What's the problem?

Mango Jam · 06-19-2005, 07:10 AM

I know it sucks to be them right now but we have got to get some cohesion on this team. I noticed it way back in March when I saw them in an exhibition game here in Tulsa against The Wiz. Then I dismissed it as lack of experience together. They were bunching up around the ball, making incomplete passes and not pressing the other team's offense when they were attacking. This is still happening. When we get the ball we make nervous, sloppy passes forward and then stand there like we were glad to get rid of the ball or lazy backward passes, allowing the other team to regroup. Where is the speed, where is the passion? Watson has it, Tiger has it, but it's just too sporadic with the other players. The officiating didn't help last night but the refs aren't the constant, the players are. Tonight's game was over in the second minute and we can't let that happen if we want to make the playoffs. I still love the team and will support them but this sure makes it difficult for them to build a fan base in SLC and garner support for a new stadium.

Old Ska · 06-19-2005, 07:12 AM

What's the problem?

Coaching.

Jim Umber · 06-19-2005, 09:21 AM

The problem is in the mental attitude of the players. As was pointed out, They seem to come out, expecting to lose, then when the other team scores a goal, they get even worse. I know that it IS purely mental attitude, because many times, for awhile, they will start clicking and their attack looks as good or better than their attackers. The problem is they don't start out that way, and only get there occasionally. Quite often, after they are completely out of the running (score 3-0).

They mainly need to get out of the "Losers" mode.

I really believe they have what it takes to REALLY be good; even live up to their billing, which is saying a lot. They're just collectively and individually in a slump, and something needs to pull them out of it.

rslfan · 06-19-2005, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Ska

What's the problem?

Coaching.

It's not the coach. It's the players ,excluding a few who come to win and show it on the pitch. The coach can't make the players play, they have to want to play. What happened to all the players who stated they wanted to play for Coach Ellinger. You are obviously not showing it. It's time to bench those players who: only want the ball played to their feet, not willing to attack the other team, that can only pass back to DJ vs going forward, who won't hustle on the field and those who obviously have their head somewhere other than on the field. I say start all the reserves .. what's it going to hurt other than perhaps showing up our veterans who don't bring their "A game" or any game to the table.

Aerick · 06-19-2005, 12:56 PM

I'm happier with RSL's play now than I was towards the beginning of the season. They seem to pass better (though not perfectly) and seem to maintain possession of the ball longer. It seems to me that the problem is the midfield to striker/FW movement. No wing play, and we're constantly sending the ball up for Washington to try and win the headers - which he does on occassion - but wins them to no one. When Trembly actually got a few crosses in there, I got excited! We need more of that. How many goals did San Jose make off of crosses? Two out of the three!! We can't even think about a statistic like that until we actually start crossing the ball. I'll go back to my original strategy:

4-3-3 with two ball controllers on each side up front with Washington in the middle for the crosses. I hope Dipsy is back on Wednesday.

A couple of observations: I think Behncke is doing fairly well in the back, though he got beat on the one goal. Kamler is doing VERY well in the back! Does anyone know why we went with only 3 back this game?

Loyal1 · 06-19-2005, 01:01 PM

I have no inside info on this but just a thought or two.

I think with the losing/scoreless streak the team has circled its wagons a bit. They've called one another out for calling one another out. The clearing the air session lead to agreeing to not let the frustration and negativity show. They certainly let it flow in practice.

They fought and held LA off for a half. That game got labeled as a turning point. Against SJ they gave up a superearly goal. Then another. The heads drop. What we think is lethagy is perhaps more demoralization.

Watson sticks out because he is A) young and full of energy; B) only asked to chase for the last 30 minutes.

Jim Umber · 06-19-2005, 01:03 PM

Here's an article about the Universidad Catolica game that mentions Jamie watson:

http://real.saltlake.mlsnet.com/MLS...t=.jsp&team=rsl

I want to point out this part:

Quote:

And his ball to Akwari for the game winner looked like the stuff of a seasoned veteran.

"You know Jamie and I stay after practice and work on those," said Akwari. "He knew that I usually run to the far post, so he just set it up there for me and I put it away."

That extra time at practice went a long way toward earning Watson respect, but from the moment he stepped on the field he made Ellinger's choice of a late substitute look good.

And THAT is what we have been missing all this time. Jamie knew where Akwari was going and put the ball where it would do some good. You get that knowlege from playing with teammates for a long time...or from EXTRA EFFORT to develope it on purpose.

We should see that kind of effort with others on the team as well, then we would begin to see things happen on the field.

Not refuting your remarks, Loyal1, just some added information that I happened to notice and thought I'd throw into the mix.

Old Ska · 06-19-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rslfan

It's time to bench those players who: only want the ball played to their feet, not willing to attack the other team, that can only pass back to DJ vs going forward, who won't hustle on the field and those who obviously have their head somewhere other than on the field. I say start all the reserves .. what's it going to hurt other than perhaps showing up our veterans who don't bring their "A game" or any game to the table.

I couldn't agree more. But if this doesn't happen, who will be to blame?

At least let the youngsters get some meaningful game time. I would be happy even if they just let Watson start the next 2 games and brought Kreis in at 60 minutes to see if he can put something together when everyone else is tired.

But I still feel that unless they are paying coach E next to nothing (which might compensate for the fact that we have to put up with him learning on the job), that they need to start shopping around for a new coach. In fact, I would not be the least surprized if they already are.

It is about more than wins, even about more than scoring goals (which admittedly are 2 things we can not do). Early season choice of formation got us where we are now, that is on the coach. In my opinion our set pieces are awful, I think you can put that on the coach too. A team could have one or maybe two nonproducing players and you could blame it on the players. But a whole team's worth of nonproducers? We are paying way too much for Mathis and he is on our roster because of Ellinger rescuing him from the total fiasco Mathis caused at Hannover 96. 3 of Mathis' 4 coaches prior to coming to RSL had conflicts with him...Zambrano even said he needed psyciatric help (and the fourth wasn't around long enough to really get in it with him).

Ellinger's real experience lies with coaching these young kids (which he has done plenty, but he has one year of experience in MLS for Columbus 10 years ago). So bring on Watson and Begsano, dump Mathis and Kreis. Worst case scenario: we will continue to be a team that can't score. Best case scenario: Something will turn around, we will win a few, and Ellinger can prove to naysayers that he has a reason for still being in Salt Lake City.

montgjules · 06-19-2005, 03:01 PM

I am not personally one to put the coach as public enemy #1 when a team is losing, and I'm not going to do it now.

I agree completely with the Skaster's assessment of change: put in the younger players and what's the WORST that could happen? We lose? We make the all-time record of minutes without scoring in the MLS? Oh wait.. we already have that situation. So we have nothing to lose! Let's at least have fun with it and see what happens.

Maybe Uncle Dave would rather see us lose with big names rather than mix things up and lose on a risk. Coach E is probably scared that if he does something drastic and then we lose, people will suddenly have something to blame on him. "What kind of coach would put in a rookie instead of the leading all-time scorer...?" I think that he's not going to take risks because THEN the naysayers will have an excuse, a scapegoat, etc.

Let's hope Coach E doesn't lose too much sleep over this all. I'd like to see him stick around and I'd like to see things turn out well for him/us.

Stucki · 06-19-2005, 03:07 PM

Naysayers? Is that not only you so far? Look at all of the professional sports franchises who have a revolving door for coaches. They are not successful. Coaches change strategies in all sports based on their opponents. Changing formations is not the problem. Execution of the plan is the problem.

The biggest problem with wacking the coach so early is the incredibly large pool of soccer coaches we have in this country.

We are an expansion team. Every player we have was deemed expendable by their former team or are rookies. We have talent, but we don't have dominate the league talent.

We don't know yet if Ellinger is the answer, we don't know yet if Ellinger is the problem. The early part of the expansion season in a sport where the experience of playing together is the second most important aspect of the game behind only talent is not sufficient to judge the merits of a coach.