#VieriaOut or #VieriaIn

Fantazma said:
the team is better than last year no doubt....but from i read ( didnt see game i was in class) the mentality was not there. one would think that PV had to hype them up mentally to go in and do what is needed to get a result. the players didnt and did real bad.....did PV not do what he had to do pregame ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure exactly what this means and how that has been observed. The way I observed the match up until the red was that this was a team that was creating a bunch of chances but not capitalizing on them. I don't know if that was the players not being in the right mental state, or if it was just plain poor execution.

Can someone point to this at all? (and I understand you mentioned you didn't see the game, so this is more for others)
 
SoupInNYC said:
I'm not sure exactly what this means and how that has been observed. The way I observed the match up until the red was that this was a team that was creating a bunch of chances but not capitalizing on them. I don't know if that was the players not being in the right mental state, or if it was just plain poor execution.

Can someone point to this at all? (and I understand you mentioned you didn't see the game, so this is more for others)
Click to expand...
To elaborate further on this post, I guess I just see too much within sports of a team coming from behind and all the pundits say "that team showed a lot of heart and mental toughness", or the team that blows the lead "couldn't handle the pressure, etc." and a lot of other discussion on the characteristics and personality of teams based completely on results.

I am just not one that buys into that talk so much. Sure there are probably examples of that, but I just don't think it applies as much as its thrown around.
 
SoupInNYC said:
To elaborate further on this post, I guess I just see too much within sports of a team coming from behind and all the pundits say "that team showed a lot of heart and mental toughness", or the team that blows the lead "couldn't handle the pressure, etc." and a lot of other discussion on the characteristics and personality of teams based completely on results.

I am just not one that buys into that talk so much. Sure there are probably examples of that, but I just don't think it applies as much as its thrown around.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on narratives like that. Toronto outplayed so extra rest is better than a bye. Columbus outplayed us so NYCFC was rusty because of its bye. Or lacked effort. Or whatever.

But people have pointed out some bad mistakes that do seem to indicate at least mental errors. Wallace not expecting pressure from behind giving up the ball and the first goal. Mata not closing in on the last goal. Callens putting his elbow up high where bad things happen, on an offensive corner kick. Even Johnson -- maybe I am projecting here and engaging in the same flaw I acknowledge in the 1st para, but his errors even seemed to be because his head was full of cobwebs or something. more than physical. It's not lack of effort. It might not even be lack of concentration. But it did at least seem like poor concentration.
 
Last edited:
mgarbowski said:
I'm with you on narratives like that. Toronto outplayed so extra rest is better than a bye. Columbus outplayed us so NYCFC was rusty because of its bye. Or lacked effort. Or whatever.

But people have pointed out some bad mistakes that do seem to indicate at least mental errors. Wallace not expecting pressure from behind giving up the ball and the first goal. Mata not closing in on the last goal. Callens putting his elbow up high where bad things happen, on an offensive corner kick. Even Johnson -- maybe I am projecting here and engaging in the same flaw I acknowledge in the 1st para, but his errors even seemed to be because his head was full of cobwebs or something. more than physical. It's not lack of effort. It might not even be lack of concentration. But it did at least seem like poor concentration.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think Harrison's two poor touches when in on goal and Villa's misses fall into the same category because we have all seen them do better on similar occasions in the past. If it's not a mechanical issue I think we assume they weren't in the right psychological state.
 
Here has been my problem with Vieira...

He is still essentially an academy coach. He cares more about players than systems or tactics. In 2016, NYCFC always played out of the back. In 2017, NYCFC either played out of the back or kicked it long. We still played a 4-3-3 with attacking fullbacks in both season regardless of our opponent. He experimented with a 3-4-3, WM, but that didn't last long. But even with the 4-3-3, it was about the players more than the system. Maxi, Pirlo, and Ring doesn't work in this design but he tried it anyway and the results were not good.

We've questioned him about his substitutions. Khiry Shelton has stood out as one throughout the season, but I think that's for him to get playing time in order to sell him this offseason. I think the bigger problem, and more systematic, is that Vieira doesn't shift tactics in game. He's Plan A. Plan B is continuing with Plan A. Plan C is more of Plan A. More defensive or attacking doesn't matter since it's still basically a 4-3-3. We either throw more numbers forward or keep more numbers back.

We saw that we were maintaining a lot of possession in Columbus, they were not pressing, and putting 9 or 10 outfield players behind the ball to defend. We had to throw more numbers forward to get through their lines which we did on occasion. Harrison had two plays on the ball. Villa has two as well (though 1 was over a turnover rather an build up). Vieira obviously saw this since he was the closet one to the field but we didn't change how we played the game. We still went 4-3-3 as we have all season. Columbus changed their tactics to exploit our weakness, which is defending the counter. Columbus could have scored two or three more on us if they made the smarter pass in that build up on the counter. Vieira didn't change how his team played at halftime which a real coach would know to do.

Vieira is still a young, naive coach.
 
LionNYC said:
He is still essentially an academy coach. He cares more about players than systems or tactics. In 2016, NYCFC always played out of the back. In 2017, NYCFC either played out of the back or kicked it long. We still played a 4-3-3 with attacking fullbacks in both season regardless of our opponent. He experimented with a 3-4-3, WM, but that didn't last long. But even with the 4-3-3, it was about the players more than the system. Maxi, Pirlo, and Ring doesn't work in this design but he tried it anyway and the results were not good.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. You say he cares more about players than systems, but you talk about how he sticks to systems even if it doesn't suit the players.
LionNYC said:
I think the bigger problem, and more systematic, is that Vieira doesn't shift tactics in game. He's Plan A. Plan B is continuing with Plan A. Plan C is more of Plan A. More defensive or attacking doesn't matter since it's still basically a 4-3-3. We either throw more numbers forward or keep more numbers back.
Click to expand...
We've seen him panned for shifting to 3 ATB in order to defend leads. We've praised him for shifting to 2 up front in order to chase the game (for example, against Seattle, where Okoli's introduction led to the game winner). Against Chicago, he wisely shifted to a 4-3-2 when 4-4-1 was the more obvious choice, to stunning effect. He did the same against Columbus after Callens' sending off.

Since I think recency bias is a factor, I'll say that I can't blame him too much for his decision-making against Columbus. At 1-0, there was every reason to believe we were going to sneak a goal. After the sending-off, bringing Mata on was the right decision, as Ring looked very out-of-sorts as a CB. The only potentially better solution would have been to bring on Struna for Wallace to shift White inside, but I actually prefer Sweat to White as a CB. He can't be held responsible for Ring, perhaps his most reliable player, slipping and giving the ball up for a 4 v 2 for goal #2. At 2-0, chasing a goal still made a lot of sense. 3-0 was another surprising error. Again, chasing the goal made sense as the only strategy with an outcome that would save the second leg of the tie. 3-1 would have been a decent result. You could argue that he should have shut up shop at 3-1 but we were applying so much pressure to Columbus at 3-1 that I would have backed us to score a second. 3-2 would have been a borderline-great result for us away from home.
LionNYC said:
We've questioned him about his substitutions. Khiry Shelton has stood out as one throughout the season, but I think that's for him to get playing time in order to sell him this offseason.
Click to expand...
This is probably my biggest gripe with Vieira. Not because it's necessarily the most impactful, but because it's the least justifiable. It's tightly coupled with my other gripe with Vieira, which is that he seems to cut off his nose and spite his face when it comes to certain players / certain characteristics that he values highly. Take Lewis for example – we know that Vieira values defending from the front, and we know that he thinks Lewis lacks in this area. But is he thinking about the big picture? I think most of us believe that Lewis's offensive qualities offset his defensive shortcomings.
 
Christopher Jee said:
This is probably my biggest gripe with Vieira. Not because it's necessarily the most impactful, but because it's the least justifiable. It's tightly coupled with my other gripe with Vieira, which is that he seems to cut off his nose and spite his face when it comes to certain players / certain characteristics that he values highly. Take Lewis for example – we know that Vieira values defending from the front, and we know that he thinks Lewis lacks in this area. But is he thinking about the big picture? I think most of us believe that Lewis's offensive qualities offset his defensive shortcomings.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Christopher Jee said:
I'm confused. You say he cares more about players than systems, but you talk about how he sticks to systems even if it doesn't suit the players.
Click to expand...

I think what he's trying to say is that PV suffers from the major failing of having certain players he favours and wants to play in almost any given situation, and then he'll stick to his standard formation which he is used to coaching and comfortable with, and only then, after picking half the teamsheet and setting the shape, does he then start picking players to fit the system in the remaining positions. This approach isn't too dissimilar to an academy coach's style, where they will often have a proscribed style the coach has to play, and he'll have a handful of players who are in their last year at their age level and who are by virtue of age if nothing else the best players on the pitch, and where the rest of the team knows that they are secondary considerations but that is OK for them because when the current best players graduate up a level then they become the new big fish in the proverbial small pond. The problem with this is that, for an academy coach the primary consideration is developing players, not necessarily winning games.

For the record, I am VieiraIn, but I do agree that something needs to change. We certainly need to have three DPs performing at DP levels, but I'm not sure if I blame Reyna for that or if something else is at fault.
 
Falastur said:
I think what he's trying to say is that PV suffers from the major failing of having certain players he favours and wants to play in almost any given situation, and then he'll stick to his standard formation which he is used to coaching and comfortable with, and only then, after picking half the teamsheet and setting the shape, does he then start picking players to fit the system in the remaining positions. This approach isn't too dissimilar to an academy coach's style, where they will often have a proscribed style the coach has to play, and he'll have a handful of players who are in their last year at their age level and who are by virtue of age if nothing else the best players on the pitch, and where the rest of the team knows that they are secondary considerations but that is OK for them because when the current best players graduate up a level then they become the new big fish in the proverbial small pond. The problem with this is that, for an academy coach the primary consideration is developing players, not necessarily winning games.

For the record, I am VieiraIn, but I do agree that something needs to change. We certainly need to have three DPs performing at DP levels, but I'm not sure if I blame Reyna for that or if something else is at fault.
Click to expand...
Thanks for expanding / interpreting.

Interestingly, I'm not sure that his scenario is _so_ different to an academy coach's. You could argue that the style, if not the formation, is proscribed, as CFG commits to playing attractive, passing football. Even if CFG weren't enforcing this, PV has built his brand around this idea. There are also players who are somewhat protected, in our case for marketing purposes, and players who are probably willing to accept less playing time in the short-term because they expect more playing time in the long-term.

I guess a potentially-better strategy would be to consider all viable combinations of both system and players and play the winning combination regardless of pre-existing bias. But that would be a better strategy regardless of whether he's coaching an academy team or the first team. The only difference is what objective function he optimizes for when choosing the winning combination. In the former scenario he'd be optimizing for player development and in the latter he'd be optimizing for results.

If he's using the process you describe for either, then he's at risk of choosing a sub-optimal combination of players and system. If he's using a more holistic process but optimizing for player development then that is also a problem. And if he's using a half-cooked process _and_ optimizing for player development then we're even less likely to get the results we desire.

Sorry for the potentially tiresome post, I just felt like we were conflating (at least) 2 different things.
 
I get the whole Pirlo argument but i dont get the maxi argument. Is he villa good/gamechanger, no? but i think hes a solid DP. Ill take Maxi over bradley or altidore any day of the week.
 
Kangaroo Jack said:
I get the whole Pirlo argument but i dont get the maxi argument. Is he villa good/gamechanger, no? but i think hes a solid DP. Ill take Maxi over bradley or altidore any day of the week.
Click to expand...
Is Maxi a better player than either? Yes. Is he better at his position than they are theirs? Not so sure. He's definitely not if you look at it on a vs. Replacement level MLS starter at same position
 
Shouldn't it be a #Reynaout discussion long before it's a #Vieraout discussion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Falastur
[Essay] The evolving strategy of CFG
2
Replies
34
Views
5,601
Fake Jew
Fake Jew
Back
Top