Well, I suppose it’s my turn to flog the dead horse that is John Spencer’s dismissal. There are certain things that I have talked to death recently, so maybe I’ll try to stay off matters such as the catastrophic tactical decisions that marred his final game in charge. I’ve heard a bit of back and forth about his relationship with the team. Spencer had the reputation for being a player’s coach. That can mean some different things, but what it seemed to mean in this case was that he was the sort of guy with whom one always knew where one stood, presuming one was willing to be honest with oneself.
I suppose that we all have to concede that we just don’t know what happened behind the scenes. What remains now for those of us on the outside looking in is to meditate on how things got to out of whack that the coach got canned.
First of all, this is a team that hasn’t won on the road all season and hasn’t scored a road goal since the middle of April. That’s bad. It’s bad over and above the shambles that the team looked in SLC last weekend. The last time the Timbers actually won a league match on the road was in October of last year. The killer really was that it didn’t seem to matter how the team had been playing at home. The back to back 3-0 road thrashings merely highlighted the point, but the point had been made some time ago. If you discount preseason matches, the Timbers have only kept three clean sheets on the road since the beginning of September 2011
This is not the only factor to which one could point. On the other hand, it does sort of rankle. The question of why this team absolutely cannot get it together away from the friendly confines cries out for an answer. And perhaps it has something to do with those friendly confines themselves. It is an oft-mentioned fact that Jeld-Wen has about the smallest playing surface of any park in the league. Here is a list for purposes of comparison:
Jeld- Wen Field 110x70 yards
Century Link Field 114x74 yards
Home Depot Center 120x75 yards
Red Bull Arena 120x75 yards
BC Place 120x80 yards
Buck Shaw Stadium 115x74 yards
Anyway, you get the idea. For the record, what I am not saying here is that playing on a small pitch at home results in catastrophic disadvantages on the road as a general matter. For the largest part of their history, Arsenal’s pitch at Highbury was one of the very smallest in the league (at 110x73 yards). Generally speaking, and taking into account larger the larger pools of data available about the performance of most teams in Europe, there is no correlation between pitch size and disparities in home versus road record (at least so far as I am aware).
Having said that, I think it might be worth suggesting that there was a difference in this particular instance. Portland’s goals against is noticeably higher on the road than at home. You’d sort of expect that to be the case. The stat that really jumps out at you is that Portland’s goals scored on the road is absolutely anemic. It’s considerably worse than it was last year even. I have a suspicion that there are two bases for this. One is the deficiencies in terms of the quality of the on field staff. The second is the problematic formations that this lack of quality dictates. Playing on a pitch with smaller dimensions has an effect on this team in particular: it tends to camouflage defensive shortcomings and allows players to get forward more readily.
That’s my bit of speculation anyway. Irrespective of that, it has been clear for some time that this is a team in search of an identity. Much of this season has been spent in Spencer’s quest to find a defensive arrangement that will not hemorrhage goals. From where I am sitting, it looks as if all the viable answers to that question require playing formations and personnel that don’t allow this team much chance of scoring. The match against FSL was the most painful illustration of this so far. Not only were there not even the merest shadow of a threat to the opposing goal, but Timbers fans were “treated” to the unedifying sight of hordes of Timbers midfielders chasing ineffectually after opposing players. It might be worth noting at this point that Rio Tinto’s pitch dimensions (130x90 yards) are about the largest in the league. That is an extra 40 square yards of territory that this team, already spatially challenged, was forced to cover. And, not surprisingly, one saw Portland players start to make a lot of late challenges in the latter stages of the match, especially after the 60th minute when the hamster had really keeled over in the wheel.
Just to reiterate, it’s perfectly possible for a team with a very small pitch to be successful on a larger surface…assuming the overall quality of players allows this. In Portland’s case, the larger the surface, the more the illusion of acceptable quality in defense dissipates.
What now remains to be seen is whether something can be done with the people on hand to turn this around. I think the Kimura signing was a positive step. He looked pretty vibrant on Saturday and he’s the kind of guy who likes to get forward. On the other side, Steven Smith is also the sort of player who wants to make a difference at both ends. But even given this, it is still incumbent on the wings in front of them to show some commitment to making things happen in the wide areas of the pitch. And it is of crucial importance to impress on Darlinton Nagbe the idea that he must move the ball at a higher tempo. It’s not just a matter of his not being a great passer. It is matter of his repeatedly getting caught on the ball, or being forced to pass negatively due to a lack of support. With more effective wide play, it’s possible that Nagbe might be converted into an effective MLS level attacking midfielder. It’s hard to tell what he is now, given the swarm of opposing players that tends to develop around him every time he touches the ball.
Thanks to our readers for allowing me to indulge in some rank speculation. Before I go, perhaps I can direct the following questions to those of you with a yen for analysis. Given a half a season’s evidence with the current stable of players (most of them anyway), who is part of the problem and who is part of the solution? Riddle me that, Batman.
Magadh
buckyball77
July 12, 2012
Every time that the Jeld-Wen field dimensions gets brought up I ask myself: Are we chewing over something that is immutable? Did the team of architects on the remodel attempt to put in the largest field possible? Or, was there a rationalization that if we went a little smaller, design/cost problems got easier?
Some slight expansion room on the stadium floor seems possible – except that the sight lines from the stands might be absurd, with touchlines way below one’s level of vision! People live with that watching hockey games, but going into touch isn’t part of that sport.
The Club has never (that I’ve read) commented on the reasons for the stadium field dimensions. [In compensation, was one of the Beaverton practice pitches purposely made expansive so it wasn't always a rude shock on road trips?]
If it must be what it is, then I can welcome “the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.” And, maybe can stop my Pavlovian commenter reaction to “field dimensions.”
sunshine
July 12, 2012
often those dimensions are brought up in an excuse for the poor form of travelling teams. sure, it gives a home-pitch advantage because it allows the team to play compactly. so i agree with mags, the advantage at home only exposes the frailties of the entire squad when on the road.
a team intent on winning both home and away must focus first on its defensive formation and then how to use that formation as a basis for attack. i think the right moves have been made in smith and kimura, but adjustments must be made in the team’s overall discipline and how the midfield participates in defensive responsibilities.
i think the 4-2-3-1 formation from the rsl match indicated a severe lack of trust in the midfield and its ability to close down skillful midfielders like morales. ironically, even that formation failed to perform as the intended hairball in the drain.
rickcurwen@yahoo.com
July 12, 2012
The practice pitches are the same dimensions as JWF. The markings on the turf pitch look like they are permanent. The width of the grass pitch could be expanded by around 3-4 feet either side. I’m not sure about the length.
I agree with you that it might have been a good idea to have a grass field that would accommodate a pitch with larger dimensions.
sunshine
July 12, 2012
rick-
paint?
thanks for stopping by!
Magadh
July 12, 2012
There’s a sense in which I agree with you. I’m not really suggesting that the dimensions of the park be changed, so much as the quality of the players. If the team was more skilled, the question of the pitch size would be moot. As it is, the fact that the team can play a much more compact formation and is generally in better position to cover for teammates when they go forward means that the small dimensions give an illusory impression of where things are at in terms of all around quality.
What needs to be fixed is the team, not the park.
Bakasama
July 12, 2012
The only issue I have with this is the fact that it usually affects teams the other way around. A team used to playing on a larger field over hits balls and they go out to touch a lot more when they play on a smaller field. While a team used to playing on a small field.
There is one team who played on a small field yet played well on the road. Arsenal played on a field which measured only 109×73 yards until it moved to their new stadium in 2006. Their home winning percentage was 60% and while I am trying to find their road winning percentage I do know they have been in the top flight for over 80 years and have the longest unbeaten run of 49 games, all the while playing all their games away from such a small pitch.
In the end it comes down to quality of leadership and the players not the size of the pitch. In Soccer there are three things you cannot control: 1) The weather 2) The referee and 3) The Pitch. So you better adjust to all three.
sunshine
July 12, 2012
baks-
first off, thanks for coming onto the blog and commenting.
as you may or may not know, this blog is very arsenal friendly. in fact, both mags and i have our love for the arsenal permanently place on our bodies. so, it goes without saying that we know the dimensions of higbury. having sat in the hallowed northend, i can say it was very small and you felt like you were right ontop of the players. and you make a great comparison of that side to this timbers side–if only regarding pitch size.
you also illustrate some great points: discipline is key, but you still need quality players. look at that invincible side–lauren, campbell, toure, cole, vieira, gilberto. that was a core trained in defensive discipline, allowing only 26 goals the entire campaign. since moving to the emirates, a significantly larger venue, their goals allowed has increased each season. whether down to discipline, personnel, or pitch size, we may not know, but last last season they allowed 49 goals. pitch size may contribute a small bit.
but you are dead right–the adjustments need to be made. discipline can always make up for lack of talent. look at lowly everton. the toffs only allowed 40 goals, with arguably less talented personnel. if you get the right balance, you are start to win things.
Magadh
July 12, 2012
Since Arsenal has come up here, and since the are very close my heart (and to sunshine’s as well), let me off a brief, back of the envelope bit of statistics. I calculated the winning percentages of four teams that were in the top six of the EPL between 1997 and 2002: Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, and Leeds. Because I was just roughing things out, I ignored draws. Here are the differentials between the home and away winning percentages of the four sides (home/away/differential) followed by the pitch dimensions:
Arsenal 74/45/+29 109×73 yards
United 72/56/+12 115×74 yards
Chelsea 64/33/+31 115×74 yards
Leeds 56/43/+13 115/74 yards
Admittedly, this is very small sample size, but it suggests a couple of things to me. Teams win more on at home, no surprise there. Also, there can be a wide variation in home vs. road form, even among teams that are all in the top six places in the league. The fact about Arsenal in those days is that their defenders (Adams, Winterburn, Dixon, Bould, Keown) were not only excellent individually, but one of the most cohesive units ever to play the game. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Portland.
A lot of factors can contribute, and of course the uncertainly provides grist for just the sort of discussions that we’re having here. I will say, though, that I really don’t think what’s happening with the team is evidence that the size of the pitch needs to be changed. Making the home pitch bigger (as opposed to changing the composition of the squad) will, I’m afraid, only cause the home record to more closely approximate the road record. I don’t think any of us wants that.
octoberthoughtspdx
July 12, 2012
Zomg I’m tired of talking about the size of the pitch.
Also, I love you guys.
theaxepdx
July 12, 2012
it does get a bit old, if in the context of moaning about why the timbers win instead of giving credit where credit is due. good thing we didnt go there.
and we love you too!