Max Bergmann

Spurs Strategy for 2015-16 is Either Delusional or Revolutionary

Posted on September 2, 2015 by Max Bergmann

Spurs fans need to lower expectations for this season. Over the summer Spurs let go players proven in top flight leagues and in their place have largely promoted kids from the youth team. Call it a bold approach, call it faith in the next generation, but do not call it a winning strategy for the 2015-16 season. The question is whether Spurs are delusional enough to believe this is a winning approach for this season or are they trying something truly revolutionary for the Premier League: punting this season in order to build for the future.

What we know is that Spurs are an ambitious club with a shrewd and driven chairman in Daniel Levy. Spurs have never shied away from splashing cash in the transfer market and have for the last decade consistently competed for a top four champions league spot.

But for this season, Spurs are more a youth team than a Champions League team. Spurs ended the game against Everton with six midfielders and forwards aged 21, 20, 22, 19, 22, and a grizzled veteran Nacer Chadli at age 26. That’s an average age of 21.6. It is great that Spurs believe their youth academy is producing top talent. But if all of these young players are champions league caliber than England is going to win the World Cup in 2018. Not only that, but most of the team will be players from Spurs youth academy, which apparently has suddenly turned into the equivalent of Barca’s and Ajax’s academies, despite being only about 15 years old.

A Champions League Midfield

Most surprisingly for Premier League watchers, Spurs didn’t do any panicked deadline deals in the transfer window to get a new desperately needed striker, or an even more desperately needed central midfield. Both Berahino and Wanyama were pricey and Spurs resisted making an offer to these clubs that they could not refuse. Instead, Spurs net spending was basically zero, they reduced their wage bill, got considerably younger (players out averaged age 27; players in 23 years), and promoted youth to fill the significant gaps in the squad (Pritchard, Alli). Add in Spurs new young singings to a squad that is already extremely young and raw, except at central defense, and you have one of the youngest and most inexperienced squads in the Premier league. This squad has promise, but just isn’t a champions league caliber squad this season.

So what is going on here? There are three general explanations that make sense – one isn’t believable, one is very worrying, and one would make Spurs Premier League revolutionaries.

The first explanation, Spurs have lost their ambition and are just trying to make money by developing and selling young players. You hear this shouted at times from the Spurs fanbase. But this is just not believable, as it belies the modern history of Spurs. Why build a new stadium if you are content as a midlevel club? Why traverse the globe on preseason tours if you have no ambition?

The second explanation, Spurs genuinely believe they can compete for Champions League relying on their youth academy players. This is what we are supposed to believe is true. But this is terrifying because it means Spurs have drunk their own academy kool-aid and really genuinely believe each of these young players are good enough to make Spurs a champions league team (this season) capable of going toe-to-toe with big spending United and Liverpool, let alone Arsenal, Chelsea and City. If that is the expectation, Spurs have real problems and Pochettino will not be long for the Spurs bench, as this youth experiment will inevitably fall short over the course of a 38 game season.

The third and in many ways most hopeful explanation, Spurs are punting this season. This isn’t giving up, or abandoning their ambition. On the contrary, Spurs are punting this season with a goal toward building a Champions League-caliber squad for the new stadium. If this is the strategy it would make Spurs revolutionary and one of the shrewdest teams in football.

This strategy would be similar to a rebuilding team in Major League Baseball that recognizes the playoffs are out of reach and trades high priced aging talent for minor league prospects. The basic idea is that a team accepts being terrible or mediocre on the promise that in a year or two the young talent will make them a contender.

Champions League… A long time ago

This strategy makes sense for Spurs because they simply cannot realistically compete for the Champions League right now with the transfer budgets and (crucially) the wages of the top 4 and Liverpool. Spurs have been chasing the Champions League dream unsuccessfully for the last five years and the gulf in spending is widening. An ambitious club would look for a new approach.

The centerpiece of that new approach is construction of a new stadium scheduled for August 2018. This will give Spurs the financial footing to compete with the big CL clubs. But that is three seasons from now. So recognizing that there is no realistic path to the Champions League this year, and probably next, Spurs are building a squad for three to four seasons from now (hence the reason Spurs are almost exclusively buying young players that will be in their prime or near it in 3-4 years).

There are a few elements to this strategy, which Spurs clearly seem to be pursuing:

If you build it, you can spend

Promote and play youth players. This means playing them even over better, more established players, to season them and give them a chance to succeed. If these players emerge (Harry Kane), you have struck gold. If they are solid Premier League players, but just not quite good enough (Jamie O’Hara, Jake Livermore, Kyle Naughton), you sell for a profit.

Buy young players that could be great in 2-4 years. Spurs know they can’t really compete for top marquee talent on the transfer market without Champions League and with their low wages, so instead they seek to strike gold with expensive prospects like Son and Njie – similar to what Spurs did with Modric. All of Spurs’ buys this summer could still potentially be key cogs in 3-4 years time. The only veteran players that have been bought have been central defenders that hit their prime later in their careers. Therefore, the emphasis on youth is to attempt to build a core group of players that in 2018 are truly elite – and would have Real Madrid calling.

Sell older more expensive players that will be past their prime in 2-4 years. Spurs have offloaded many experienced players in their prime: Paulinho (27, CM, 10m), Etienne Capoue (27, CDM, 6.3m), Benjamin Stambouli (25, CDM, 6m), Roberto Soldaldo (30, F, 10m), Aaron Lennon (28, RM, 4m), Younes Kaboul (29, CB, 3m). Few would expect these players to be around in 3-4 years.

Hoard cash now, to spend big in 2017/18. Spurs will likely want to significantly increase their spending both in the transfer market and on wages as they get closer to opening the new stadium. The last two seasons Spurs have been in the black when it comes to transfers. During the 2014-15 season, Spurs sold about 10m pounds more than they bought. In this transfer window, Spurs spent as much as they sold (about 50m) but they significantly reduced their wage bill by offloading higher priced players such as Soldaldo, Paulinho, and Adebayor. They spent a huge amount on Son Heung-Min (23) from Bayern Leverkusen for 22m but that also should raise the club’s profile in Asia, which was no doubt a consideration for Tottenham. By hoarding cash, Spurs will be able to open the wallet – not just in terms of transfer fees in the transfer market, but more importantly in regards to wages – both to lure players, and to hold onto players like Christian Erickson from suitors like Madrid. To sign more marquee players, Spurs will have to likely over-pay in wages (think of what City did to attract players during their initial rise). Thus, Spurs develop the core of the squad now and then before the transitional year playing in (hopefully) Wembley, Spurs start bringing in more marquee players and begin to set a new normal for their transfer and wage budgets that is more on par with Chelsea, City and the rest.

Try to grow profile abroad. As noted above, Spurs are also spending a lot on growing their profile in the US and Asia – demonstrating big club ambition. A club content with mediocrity, without ambition would not do tours in Asia, the US, and then go to Munich right before the season to play the biggest clubs in Europe. You do this to grow the brand and become a big global club. That way when Tottenham is finally playing in a big new stadium competing with the big boys it will already have some global visibility.

Sign a young up and coming manager who showed he can develop youth. That’s the idea behind Pochettino.

So is that what Spurs are thinking? I hope so, but I am not sure, because almost no other English team would operate in such a way to essentially punt on a season. Spurs are certainly good enough to avoid the drop, but not nearly good enough to do compete for top four. So are Spurs okay with mediocrity now in the hope it pays off in the season ahead? That doesn’t really sound like Spurs, but it would certainly be bold and shrewd and unique for the Premier League.

If this is the case, it means the Spurs fan base should sit back this year and enjoy watching this team grow and develop and not stress over qualifying for Champions League or their place in the table. That is not what this year is about for Spurs. It is about building Tottenham to eventually be one of the big clubs of Europe.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Assessing US Soccer After the World Cup – Our Floor is Higher Now on the Field, We Turned a Corner Off

Posted on July 17, 2014 by Max Bergmann

Every four years a presidential election allows us to take stock of the state of the nation – where the country stands on issues, its demographic shifts, and its cultural views. The World Cup does the same for same; it allows us to take stock of the state of the American soccer nation.

So what did we learn about U.S. soccer after Brazil? On the field, the team looked a lot like the ones before, but the we now have a better foundation for which to build due to MLS. Off the field, we turned a real corner off the field, and shocked the world with the level of our support.

The 2010 Team was better, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t progressing. When looking to judge the progress of American soccer, we usually ask is this team better than the last? But in many ways this last cycle was going to be one of transition. We changed coaches a year in and our two best attacking players Donovan and Dempsey were now over 30.

Not only were Donovan and Dempsey both in their prime in 2010, but often forgotten about the 2010 cycle was that three massive injuries devastated the squad prior to the tournament. In September 2010, Charlie Davies almost died, Oguchi Onyewu the next day tore his ACL, and Stuart Holden got DeJunged with a broken leg right after moving to Bolton in a March friendly. It is safe to say that if those injuries didn’t happen those three players would have been among our best 10 outfield players. Holden and Onyewu still made the 23 man roster but clearly weren’t ready. With those three players a starting 11 of Altidore and Davies, Dempsey and Donovan wide, Holden and Bradley in midfield, and a Bocanegra-Onyewu-Demerit-Cherundolo (the back line that anchored the 09 Confederations Cup) would have been formidable. Instead, our depth was challenged and Bradley had to tinker to find replacements. This cycle we were actually quite fortunate with injuries until the Great Hamstring Outbreak struck during the tournament (…not to mention Klinsmann’s own-goal of leaving Donovan behind). But based on the collection of players it is fairly apparent that the quality in the 2014 cycle just was not quite as good as the 2010 cycle.

…But that doesn’t mean we aren’t progressing. While the 2010 squad was probably better, it was also heavily Euro-based. This is why we can feel pretty good about the progression of American soccer. This team was an MLS based team. Against Germany seven of our starters played in MLS and showed throughout the tournament that they were in the same class as their opposition. That players like Matt Besler, Omar Gonzalez, and Kyle Beckerman showed so well on the world stage after playing their whole careers in MLS is something that should make us optimistic about the future, as MLS has shown it can produce quality players. This doesn’t mean players shouldn’t still look to challenge themselves in better leagues. But for many, like Kyle Beckerman, that opportunity may just never materialize. Yet Beckerman’s career shows that you don’t have to leave MLS to develop and to be a key cog in the UMNT. That’s very very good news for US soccer.

With the progress in MLS, we can now expect going forward to have a much deeper USMNT player pool, which should help ensure that we are always competitive. In other words, the ceiling for the 2010 team may have been higher than 2014, but the floor was also probably lower. Due to MLS, the floor for the USMNT is now much higher than it was.

But there’s some reason to be a little nervous… Continue reading →

Filed under: Future of American soccer, MLS, USMNT, World Cup 2014 | 2 Comments »

U.S.-Costa Rica – What Klinsmann Got Wrong

Posted on September 7, 2013 by Max Bergmann

There is a reason why long winning streaks are rare in soccer – stuff can easily go wrong! This was evident against Costa Rica. Michael Bradley is without a doubt the most important Yank and his injury before the game clearly unsettled the team. While the US should have expected an early onslaught, they looked totally shocked and were in some ways fortunate not to give up a third goal. All looked lost.

Yet… and there is a very big YET… the US fought there way back into the game. By the second half the US looked likely to level. Dempsey hit the post and Donovan was terrorizing Costa Rica. Unfortunately, Costa Rica hit on the break effectively ending the game.

It is tough to be too critical of Klinsmann, especially after such a great run of games. But last night we saw some of Klinsmann’s managerial tendencies back fire, namely his continuing willingness to play players out of position.

First, Fiscal was totally lost at right back. The second goal was caused by him allowing CR to get behind him, forcing Gonzalez to come over. Even then Fiscal didn’t provide any help. As a result Gonzalez was isolated and could do little to prevent the cross into the box – a cross he would have cleared on the other end if he hadn’t had to cover for Fiscal. That wasn’t the only time Fiscal was beat on the wing. Furthermore, Fiscal offered nothing going forward. It is one thing if Fiscal was the emergency option. But Klinsmann had him there over Cameron who plays there for a Premier League side. Granted Cameron doesn’t get forward very much with Stoke, but if he is your back up DM, then he is clearly better on the ball than Fiscal. The lack of true fullbacks is clearly the major hole in the US side.

Second, the substitutions hurt, rather than helped. I thought Klinsmann decision to bring on Eddie Johnson was a good one. A true CF would through something new at a CR backline that was on its heels. But by taking off Zusi he forced Donovan – who at that point was terrorizing the CR back line out wide. All of sudden the US attack began to sputter without Donovan. A better move would have been to bring on EJ for Fiscal and shift Fabian Johnson to RB with the direction to get forward. Donovan would have then have had defensive responsibilities on the left, but wouldn’t have needed to stay wide as Beasley could have provided the width. Instead, with Fiscal offering little going forward and exposed defensively, Donovan had to stay wide and play more as a true RM.

Furthermore, it made little sense to bring on Johnson if you wanted to bring on Altidore a few minutes later. Bringing on Altidore and taking off Fabian Johnson may seem like an attacking move, but in reality it was anything but. The problem wasn’t Jozy. It is that by bringing on Jozy required Eddie to play deeper and wide (once again a player not playing his normal position). With Donovan isolated wide, and Eddie Johnson having to link the play the US became completely disjointed. While the third goal was clearly demoralizing, the U.S. barely strung passes together once the subs were made.

Also a note on Howard. From my view the third goal was on him. He got his positioning entirely wrong. First, at the time the ball was booted forward, Howard was very deep, essentially at his penalty spot. He should have been further forward prepared to come out and clear balls over the top. Second, his first reaction was to go backward toward his goal once the ball is kicked. If he decides to go for the ball he gets there. Even if it is close he forces Campbell to round him allowing the CB to recover. He had to see that Besler had no chance of catching Campbell. Third, even if he didn’t want to leave the box, he still needs to charge at Campbell to shut down the angle. He literally just stood there – just outside his six yard box – and was beaten low. He has to attack the ball there. Now some of this might be on the coaching staff, as Howard might have been told to stay back and not to venture out as a sweeper keeper. If so that’s a mistake, especially when chasing the game.

Overall, the game probably couldn’t have gone much worse. The injury to Bradley and the yellow cards (especially the boneheaded one by Altidore) will really test the depth of the US.

That being said, the US is still in very good shape for qualification and if Dempsey’s shot hits the inside, rather than the outside, of the post, we are talking about the tremendous resilience of this US side. This game highlighted some areas for the US to improve, what it didn’t do is cause reason for panic.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Why Spurs Aren’t Going To Sell Bale (or at least why they shouldn’t)

Posted on August 19, 2013 by Max Bergmann

It has been largely assumed that Spurs would have to sell Bale and would not be able to resist an 85 million pound offer from Real Madrid. Daniel Levy is now seen as just holding out to get a better deal from Madrid. But when analyzing Spurs past transfer history and the current dynamics of the market, it becomes clear that Spurs are most likely not bluffing. They want to keep Bale and have no intention of selling Bale this summer for anything less than an absurd 100+ million pounds. And Spurs are exactly right in their approach. Bale is worth more to Spurs in 2013-14 than 85 million pounds.

Importantly, this doesn’t mean Bale is worth more than 85 million pounds. Bale is an asset. And just like any property, just because someone offers you a huge amount for your house doesn’t mean it makes sense to sell. Timing matters and the timing doesn’t make sense here.

But what about Spurs spending?
One reason to think Bale is on his way is that Spurs are spending likely drunken sailors – only Manchester City in the EPL has spent more this season. The logic goes that poor Spurs can’t afford this, so they must already be using the money they plan to get for Bale now. But there are reasons to doubt this.

As the transfer history shows, Spurs have money. But until this summer, Spurs haven’t really spent considerably since Harry Redknapp’s first two years. Look at the last 8-9 years of transfer activity:

2013-14 (-47 mil euros net): Spurs have spent 69 million euros (Paulinho, Soldaldo, Capoue, Chadli) and sold 22 million
2012-13 (-4 mil): Spurs last year spent 72 mil euros and sold 68 million euros
2011-12 (+36 mil): (Redknapp’s last season), Spurs spent just 6 mill euros (Scott Parker) and sold 42 million euros.
2010-2011 (-23 mil): spent 26 million, and sold just 3 million.
09-10 (-9 mil): spent 40 and sold 31.
08-09 (-50 mil): This was the year Spurs sold Berbatov and Keane (2 pts, 8 games) and then got Redknapp and had to panic buy in the January window, Spurs spent 140 mill and sold 90 mil
07-08 (-72 mil): 94 spent (Bent, Bale), 22 mil sold
06-07 (-23 mil): 61 spent (Berbatov), 38 mil sold
05-06 (-14 mil): 36 spent, 22 mil sold.

Over the last 8 years (excluding this summer), Spurs have spent an average of 20 million euros more per season than they have sold. But if you don’t count the last two seasons Spurs were spending 30 million euros more per season than selling for the 6 seasons between 2005 and 2011. But the past two seasons Spurs have been a selling club netting 32 million euros. So if Spurs could maintain spending at 30 million per season for the six years prior to 2011-2012 than Tottenham have likely been banking revenue the past two seasons.

This means that not only do Spurs have the 32 million euros they have netted the past two seasons, but likely are capable of spending an additional 60 million from a lack of spending. In other words, Spurs have not spent their transfer allotment the past two years. That would equate to Spurs being able to afford to spend about 90 million euros net. Hence, despite already having a net outflow of 47 million euros this window, Spurs should have about an additional 30-40 million euros more they could spend, given the lack of spending the past two years. This is what makes Tottenham’s bid for Willan and others financially viable. Furthermore, if Spurs plan on selling Bale next season, they can count on likely being in the black in terms of spending, likely making them more willing to push their spending limit.

Lastly, my guess is that part of the agreement in keeping AVB at Spurs (he turned down Real and PSG) is that he will be given the resources to compete. This current rate of spending is probably part of that deal. So Spurs spending could easily be disconnected from any Bale sale.

But still why not sell at 85 million pounds – a Premier League record?

First, Spurs will increase their chances at qualifying for Champions League. With Bale Spurs, while not assured, will be favorites for the Champions League. That’s likely an additional 20 to 40 million pounds in revenue. Without Bale, Spurs have a good shot at CL, but the odds get lowered. So lets assume you don’t sell Bale this year and his value drops to 60 million, just because the amount that Real is willing to pay lessens. You still have likely come out even by keeping him and getting into the CL than by selling.

Second, it is harder to replace Bale now because you don’t have the attraction of CL. Next year, if Spurs make the CL they can actually use the funds to lure current CL quality players. Right now Spurs have to speculate more in the transfer market, as they have to find players that they think will be of that calibre.

Third, you gain global market share by keeping Bale. Bale is the best player in the Premier League and a human highlight reel. There’s a reason why Spurs ranked top in NBC’s chose your club promotion and its Bale. He’s on the Time’s Square billboard for god sakes. In politics this is called “earned media” – ie free publicity. Spurs will never be able to get this sort of free publicity again. This could hugely impact the potential earnings of the club, as new markets, with a growing fan base have thousands of people looking for a team to cheer for, for jersey’s to buy.

Fourth, Spurs actually have a shot at winning the league with Bale. Yes, with Bale (and with AVB and new signings), Spurs can win the title. The top 3 EPL clubs have new managers this season and while Mourinho isn’t exactly “new” he has to reshape the squad and could face a couple hiccups. The winning point totals the past four seasons have been 89, 86, 80, and 86 points. There are reasons to believe that it will be less this year, due to competitive balance and new coaches. Let’s say 82-86 points wins this year. With Bale likely playing as a striker/attacking midfield from the get go and with Soldaldo and other new signings, Spurs will likely improve on the 72 points last year when they had no strikers scoring more than a handful of goals and had a new manager. It is by no means unreasonable to think Spurs could potentially be about 10 points better than they were last year. And at around 82 points they are fully in the title race.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 21 Comments »

Harry Redknapp’s Brilliant Tactical Pragmatism

Posted on December 12, 2011 by Max Bergmann

Lost in Stoke’s controversial win on Sunday, in which referee Chris Foy failed to award Spurs two clear penalties and a legitimate goal, was Harry Redknapp’s magnificent tactical switch to a 3-5-2 at halftime.

Redknapp is frequently described in the UK as an old school football manager that doesn’t really do tactics. He is credited with being popular among the players and of having restored solidity to Spurs (an expected trait of English managers), but overall he is widely considered a rather simplistic thinker when it comes to tactics and strategies. During Spurs Champions’ League run last year, UK journalists often expressed doubt that Redknapp had the tactical nous to cut it against the Europe’s best tacticians. With victories over Inter Milan and AC Milan that should have been put to rest. But the notion that Redknapp is more of a working class meat and potatoes football coach that is good for some great quotes in the press but lacks the intellectual sophistication to ever be elite – continues to hang around Redknapp. Some of this is that he has a Joe Bidenesque ability to provide the blue collar sound bite – exhibit A was Redknapp’s fantastic zinger this weekend at Mr. Foy, “But he’ll look at it tonight on TV when his wife’s making him a bacon sandwich and he’ll think ‘**** me, what have I done there’.” Interestingly, many of Spurs fans buy into this line of thinking and are only just now realizing that Redknapp is an internationally elite manager and can cut it tactically with the best of them.

What is different about Redknapp is that he is a pragmatist. He is not dogmatic about how his team plays. He doesn’t care if he plays route one or plays tiki-tak or plays narrow or with width. He is about finding what works with the players that he has. But just because he doesn’t have a style like Arsene Wenger or Barcelona, or is tactically obsessive like a Rafa Benitez does not mean he isn’t a master tactician.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Premier League, Spurs | 6 Comments »

The Dilemma of Jermaine Defoe: Why Redknapp Should Keep Benching Him

Posted on November 30, 2011 by Max Bergmann

When Jermaine Defoe is on he scores goals and right now he is on. He has five premier league goals this season, despite getting limited minutes off the bench. Against West Brom on Saturday, Defoe scored a fantastic goal that gave Spurs a late lead. This seems to create a real managerial problem for Harry Redknapp over who to start. Past attempts to start Rafael Van Der Vaart out wide have exposed his defensive weaknesses and Adebayor isn’t going to be benched. So tactically there just isn’t room for both Defoe and Rafael Van Der Vaart. So who to start?

While the English press have made this seem a real dilemma, it isn’t. The fact is that it is hard to imagine Defoe starting for any of the other top 6 sides (City, United, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool). This is because, besides scoring an occasional goal, Defoe does little else when on the pitch. One only has to look at the Guardian chalkboards. Against West Brom Defoe attempted just 22 passes, lowest of all the Spurs starters. Adebayor attempted 52. In just 70 minutes against Aston Villa and 66 minutes against Fulham Van Der Vaart attempted 62 and 42 passes respectively. As a substitute Defoe completed just 1 pass in 20+ minutes against Villa and just 4 passes in 25+ minutes against Fulham. The plain fact is that when Spurs play Defoe they are playing with a specialist – a goal poacher – who adds little to the team except when in the goal mouth area.
Continue reading →

Filed under: Premier League, Spurs | 1 Comment »

MLS Playoffs Are Great! But Lose The Wild Card

Posted on November 8, 2011 by Max Bergmann

Playoffs matter in American sports and the MLS playoffs are showing why. In a country with a packed sports marketplace it is difficult for regular season play to really captivate the country. All the other major professional sports, except for the NFL, similarly rely on the playoffs to serve as their premier national platform. This year’s MLS playoffs thus far have produced exciting, enthralling games and are showing that playoffs can do for MLS what they do for other American sports. It is safe to say, that the playoffs are here to stay.

Yet just because these playoffs have produced some great match ups and some great games that doesn’t mean the format is perfect. The fact that a team from the east can potentially play for the western conference title is bizarre. The limited time between the games and the travel involved definitely takes a toll on the players. Not all of these problems have simple solutions. The league obviously wants the best teams in regardless of conference. It also wants to have as long a regular season as possible and is in a race against the weather to get the playoffs in before winter sets in.

But the main thing MLS should change is the 10 team playoff format. The two mid-week wild card games were unnecessary. Not only was attendance fairly abysmal for these games, but the fact that they are midweek create a lot of travel uncertainties for the non-wild card teams. And since the lower seeded teams host the first game in the home and away series, this creates less time to promote the match up and sell tickets. Yes without them we would have not had the New York-LA match up. But it is hardly an advantage for LA – the #1 seed – to find out on late Wednesday that they have the schlep across the country.
Continue reading →

Filed under: MLS | 2 Comments »

Prospects for a DC United Stadium Might Not Be Hopeless

Posted on September 9, 2010 by Max Bergmann

The Washington City Paper has a good overall rundown on the state of DC United’s stadium search. As we all know it’s not pretty. In the campaign for Mayor both Mayor Fenty and challenger Vince Gray have adopted essentially the same line on the stadium – we want United in DC, but economic times are bad so it’s doubtful we can build them a stadium.

This should not come as shocking to DC residents or to the residents of almost every municipality in the country. The era of tax-payer funded stadiums is likely over, especially in a city like DC that essentially just got hosed by MLB to spend more than $600 billion for the Nationals stadium.

While Fenty didn’t find away to make it work for DC United, I think the real bad guy in this situation was DC United’s initial owner Victor MacFarlane who really just cared about getting a land give away and building lots of condos. But even after all that, it was still quite plausible that DC United would have been part of the Poplar Point redevelopment plan. But that plan crashed and burned with the economic crash.

While it might be conceivable that the city of Baltimore decides to swoop in and build United a new stadium, don’t bet on it. Remember United thought they had a deal with stadium friendly PG County, but that fell through when it became politically unpalatable in the downturn. State and local governments in Maryland are facing tough budget choices just as DC is and political support for soccer, let alone any sport, is likely going to be minimal if not non-existent.
Continue reading →

Filed under: MLS | 6 Comments »

Donovan’s MLS Price Tag Is Not Ridiculous

Posted on September 1, 2010 by Max Bergmann

There has been a lot of outraged reaction to Martin Rogers reporting that Landon Donovan’s price tag by MLS was $16 million. In my mind that seems pretty much right on the money.

The point made by many is that $16 million for a 28 year old, who therefore has little resale value, makes little financial sense. Others note that Donovan is not good enough to merit that price tag. There are a few things worth point out here.

First, we are talking dollars not pounds. 16 million dollars is just 10 million pounds. Now 10 million pounds is a lot of money, but when you look at the outlays of the previous years – Robbie Keane at 28 to Liverpool for 20 million, Gareth Barry to Man City for 20 plus at 28 – this sum appears quite reasonable.

Second, buying Donovan gets a team access into the US market. Any purchase of Donovan isn’t just about how he performs on the field, it is about gaining a foothold into the growing US market. After the World Cup, he is by far the most recognized American soccer player and has become somewhat of a celebrity. The World Cup increased his value, especially to the league. This is why a team like Man City showed interest in Donovan. And why a league like MLS values Donovan highly.
Continue reading →

Filed under: MLS, Transfers, Yanks Abroad | 3 Comments »

US Choses Stability Over Change In Keeping Bob Bradley

Posted on August 31, 2010 by Max Bergmann

Change can be difficult. But sometimes change is needed. In the decision to keep Bob Bradley I was one in favor of change. This is not because of some ingrained Bob Bradley hate. I have defended him throughout the last World Cup cycle and think he would have done a good job at Aston Villa. Keeping Bob Bradley is no disaster and was likely the right decision for US soccer after US soccer likely failed to get Juergen Klinsmann for a second time. But the real question now is whether Bradley can move the team forward and take them to the next level.

Our chief problem as a national team in my view, is that we have no third gear. We seem to have just two gears 1st or 5th. As we saw in the World Cup the US team would too frequently start like zombies in 1st gear but would kick it into 5th gear when their backs were against the world. But teams in a 90 minute game need a 3rd gear. They need to develop a way of playing that can be sustained over 90 minutes, that puts teams on the back foot through skill, guile, and possession, instead of sweat. To instill this new gear I felt the US men’s national team was in need of fresh eyes and of refining its style of play. And I am not sure Bradley is the man for that job.

How This Likely Went Down

What looked to have happened here is both US soccer and Bob Bradley essentially broke up their marriage for a brief period and went looking for something better. Bradley was trying to throw his hat in the ring in England, first with Fulham than with Aston Villa. Sunil Gulati of US soccer examined what other possible candidates were out there and went back for Juergen Klinsmann. In the end, both these flings didn’t materialize.

For US soccer the pursuit of Klinsmann again made sense. But it is likely that Klinsmann again wanted too much control over the direction of player development – a big issue in 2006 when Gulati went after him then. Perhaps that is both a small price to pay and something that is sorely needed. But I think in the eyes of Gulati, US soccer player development is already moving in a new direction and continues to produce better players and as a result better national teams. In other words, it ain’t broke. So handing over substantial control to a foreign coach who we know thinks the US development system is crap and that college athletics is no way to develop talent, could rock the boat so much that it capsizes. Furthermore, for US soccer there really aren’t that many great coaches out there. They all have jobs – except for Sven Goran Erickson.
Continue reading →

Filed under: USMNT, World Cup 2010, World Cup 2014 | Tagged: Bob Bradley | Leave a comment »