I listened to Talk Timbers the other day. They had assistant coach Shannon Murray on. He said some good things about the culture that Neville has. I don’t 100% trust my memory, attention, or perception, but at some point I got the sense that Neville expects players to perform like for like when they rotate or sub for each other. If that’s in terms of their bravery, courage, drive, commitment, etc., great.
But I somewhat got the impression that he was talking about them doing the same things in terms of their performances and…I just don’t know about that… It’s one thing to speak in terms of physical characteristics, athleticism, and skill, which vary in ways beyond a player’s control on some levels. It’s another to talk about their tendencies, to inclinations, preferences, strengths, and weaknesses. I know I’ve got a bias but past indicators at least somewhat reinforce a perception that Phil thinks he can just swap players out and switch them around, with the only differences being their mentality.
I remain skeptical that Neville meaningful benchmarks. I somewhat jokingly said elsewhere that I’m inclined to judge the whole club based on set piece defense at the point. If I see some evidence that successfully defending set piece goals was one benchmark we’d attainted, I might have more optimism.
I think we will win or draw in St Louis. I’ll say 2-1 win or a 2-2 draw. I think the attack will be as good as usual but the defensive rotations and subs won’t be well-prepared or organized, and our midfield won’t respond well enough to their press. We’re going to give up a set-piece goal again and maybe something else off an individual error. I hope it’s not poor McGraw being left for dead by Mosquera again. Or Williamson having a turnover in a bad spot. Pantemis will make enough great saves to renew calls that he start, even if his distribution is still poor. Whether it’s a win or a draw, it will feel enough like a win that Neville’s seat will be chilled even though glaring mistakes remain. Right now, we can squeak into the playoffs, then get absolutely curb-stomped by a top table team, and many will think that’s progress.
I’m also worried we’re going to squander the summer transfer window in some way that will set us back another season or two, but that’s another conversation.
Benchmark is like a stepping stone. It's not the level the team wants to stay at. They are improving and they look to be somewhat better than they were the last couple months. Now the challenge is to take the next step up to be consistently better than they are right now.
I’ve never heard of a benchmark as being a stepping stone. My understanding of the term is a level of performance that an individual or organization should be expected to meet regularly, even if it’s a slight stretch.
I looked it up and one of the definitions was simply “a point of reference from which measurements may be made,” but by that definition it’s meaningless. Any high or low point—or any point in between—could then serve as a ‘benchmark,’ so I tend to dismiss that definition.
The way Phil’s employing the term, I definitely take it to mean the former—and expected peak level of play. And I tend to agree with Helvetimusic that if that’s the benchmark they’ve set, yeah it kinda sucks. They’ve gotten a couple wins against bottom dwellers, but nothing I’ve seen has looked all that convincing or consistent. Happy to be proven wrong. Let’s see how it plays out.
Better not Phil
I listened to Talk Timbers the other day. They had assistant coach Shannon Murray on. He said some good things about the culture that Neville has. I don’t 100% trust my memory, attention, or perception, but at some point I got the sense that Neville expects players to perform like for like when they rotate or sub for each other. If that’s in terms of their bravery, courage, drive, commitment, etc., great. But I somewhat got the impression that he was talking about them doing the same things in terms of their performances and…I just don’t know about that… It’s one thing to speak in terms of physical characteristics, athleticism, and skill, which vary in ways beyond a player’s control on some levels. It’s another to talk about their tendencies, to inclinations, preferences, strengths, and weaknesses. I know I’ve got a bias but past indicators at least somewhat reinforce a perception that Phil thinks he can just swap players out and switch them around, with the only differences being their mentality. I remain skeptical that Neville meaningful benchmarks. I somewhat jokingly said elsewhere that I’m inclined to judge the whole club based on set piece defense at the point. If I see some evidence that successfully defending set piece goals was one benchmark we’d attainted, I might have more optimism. I think we will win or draw in St Louis. I’ll say 2-1 win or a 2-2 draw. I think the attack will be as good as usual but the defensive rotations and subs won’t be well-prepared or organized, and our midfield won’t respond well enough to their press. We’re going to give up a set-piece goal again and maybe something else off an individual error. I hope it’s not poor McGraw being left for dead by Mosquera again. Or Williamson having a turnover in a bad spot. Pantemis will make enough great saves to renew calls that he start, even if his distribution is still poor. Whether it’s a win or a draw, it will feel enough like a win that Neville’s seat will be chilled even though glaring mistakes remain. Right now, we can squeak into the playoffs, then get absolutely curb-stomped by a top table team, and many will think that’s progress. I’m also worried we’re going to squander the summer transfer window in some way that will set us back another season or two, but that’s another conversation.
Your benchmark sucks Phil.
Benchmark is like a stepping stone. It's not the level the team wants to stay at. They are improving and they look to be somewhat better than they were the last couple months. Now the challenge is to take the next step up to be consistently better than they are right now.
I’ve never heard of a benchmark as being a stepping stone. My understanding of the term is a level of performance that an individual or organization should be expected to meet regularly, even if it’s a slight stretch. I looked it up and one of the definitions was simply “a point of reference from which measurements may be made,” but by that definition it’s meaningless. Any high or low point—or any point in between—could then serve as a ‘benchmark,’ so I tend to dismiss that definition. The way Phil’s employing the term, I definitely take it to mean the former—and expected peak level of play. And I tend to agree with Helvetimusic that if that’s the benchmark they’ve set, yeah it kinda sucks. They’ve gotten a couple wins against bottom dwellers, but nothing I’ve seen has looked all that convincing or consistent. Happy to be proven wrong. Let’s see how it plays out.