Nick Cushing Named Interim HC (Jul '22) / HC (Nov '22) / Fired (Nov ‘24)

[ZYanksRule]

whether you have the players or not, there are basic things that nick just did not do well. there are teams with worse talent who played with more personality than us. we had no ideas, patterns of play, or consistency in the starting lineup to really get some gelling going on. not to mention, under nick, we seem to drop our line of confrontation well into our half instead of pressing much higher in the attacking third to force turnovers.

with a strong midfield that we have, we should be able to do this. even if we don't do it well at first, it should be something that is drilled and worked on and even untalented players can learn how to press with some effectiveness (look at red bull).

yet - nick continues to field a different team nearly every game. rotation maybe? but none of these players have played enough straight games to truly deserve /need a rotation except for parks - who just happens to be the only consistent name in the starting xi. how do you expect a team to perform with cohesion and flow if they aren't allowed to get used to each other?

having new players so late in the season is difficult. but nick has showed that he doesn't know what to work with what he's got either. maybe none of these players were what he wanted. but he doesn't have the courage to bitch about it like dome cause he's a company man. maybe that's why he keeps his job or gets sent back to europe for some other position in CFG.

no, it's not easy to play with a team that had its spine ripped out, no striker, and then getting all new players with a 3rd of the season left to go where the first 2/3rd of the season just didn't go well. but regardless of the roster, i personally think a good coach should be able to implement certain patterns of play and inspire his players. whether those patterns of play work or not, that's one thing. but we don't even see any of it. what we do see is a lot of negative passes, slow decision making (cause we don't know where others will be - again no patterns of play), and jogging around the field like it's a rec league game. maxi is 35 years old and he was outrunning most everyone on out team tonight. that's just pathetic.

yes the front office dropped the ball. but nick is not being scape goated.. he's just not head coach material.

You very well may be right. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to get through this season to see what happens when this new roster we have learns how to play together. If the results don't improve in these final eight games, I'll agree with you.

I've also had concerns with his performance, mostly that I think he's a nice guy who's a great assistant coach but not a head coach. I also am concerned with how many minutes he gives our academy kids. Many of them shouldn't be getting starts. Is Cushing a developmental coach or a first-team coach? Plus the massive regression so many of our players have taken this year. Santi and Talles chief among them.

You're right that our roster wasn't good enough, but it's better than this. Fully agree with that. I can be convinced Cushing deserves to be fired, but that case will be easier for me to agree with if we don't find a run at the end of the season. Cushing did lead this team to the conference final last year. I know we struggled for a while under him and he got off to a bad first impression, but getting to the conference final was a pretty damn good piece of coaching. He didn't forget how to coach in the offseason.

 

[Sabo]

Keeping my vote on displeased. I dont have any problem with giving Nick a chance to finish out the season. I am not optimistic, but the fact is we are six points out of the playoffs with 5 straight home games coming up and (given the failure of Magno at the 9) hasnt really had a complete roster until now.

Still think Nick could be doing better with the roster we have. Unlike under Viera and Ronny, we almost never see halftime adjustments that change games. We are not an effective counterattacking team because of Nick's style of play, not because we dont have the players who can succeed on the run in the open field. There have been so many games where NYCFC was the better team with more and better chances to score, but got the draw or loss. Becoming a frustrating watch.

 

[mgarbowski]

I'd be interested in a poll where the choices were Fire Cushing, Fire Lee, Fire Both, Keep Both, or Go To Hell, CFG. This season is such a complete fail.

The roster was grossly incomplete for 70% of the season. Then we get 6 new players, and yes it is just 2 games, but not one new player has made a positive impact and there is no time this year to grow into it.* Cincinnati started 2 center forwards who are probably both better than Bakrar, at least right now. Maxi makes us better but he's slowing and re-signing him was a mix of sentimentalism and desperation. Of course, nobody looks good when you are shutout 3 straight games.

There is promise: Bakrar is shooting at a Taty rate and is piling up xG, both of which this team desperately needed. Fernandez and Perea are active (though if Perea ends up being a top squad addition but rented for 10 games in a season management wrote off that does not help). ASA says NYCFC had more xG than Cincinnati (second week in a row ASA gives NYC significantly more xG than Opta did, but even Opta had the game surprisingly close in the toughest Away stadium in MLS this year).

It's very disappointing the team acquired not one player who you would at least expect to have an immediate impact except for the guy fending off retirement. Youth is great. But I can't shake the feeling CFG used the window to acquire assets they hope to sell in 2-4 years rather than players who will win here. When they signed baby-faced Taty the roster had Villa and Shradi plus prime age Maxi who scored 33 goals combined that year. When Villa left the next season they added Mitrita and Heber. Excluding Maxi, the oldest forwards or attacking mids on this roster are Santi and Pelligrini, both 23. Fernandez is 19. Talles is still just 21. Bakrar is 22. If they turn into beasts we will sell them just as they hit their primes. If they want to stay it probably means they did not develop as hoped.

I have nothing to add re Cushing. It's still true that he was not given a fair shake, and the players on the field just scored 0 goals on (ASA) >4 xG, and yet I agree that even with the bad luck and crappy roster this season is in meaningful part his fault and he seems not to know how to make it better. Most unforgivable, our young players have not developed as they did under Vieira, Torrent and Deila. Is the stubborn insistence on continuing to play Talles without a 9 Nick's choice or a CFG directive he lacks the courage to refuse? Did CFG/Lee force this on Nick and that's why we only added 1 striker when we clearly needed 2? I don't know and I don't care. My answer to the hypothetical poll question is all of the above.

* M moogoo pushed back on this last night in chat w/r/t Risa. I stand by this. He's a CB and we just gave up our second worst 2-game conceded goal total of the season. If things get worse after you arrive but you plausibly can say "it's not my fault" that's still not having an impact. An impact means you actually make things better, not just avoid blame when instead they get worse.

 

[ZYanksRule]

Absolutely agree that the biggest issue with Cushing is how many young players have regressed under him. The biggest reason he will probably be out of a job on Halloween.

 

[canchon]

I read this and nearly spit out my beverage - Cushing literally believed that NYCFC had more goal chances in that game than FCC - did he even watch this game?

First, NYCFC didn’t have a SINGLE chance as good as the three that Cincy scored: an open header on a rebound within the six, a shot from inside the 18 with basically a wide open net, and a free header on a corner. I don’t know what xG says but those are gimmes. I can’t remember when NYCFC had “easy” goals like those. The fact that Cushing can’t see that (anyone who watched the game could see NYCFC was bereft of offensive ideas and clearly outplayed - Cincy knew they could just turn it on and create chances at will.

Seriously can we get this donkey of a coach out of here already??? He refuses to accept reality.

 

[LionNYC]

 

[moogoo]

View attachment 12970

I read this and nearly spit out my beverage - Cushing literally believed that NYCFC had more goal chances in that game than FCC - did he even watch this game?

First, NYCFC didn’t have a SINGLE chance as good as the three that Cincy scored: an open header on a rebound within the six, a shot from inside the 18 with basically a wide open net, and a free header on a corner. I don’t know what xG says but those are gimmes. I can’t remember when NYCFC had “easy” goals like those. The fact that Cushing can’t see that (anyone who watched the game could see NYCFC was bereft of offensive ideas and clearly outplayed - Cincy knew they could just turn it on and create chances at will.

Seriously can we get this donkey of a coach out of here already??? He refuses to accept reality.

xG supports his claim. but eye test says he's fucking nuts.

 

[mgarbowski]

First, NYCFC didn’t have a SINGLE chance as good as the three that Cincy scored: an open header on a rebound within the six, a shot from inside the 18 with basically a wide open net, and a free header on a corner.

ASA says Nick is sort of right. The Cincy rebound header was high probability, 42%. The second goal was just 20% and the Haaglund goal off the corner was 5% because headers that far away rarely score, even if open.

Meanwhile the Bakrar header at 59' from 3 feet out was 43% and the Talles chance at 81' was also 43%. Plus ASA says NYCFC had 1.49 team xG to 1.20 to Cincinnati. Maybe ASA is wrong. Opta says it was 1.2 to 1.1 in favor of Cincy, and the Bakrar and Talles shots were 19% and 26% respectively. That seems more accurate to me.
But even Opta does not support a verdict that Nick is totally off base. A tie would have been a fair result. To be fair, most of NYCFC's xG and most of their shots came in the final third of the game after it was already 2-0 and I think most people stopped watching. But those chances happened and Nick is not making things up. If this were not a season from hell the consensus judgment would probably be that NYCFC made a fair showing in the toughest home stadium MLS has seen in years but came up short.

I'm on record multiple times saying it drives me nuts when Nick says we had good chances but didn't finish because it has so rarely been true. Last week it absolutely was true and this week it's eh, close enough for a frustrated coach.

 

[mgarbowski]

"Statistically, this one was more even than the scoreline suggests, so coach Nick Cushing could plausibly complain about small margins and finishing variance and expected goals, and did."​

Matt Doyle, probably.

 

[Gotham Gator]

But even Opta does not support a verdict that Nick is totally off base. A tie would have been a fair result. To be fair, most of NYCFC's xG and most of their shots came in the final third of the game after it was already 2-0 and I think most people stopped watching. But those chances happened and Nick is not making things up. If this were not a season from hell the consensus judgment would probably be that NYCFC made a fair showing in the toughest home stadium MLS has seen in years but came up short.

This is one thing to keep in mind when looking at stats like possession, shots, shots-on-goal and xG. When a team goes up in a match, particularly by 2 goals or more, it is likely to sit back and absorb pressure. This gives the other team the ball and the chances and can lead to stats that make the game look even when it really wasn't.

I haven't looked deeply enough into the game's flow to see how much this was true on Saturday, but it's something to consider.

 

[mgarbowski]

This is one thing to keep in mind when looking at stats like possession, shots, shots-on-goal and xG. When a team goes up in a match, particularly by 2 goals or more, it is likely to sit back and absorb pressure. This gives the other team the ball and the chances and can lead to stats that make the game look even when it really wasn't.

I haven't looked deeply enough into the game's flow to see how much this was true on Saturday, but it's something to consider.

I didn't say NYCFC played well. I said Nick was not wrong to claim they had good chances. 2023 NYCFC has a tendency to start sluggish, concede first, and then not respond well until late, if at all. I believe that is coaching in some substantial part. He just wasn't delusional when he said the team had multiple good chances. 1-1 would have been a fair result for Cincy. And in the last 2 games the team had enough chances it should have scored 3-4 goals. He's frustrated at that part, and I sympathize.

 

[canchon]

This is one thing to keep in mind when looking at stats like possession, shots, shots-on-goal and xG. When a team goes up in a match, particularly by 2 goals or more, it is likely to sit back and absorb pressure. This gives the other team the ball and the chances and can lead to stats that make the game look even when it really wasn't.

I haven't looked deeply enough into the game's flow to see how much this was true on Saturday, but it's something to consider.

Game states play a lot into this, after FCC went up 3-0, their priority was to sub out their top players and generally just play defense. That’s why it is fools gold to say “well we had chances and it should have been 1-1 via xG”.

Possession at the half was roughly even I think and shots were 4-3 FCC. I believe at one point it was s something like 9-4 or 9-5 FCC (when they were going up 3-0) and then finished 11-10 NYCFC I think. FCC was perfectly fine giving up the ball and chances with 20 minutes to go and a 3 goal lead. Fools gold. And if Nick thinks “well we had them there at the end and should have scored 3 goals” - look at how the game played out. That is just the wrong mental model.

 

[Gotham Gator]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1695622515068928375

 

[Gotham Gator]

I didn't say NYCFC played well. I said Nick was not wrong to claim they had good chances. 2023 NYCFC has a tendency to start sluggish, concede first, and then not respond well until late, if at all. I believe that is coaching in some substantial part. He just wasn't delusional when he said the team had multiple good chances. 1-1 would have been a fair result for Cincy. And in the last 2 games the team had enough chances it should have scored 3-4 goals. He's frustrated at that part, and I sympathize.

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you. Just pointing out another piece of the analysis.

 

[FootyLovin]

Help me out stats people. Is bad luck always bad luck, or does G-xG sometimes point to performance? Is that stat always random soccer Gods at play or do some players and teams lose their confidence and thus miss their chances at a higher rate.

Sometimes it's bad luck. The bang-bang header straight into the keeper - bad luck. Mostly. I think. Or does a more in form player/team not redirect that straight at the keeper? how many shots at 10 or 20 or 50% get slow rolled or go off target or go straight at the keeper before you say those aren't bad luck? That's a team who lost their know-how for scoring.

 

[mgarbowski]

Help me out stats people. Is bad luck always bad luck, or does G-xG sometimes point to performance? Is that stat always random soccer Gods at play or do some players and teams lose their confidence and thus miss their chances at a higher rate.

Sometimes it's bad luck. The bang-bang header straight into the keeper - bad luck. Mostly. I think. Or does a more in form player/team not redirect that straight at the keeper? how many shots at 10 or 20 or 50% get slow rolled or go off target or go straight at the keeper before you say those aren't bad luck? That's a team who lost their know-how for scoring.

It’s a mix, but IMO mostly luck.
For example, Messi hit that outside the box banger against Nashville in traffic because he's Messi. When Gregus hit his long shot for Minnesota against us last week that was a literal 1-in-50 shot that got lucky. There are only so many people named Messi or Ronaldo or Zlatan and a whole lot like Gregus.
Schmetzer is having his worst career year for Pts minus xPts. He did not suddenly get dumb, and forget how to adjust or handle personalities. It's just something that happens. NYCFC's worst full season to date by that measure was the year they won the cup. That was bad luck, plus a bit of good luck in the playoffs.
Apart from guys like Messi, I think the biggest confounder is that xG is still a developing stat and imperfectly perfectly captures shot likelihood, and the errors might not be randomly distributed. It is possible any given xG matrix over or under values certain types of shots that some teams might be more likely to take or concede. And such teams would still be subject to annual fluctuations due to luck but their bell curve would be shifted left or right depending on the direction of the mismatch.

 

[SoupInNYC]

Help me out stats people. Is bad luck always bad luck, or does G-xG sometimes point to performance? Is that stat always random soccer Gods at play or do some players and teams lose their confidence and thus miss their chances at a higher rate.

Sometimes it's bad luck. The bang-bang header straight into the keeper - bad luck. Mostly. I think. Or does a more in form player/team not redirect that straight at the keeper? how many shots at 10 or 20 or 50% get slow rolled or go off target or go straight at the keeper before you say those aren't bad luck? That's a team who lost their know-how for scoring.

It’s a mix, but IMO mostly luck.
For example, Messi hit that outside the box banger against Nashville in traffic because he's Messi. When Gregus hit his long shot for Minnesota against us last week that was a literal 1-in-50 shot that got lucky. There are only so many people named Messi or Ronaldo or Zlatan and a whole lot like Gregus.
Schmetzer is having his worst career year for Pts minus xPts. He did not suddenly get dumb, and forget how to adjust or handle personalities. It's just something that happens. NYCFC's worst full season to date by that measure was the year they won the cup. That was bad luck, plus a bit of good luck in the playoffs.
Apart from guys like Messi, I think the biggest confounder is that xG is still a developing stat and imperfectly perfectly captures shot likelihood, and the errors might not be randomly distributed. It is possible any given xG matrix over or under values certain types of shots that some teams might be more likely to take or concede. And such teams would still be subject to annual fluctuations due to luck but their bell curve would be shifted left or right depending on the direction of the mismatch.

A lot of what mgarbowski said above, but to go further, you would also want to look at Post Shot Expected Goals, which to be up front, I am not an expert at, but someone like Paul Harvey would do a great job at explaining, but I am going to attempt.

xG-G may somewhat tell a story of luck but it lacks some context. For example, let's talk about on the xGF side of things.

A shot with an xG of 0.25 A goal not being scored gives an xG-G of -0.5 regardless of how well the shot is taken. Post Shot Expected Goals considers how well the shot is taken. If its put in the upper 90 corner, it has a higher PSxG. If its hit right at the keeper, it has a lower PSxG. Controlling where the shot is hit is something that is in the team's control. So if the 0.5 xG shot misses the target, that's not an unlucky result. If the 0.5 xG shot is put into the upper 90 corner and the keeper somehow saves it, that's unlucky in terms of the keeper standing on his head.

The same applies inversely. It's unlucky if an opponent takes a 0.05 xG shot and puts into the upper 90 corner and the keeper has no chance. It's lucky if the opponent takes a penalty kick and misses the goal.

Now, even diving into that, there is still some context that is lacking due to opponent quality as mgarbowski notes above. Giving Messi a shot with an xG of 0.10 isn't the same as giving Kwame Watson-Siriboe a shot of an xG of 0.10.

 

[GratefulDawg]

Ooh, a Kwame Wstson-Siriboe reference in the wild...

 

[Gotham Gator]

These are all good answers. In my mind is comes down to this.

When you run G-xG for different players over a long period, very very few of them finish at a higher rate than expected. Messi is one of them. There are probably a handful of others, but I don't know who they are. What that says is that for the large, large majority of attackers, finishing is not a skill. Getting the ball in a position to finish is the skill.

 

[SoupInNYC]

These are all good answers. In my mind is comes down to this.

When you run G-xG for different players over a long period, very very few of them finish at a higher rate than expected. Messi is one of them. There are probably a handful of others, but I don't know who they are. What that says is that for the large, large majority of attackers, finishing is not a skill. Getting the ball in a position to finish is the skill.

I know that one of the players that finishes at a lower rate than expected was Christian Benteke