—by Chris Rifer
“Obviously they played very direct, so when teams play direct, it’s hard when the ball’s bouncing around. It became a really direct game. Both sides of the ball. They were pressing. We were pressing. You know, that happens in this league. Some games aren’t games where you have a lot of the ball, a lot of the rhythm. . . . When you get pressed, it’s hard to play out of the back.”
That was Caleb Porter after a disappointing 1-1 draw against the L.A. Galaxy in which the Timbers were dominated in nearly every offensive statistical category. While the Timbers weren’t run off the field by the Galaxy, it’s hard to deny Landon Donovan, Robbie Keane, and company had the better of the proceedings.
“I don’t think you need to play with a big number nine. I think there’s a myth that in the number nine it has to be a big, tall guy. That’s old school. If you look nowadays, guys like Suarez, he’s not big but he plays the number nine. If you look even in MLS, guys like Di Vaio, guys like Camilo, they’re small guys but they do it through being technical, being smart, good movement. My prototypical number nine isn’t a big, tall, slow guy. It doesn’t work for us because we need a guy who is mobile, who can press, a guy that’s active and can stretch. I don’t think size plays into it for me too much.”
That seemingly unrelated quote was Caleb Porter after a preseason draw with San Jose answering a question about whether not having a traditional number nine made matters more difficult against a packed-in defense.
“The system that we play in, which the 4-2-3-1 or a modified 4-3-3, we need someone up top who can occupy defenders and with occupying defenders also stretch the field.”
Rather than Porter, however, that was Gavin Wilkinson, Timbers General Manager. There, as reported by Dan Itel for MLSSoccer.com, although truncated in a later version of the story, Wilkinson was talking just two days after the draw with the Galaxy, about the need for a number nine with both size and speed.
While the relationship between the three quotes isn’t initially obvious, in context of the Timbers season as a whole it becomes clear that the first quote is indicative of an example of the reason why the third quote has usurped the second as the Timbers attitude to the traditional number nine.
Simply put, those three quotes represent the ascension, downfall, and ultimate death of Porterball.
In 2013, with the Timbers all the rage among the MLS punditry, many around Portland and the league breathlessly praised “Porterball,” the name branded on the Timbers’ high-pressure, patient passing identity.
And while the Timbers surely showed those characteristics frequently in 2013, the true genius of the Timbers attack was its flexibility. While “Porterball” may have been the Timbers calling card, Portland’s offense was flexible enough that the Timbers could dial up a number of other schemes when circumstances so required.
And so the Timbers did through crucial games and stretches on 2013. From an early win over Colorado, to a late homestand that catapulted the Timbers to their Western Conference crown, to their dominant performance in leg one of the opening round of the playoffs, the Timbers showed they could absorb pressure when opponents came out to press and play much more direct to get results.
Thus, while “Porterball” got all the ink, the balance on the roster and the tactical chalkboard lifted the Timbers to some of their most important results. Therein was the true genius of Caleb Porter’s 2013 Timbers.
2013’s urban legend, however, became 2014’s reality. “Porterball” became Porterball.
Whereas the 2013 roster was largely constructed by Wilkinson in Portland with Porter pulling strings from Akron, the Timbers brass looked to Porter to shape the 2014 team in his image.
And that he did. In place of Ryan Johnson and Jose Valencia, two of the Timbers most direct threats, Porter rolled out Maxi Urruti and Gaston Fernandez, players who more closely fit the ideal number nine Porter described in preseason. Out were the big number nines. In were the pressing playmakers. While Frederic Piquionne remained, his role on the team never appeared to be more than a late substitute, and even that modest role quickly waned to waiver when his performance faltered.
Simply put, during the offseason, the Timbers handed the keys to Caleb Porter and Porter doubled down on Porterball.
In doubling down, however, the Timbers may have overplayed their hand and become too doctrinaire – too Porterball. Throughout this early stretch of 2014, opponents have sold out in various ways to frustrate the Timbers’ attacking identity. And by and large Portland hasn’t had an effective Plan B.
So it was against the Galaxy. With L.A. pressing, as Porter discussed postgame, the Timbers didn’t have an effective direct threat to break down the Galaxy’s pressure and ask genuine questions of Bruce Arena’s makeshift backline. Arguably the Timbers most effective attacking player – Steve Zakuani – was also the Timbers’ most direct player. And yet, time and again when he earned some space to whip a cross into the box, his indirect teammates weren’t poised to take advantage.
Wilkinson’s statement to Itel, then, signals a welcome retreat away from the pure manifestation of Porterball expressed in Porter’s preseason quote. And reading into the subtext of Porter’s statement on Saturday, it appears the gaffer himself is backing away from his Porterballing utopia.
And this week the rubber has hit the road on the Timbers’ retreat to a more moderate philosophy, with Piquionne replaced by Nigerian youngster Fanendo Adi in a predecessor move to the signing of Wilkinson’s foreshadowed designated player number nine in July.
But the substance of the statements isn’t the only indication of moderation of the Timbers philosophical identity. Rather, it’s significant that the heretofore-silent Wilkinson gave an interview in which he spoke not only about the mechanics of potential deals – the traditional provenance of the technical director – but also the tactical necessity of acquiring a certain type of player – the traditional provenance of the manager.
Now, of course Wilkinson will not be usurping Porter’s role as manager. But recall that, by necessity, Wilkinson had an active role in assembling the well-balanced 2013 roster, and appeared to have less influence in doing so in 2014.
Thus, this apparent moderation may signal the reemergence of Wilkinson as a counterbalancing force to Porter in the Timbers’ technical decisions. Caleb Porter and Gavin Wilkinson are by no means two peas in a pod with respect to personality or philosophy.[1] And by balancing Porter’s visionary idealism with Wilkinson’s staid pragmatism, the Timbers may be trying to find their way back to the balanced path that led them to success in 2013.
Doing so, however, requires the relegation of Porterball back to “Porterball.”
Onward, Rose City!
[1] To be clear, this isn’t to suggest there is conflict between Porter and Wilkinson. I certainly have seen no evidence of dissonance between the two. It is simply to point out they are – and always have been – quite different.
