Jesse Marsch: CanMNT manager

[shorty]

Our lineup sheets and broadcast commentators will be required to describe Phonzie and Tajon as wiiiiiiiiingers.  
 

And we will get $1k from Red Bull every time they do. (Brought to you by Carl’s Jr)

Edited June 6 by shorty

[kingvikingstad]

I don't know why exactly, but I do have a feeling about Marsch. 

Sure you could argue he fell upwards, and his success at RB was down to their model, and he wasn't exactly covered in praise at Leeds, but I just think his tactics are the right ones for this team to maximize our talent and he seems competent, honest, and likeable. I also like he's coached here before, has wanted the job before, and feels settled.

My greatest concern is his lack of international coaching experience in a Manager/head coach role and how difficult it may be to adapt his tactics. We'll see if he can bring them along slowly, which may be difficult given the opposition.

In saying all of this, given the constraints within the CSA, I think he's the right hire and I commend Blue for getting it done. I think we may see some instant success with his approach and he'll garner enough respect and bring a fresh voice to get the boys excited again.

Edited June 6 by kingvikingstad

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

It's about what we see on the pitch at this point for me.

Edited June 6 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 hours ago, narduch said:

Montreal?

Going to be hilarious when Blue adds Red Bull as a sponsor 

Montreal, right you are.

[Kadenge]

The "job" of  mgr for the CMNT entails much more than just coaching the senior MNT from what we have seen previously from Herdman & recent communications from Marsch/Blue. Given  CSA finances, it includes marketing the team/program & fund raising, involvement with youth development, coaching development and intergration etc. Perhaps Kuntz didn't want all those "other responsibilities. 

[costarg]

8 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

I want to post this before the first game because I don't want people to come back when he's finished with Canada and say I was against him personally after he does well.

I was against the hiring process that looked like he was given the job and it was a fait accompli with less consideration to the other applicants.

I was against that he was American and the optics of hiring someone from our arch enemy who are a benchmark for us to beat and we need one of them to do it.

I was against his phone chat with Kevin Blue and the US college rah rah BS vibe it gave off (again I ask where is Pat Riggin when you need him)

I think he will take us to the WC and then he'll be gone which will be fine.

Lastly, I think he will serve us well and we will do well.  It's an impossible task to perform well considering what he is up against in the next weeks but he and we will do it.  I think he is the right guy for the time and I'm behind him all the way.

Here's a different angle....

if you were going into these next handful of games with the option... 

1- Herdman 

2- Biello

3- Marsch

4- Someone/anyone else

Who would you rather lead us?  For me, it's easy.  I had seen more than enough of Herdman with CANMNT, he had hit a wall.  Biello was ok, just average, no innovation or new ideas.  Lineups and squads were improved, system was not.  I see potential issues with Marsch, but I feel it can be a great fit.  I'm really looking forward to seeing this.  All things considered, aside from Ancelotti taking a pay cut for his wife's links, I don't see how we'd land a better option.

[Gian-Luca]

 

[costarg]

1 hour ago, Gian-Luca said:

 

What stands out most for me in all this is - and I still can't wrap my head around it - is Herdman looked at this squad and thought to himself "yes, these guys need to play possession soccer".  For the life of me I can't understand how anyone would come to that conclusion with the roster at hand.  He tried to fit a lot of square pegs into round holes in his time, but that was the wildest one.

It might take a while to implement the changes, but onwards and upwards!

[GasPed]

1 hour ago, costarg said:

What stands out most for me in all this is - and I still can't wrap my head around it - is Herdman looked at this squad and thought to himself "yes, these guys need to play possession soccer".  For the life of me I can't understand how anyone would come to that conclusion with the roster at hand.  He tried to fit a lot of square pegs into round holes in his time, but that was the wildest one.

It might take a while to implement the changes, but onwards and upwards!

Exactly.  There wasn't a lot of tactics in that video, but that one line: "This team was committed to possession football - but I want it to be more dynamic, better in transition, that uses the weapons we have."  Music to my ears.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, costarg said:

What stands out most for me in all this is - and I still can't wrap my head around it - is Herdman looked at this squad and thought to himself "yes, these guys need to play possession soccer".  For the life of me I can't understand how anyone would come to that conclusion with the roster at hand.  He tried to fit a lot of square pegs into round holes in his time, but that was the wildest one.

It might take a while to implement the changes, but onwards and upwards!

That is actually what I did not agree with. How was Herdman offering possession football? If you have a depleted midfield in almost every match, and are using outside wing speed, as we did, that is not possession-oriented football. In fact he emptied our midfield time and time again. 

Which is why I did not agree with the conclusion, that he is going to introduce transition. We were transition over and over again in critical moments in WC Qualifying and the best periods of the Herdman reign. 

Now if you are going to tell me that possession is moving the ball around the perimeter, and running down the lines like you are possessed, then it's a new idea of possession I was not familiar with. 

[johnyb]

5 hours ago, kingvikingstad said:

I don't know why exactly, but I do have a feeling about Marsch. 

Sure you could argue he fell upwards, and his success at RB was down to their model, and he wasn't exactly covered in praise at Leeds, but I just think his tactics are the right ones for this team to maximize our talent and he seems competent, honest, and likeable. I also like he's coached here before, has wanted the job before, and feels settled.

My greatest concern is his lack of international coaching experience in a Manager/head coach role and how difficult it may be to adapt his tactics. We'll see if he can bring them along slowly, which may be difficult given the opposition.

In saying all of this, given the constraints within the CSA, I think he's the right hire and I commend Blue for getting it done. I think we may see some instant success with his approach and he'll garner enough respect and bring a fresh voice to get the boys excited again.

No American coach, is ever going to be praised in England. 

[costarg]

18 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

That is actually what I did not agree with. How was Herdman offering possession football? If you have a depleted midfield in almost every match, and are using outside wing speed, as we did, that is not possession-oriented football. In fact he emptied our midfield time and time again. 

Which is why I did not agree with the conclusion, that he is going to introduce transition. We were transition over and over again in critical moments in WC Qualifying and the best periods of the Herdman reign. 

Now if you are going to tell me that possession is moving the ball around the perimeter, and running down the lines like you are possessed, then it's a new idea of possession I was not familiar with. 

It never translated well into the on-field product, obviously, but we heard it constantly in the interviews with Herdman and the players.  They really seemed to think they were playing possession, or were working towards that.  Like you said, it never worked that way in the middle where it should, maybe it was just a tactic to trick the opponents?  I agree most of our success came from quick breaks and counters, yet seemed like they were trying work away from that every time they spoke.

[ECW]

4 hours ago, costarg said:

It never translated well into the on-field product, obviously, but we heard it constantly in the interviews with Herdman and the players.  They really seemed to think they were playing possession, or were working towards that.  Like you said, it never worked that way in the middle where it should, maybe it was just a tactic to trick the opponents?  I agree most of our success came from quick breaks and counters, yet seemed like they were trying work away from that every time they spoke.

We were best as a counter attacking (in flourishes) side, but we did, I think, have a higher possession rate (simply having the ball) than I expect Marsch to look for. I could be wrong but I don’t think many people will take issue with our 36% possession or whatever it was in Rotterdam, unless one has a problem with the overall approach. Herdman wanted “build up” and he wanted possession in our half. 

[74 Whitecap]

We get so few chances to play against top level teams, I would love to see Canada try out a different tactic against France. Against the Netherlands we tried a 90 minute apply pressure and attack approach and got a good look at how well it worked (this isn't a criticism - that is what friendlies are for, especially with a new manager). 

Against France, I would love to see us try a very different approach, basically play the entire game as if we have a one goal lead from kickoff and see if we can protect it. Do everything possible to defend our net, just counter-attacking and pressing very opportunistically. 

But I doubt we will see that. And to be fair, with a new coach, maybe you need to work on your primary approach first, but what if somehow score early against Croatia, sorry I mean Argentina?  We all know how the good teams instantly and fluidly change formation and approach depending on the score of the game - can Canada do that? We need to be able to do that, even the best teams in the world can't succeed with just one approach, and we are clearly not among the best in the world.

[ECW]

4 minutes ago, 74 Whitecap said:

We get so few chances to play against top level teams, I would love to see Canada try out a different tactic against France. Against the Netherlands we tried a 90 minute apply pressure and attack approach and got a good look at how well it worked (this isn't a criticism - that is what friendlies are for, especially with a new manager). 

Against France, I would love to see us try a very different approach, basically play the entire game as if we have a one goal lead from kickoff and see if we can protect it. Do everything possible to defend our net, just counter-attacking and pressing very opportunistically. 

But I doubt we will see that. And to be fair, with a new coach, maybe you need to work on your primary approach first, but what if somehow score early against Croatia, sorry I mean Argentina?  We all know how the good teams instantly and fluidly change formation and approach depending on the score of the game - can Canada do that? We need to be able to do that, even the best teams in the world can't succeed with just one approach, and we are clearly not among the best in the world.

One of my concerns about Marsch is that I haven’t seen him be very adaptable. (With the exception of developing a not very adaptable variation on the red bull model?) 
 

I realize that in the game thread I was getting into the ‘what is Marsch’s version of the high press’ conversation?’ and this is no doubt a better thread for it. 

So I wonder what those who know better than I do think about this? Given that Bielsa and Marsch have recently managed the same club and that the former was brought up in the game thread, I wonder if that comparison would offer any insight?

Based on what I’ve seen they might be at opposite ends of the high pressing spectrum (if there is such a thing). The approach to width and marking, are certainly very different. 

The subs in this game: could be a manager getting to know his players. But also, his choices become a whole lot less reckless and certain to see us getting pasted if we think of someone who thinks that anyone can play in his system. 

Some stuff is predictable. I think most of us knew Millar would start (and I have no problem with that)… Shaff coming on at the half (given the quick turnaround to France) was also somewhat predicable. 

 

[GasPed]

51 minutes ago, ECW said:

We were best as a counter attacking (in flourishes) side, but we did, I think, have a higher possession rate (simply having the ball) than I expect Marsch to look for. I could be wrong but I don’t think many people will take issue with our 36% possession or whatever it was in Rotterdam, unless one has a problem with the overall approach. Herdman wanted “build up” and he wanted possession in our half. 

I think a few potential trouble areas from today were:

1) Giveaways - we had huge difficulty playing through their press/counter-press.  This is a carryover from the Herdman slow build-up approach - it's great when your players are technically superior and/or not under extreme pressure, but clearly that wasn't the case here.  But I'm going to give Marsch some time on this one - it requires plenty of practice reps and chemistry to get the breaks on the counter correct.  Lots of 1-2-1 patterns, a clear understanding of who will be "flying the zone" and when, who to look for and where to look, etc.  I think we have enough talent to figure this out and produce a dangerous counter-attacking team but it's going to take time.  In the meantime, we'll pass it back and forth to each other until we lose it.

2) Very unclinical finishing - we had chances, not a lot, but enough to get something from the game.  Against the better teams, we are going to have to be far more constructive/clinical in our attacks if we want to get a result.

3) Mediocre hold up play - great counter attacking often requires that back-to-goal pivot up the field who can take the long ball and quickly lay it off to a runner.  I really didn't see this today, and tbh, I'm not sure we have someone capable of it.  (Bair?)  But having it would definitely help us (and not having it hurts us).

[jhoops__]

Amateur level giveaways for sure at times.

[ECW]

Here’s an “in his own words”, for what it’s worth:

https://www.coachesvoice.com/cv/jesse-marsch-ralf-rangnick-red-bull-salzburg-rb-leipzig/

Edited June 7 by ECW

[Sal333]

12 hours ago, kingvikingstad said:

I don't know why exactly, but I do have a feeling about Marsch. 

Sure you could argue he fell upwards, and his success at RB was down to their model, and he wasn't exactly covered in praise at Leeds, but I just think his tactics are the right ones for this team to maximize our talent and he seems competent, honest, and likeable. I also like he's coached here before, has wanted the job before, and feels settled.

As Meatloaf sang in his song. Two out of three ain't bad.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

We played his situational press system very well - almost textbook in moments -  until we didn't. Obviously giving away the ball and not closing down are not part of it.

Larin takes his chance or David doesn't kick the ball out before the challenge comes or we do something with the few other turnovers we created, it's obviously a different tactical game.

I did not see much of "the system" at all once they scored.

But again really silly to judge it after 3 days training for some players and in game when subs were made without the result in mind.

Edited June 7 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

1 hour ago, GasPed said:

I think a few potential trouble areas from today were:

1) Giveaways - we had huge difficulty playing through their press/counter-press.  This is a carryover from the Herdman slow build-up approach - it's great when your players are technically superior and/or not under extreme pressure, but clearly that wasn't the case here.  But I'm going to give Marsch some time on this one - it requires plenty of practice reps and chemistry to get the breaks on the counter correct.  Lots of 1-2-1 patterns, a clear understanding of who will be "flying the zone" and when, who to look for and where to look, etc.  I think we have enough talent to figure this out and produce a dangerous counter-attacking team but it's going to take time.  In the meantime, we'll pass it back and forth to each other until we lose it.

2) Very unclinical finishing - we had chances, not a lot, but enough to get something from the game.  Against the better teams, we are going to have to be far more constructive/clinical in our attacks if we want to get a result.

3) Mediocre hold up play - great counter attacking often requires that back-to-goal pivot up the field who can take the long ball and quickly lay it off to a runner.  I really didn't see this today, and tbh, I'm not sure we have someone capable of it.  (Bair?)  But having it would definitely help us (and not having it hurts us).

I agree on the first 2 points, whole heartedly, on the 3rd, I would say, we aren't trying to be a counter attacking team, we are trying to be a counter pressing team. 

We don't actually want long balls to strikers because that means the ball is coming from our half.  We want the ball to be engaged up the pitch (where our best players should be), and we don't have the experienced solid backline a good counter attacking team needs to soak up the pressure.

Think Leicester in their pomp or (selfishly) West Ham's relative and limited success recently. 

[GasPed]

1 hour ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I agree on the first 2 points, whole heartedly, on the 3rd, I would say, we aren't trying to be a counter attacking team, we are trying to be a counter pressing team. 

We don't actually want long balls to strikers because that means the ball is coming from our half.  We want the ball to be engaged up the pitch (where our best players should be), and we don't have the experienced solid backline a good counter attacking team needs to soak up the pressure.

Think Leicester in their pomp or (selfishly) West Ham's relative and limited success recently. 

I personally think we have to be both counter pressing and counter attacking, and I hope Marsch feels the same way because I think that would best play to our strengths.

We certainly have the athletes to be high pressing/counter pressing, and there's no doubt that should be our default.  But against the best teams, we will absolutely have to bunker and counter too.   And we need to drill that to be good at it.

And I do agree, a target man isn't exactly necessary for a countering team.  But you do need one or two intermediate outlets - guys who are playing up against their CBs, and when we get possession and the break is on, they need to be available and ready for that intermediate pass/flick on, or be able to turn and go themselves.  

For me, the model is Japan - I personally think we could actually press and counterpress better than them (though they all seem to have three lungs).  But they can also bunker and counter really well - all thanks to quick passes to intermediate outlets and direct play.  I think we have the athletes to adopt/adapt that style and be very dangerous.  My 2c.  

Edited June 7 by GasPed

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

3 hours ago, GasPed said:

I personally think we have to be both counter pressing and counter attacking, and I hope Marsch feels the same way because I think that would best play to our strengths.

We certainly have the athletes to be high pressing/counter pressing, and there's no doubt that should be our default.  But against the best teams, we will absolutely have to bunker and counter too.   And we need to drill that to be good at it.

And I do agree, a target man isn't exactly necessary for a countering team.  But you do need one or two intermediate outlets - guys who are playing up against their CBs, and when we get possession and the break is on, they need to be available and ready for that intermediate pass/flick on, or be able to turn and go themselves.  

For me, the model is Japan - I personally think we could actually press and counterpress better than them (though they all seem to have three lungs).  But they can also bunker and counter really well - all thanks to quick passes to intermediate outlets and direct play.  I think we have the athletes to adopt/adapt that style and be very dangerous.  My 2c.  

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

At least how I see  the terms used, they are fundamentally different in how you engage in the ball. And trying to do both exposes huge gaps.

You would never "bunker" against a good team in a gegenpress system, it allows them the time and space to pick you apart. We especially don't have defence to sustain that.

If you "bunker" with your defenders and press with your attackers, you open up massive space in midfield that are easy to pass into, often making any press you try just a waste of energy. 

There is a German term fundamental to Marsch's type systems and that's  alle gemeinsam - just means "all together". He or Rangrick or someone said that you have to know that when you press everybody is with you.  Which is the opposite of some people bunkering.

If you wanted to completely change your system - counterpress or bunker - on any given play, how does the team know which you are doing in the moment? 

And it adds another level of complexity to training because you would need train in both.

West Ham's whole team save the target man knew that when they lost ball, they were getting back into shape, that is fundamentally different from what you try in a gegenpress.

 

Again I don't think we have what takes to be a consistent counter attacking team against good sides.  They will eventually break what we have defensively down.  Davies' strength for instance has never been as a final third defender even when he played his best for Bayern. We just make too many mistakes. Not something someone like Japan (your example) does as much.

 

We certainly need to have a plan when we have the ball. We are still panicking with it but the first step in Marsch's plans, I would guess, is what we do as unified unit without it.

Edited June 7 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[costarg]

One of my concerns with the Marsch intense pressing system is how will we manage this at Copa and WC 2026 which are in June/July.  It's one thing to do this in Stoke on a Wednesday night in January, but a whole different challenge in North American summers.  Just isn't doable regardless of how many track athletes you have.

[narduch]

10 minutes ago, costarg said:

One of my concerns with the Marsch intense pressing system is how will we manage this at Copa and WC 2026 which are in June/July.  It's one thing to do this in Stoke on a Wednesday night in January, but a whole different challenge in North American summers.  Just isn't doable regardless of how many track athletes you have.

The match against Argentina will be indoors.

But fair point for the other 2 group games.