Why Dave Sarachan should not be canned (yet): a debate with Peter Wilt

By: Tom | May 15th, 2007

The “Coach Dave Career Deathwatch Thread: Part Four - THE FINAL CHAPTER” has been bumped back to the top of the Chicago Fire Bigsoccer messageboard. On Saturday the Fire were outplayed by an expansion team seeking its first goal and win, crashing to a 3-1 defeat. Toronto manager Mo Johnston made Fire coach Dave Sarachan look weak when they clashed following the two red cards right before half-time.

The Fire, a defensive-orientated team, have conceded six goals in two straight losses. Even in games when they’ve taken points on the road, they’ve looked bad, as against Colorado and Houston last month. The Fire’s soccer is insipid, the second-half on Saturday dreadful.

Is it time, then, to call for Dave Sarachan’s head? If someone had asked me immediately after the game on Saturday, as I sat despondently pondering why I’d bothered to show up for the game when the Fire hadn’t, I’d have said - probably, and if we lose the next game, definitely.

I got into an email discussion about this with Peter Wilt, the Fire’s former GM and a fan who travelled to Toronto this weekend to cheer on the Fire. Below the jump are his six reasons for why calling for Dave’s firing at this point is wrong. My responses follow in italics, then his comments in plain text.

1. PW: It was an MLS away game….in a hostile environment - sold out, loud passionate fans throwing shit on the field…..
TD: As for the crowd, if the Fire players found that an intimidating atmosphere, they’ve been playing in MLS for too long! The flying objects things was unusual, but they were only cushions.
PW: Cushions weren’t the only things being thrown…I know some batteries and “mini-flares” were thrown as well. Stadium gm told me the field now has ten small burn marks in front of U-Sector.

2. PW: It was field turf…
TD: I’m not sure about the fieldturf issue, given TFC had only played one game at home at that point, not much experience playing games on it. Admittedly I don’t know if the Fire and TFC practice on grass or turf.
PW: TFC trains on that field. The other issue is psychological….not forgiving them, just explaining.

3. PW: You’re missing your team captain and for most of the game…and your second best defensive midfielder in Diego
TD: Armas has not impressed me all season, but I’ll give you the missing Captain element.
PW: Armas and Diego may not be pretty, but even at their worst, they are effective at clogging up the middle and making opponents fight harder.
TD: I do agree looking at it now [I rewatched the game between emails] that not having Armas or Diego the 2nd half was a big loss. Thiago looked pretty lost without one of them there.

4. PW: Our team essentially has $400,000 less cap room than every team in the League except for LA until July…
TD: The cap room issue is the Fire FO’s choice, so I’ve no sympathy there.
PW: No sympathy/understanding for poor performance, because their best player won’t be eligible until July and league rules prohibit spending the money elsewhere? That’s pretty harsh on your part.
TD: In terms of the DP spot, I just meant the Fire presumably knew the rules and Blanco’s availability when they signed him, so why sympathise?
PW: I know what you meant by DP slot being there choice, but i still think it’s a valid explanation for performance beneath Fire standards. Organization traded wins in first half of season for wins in 2nd (more important) half of season. I think it’s a good trade and i think the fans should acknowledge that aspect/contribution to the performance of the team. They’re not. They’re acting like we’re playing on a level playing field right now and we’re not - regardless of who or why the team has a major disadvantage.

5. PW: A couple of bad defensive marks and a very good /inspired effort by the home team and we lose 3-1….
TD: If our gameplan is to start with a foundation of a strong D, hadn’t we better execute it (6 in 2 games)?
PW: Execution on D hasn’t been good last two games (both away btw). The other four games it’s been very good – not enough to get me to demand the coach be fired and comments about the team I’ve been reading last couple days.

6. PW: We only fell to 3-2-1 for the season.
TD: We were very fortunate to escape Colorado with a point, given they had 10 men most the game and we hardly troubled them. Houston hit the crossbar twice in that away win, and a draw would have been a fairer result. We did play well enough against KC and NE at home. On the flipside, when we’ve lost, we’ve really deserved to lose, so it’s not like the rub of the green has gone both ways. We deserve to be 2-3-1 or 2-2-2. We might not be awful, but we’re mediocre.
PW: We’ve played four away games and two home games. Any coach in MLS will tell you that he’d be happy to be 2-2-2 at that point and that’s the record you say we should have. I agree that our play could fairly be described as average or mediocre. I’ll take that at this point in the season with a very young team that will be getting C. Blanco in a couple months.

Dave and Guppy

So it seems we came to a consensus that the Fire are strikingly mediocre. What I did take from the discussion was the need to take a longer view - as a fan, the aftermath of the defeat always feels like a time for bloodletting, particularly when you make a 1,000 mile roadtrip and watch crappy soccer. But the Fire have had a tough schedule, and are lacking their best player until July. Whilst they have not been as good as their record, they’re also not as bad as they were in the second half on Saturday. It’s always the last 45 minutes we remember, though.

I’ve been trying very hard to withhold judgment on this team until Blanco arrives. After all, he’s making around the same money alone as the rest of the roster put together, is tearing up Mexico’s Clausura (7 goals, 7 "assists"), and seems to be exactly the player the Fire needs - a creative force in the attacking third of the field. As Peter puts it, "He will make all the other attacking players (Rolfe, Barrett, Mapp) more successful by creating space and providing service." If Blanco pans out well, the Fire move from mediocre to excellent.

It is, however, definitely worth keeping an eye on the team defense this Thursday. Sarachan’s team is built around a spine able to contain the opposition, which they did effectively the first four games. Yet it’s been a shambles the past two games: albeit, as Peter mentions, they were missing Armas and Diego in that last 45 minutes, but they still conceded four goals in the first 1.5 games in any case. CJ Brown - bless him - is starting to look creaky. Another poor defensive effort at home against the Dynamo would be a major concern.

I was also disappointed that the Fire basically gave up after the third goal; balls were not chased down, challenges were not made, and it seemed as if - weary from the road trip and wary of the fact they had another game in five days - they decided to close it down and accept defeat for the last fifteen minutes. This for me might be rational, but it’s not acceptable as a supporter. I didn’t travel 500 miles to watch my team not expend every last ounce into the game.

Dave’s demeanour on the touchline is hardly inspiring, and nor has his team been so far - such an approach earns you a short leash from fans, even if they’ve eked out decent results overall. It’s down to Dave to prove people wrong: with Blanco on the team, the Fire should play some aggressive, attacking soccer. They will have the ammunition to do so. If this team can’t play excellent soccer with a forward line of Rolfe, Mapp and Blanco, it will be time to can Dave. But let’s give him the chance first.