A chat with Chris Gluck about the 2017 Portland Timbers

Chris Gluck proprietor of the Possession With Purpose website, recently unveiled  his 2017 Preview of the Portland Timbers.  Chris was kind enough to let us pepper him with some questions ahead of the 2017 season. Anything we didn’t cover? Go find Chris on Twitter @ChrisGluckPWP and pepper away!

Prost Amerika: I might be drinking the Kool Aid here, but if soccer/football has a Win Shares statistic yet, this David Guzman guy has to be worth half a dozen wins. He’s your proverbial kills-three-birds-with-one-stone player:

• The Team got too direct in years past, he’ll help recycle possessions
• He’ll protect a back line that just did not have the stability of the 2015 model
• Guzman will  make the players around him better

The only thing missing is the cape and red “S” (which we now know is actually is his family’s coat of arms, which conveniently looks like an “S”.) Do you think the expectations for Guzman are reasonable?

Chris Gluck: Good question…  and perhaps the Win-Share statistic becomes our own calling-card, if you will, on how we measure Portland Timbers players this year?

In offering a win-share projection this year I’d offer six is a good number, but…. for me Win-Share should probably define and capture more than just one player.  And if the Timbers win more than six games – it’s likely Guzman will have a share in those wins more than six times, so could six be a low number???

Yes – I think he adds value in increasing possession – not necessarily possession for the sake of possession – I see it more as possession with purpose and the intent to penetrate and create chances.  And in speaking with Caleb about the tactical approach of the team the past three years (last year) possession tactics vary given the opponent.

A great example might be two years ago when the Timbers played away at LA Galaxy and got pounded 5-1 (if memory serves) (this the one??).

Porter wanted the Timbers to possess and control that game and LA crushed them on the counter-attack.  Later that year – in the championship run the Timbers played more direct – and they took it to LA.  So direct play isn’t a bad thing – it can be a great strategy to open up the midfield more – and thereby spread out the defenders more – giving the Timbers more time and space when possession of the ball – for the sake of possession was more critical.  I hope that makes sense?

Yes, I concur, Guzman is there to protect the back-four – but I’d offer – more precisely – he’s that to protect the back-two if the Timbers lose the ball in possession – since Alvas and Vytas are likely to be pushing higher up the pitch.  So his role is perhaps more critical than might be perceived when recognizing the back-line is not four at the back – but two at the back.

“[Having David Guzman] allows Darlington to be at his best, allows Chara to be at his best. It also gives another ball-winner behind Valeri, which allows him to be at his best.”  -Timbers head coach Caleb Porter

As noted by Caleb Porter – Guzman’s presence will allow for Diego Chara and Darlington Nagbe to play in areas that better suit team productivity.  I also think that’s a measured statement that doesn’t afford other lateral information that paints a bigger picture.

I’d also offer the addition of Sebastian Blanco, and the return of Dairon Asprilla also has legs in that equation…  So for me, it’s not just about Guzman; it’s about the entire attacking package across the midfield…  and starting the ball at the feet of Guzman is just step one.

Overall, I sense David Guzman helps the Portland Timbers control time and space (with or without the ball) atop / wide of the back two moving all the way forward to the top of the opponent’s 18 yard box.

Bottom line – I think David Guzman and Diego Chara (together) add greater pace, stamina, speed, first touch, passing skills, nous, and more timely tackles than what we’ve seen with the combination of Diego Chara and any other player we’ve seen in the past.

PORTLAND, OR – FEBRUARY 15: Portland Timbers v Vancouver Whitecaps (Photo by Diego G Diaz/ProstAmerika)

PA: I love the word, “nous”. You mentioned wanting to cut down on the meaningless fouls. Yet, it looks like Portland is adopting a very aggressive press, at least for the five to ten seconds following a turnover. Are these two beliefs (cutting down on fouls but going with a tight press) compatible?

CG: Yes, I think so… the meaningless fouls I submit are those that occur in or around the defending 18 yard box…  fouls occurring as part of a high-press are those likely to be in the attacking half of the pitch – or just inside the defending half…  but saying that – that doesn’t mean a men-behaving-badly foul can’t occur in the middle of the pitch.

February 12th, 2017: Minnesota United v Portland Timbers, at Providence Park, Portland, OR.

PA: Do you feel this is the best attacking group the team has had under Porter? Is a 55 goal season a possibility this year?

CG: Before giving a direct answer I’d submit it’s three-fold.

1. The Timbers have improved their scouting and player analysis efforts – they aren’t as good as they can be – but they are better.
2. MLS continues to increase the salary cap and enhance team flexibility in getting more skillful players.
3. So far – given the limited time I’ve seen them in pre-season I’d offer, across the front six, the players all show a good-to-great first touch and the ability to (individually) make space for themselves and others. As much as I liked what Rodney Wallace brought to the pitch he didn’t bring the ability to make space for himself and others…  Do I need to comment on Lucas Melano here?

February 12th, 2017: Minnesota United v Portland Timbers, at Providence Park, Portland, OR.

PA: Following last week’s match against the Whitecaps, Porter said Portland did a good job limiting Vancouver’s ability to counterattack. Since we know Chara is going to have license to get forward to pressure opponents higher up the fielder, is the counter going to be the way teams will try to beat Portland this year? How can Portland prepare for this?

CG: In short, yes.

But… in saying yes that doesn’t mean that’s a new thing for the Timbers.

PA: Fair point.

CG: When rewinding 2016 and 2015 the Timbers lost many games on the counter.  Recall the away games to FC Dallas and LA Galaxy that year where the Timbers were hammered on the counter.

The real question, for me is: will Caleb adjust his tactical approaches this year to better match how the opponents play than he did last year?

I felt the Timbers had many games (especially away games) last year where things didn’t gel.  Whether that was due to player availability/selection, his bench, or his tactical approaches (especially in away games) is hard to pin down but not winning one road game certainly intuits the wrong tactics were employed based upon the players he had available.

Is that too harsh?  I don’t think so, and the new additions, to the team this year, show the Timbers were just as harsh on rating themselves privately, as I have been publicly…  You only need to see the loan of Lucas Melano and the return of Dairon Asprilla to intuit some tough issues were addressed this off-season.

To the second part of your question – Porter has already prepared his team for the counters by adding new players to the fold.  In adding those players we can circle back to your initial question about David Guzman…

His addition (plus that of Sebastian Blanco and the return of Dairon Asprilla) adds good value in that it enables other players to play more to their strengths.

February 12th, 2017: Minnesota United v Portland Timbers, at Providence Park, Portland, OR.

PA: You mention both Vytas and Alvas Powell needing to develop into being “shutdown” full backs. Can you elaborate on what you by that term?  

CG: I’ll try to do my best using words I’m familiar with.

For me ‘shutdown’ means the fullback as the ability to win one-v-one’s (anywhere on the pitch – with or without the ball) 75% to 95% of the time, against every opponent in Major League Soccer.

It also means the opponent pattern of passes from the area (wing) defended are backwards.  To be precise, directly backwards, as opposed to across the face of the goal or at an angle where an opponent can run onto them as they penetrate the 18 yard box.

Also, shutting down the opponent doesn’t always mean making lots of tackles.  Sometimes – when a fullback has a great game – they never (or rarely) touch the ball in their own defending final third.  That may sound a bit odd – but there were occasions with Jorge Villafana where he had fewer than five defensive touches in his own defending final third.  Hope that helps clarify.

PA: Powell and Vytas have been instrumental in all but a couple of goals in the Timbers Preseason Tournament. Is it possible for both full backs to be both shutdown full backs while adding extra width to the attack?

CG: Yes…  I think it’s possible – but positional awareness is key, as is the relationship of Alvas and Vytas to Diego Chara and David Guzman.

Part of the success with Jorge was his ability to link up with the midfield in the transition area (on or around the midfield line) – the better those two (Vytas and Alvas) can link up with Chara, Guzman, Nagbe, and Blanco – while not pressing too high – too early – will be helpful in adding width to the Timbers attack.

February 12th, 2017: Minnesota United v Portland Timbers, at Providence Park, Portland, OR.

PA: You make a correlation about the 2013 team having both excellent possession and a sterling defensive record (i.e. limiting opponents to a club low 33 goals). We all know if opponents don’t have the ball, they can’t score. So, what sort of possession rate would the team need to make this possibility this year?

CG: Tough question – and a simple answer probably doesn’t fit here but I’ll try my best!

First and foremost I should probably try to categorize possession types as opposed to possession rates – as I sense the rate of possession is associated with the type of possession.

Here’s my stab at answering that first.  I’d offer (possession with the intent to penetrate) has three basic routes into the opponent’s defending final third – wide, narrow, or long ball…

1. Use of the long ball usually translates to teams having lower overall possession numbers as they don’t make as many passes that lead to penetration.
2. Going wide or narrow can be achieved separately or in combination.
   1. Going wide to narrow to wide to narrow to wide, or vice-verse (consistently) usually offers a pattern of possession that exceeds 50%. When taking that approach skilled players (great first touch, vision, and passing skills) are needed across the pitch.
   2. The Timbers haven’t really had a bevy of skilled players across the width of the pitch in the last two years – compared to their opponents. Has that changed this year?
   3. Hard to say – each year sees every single team look to improve and add skilled players across the pitch. With the increase in salary cap and greater flexibility in signing non-DP players how the Timbers improvements stack up against the opponent’s this year won’t show itself for maybe 15 games or so…
3. Going strictly wide, strictly narrow, wide then narrow, or narrow then wide is somewhat like going direct but more control of possession is offered since the linking passes are shorter.

So in considering your question – here’s what I would offer – a higher possession rate is a good thing as it reflects (to me) that the opponent is playing a deeper set because they know it’s unlikely they’ll win the ball with a high press…  In other words to prevent themselves from over-committing players in a forward position the opponent is quicker to play to block of four deeper into their own defending half.

To me this manifests itself as seeing the Timbers possess the ball more than 50% of the time…  And a logical?/intuitive? translation is the opponent will have fewer goal scoring opportunities and fewer goals scored…  Does that make sense?

Thank you Chris for your time! Chris’s blog is Possession With Purpose.