In Reply to: Agree... posted by jerseybruin on June 09, 2025 at 08:07:40
I think you touch on two different things which lead to a different conclusion if they are taken together. First. Aday still has to become stronger and better cnoditioned physically (the latter element imo has a lot to do with how his very long and slender body needing more time to mature than for many a young man a foot or so shorter, more compact). Second, how much playing time he got.
Your conclusion that his head coach "misplayed him and kept him on the bench" is a judgement but consider: if you had a young player who was not yet physically mature enough to maintain conditioning, who tired markedly in games, would you insist on playing him extended minutes, minutes his body just wasn't yet up to maintaining? I hope you would not.
Added element was injuries. He started the season with an injury which significantly restricted his playing time early on. He had a later injury during the season just when his minutes were running 15-20 minutes a game and again that reduced his minutes.
By year's end he was playing up to 25 minutes a game.
I don't think he was "misplayed." He may very well see it that way - and his agent probably may as well. I do agreee I wish he had played 30 minutes a game last season. But I don't think that would have been in his best interests. I also believe it was Cronin's intent to play him 28 or 30 minutes a game this coming year.
I disagree that Cronin was at fault doing what he did.
I also wonder what effect it had on the relationship when Aday returned from his time away back in Spain with some pretty significant ideas on how he ought to be played and treated. Cronin coaches a team - he has a system. If the player wants something different, he can leave. But I would doubt you'd find many top level coaches happy to allow their players to dictate to them how they intend to practice and to play.
Too bad they couldn't work it out and reach common ground. But I don't think it's "bad Aday" or "bad Mick."