Editorial (September 18, 2018) – The Colorado Rapids lost to Atlanta United FC over the weekend, by a score of 3-0. The Rapids remained aggressive under head coach Anthony Hudson’s direction despite having distinct weaknesses that Atlanta exploited effortlessly. Combined with other results, the Rapids have been eliminated from playoff contention.
Asking the right questions of the Colorado Rapids and Anthony Hudson’s process
Hudson wanted his team to press high up the field and possess the ball. He chose to take the game to the opponent with the idyllic style he envisions them succeeding with under his guidance.
Trying to play a big game against a big club:
They did this with a forward pairing that didn’t trouble Atlanta’s three-man backline. Sam Nicholson was returning from a back injury and Giles Barnes wasn’t effective. With no threat up top, Atlanta pushed their backline high, moving up the point of confrontation. Colorado’s four-man midfield battled to control but Atlanta had a numbers advantage and was better in many aspects of the game.
Edgar Castillo and Marlon Hairston lost their battles on the wings. The stars for Atlanta took advantage of the space between the lines and a defense that’s been vulnerable all season was its usual self.
One of my rules for identifying superiority in sports is in the question “what do a team do better than everyone else?” Greatness isn’t always defined by being good at one particular skill. Sometimes it’s being the best in every aspect of the game by a small margin. It’s a million small details, not one big thing.
France won the World Cup not because they did one distinct thing the best. They won because they were 10% better than their opponents in every facet of the game. On Saturday afternoon, Atlanta United weren’t just faster or more technical or more organized than the Rapids.
They were better at all three of those things (and many others) and that collectively added up to a 3-0 win.
Anthony Hudson took the Herb Brooks approach to the game. He tried to beat Atlanta by going for it, trying to beat them at their own game, bravely yet unsuccessfully. He went to war with the army he had and asked them to do something they are poor at, something he eventually wants Colorado to be great at.
Growth and learning shrouded in losing?
As I’ve written about previously, Hudson’s focused on the process more than results at times. Saturday was a process game. The Rapids were effectively out of playoff contention by July. At this point in the season, playing for results is folly. Playing for improvements going into next year is really what will make the difference.
Those two things don’t always overlap. Hudson could have had his team bunker against Atlanta and taken several chapters out of Pablo Mastroeni coaching theory reference text. But that’s not what Hudson was hired to turn the Rapids into. It’s not what he aspires them to be. There is an argument for measuring progress in improvements in methodology rather than immediate results.
So the Rapids went for it and got burned. The Internet mocked them yet again over an unflattering scoreline while fans lamented another defeat, some complaining for drastic changes.
It doesn’t really matter if the Rapids win or lose games at this point. It hasn’t mattered for at least two months. They’re in a bad place. They need to get out. What matters is that they’re moving.
Longterm course vs. existing limitations and restless natives:
As Billy Beane put it in Money Ball, “I don’t think we’re asking the right question. I think the question we should be asking is ‘do you believe in this thing or not?'”
What is the plan and is it the right one? Can the Rapids execute it given their limited resources in an ever growing and evolving MLS landscape? Have they already been hamstrung for the foreseeable future by past decisions?
If they have, can Padraig Smith roster build the club out of this given the answers to previous questions and his less than stellar track record? Can Hudson implement and improve upon the system for the team to overcome these hurdles?
Where are they going to add value (the academy, SuperDraft, foreign signings, development from within) where other teams are not to make up ground? Or are they just doing everything the rest of MLS is doing with 10% poorer returns?
It takes time for a manager to implement a culture and philosophy. Sometimes it takes longer than a year. If you hire a person, you should trust them and give them time. If a coach doesn’t last a year, questions should be asked about the original hiring process. #Quakes74
— Bobby Warshaw (@bwarshaw14) September 17, 2018
The MLS water cooler talk this week may focus on the scoreline and what Hudson was thinking trying to play like that against one of the best teams in MLS. The question will be “why did they lose to Atlanta?” or “why are they losing right now?”
The fanbase is disgruntled at best with many calling for heads to roll at multiple levels as they endure forth terrible seasons in five years. Change takes time, but one can sympathize with their situation.
Hudson and Smith failing to deliver on grand promises could set a disappointment record for the club, the supporters, and themselves, leaving potential successors further behind the already distant pack.
The front office should be actively performing a self-aware internal audit to evaluate what they can do in the off-season to improve in 2019, what lessons have been learned this year, and if they have the right people in the right jobs focusing on the right tasks.
If Hudson, Smith, and the KSE overlords had a meeting today, the questions they should be asking are “do we believe in this thing or not and what needs to be done to see this through to fruition?”
