Wednesday, June 1, 2011

MLS crowds could set all-time standard


Mike Woitalla of Soccer America reports again on how Major League Soccer looks to shatter the MLS season attendance record in 2011.

The New England Revolution drew its biggest crowd of the season by far for a loss to the Los Angeles Galaxy. The Northwest trio drew big crowds as usual in Week 11, the third straight week in which league-wide average attendance for the season increased. For MLS attendance rankings ...


* The New England crowd of 21,793 that saw the Revs lose, 1-0, to the Los Angeles Galaxy -- on a Miguel Lopez header set up by David Beckham -- marked the Revs' biggest crowd of the season by 7,607. The previous high in 2011 at Gillette Stadium was for the Revs' last home game; 14,186 for a 1-0 win over Vancouver.

* The Galaxy has the highest road attendance average: 23,784 for nine games.

* The 2011 leaguewide season attendance average of 17,478 after 11 weeks of action is higher than the 17,406 mark for the highest full season average, set in MLS's inaugural 1996 season.

* Portland lost its first home game after winning all previous five at Jeld-Wen Field but extended its streak of sellouts when 18,627 came for its 3-2 loss to D.C. United. The league's two other Pacific Northwest teams drew well once again: Seattle (36,026) and Vancouver (21,000).

MLS ATTENDANCE:
Club (2011 Rank)
Week 11
Home Games
2011 Home
Average

2010 Home
Average (Final)

Chicago (13)
11,926
13,288
15,814
Chivas USA (9)
-- 17,118 14,576
Colorado (14)
16,439
13,835 13,329
Columbus (16)
9,431 10,071
14,642
D.C. United (11)
-- 16,344 14,532
FC Dallas (12)
-- 13,728 10,815
Houston (7)
16,709 17,488 17,310
Kansas City (-)
-- --
10,287
Los Angeles (2)
14,485 22,823 21,437
New England (15)
21,793 12,449
12,987
New York (8)
18,081 17,339 18,441
Philadelphia (6)
-- 18,101 19,254
Portland (5)

18,627

18,627 --
Real Salt Lake (10)
14,674 16,262
17,095
San Jose (17)
-- 9,855
9,659
Seattle (1)
36,026 36,268 36,173
Toronto FC (4)
20,122
19,628
20,453
Vancouver (3)
21,000 20,117 --
Leaguewide
18,274 17,478 16,037

Acting CONCACAF President Attempts To Fire Blazer

Update: Later on Tuesday night, acting CONCACAF president Lisle Austin released a statement saying it is within the rights of the president to fire the secretary general and Blazer was 'trespassing' by using CONCACAF's media channel to distribute a contradictory media release. Austin also said he would not be discussing the Blazer firing further.

With CONCACAF president Jack Warner preliminarily suspended from his role, acting CONCACAF president Lisle Austin has apparently tried to fire general secretary Chuck Blazer according to multiple media reports. CONCACAF released a statement on Tuesday evening calling the move “unauthorized” and pointing to CONCACAF regulations that only that organization’s Executive Committee can fire the general secretary.

Today an unauthorized declaration was made by Lisle Austin attempting to remove Chuck Blazer as General Secretary of CONCACAF.

This attempted action was taken without any authority. Under the CONCACAF Statutes, jurisdiction over the General Secretary rests solely with the CONCACAF Executive Committee which has taken no action. Further a majority of the Executive Committee Members have advised Mr. Austin that he does not have the authority to take such action.

Chuck Blazer continues as CONCACAF General Secretary and with the full authority of his office. The Confederation continues its normal operations including the Gold Cup commencing on June 5th at Cowboys Stadium in Dallas.

It was Blazer who presented evidence to FIFA implicating former FIFA presidential candidate and Asian Football Confederation president Mohamed Bin Hammam and Warner in a money for votes scandal.

Both Bin Hammam and Warner were preliminarily suspended on Sunday after a meeting of FIFA’s Ethics Committee. Blazer had already accused Warner of violating that preliminary suspension by encouraging the Caribbean members of FIFA to vote for FIFA president Sepp Blatter in Wednesday’s election. Blatter is the only candidate, but some members of FIFA are expected to either not show up on Wednesday or abstain from casting a vote.

FIFA To Change World Cup Voting Method

During remarks at the FIFA Congress, FIFA president Sepp Blatter announced that moving forward the entire 208-member Congress will vote on who hosts the World Cup.

"I want to give more power to the national associations. In the future, the World Cup will be decided by the Fifa congress. The executive committee will create a shortlist but will make no recommendations, only a list… and the congress will decide on the venue."

Under the old system, the Executive Committee picked the World Cup host.

Soehn returns to MLS coaching ranks


Ridge Mahoney of Soccer America reports on Tommy Soehn's return to the MLS coaching ranks.

He was hired with the big picture in mind, but now Tom Soehn goes back to the 24/7 headache of head coaching in which any day could come disaster.

That’s a pessimistic, even fatalistic, viewpoint of course, yet the haunted, tortured demeanor that Soehn wore during his final months in charge of D.C. United bespoke of the pressure he felt as the 2009 season unraveled without a playoff appearance, just as had occurred the previous year.

In his first season, a first-round exit from the playoffs after topping the Eastern Conference with a 16-7-7 record soured a portion of the fan base, and discontent grew as United posted an 11-15-4 mark in 2008 despite winning the U.S. Open Cup. The following year, United won fewer games but accumulated more points: at 9-8-13, it finished in a three-way tie for the final playoff spot with 40 points, and lost out to eventual champion Real Salt Lake via tiebreakers.

When D.C. United dallied regarding a contract extension, Soehn removed himself from the process, and in January, 2010, took a role as director of soccer operations with Vancouver, which still had a season of second-division soccer ahead before it could join MLS. Whether or not team management has also hired him as a backup plan in case a coaching change was needed, that’s the job he has now, at least temporarily.

The Soehn Era starts Wednesday night at Home Depot Center against Chivas USA, which is in its own makeover mode. After a six-win season, management cut loose one former MLS defender, Martin Vasquez, and replaced him with another, the urbane and polished Robin Fraser, who when hired in January mentioned that converting a bad team into a good one is a 24/7 commitment until considerable progress is made.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Coaching Changes for Chicago & Vancouver

With coaching changes made in Major League Soccer this past weekend with both Teitur Thordarson (Vancouver) and Carlos de los Cobos (Chicago), Ives Galarcep looks at the moves by both teams.

The 2011 season started off with so much promise for both the Vancouver Whitecaps and Chicago Fire, two teams who came into the season with question marks and coaches who seemed like prime candidates to be replaced if things didn't go well.

After an encouraging March that saw the teams go 2-1-1, Vancouver and Chicago went on horrid runs, combining for a 0-9-11 record, with few signs that things were going to turn around for either club.

So it really shouldn't have come as a surprise that both Teitur Thordarson and Carlos de los Cobos would be the first two coaches fired, and both before the month of June began. Both men were fired on Monday.


The Barcelona Way - Part II

Paul Gardner hit another home run in his 'The Barcelona Way - Part II'.

Aspects of 'the Barcelona Way' that I definitely agree with are:

* What are normally not associated with teams that stand out for thir ability to keep possession and ball control - work ethic and defending when the other team has the ball - are what makes Barcelona so unique. Teams should try to mirror and emulate the things that Barcelona do so special, but as great as they are in keeping possession, they are equally adept in retaining the ball once they lose it. The idea of transition - they are the best transition team in the world on both sides of the ball.

* In regards to the work ethic and ground they cover during the match, you don't have to be a blue-collar worker bee to extend a lot of energy. Normally associated with a grunt - I have always referenced the phrase of 'piano players and piano carriers' - Barcelona has clearly shown that special players can be both creative artist ('piano player') and battler and hard worker ('piano carrier'). Not only does Barcelona keep the ball longer and complete more passes than their opposition, but they also cover more ground and do more running than anyone else - perhaps the difference is that their running is more constructive, both on and off the ball, and both in attack and in defense.

* 'They play the right way...' - Sir Alex Ferguson echoed that statement in his post-game comments in reference to the style and substance with Barcelona. Teams like Brazil (in the modern era) and Arsenal (over the past 5 years) have played 'the beautiful game', but haven't been able to claim the titles that go with the truly special teams. For Barcelona to claim the ultimate prize with putting a premium on possession and ball control, doing so with players that aren't hulking in size - they have created a new era and way of thinking in the modern game.

Reading Gardner's second installment (below) will make you see that Gardner's rants of the past have come to fruition - his quest in finding 'the beautiful game' will now be realized, as a new era and revolution in the game is ready to begin.


The day before last Saturday’s Champions League final between Barcelona and Manchester United, an irritating article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, which told us that we -- meaning, one gathers, almost everyone except the authors -- don't know what we're watching: “But here is something most people don't know about Barcelona: Unlike every other famous soccer team in the world that thrives on possession and ball control, they do something unique during matches. They run as if their bikini briefs are on fire.”

This far from original observation was backed up by a totally unconvincing stat which held that, during its six knockout-round games in the Champions League, Barca’s players had run a total of 390 miles, while its opponents had run “only” 380 miles, a difference of a mere 3 percent, surely not statistically significant, but which was then built up into a claim that Barca’s “central weapon, and perhaps its defining strength, is what happens when the other team does get its cleats on the ball ...” In other words, Barca’s strength is defense.

In the sense that attack is the best form of defense, that may well be true. But only if, as with Barcelona, the attack is sustained, intelligent, skillful. Are we supposed to ignore the beauty that involves while we tick off, from our handy list of coaching essentials, work rate and tackles?

But those are the sort of observations, backed up by bad stats, or by badly interpreted stats, that occur so easily to people who seem intent on downplaying the skillful side of the game. People to whom the success of a team like Barcelona will remain a mystery -- and evidently an annoyance -- unless it can be explained in puerile defensive terms.

What Barcelona has been doing these past few years is to emphasize that in soccer it is a mistake to even think that offense and defense are separate compartments of the game. The two are intertwined in almost every move of the game, a mutual reliance that involves the inevitable problem: to bolster one aspect is to deprive the other. It is the abiding curse of the modern game that it is now enveloped in a cloying mist of cautious play brought about by an overemphasis on defense.

Barca, for sure, has its defensive qualities. Separating them out from the team’s overall attacking style is not an easy -- nor necessarily a useful -- exercise. To acclaim them as the bedrock of Barcelona’s style and of its success is simply fatuous.

Equally absurd -- and another of the carefully constructed coaching myths, most of them designed to underline the importance of coaching -- is the idea that star players are somehow damaging to a team, that star players are always selfish, that a team is better off with out them.

Barca is the greatest example we have right now of a team that plays as a team, as a tightly knit unit that knows how to play -- simultaneously -- offense and defense. It is also a team that has a collection of superb individual stars. Including, of course, the greatest individual player to be seen in today’s game, Lionel Messi.

Analyzing Messi is like dissecting Mozart or Rembrandt or Tolstoy -- the results are always unsatisfactory, always counter-productive, for they leave us with something so much less impressive than what we started with. Is it helpful, or in any way rewarding to separate Messi into a sequence of muscular movements, of lightning synaptic connections? Or to make him sound like a coaching manual, nothing but a collection of tactical platitudes, which will inevitably end up praising him because he does his defensive duties, because he tracks back?

If it is agreed that Messi is a soccer genius -- and this seems now to be the widely held opinion -- then any sort of materialistic analysis is not going to bring understanding. Genius does not abide by the accepted guidelines, the usual measuring sticks, the standard scientific norms. Speaking of Messi, his coach Pep Guardiola said, somewhat tautologically, “I think his genius is impossible to describe. That’s why he is a genius.” Which is more or less what the 19th century essayist William Hazlitt had in mind with his “rules and models destroy genius and art.”

The message is that Messi, the superstar on this wonderful Barcelona team, should be left alone to do what he instinctively does. But genius in soccer cannot be an isolated talent, it can only flourish in the group, in the team. A fact that gives the macho brigade yet another opening to downgrade skill as they claim that the star’s life is made easy by others who are doing “the dirty work” for him -- a phrase clearly meant to position the star as an effete Little Lord Fauntleroy and the “workers” as brave heroes who should really be getting the praise.

That is another coaching shibboleth utterly laid to waste by Barcelona. Who are the “workers” on Barca, these industrious slaves whose only purpose is to spend all their time feeding the ball to Messi? Xavi and Iniesta, maybe? Oh, come on -- two players who, while not in the Messi class, have considerable claim to dwell among the second tier of soccer geniuses. Where was this “dirty work” anyway, in a game during which Barcelona committed only five fouls?

ManU’s Alex Ferguson, right after he had seen his champion team made to look very ordinary indeed, praised Barcelona as the best team he’s ever faced in all his long coaching career (it began back in 1974) and gave us, in five monosyllabic words, a terse but all-embracing comment on their style: “They play the right way ...”

One can hear a certain wistfulness in that praise, a regretful look back by Ferguson to the glory days of Scottish soccer, the soccer he must recall from his boyhood or from the tales told by his elders of the traditional Scottish soccer of highly skilled attacking players and an on-the-ground, short-passing style. That was the right way, but as far as the Scots are concerned, it has sadly faded away, to be nothing more than a romantic memory.

But not for Ferguson -- there’s no doubt that his ManU teams have always been more skilled than the average English team, have always included a greater emphasis on talented attacking players.

Ferguson’s teams undoubtedly try to play soccer the right way, but within a hostile environment he has had to compromise to live with the traditional thud-and-blunder requirements of the English domestic game.

Last Saturday, Ferguson saw -- well, suffered, I suppose -- the beautiful, majestic power of Barcelona. “They do mesmerize you with their passing,” he said. He praised Barca’s style laconically, but with real feeling. This was “the right way.”

So where do we go from here? A more skilled, closer-to-Barca, ManU? Possibly. A much wider attempt by coaches everywhere to adopt Barca’s style -- which has shown that it is not only a delight to the eye, but is a winner, too? Alas, that seems doubtful -- the dead mass of conventional coaching opinion and what passes for original thinking within the profession will find proof, yet again, either that the Barca way doesn’t really work, or that it is a fluke, and we shall be back to the glutinous platitudes of the coaching manuals, the very ones that ... “destroy genius and art.”

No one is saying that playing “the right way” is the easy approach. It is, in fact, the greatest of soccer’s challenges and, as such, it is the only worthwhile one. Ferguson says he is ready for it. How many other coaches will follow his lead?

Monday, May 30, 2011

Gardner hails 'The Barcelona Way'

Paul Gardner sums up the UEFA Champions League Final perfect in his rent piece on 'The Barcelona Way'-


Barcelona 3 Manchester United 1. How can a game between the champions of England, the legendary ManU, and the champions of Spain, the equally esteemed Barca, possibly turn out to be a mismatch?

But such was the superiority of Barca, such the increasing tameness of ManU’s response, that the word drowns out one’s attempt to resist it. If Barcelona was playing soccer, then what was ManU playing, because there certainly did seem to be a fundamental difference in what each team’s players did with the ball.

When Barca was in possession the ball stayed mostly on the ground, mostly nursed and cuddled and prodded and yes, sometimes, caressed, by Barcelona feet. The caressing came, mostly, from the sublime Lionel Messi.

This is the point at which one can always expect a baying interruption from those irritating macho types whose troublesome hormones demand that they mock those words, that they insist, as Italy’s Claudio Gentile once famously did, that soccer is not a game for ballerinas, and that, as they sing the praises of red-blooded soccer, they are also proving that any less robust style -- the classic Brazil, or Barca for instance -- lacks the super-necessary physicality.

The argument is, of course, pathetic. Neither Brazil nor Barca lacks a strong physical presence, and no one is saying that you can play top class soccer without that. What Barca was saying - shouting - on Saturday was that physicality is merely the foundation, a given, in fact, to which the unique soccer skills must be carefully added . . . to produce a game that is recognizably soccer and not merely a test of strength and stamina and machismo, a game in which the skills and artistry of soccer are paramount, a game in which those qualities are what you notice, a game in which the physical element is always secondary, always the means, not the end.

I shouldn’t say always -- we know there’s no such word in soccer. There are bound to be occasions when muscle alone suffices, but for a team determined to play skillful soccer, those occasions will be infrequent.

A team such as Barcelona, in other words. How many times on Saturday did we see the Catalans powerfully belting the ball any-old-where, or committing crudely physical fouls? Or even simply running frenetically about, as though determined to prove that they have that current coaching solve-all, a high work rate (another physical measure, incidentally, not necessarily connected to any known soccer skill)?

This is not to say that ManU were guilty of all those gaucheries -- merely to point out that they were a lot closer to them than Barcelona. Why would that be?

We can start to probe ManU’s ineffective performance by casting an eye over the starting line up -- where what strikes one immediately is the lack of brain-power in midfield. Muscle, yes, from Michael Carrick -- and work rate, yes, from the non-stop Park Ji-Sung -- -- and speed and trickiness, yes, from Antonio Valencia. Which left the brainwork to the 37-year-old Ryan Giggs -- a role that he comprehensively flunked, partly because he looked his age, but mostly, I think, because it was beyond him in the first place. Giggs is yet another of those good players whom the Brits turn into great players -- simply on the strength of performances within the English league.
You also know that buried in the selection process by which that midfield came about was the perceived need for at least one ball-winner, those rugged, hard-tackling midfielders so typical of the English game. Enter Carrick.

Which was something of a joke. To win the ball you need to be able to tackle, or to move quickly enough to pull off interceptions. So, seriously, one has to wonder just what sort of scouting report Alex Ferguson was working on when he decided to rely on Carrick, Park and Valencia to first win the ball and then to hold on to it when confronted with an opposing midfield that is notorious for its dizzying passing patterns and its tenacious and skillful possession.

Pause for a momentary glimpse of the stats: Possession - Barca 63 percent, ManU 37 percent.

Enough said? No, not at all -- because there is possession that is nothing more than repeated lateral and backward passes, easy passes, that accomplish little other than to improve the stats -- and there is possession with purpose, attacking purpose. If that factor can be built into the stats, if the stats are re-named Attacking Possession, or if we could have -- which I have not seen -- the “Possession in the Attacking Third” stat -- Barca’s advantage would be even more overwhelming.

The failings of ManU’s banal midfield are brutally revealed by the contrast with what went on in Barca’s midfield. Who was Barca’s ball-winner? Did they need one? Maybe it was Sergio Busquets, perhaps the least skilled of the Barca squad, but he was never called upon to exert any physical presence, it simply wasn’t necessary for a team that has Xavi and Andres Iniesta buzzing around in the crucial area. You can, should you feel so inclined, sit back and admire the phenomenal work rate of those two players ... but it is more than likely that their superb ability to keep the ball rolling smoothly along the grass, their passing skill and accuracy -- their playmaking ability, the very ability that went missing in the ManU midfield -- is what will dazzle you. As it should.

In particular, that bit about the ball being kept on the ground. It is a banal observation that Barca is “not a big team.” Its three key players -- Messi, Xavi and Andres Iniesta -- are comparative midgets. Confronting them, at the heart of the ManU defense, stood two imposing center backs, Rio Ferdinand and Nemanja Vidic, both 6-foot-2 tall. Yet that huge height advantage, considered so important for English Premier League play, counted for nothing on Saturday. Barca kept the ball where it surely belongs in soccer -- on the ground. The build-up to all three goals was on the ground, two of the scoring shots were ground balls. Only David Villa’s curling shot for the third goal was airborne.

You could say that Barca plays to its strength -- that it gets the best out of its wee players by keeping the ball on the ground. Possibly -- though it is much more intriguing to view things the other way round. What if the vision of a style, of a quick-moving ground-based game, came first? What if it was that vision that allowed those three wonderful players to develop? Players who, without Barca’s devotion to the ground game, might well, given the current obsession with size, have been rejected as “too small”?