Jump to content

Some things are "clear" and "definite"


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1
McSoccer

McSoccer

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Location:NJ
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls, Arsenal

Etienne needs to win the job. Period.

Etienne either needs to prove Grella is surplus and force him out of the club entirely or he needs to take away his minutes by beating him out in training and relegating him to the very end of the bench.

I think Etienne can be very good as a striker in this league but as Henry once said: How good he (agudelo) can become is up to him.

Here's a caveat about winning the job in practice, Grella started over a healthy Royer twice this year (at Toronto and the City Open Cup match).  Sometimes what Marsch sees in practice doesn't translate to games.



#2
Komba

Komba

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,201 posts

Here's a caveat about winning the job in practice, Grella started over a healthy Royer twice this year (at Toronto and the City Open Cup match).  Sometimes what Marsch sees in practice doesn't translate to games.

But it's clear that Royer won his minutes.  You can go through every team in every sport.  Playing a game here and there over a starter doesn't mean a whole lot. You give me a sport and a team and I'll give you countless examples of the exact same thing. 


If Etienne is good enough and doing what they want, he's going to get his minutes.  Something I am big time against is giving guys minutes with the hope that they'll somehow improve.  It's a dangerous message to send the team. 



#3
McSoccer

McSoccer

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Location:NJ
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls, Arsenal

But it's clear that Royer won his minutes.  You can go through every team in every sport.  Playing a game here and there over a starter doesn't mean a whole lot. You give me a sport and a team and I'll give you countless examples of the exact same thing. 


If Etienne is good enough and doing what they want, he's going to get his minutes.  Something I am big time against is giving guys minutes with the hope that they'll somehow improve.  It's a dangerous message to send the team. 

First, Marsch doesn't rotate his starters, only when he does a complete lineup switch like he did for a couple of games around the Open Cup.

 

Second, Grella had definitely won the job over Royer.  Look for example at the six games Grella played in after he came back from injury and before he went out again.

 

May 6 - First game back, 14 min sub appearance

May 14 - Subbed in at halftime (how often does Marsch do that?)

May 19 - Start (Marsch played his normal starters like BWP & Kljestan)

May 27 - Start (again, an first team lineup)

June 3 - Start (first team lineup)

June 14 - Start in the Open Cup (first lineup)

 

Are you telling me that Marsch didn't see Grella as a starter at this point?  Four starts in a row, all first team lineups.  Royer started most of those games as well, but twice (May 19 v TFC & June 14 v City) over that span Marsch started Grella over him.  Royer was healthy over that time period (he had starts before and after those games and he came in as a sub in both) and they were first team lineups (BWP, Kljestan, Adams, etc.).

 

So yea, Royer was in the mix, but not necessarily ahead of Grella.  That's why the "win the job in training" argument doesn't always work with Marsch.  He sees things in practice that don't always translate to games.  Is it because he has favorites?  Or our defense plays a certain way in practice that make guys like Muyl and Grella look great, but opposing defense play those two differently?  I have no idea, but whatever happened in training that lead Marsch to start Grella over Royer didn't pan out in games, as Royer had 3 goals in those matches and Mike 0.



#4
MetroFanatic

MetroFanatic

    Choose Metro.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,446 posts
  • Location:MetroFanatic.com
  • Supports:Metro

This is just absurd, basing that on two games? In one of those two games, Royer came in for Grella at halftime (how often does Marsch do that?).

 

Please, stop bending the truth to your narrative.

 

May 6: Royer starts, Grella off bench.

May 14: Royer starts, Grella off bench.

May 19: Grella starts, Royer off bench. (OH MY GOD! HE WON THE JOB OVER ROYER! Or, maybe, we were coming off a three-game losing streak, and Royer hasn't exactly shined in those games, last-minute goal vs LA notwithstanding.)

May 27: Royer AND Grella both start. (Guess he didn't win the job over ROYER. Oh well.)

June 3: Royer AND Grella both start.

June 14: Grella starts (OH MY GOD! HE WON THE JOB THIS TIME), but Royer replaces him at halftime.


MetroFanatic.com. Metro Forever.

#5
McSoccer

McSoccer

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Location:NJ
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls, Arsenal

This is just absurd, basing that on two games? In one of those two games, Royer came in for Grella at halftime (how often does Marsch do that?).

Why did Grella start for Royer if he didn't "win the job in training"?  In the game Royer came on at half, Marsch wasn't even coaching that game, Armas was (not that Marsch didn't have input at the half).  And, we don't know if the sub was because of performance or because of injury, since that was the last game Grella played.

 

Would Royer have gone ahead of Mike eventually?  One would think.  My only point is Marsch isn't always right about who should or shouldn't play based on how they perform in training.  Mike clearly was a starter at that point and his match performances did not merit that.  He had a game where had zero forward passes in the opponent's half and still started the next game.  I'm sure he was killing it in training though...



#6
MetroFanatic

MetroFanatic

    Choose Metro.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,446 posts
  • Location:MetroFanatic.com
  • Supports:Metro

Why did Grella start for Royer if he didn't "win the job in training"?  In the game Royer came on at half, Marsch wasn't even coaching that game, Armas was (not that Marsch didn't have input at the half).  And, we don't know if the sub was because of performance or because of injury, since that was the last game Grella played.

 

Would Royer have gone ahead of Mike eventually?  One would think.  My only point is Marsch isn't always right about who should or shouldn't play based on how they perform in training.  Mike clearly was a starter at that point and his match performances did not merit that.  He had a game where had zero forward passes in the opponent's half and still started the next game.  I'm sure he was killing it in training though...

Statement: "Grella had definitely won the job over Royer".

 

He started four games in a row, of which Royer started two and replaced him at half for one.

 

definitely [def-uh-nit-lee]

adverb
1. in a clear and definite manner; unambiguously.
2. unequivocally; positively.

 

I call bullshit on this one. If it was unambiguous, you wouldn't be trying to prove it so hard.


MetroFanatic.com. Metro Forever.

#7
Komba

Komba

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,201 posts

This is just absurd, basing that on two games? In one of those two games, Royer came in for Grella at halftime (how often does Marsch do that?).

 

Please, stop bending the truth to your narrative.

 

May 6: Royer starts, Grella off bench.

May 14: Royer starts, Grella off bench.

May 19: Grella starts, Royer off bench. (OH MY GOD! HE WON THE JOB OVER ROYER! Or, maybe, we were coming off a three-game losing streak, and Royer hasn't exactly shined in those games, last-minute goal vs LA notwithstanding.)

May 27: Royer AND Grella both start. (Guess he didn't win the job over ROYER. Oh well.)

June 3: Royer AND Grella both start.

June 14: Grella starts (OH MY GOD! HE WON THE JOB THIS TIME), but Royer replaces him at halftime.

THIS.  I went over my reply like 50 times to basically come down to the exact same point.  The list is just wrong.  It's Politics-level of bending the truth to support an idea.



#8
iced1776

iced1776

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,042 posts
  • Supports:NY Red Bulls, FC Barcelona

Why did Grella start for Royer if he didn't "win the job in training"?  In the game Royer came on at half, Marsch wasn't even coaching that game, Armas was (not that Marsch didn't have input at the half).  And, we don't know if the sub was because of performance or because of injury, since that was the last game Grella played.

 

Its not about training. Grella earned the chance to get back in the starting lineup because he spent most of 2015 and 2016 playing at an incredibly high level. He wasn't some unknown prospect still trying to prove he can cut it at the next level. Marsch gave him a few games to see if he could get back to full form and it didn't work out, so Marsch yanked him again. There's no grand conspiracy afoot here.



#9
McSoccer

McSoccer

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Location:NJ
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls, Arsenal

You're basically using 2 games over an entire season.  So no, I'm not going to buy into the idea that he thought Grella was ever a better player than Royer.  Especially considering he pays Royer significantly more money than Grella.

Im using the four games where they both healthy enough to start - Grella started four and Royer started two. Thats pretty simple math as to who was ahead on the depth chart.

Another coach and Id by rotating players, thats not Marschs way though. Those four games were first team lineups. Marsch doesnt rotate in a guy here or there. He usually does a full lineup switch (except for Felipe). The two games where Grella starts are the exception?

Im not saying they werent close on the depth, but I cant see how anyone would argue Royer was on top.

#10
McSoccer

McSoccer

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Location:NJ
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls, Arsenal

 
Its not about training. Grella earned the chance to get back in the starting lineup because he spent most of 2015 and 2016 playing at an incredibly high level. He wasn't some unknown prospect still trying to prove he can cut it at the next level. Marsch gave him a few games to see if he could get back to full form and it didn't work out, so Marsch yanked him again. There's no grand conspiracy afoot here.

I get it, you have to knockout the champ.  But that isn't necessarily consistent with how Marsch does things.  Sam was arguably better than Grella in 2015 and we dumped him in fucking DC as soon as he started slowing down.  We traded Dax to make room for Davis and Adams.  Marsch is usually pretty heartless in these situations.  I'm giving Mike credit, I think he went out and was the best winger in training in Marsch's eye.  I just think Marsch rates some things too high or training didnt replicate what the team saw in games.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users