competition. Maybe CSKA Moscow. A friendly that won’t be driven by the spectacle of the opponent, but to see our Sounders prepare for the season against a club who will challenge us. I think establishing relations with these types of teams, especially in Asia, will pay dividends in the long run.
Then, in mid-summer, I’d like them to really take the idea of a friendly as a spectacle over the top. Bring in Real Madrid, Arsenal, or Inter Milan. Clear an off-week so you can play the friendly on a Sat or Sun, then throw a big block party “Soccer Celebration” similar to the smaller thing they did against RBNY. Cordon off areas near the stadium, have some beer gardens, games for the kids. Bring in all sorts of sponsors. With a weeknight game, many do not get to relax and soak up the atmosphere pregame. The goal would be to make it so fun, even if we get drubbed, people who were there for the experience have still had a good time.
Then maybe, if you want to get crazy and keep it competitive while still rewarding all the players, tweak the rules. Play 120 minutes. Use regular FIFA rules for the first 90 (with maybe 5-6 subs instead of 3), then go wild with reserves in Extra Time. Maybe awards post-game for the best Golazo (sponsored by Golazo of course) and MVP? This would hopefully ensure that those who want to see a spectacle get it, and those who want to see the Sounders compete against top European competition will also have their fill.
the problem with having a friendly in march.. is that many teams are in session at that time
and wouldnt want to come to the USA.
I specifically cited Asian leagues for a reason
J-League, K-League, and the Chinese Super League all start in early March. A late February friendly might be worth coming out for them. I have no idea what level of competition the K-L or CSL would provide. The AFL starts in late March, and could be decent competition, though I believe I have heard it said that MLS is already better than the AFL. Russia currently plays a March-Nov. schedule, but is changing in the upcoming years. The FMF is in session, so probably would not come up.
In addition to the obvious benefits connections to Asia would bring, teams from that region are available when MLS is looking to prepare for the season.
There's also quite a few Asians up here
I don’t know if they’re all necessarily engaged fans of soccer, but you have the demographic… If you brought a top team, it might actually draw a pretty good crowd.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 25, 2011 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
This game hurt so badly in such an unimportant way
Those that are uniformed, uninterested, or just looking for any excuse to hate on the Sounders/MLS are still uniformed, uninterested, and found an excuse to hate on the Sounders/MLS.
Yeah it sucks when a bunch of people start ragging on your team because they are ignorant, but truth of the matter is I think more good then harm will come from this game.
We showed a great first half, our fans represented us well (they were really impressed over at The Busby Babe) and we earned what I assume is a fairly significant amount of money for future endeavors. To top it off the management learned what happens when you mismanage a friendly (and against such a strong team that the game can be written off) and I’m sure the starting 11 feels fired up after going toe to toe with ManUtd.
The funny thing is...
That those people (at least the ones i know) that are looking for an excuse to hate on MLS or Sounders will always find one. Those people were got their excuse last year (our problems with LA). The same people did not all of a sudden change their minds when we won our second US Open Cup. Some Seattle people (including media) will just never get around to liking soccer, or MLS, or SSFC no matter what happens. And they will continue to jump on any event that they think proves their point. I dont really care. I love my team. Sounder Till I Die.
I think what they need to do is...
start the 2nd teamers in the first half, and play the “starters” in the second. Sure we would have been down 6-0 by then, but at least we would have watched entertaining football for the last 45 minutes.
I also think it would be interesting if they brought over some EPL referees for the friendlies. The Sounders weren’t the only ones outclassed. Toledo was clearly afraid to make a few necessary calls.
It would have ended 25-0...
…with 20 of those goals on PKs.
No, actually, make that 75-0. 20 of the first 25 on PKs, then 50 from ManU scoring on an empty net after Webb had sent off every member of the Sounders.
No Adrian No
Would someone wake up and realize that Keller made 2 great saves in the first half and it easily could have been 3-0, 3-1 against our starters?
Then Man U brought on a stronger team. There is no reason to think in a simlar situation that Man U might not have still won 5-0.
In Soccer you can’t just say 1-0 so obviously if we kept our starters in it’s 3-0, 3-1 at most. It very easily could have been 5-0.
What would the response have been had we left all our starters in the whole time and we lost 5-0. You think we would be like…well at least we gave them all we had….kudos to the front office etc? I think people like to complain a lot around here and the recent form hasn’t given them the chance to do so, so finally this is their chance.
Please front office the 500 people really upset by this are people that are new to soccer and just need to learn that real competitions matter more then money grab friendlies, no matter how many countries it’s broadcasted in. There’s a dirty little secret in soccer, a 3million dollar pay rolll can’t compete with 250 million plus. The only thing leaving starters in does is risk injury in the hopes we only lose 4-0. Sorry but that wouldn’t have changed anyones perspective on anything.
Quite frankly
You won over more people by rewarding your team for their hard work and them seeing the ECS do their thing then you lost support because the 2nd best team in the world demolished your reserves.
Your overall point my be correct
but your last post here isn’t. Rewarding the reserves doesn’t win anyone over. Fans are won over by the players playing quality, entertaining football. It was there in the first half, not so much the second.
To say that we won more support for playing reserves rather than putting up a battle is a stretch. That said, those that watched the first half clearly saw some quality on both sides.
by ABTsportsline on Jul 22, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I want a USMNT game for the midseason friendly
Let the Sounders rest and bring the USA to America’s First City of Soccer! Oh shit turf
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
