On Friday I headed to the Globe Pub, a fantastic soccer bar in Chicago's Irving Park, to watch the US men's national team play Honduras in a critical World Cup qualifying match. Having lost the first two games of qualifying in rather embarrassing fashion — a 2-1 home loss to Mexico and a 4-0 road loss to Costa Rica — the US entered the home match at the bottom of the CONCACAF table.
The US needed a win. It got it and then some in a 6-0 victory that erased a -5 goal differential and completely shifted the talk around the team in Bruce Arena's first important match as coach, taking over for Jurgen Klinsman who was sacked.
The result was huge. But there was a far more important takeaway for me in watching that match.
Christian Pulisic, the 18-year old from Hershey, Pennsylvania, is a star and is already the team's best player.
Arena slotted Pulisic in the attacking midfield position that Landon Donovan once occupied. Those are big shoes to fill because Donovan is arguably the greatest national team player ever. Pulisic, however, plays a prominent role for Borussia Dortmund and is doing quite well in the Bundesliga in front of 80,000 rabid soccer fans. So it should've come as no surprise that the phenom wasn't fazed in taking the reigns Friday against Honduras.
Having watched US soccer for years, it was impossible not to notice the difference in play against Honduras. I've never watched a performance quite like that and it had everything to do with Pulisic's presence.
Pulisic's technical ability combined with is athleticism and innate instincts make him unlike any player I've seen put on the red white and blue uniform. He has the ability to beat guys one v one. He is a pinpoint passer who sees the field exceptionally well. And, most importantly, he is a supremely gifted player when it comes to seeing plays develop and timing his runs.
When you combine him with Clint Dempsey and Jozy Altidore, a pair of talented goal scorers and good players in their own right, it allows for a formidable attack. Dempsey and Altidore reaped the benefits of having Pulisic beneath them. Pulisic drew so much attention from the Honduras side that Dempsey and Altidore found the type of space they just aren't accustomed to and they both did well with it. Altidore delivered a pair of beautiful passes that setup two goals, one of which Pulisic finished barely 30 seconds into the second half as a result of yet another gorgeous instinctual run.
Pulisic's two assists, both to Dempsey, were a thing of beauty as well. The first was a lovely chip that found Dempsey perfectly on his chest on a run into the box, which Dempsey put away. The second was a pass, quite frankly, that made me spill my beer. Pulisic saw the run before Dempsey even did and slotted a perfect ball — perfect in both space and in pace — through the Honduras defense as Dempsey realized the run mid pass and he finished his one v one versus the goalkeeper.
The hype around Pulisic has been building the past year. He's been very good and an impact player for one of the top clubs in Europe at just 18. This isn't a Freddy Adu situation. Pulisic isn't the future. He's the present and the future. He's already the team's best player and provides a dynamic up front that US soccer has never had.
Enjoy the ride.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Cuonzo to Mizzou a Slam Dunk
On Monday Missouri made its hiring of Cuonzo Martin as the school's next men's basketball coach official with an introductory press conference. Martin takes over a program in desperate need of energy and in desperate need of stability.
The Kim Anderson era, as almost anyone could have seen coming when he was hired three years ago, was an abject failure. Mizzou went 26-67 under Anderson, including an 8-46 record in the SEC.
It's well known Anderson inherited a brutal situation thanks to the equally uninspiring and quite damaging pit stop in Columbia on the Frank Haith Tour. There were NCAA sanctions looming over the program that Haith brought from Miami and a nightmare APR (Academic Progress Rate) situation. In that regard, Anderson did an admirable job in getting the program back to a better APR standing. What was obvious fairly early on though, was that he would have no such success in the more important area of on-court success.
I'm of the belief that three years is the bare minimum a coach should receive before being fired and I'm an advocate of four years, because that's one full recruiting cycle. If you can't get a team to the NCAA Tournament by year four at a place like Mizzou, you're not cut out for the job and deserve to be fired. That's under the assumption, however, that you'll average more than nine wins in the first three years.
Quite simply, Kim Anderson left new AD Jim Sterk no choice but to fire him.
And with that, the Cuonzo Martin era begins at Mizzou.
Back in early February when it became obvious Mizzou would be looking for a new coach at the end of the season, I identified Martin as a candidate that I would love to see roaming the sidelines at Mizzou Arena. Martin's ties to the area as an East St. Louis native, his success at three very different programs and youth were all very attractive qualities to me. He seemed like a great fit, assuming he wanted the job.
Then the coaching carousel began to turn and suddenly now-former Indiana head coach Tom Crean emerged as a rumored candidate who might have legitimate interest in the job. As did, for the third coaching search in a row, Wichita State head coach Gregg Marshall; though I never viewed him as a serious candidate.
Once Crean became an option he replaced Martin at the top of my list. Crean was wildly successful at Marquette and led that program to a Final Four. He then took over the mess left behind by Kelvin Sampson at Indiana and, though he never advanced past the Sweet 16 in nine years on the job, he had a .606 winning percentage, led the Hoosiers to two Big Ten titles in his last five years on the job and earned a No. 1 seed in 2013. At most places, including Mizzou, that's a hell of a feat. At Indiana, apparently it gets you fired.
As the search progressed, it became fairly evident that Sterk's top candidate was Martin, however, and if he could get him, he would be the next head coach at Mizzou. That of course came to fruition.
To me, Martin or Crean were both great options. I just preferred Crean. That, however, was before the accessories that Martin is rumored to be bringing with him. That is the No. 1 recruit in the 2017 class Michael Porter Jr., a Columbia native, who was signed with Washington until it fired Lorenzo Romar, his godfather. That, of course, would come with the caveat that Michael Porter Sr. will be hired as an assistant coach. Jontay Porter, top-30 recruit in the class of 2018, will likely follow if that's the case and could reclassify to 2017 to join his older brother next season at Mizzou.
Martin is still compiling his staff and getting settled at Mizzou. But current Illinois signee and top-30 big man Jeremiah Tilmon and four-star point guard Mark Smith have also been linked to the Tigers. Porter Jr. alone makes the Tigers an infinitely more exciting and attractive squad next season who could compete for an NCAA Tournament spot. That additional haul would be a top-five recruiting class and instantly make Mizzou a threat to win the SEC.
It would be quite the turnaround from the last three seasons. But aside from all of that unconfirmed recruiting speculation, what does Martin do for Mizzou basketball in the long term? A splashy year one would go a long way toward returning the program to relevance and building a foundation for the future, but fans seek, check that, fans crave a coach who will build a consistent winner for the next 15-plus years. A coach who will lead the program to its first Final Four, or, perhaps, a national title. Is Martin that guy?
I have reason to believe he is, which is why he was my top choice back in February.
Martin's style has its critics, because his teams traditionally struggle on the offensive end. I've always felt at the college level, however, a team that is exceptional defensively year in and year out is more conducive to prolonged success. Martin's track record at Missouri State, Tennessee and Cal are evidence of that. He won at all three schools, going 186-121 (.606) overall in nine years.
Let's delve into that background a little, shall we?
I've seen some national media members wonder how he keeps getting gigs like he's some mediocre coach. I'm not sure I understand that logic. Missouri State is a traditionally awful basketball program. After going 11-20 in his first season, Martin led the Bears to back-to-back 20-plus win seasons and won the Missouri Valley outright in the third season with a 26-9 record overall. He beat Gregg Marshall's Wichita State club in Wichita that season too, by the way to clinch the league title. But the Bears were bounced in the MVC tourney and therefore didn't qualify for the NCAA Tournament.
Martin was hired the following season at Tennessee and inherited the Bruce Pearl show-cause mess that severely limited recruiting. Even still, Martin had three straight winning seasons with the Vols, going 63-41, and led them to the Sweet 16 in his final season. He, however, wasn't the beloved Bruce Pearl, so was never fully embraced at Tennessee, which is what led to him making a lateral move to Cal.
The criticism of Martin was that Tennessee only had to beat Mercer to get to that Sweet 16 — just the seventh in the program's history, by the way. Because, you know, Mercer upset Duke in a tournament traditionally littered with upsets. In 2011 Kansas made the Elite Eight without playing a seed better than a nine — and then they lost to 11-seed VCU. It happens quite often in the NCAA Tournament. Should we go back and analyze every team's run to the Sweet 16 or just take the accomplishment at face value like we do with basically every other program/coach?
In his three years at Cal, Martin went 62-39 and made the NCAA Tournament in 2015-16 as a No. 4 seed. The Bears were bounced in the first round by Hawaii.
**If there's one thing I'm most mad about from the Kim Anderson era at Mizzou it's that the last three seasons severely marred the way the program is viewed by casual college basketball fans and even some non-national writers who cover the sport. So the question was raised, why would Martin leave Cal for Mizzou? Isn't that a lateral move?**
Let me quickly address this. In what universe is Cal an equal or better job to Mizzou? Mizzou has endured the worst three-year stretch in program history, yet, it is just four years removed from a stretch in which it made the NCAA Tournament five years in a row and five years removed from being a No. 2 seed. Since the tournament expanded to 64 (now 68) teams, Cal has never received better than a four seed, which Martin got them. The streak of making the tournament five years in a row for Mizzou was the second such streak since 2000. In its entire history, Cal has never had a longer tourney streak than three years. Cal last made a Sweet 16 in 1997 — just its fourth in program history — and has two Sweet 16 appearances since basketball incorporated the three-point line. Mizzou has been to two Elite Eights in that span.
Cal's fan base is among the most apathetic among power-six programs. Mizzou routinely draws 14K when the program is winning. Martin will make $3.1 million per year at Mizzou. He made $1.8 at Cal.
Not even mentioning Martin's strong ties to the state of Missouri, it was an absolute no-brainer for him to leave Cal. Any coach, who didn't have ties to Cal, would leave Cal for Mizzou. It is a better job in every way. The fact this was even a discussion or a question, further accentuates how bad the Kim Anderson era was.
**end rant**
So, back to the question of whether Martin is the guy to get it done at Mizzou? I believe he possesses the necessary qualities to succeed. I believe there are good coaches who, if they are able to find the right situation, can excel at that place more so than they would anywhere else. Chris Mack at Xavier is an example of this for me. Bo Ryan/Greg Gard at Wisconsin are examples of this.
I think Martin fits the category of a coach who can be good a lot of places, but can be great at Mizzou. He is beloved and extremely well respected in the St. Louis basketball community — an area that consistently churns out top talent that never makes its way to Mizzou; Martin could go a long way toward fixing that. Missouri fans loved Norm Stewart, because first and foremost he was a good coach, but also because he was passionate about the state of Missouri and his teams played with an edge and a toughness. Martin might not have the same hatred Norm did for the neighbors to the West, but his teams win and do so by playing a hard-nosed brand of hoops predicated upon good defense.
That will work at Missouri.
The Kim Anderson era, as almost anyone could have seen coming when he was hired three years ago, was an abject failure. Mizzou went 26-67 under Anderson, including an 8-46 record in the SEC.
It's well known Anderson inherited a brutal situation thanks to the equally uninspiring and quite damaging pit stop in Columbia on the Frank Haith Tour. There were NCAA sanctions looming over the program that Haith brought from Miami and a nightmare APR (Academic Progress Rate) situation. In that regard, Anderson did an admirable job in getting the program back to a better APR standing. What was obvious fairly early on though, was that he would have no such success in the more important area of on-court success.
I'm of the belief that three years is the bare minimum a coach should receive before being fired and I'm an advocate of four years, because that's one full recruiting cycle. If you can't get a team to the NCAA Tournament by year four at a place like Mizzou, you're not cut out for the job and deserve to be fired. That's under the assumption, however, that you'll average more than nine wins in the first three years.
Quite simply, Kim Anderson left new AD Jim Sterk no choice but to fire him.
And with that, the Cuonzo Martin era begins at Mizzou.
Back in early February when it became obvious Mizzou would be looking for a new coach at the end of the season, I identified Martin as a candidate that I would love to see roaming the sidelines at Mizzou Arena. Martin's ties to the area as an East St. Louis native, his success at three very different programs and youth were all very attractive qualities to me. He seemed like a great fit, assuming he wanted the job.
Then the coaching carousel began to turn and suddenly now-former Indiana head coach Tom Crean emerged as a rumored candidate who might have legitimate interest in the job. As did, for the third coaching search in a row, Wichita State head coach Gregg Marshall; though I never viewed him as a serious candidate.
Once Crean became an option he replaced Martin at the top of my list. Crean was wildly successful at Marquette and led that program to a Final Four. He then took over the mess left behind by Kelvin Sampson at Indiana and, though he never advanced past the Sweet 16 in nine years on the job, he had a .606 winning percentage, led the Hoosiers to two Big Ten titles in his last five years on the job and earned a No. 1 seed in 2013. At most places, including Mizzou, that's a hell of a feat. At Indiana, apparently it gets you fired.
As the search progressed, it became fairly evident that Sterk's top candidate was Martin, however, and if he could get him, he would be the next head coach at Mizzou. That of course came to fruition.
To me, Martin or Crean were both great options. I just preferred Crean. That, however, was before the accessories that Martin is rumored to be bringing with him. That is the No. 1 recruit in the 2017 class Michael Porter Jr., a Columbia native, who was signed with Washington until it fired Lorenzo Romar, his godfather. That, of course, would come with the caveat that Michael Porter Sr. will be hired as an assistant coach. Jontay Porter, top-30 recruit in the class of 2018, will likely follow if that's the case and could reclassify to 2017 to join his older brother next season at Mizzou.
Martin is still compiling his staff and getting settled at Mizzou. But current Illinois signee and top-30 big man Jeremiah Tilmon and four-star point guard Mark Smith have also been linked to the Tigers. Porter Jr. alone makes the Tigers an infinitely more exciting and attractive squad next season who could compete for an NCAA Tournament spot. That additional haul would be a top-five recruiting class and instantly make Mizzou a threat to win the SEC.
It would be quite the turnaround from the last three seasons. But aside from all of that unconfirmed recruiting speculation, what does Martin do for Mizzou basketball in the long term? A splashy year one would go a long way toward returning the program to relevance and building a foundation for the future, but fans seek, check that, fans crave a coach who will build a consistent winner for the next 15-plus years. A coach who will lead the program to its first Final Four, or, perhaps, a national title. Is Martin that guy?
I have reason to believe he is, which is why he was my top choice back in February.
Martin's style has its critics, because his teams traditionally struggle on the offensive end. I've always felt at the college level, however, a team that is exceptional defensively year in and year out is more conducive to prolonged success. Martin's track record at Missouri State, Tennessee and Cal are evidence of that. He won at all three schools, going 186-121 (.606) overall in nine years.
Let's delve into that background a little, shall we?
I've seen some national media members wonder how he keeps getting gigs like he's some mediocre coach. I'm not sure I understand that logic. Missouri State is a traditionally awful basketball program. After going 11-20 in his first season, Martin led the Bears to back-to-back 20-plus win seasons and won the Missouri Valley outright in the third season with a 26-9 record overall. He beat Gregg Marshall's Wichita State club in Wichita that season too, by the way to clinch the league title. But the Bears were bounced in the MVC tourney and therefore didn't qualify for the NCAA Tournament.
Martin was hired the following season at Tennessee and inherited the Bruce Pearl show-cause mess that severely limited recruiting. Even still, Martin had three straight winning seasons with the Vols, going 63-41, and led them to the Sweet 16 in his final season. He, however, wasn't the beloved Bruce Pearl, so was never fully embraced at Tennessee, which is what led to him making a lateral move to Cal.
The criticism of Martin was that Tennessee only had to beat Mercer to get to that Sweet 16 — just the seventh in the program's history, by the way. Because, you know, Mercer upset Duke in a tournament traditionally littered with upsets. In 2011 Kansas made the Elite Eight without playing a seed better than a nine — and then they lost to 11-seed VCU. It happens quite often in the NCAA Tournament. Should we go back and analyze every team's run to the Sweet 16 or just take the accomplishment at face value like we do with basically every other program/coach?
In his three years at Cal, Martin went 62-39 and made the NCAA Tournament in 2015-16 as a No. 4 seed. The Bears were bounced in the first round by Hawaii.
**If there's one thing I'm most mad about from the Kim Anderson era at Mizzou it's that the last three seasons severely marred the way the program is viewed by casual college basketball fans and even some non-national writers who cover the sport. So the question was raised, why would Martin leave Cal for Mizzou? Isn't that a lateral move?**
Let me quickly address this. In what universe is Cal an equal or better job to Mizzou? Mizzou has endured the worst three-year stretch in program history, yet, it is just four years removed from a stretch in which it made the NCAA Tournament five years in a row and five years removed from being a No. 2 seed. Since the tournament expanded to 64 (now 68) teams, Cal has never received better than a four seed, which Martin got them. The streak of making the tournament five years in a row for Mizzou was the second such streak since 2000. In its entire history, Cal has never had a longer tourney streak than three years. Cal last made a Sweet 16 in 1997 — just its fourth in program history — and has two Sweet 16 appearances since basketball incorporated the three-point line. Mizzou has been to two Elite Eights in that span.
Cal's fan base is among the most apathetic among power-six programs. Mizzou routinely draws 14K when the program is winning. Martin will make $3.1 million per year at Mizzou. He made $1.8 at Cal.
Not even mentioning Martin's strong ties to the state of Missouri, it was an absolute no-brainer for him to leave Cal. Any coach, who didn't have ties to Cal, would leave Cal for Mizzou. It is a better job in every way. The fact this was even a discussion or a question, further accentuates how bad the Kim Anderson era was.
**end rant**
So, back to the question of whether Martin is the guy to get it done at Mizzou? I believe he possesses the necessary qualities to succeed. I believe there are good coaches who, if they are able to find the right situation, can excel at that place more so than they would anywhere else. Chris Mack at Xavier is an example of this for me. Bo Ryan/Greg Gard at Wisconsin are examples of this.
I think Martin fits the category of a coach who can be good a lot of places, but can be great at Mizzou. He is beloved and extremely well respected in the St. Louis basketball community — an area that consistently churns out top talent that never makes its way to Mizzou; Martin could go a long way toward fixing that. Missouri fans loved Norm Stewart, because first and foremost he was a good coach, but also because he was passionate about the state of Missouri and his teams played with an edge and a toughness. Martin might not have the same hatred Norm did for the neighbors to the West, but his teams win and do so by playing a hard-nosed brand of hoops predicated upon good defense.
That will work at Missouri.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)