Futbol Talk

[brewcity77]

I just don't see it. He's a midfielder, not a striker. And plenty of strikers put balls right at the keeper or wide of the target too. Hell, I remember one forward saying his plan was always to aim at the keeper and hope he missed.

Bradley has 15 NT goals, third among non-forwards. He is a brilliant passer and maybe the best I've ever seen in a USA shirt at dropping a ball onto a runner's feet from a deep position. He is everything Kyle Beckerman isn't, but what he isn't is an attacking mid.

Changing positions is hard. Clint did it, going from winger to forward, but it only worked because Fulham initiated the move. Dempsey had a ton of growing pains but developed into a legitimate starting striker in the Prem. It took a good 2-3 seasons to really perfect the change. And that's training every day at that position. Klinsmann gets what, 4-6 weeks per year with his players? It's absolutely ludicrous to think a NT manager could initiate that change. There just isn't time.

Could Bradley become an attacking mid? Maybe. With constant training at a club level, after a few years of dedicated effort, maybe he could become an attacking mid. But with a few weeks a year? No. The notion is preposterous and underscores why Klinsmann is a terribly clueless manager and is doing more to set our program back than he is to move it forward.

[Henry Sugar]

Jones, Beckerman, and Bradley are a terrible combination. They are basically all central midfielders. There was no width on the offense or defense.

Jozy looked bad too.

Klinsmann plays guys out of position, hasn't developed youth, and has no consistency of formation or squad rotation. The results are no better than Bradley or Arena.

[brewcity77]

Jones, Beckerman, and Bradley are a terrible combination. They are basically all central midfielders. There was no width on the offense or defense.

Jozy looked bad too.

Klinsmann plays guys out of position, hasn't developed youth, and has no consistency of formation or squad rotation. The results are no better than Bradley or Arena.

Klinsmann just doesn't seem to know any other way. 15 months ago, Beckerman, Bradley, and Jones were instrumental in our run to the Round of 16. Now two of them are past it and the other is clearly not as effective further up the pitch, yet he can't see it. Baffling.

What irks me is the results seem to actually be worse under Klinsmann. We have now lost 3 consecutive competitive games on home soil against CONCACAF teams (Jamaica, Panama, Mexico). We have missed out on chances to automatically qualify for competitions that Klinsmann said we needed to qualify for (Olympics and Confed Cup).

Our official record since the end of the World Cup is 10W/5D/7L. However, if you include the added time losses against Panama and Mexico, that drops to 10W/3D/9L. In non-friendly games during that same time, we are 3W/3D/1L, but with the added time, it's 3W/1D/3L. All of those are on home soil against CONCACAF teams. That's a pretty sobering record no matter how you slice it. Yes, there are friendly wins over Netherlands, Germany, and Mexico in there, but when all your highlights are friendlies, it's not a good thing.

[Henry Sugar]

By the way, here are your stats for USA-Mexico

Close to 2x the number of shots, with a higher percentage of them on target by Mexico.

[ChicosBailBonds]

By the way, here are your stats for USA-Mexico

Close to 2x the number of shots, with a higher percentage of them on target by Mexico.

Many of us at the game were surprised the US was even in the game.  We just aren't that great, and nowhere near elite.  I'm heavily skepitcal we EVER will be.

[brewcity77]

Many of us at the game were surprised the US was even in the game.  We just aren't that great, and nowhere near elite.  I'm heavily skepitcal we EVER will be.

We aren't managed that great. Our player pool it's better than it's ever been. Anyone saying otherwise is either buying Klinsmann's BS or making excuses for him.

Fabian Johnson was sent home from the international camp today after a series of arguments with Klinsmann. JK accused him of faking his injury Saturday. It's clear he's lost the locker room. There's no way this can be fixed. Every day Klinsmann remains in charge is another step back for the program.

[jesmu84]

At least he finally called in Nguyen, right?

[ChicosBailBonds]

We aren't managed that great. Our player pool it's better than it's ever been. Anyone saying otherwise is either buying Klinsmann's BS or making excuses for him.

Fabian Johnson was sent home from the international camp today after a series of arguments with Klinsmann. JK accused him of faking his injury Saturday. It's clear he's lost the locker room. There's no way this can be fixed. Every day Klinsmann remains in charge is another step back for the program.

Player pool is better, but not elite.  We have more depth, but we don't have stars, we don't have creators.  I said it last time, will say it again...this US team, even the one that went to the round of 16, there were only 2 to 4 players that could even make a roster on the top 12 teams, and most of those that could would be riding the pine.

We have a long long long way to go to be elite, and I don't think we are getting there anytime soon. We may have 350 million people, many from soccer crazy nations in terms of lineage, but we don't yet have the volume of next level players to be elite.

[jesmu84]

A good take on current state of USSF/USMNT: http://www.bigsoccer.com/blog/2015/10/11/concacaf-cup-mexico-trumps-us

That was fun.

Oh, come on.  Sure, we lost.  We've done that before.  You thought we'd never lose ever again? Did you want nothing but beautiful, breathtaking soccer played by the world's finest performers?  Wrong national team, my friend.

Okay, we lost to the Enemy. Maybe it was the soft bigotry of expectations that had fallen down the mineshaft, but we came back against the Enemy.  Twice.  With a bad lineup playing badly.

We made this game an unofficial referendum on the Klinsmann regime, we devoted USMNT fans.  This has made us thoughtful, perhaps even opinionated. So it's nice to remember why we became fans of this kicky sporty thing in the first place.  There are two huge and important positives I believe every fan can take away from this.

The never give up, never surrender, never say die spirit?  The one that, depending on your point of view, either exemplifies the best of the United States of America, or is a comforting myth that masks our inadequacies?  Well, it's nice to see that's still around.  I thought we'd mislaid it sometime around the Brazil game.

That's really what I ask from our team.  I don't watch the US to see Juergen Klinsmann coach - boy, do I not ever.

If you don't believe that's important, well, look at you being all intelligent and sophisticated.  Suppose, however, that this was your first rodeo.  I'm honestly jealous of the people who had never seen a USMNT game before now, because this is one I'd put in the rotation.  Just for the cowboy myth of it all.  No, we didn't win in the end.  That's the lesson - this isn't the end.  This isn't even the beginning.

Those new fans are in for a rough ride, but they'll come back, every last one of them.  That's why we do.

More important, though, is the number of fans we have nowadays.  We can go back twenty or thirty years to put this in perspective if we feel like it, but we only have to go back to 2011.  There was a sizeable and loud section of US support, in Los Angeles County, against Mexico.  That's a milestone, my friends.  One of a series we've had over fifteen years of uninterrupted fan growth.

No, it wasn't 50-50, or even 60-40 in the Rose Bowl.  Any more than soccer has passed basketball or baseball in the United States.  At this point, those would be nice, but not necessary.  Whenever or whatever the tipping point was, it was pointed and tipped.  The US national teams - both of them - have become sustainable, self-perpetuating, going concerns with a permanent and growing fan base.  Nothing is going to unring the toothpaste now.

We've allowed Juergen Klinsmann to overshadow the US national team program.  But the program and the fans are strong, and will get stronger.  Klinsmann hasn't even slowed that down.  This too will pass, even if right now our midfield can't.

Of course Klinsmann has failed.  And, of course, those of us who run the US Soccer Federation while teaching economics at Columbia will go to great lengths not to see this.  But this game was both a fun night of soccer entertainment and a fan support breakthrough.  Klinsmann can't stop either.

The negatives don't outweigh these positives.  Failing to qualify for the World Cup would be the only thing that would, but even Klinsmann can't screw that up.  Not now that Mexico hired the genius behind this.  We'll be fine.

Where do we go from here?

We don't.  We follow and support.  Whether Klinsmann gets fired or not is not our call.  And, bluntly, if you want to boycott this team's directionless incompetence, you'll miss out on some fun - but more to the point, there will be others to replace you.  Might as well get with the program.

Okay, that's silly and unfair.  Has Juergen Klinsmann not undertaken to educate us?  Shall we not then express what we have learned, in a free and healthy exchange of ideas?  We sure as heck shall.  But I do want to make the point that at this point, results - short of failure to qualify for Russia - will not remove Klinsmann.

Look at it this way.  Suppose instead of a classic wonder goal, Paul Aguilar bounced his shot off Joe Bruin, Brad Guzan ends us proving he's a better keeper than I've Already Forgotten His Name Because Let's Face It We're Not Seeing Him Again, and we're off to the Confederations Cup.  Would that have made Klinsmann a good coach?  Would that have proven us sensible folk wrong?  Would we have had to put up with a carnival of "I told you so" from the misguided?  Like heck.  So it's unfair to take this close, exciting result and use it as a rhetorical club.  Not when our club closet is already amply supplied.

Now, for all I know, Sunil Gulati will celebrate Columbus Crew Day with an epiphany, and tomorrow at this time Juergen Klinsmann will resign to spend more time with Preki's family.  Consider this admission of the possibility a retraction in case it happens, because I'll have died of surprise.

What happens next is up to Michael Bradley.  He is our only remaining star, and the one man Klinsmann can not, will not, and should not drop.  He's the only proven performer in his physical prime, and among the things he has proven is his willingness to perform as hard for the man who replaced his father as for his own father.  That's literally Shakespearian.

What Bradley will need to do, then, is take the "lineups" and "tactics" Klinsmann presents to him, and make them work.  It will be a tedious and literally thankless job, but someone has to - and we're extremely lucky we now have someone like Bradley around.

Clint Dempsey is losing his epic rap battle with Father Time, Jermaine Jones started on the damn wing, and DaMarcus Beasley's replacement turned out to be DaMarcus Beasley.  When you saw that lineup, how much did you think Mexico was going to win by?  I thought 4-0, easy.

Maybe you think someone besides Bradley held that team together, especially after the first goal.  That's fine.  I'm not here to tell you what to think.

Anyway, if Bradley can do it in that situation, he can do it against the cupcakier of CONCACAF opponents.  We're not going unbeaten, but no one does in CONCACAF.  Bradley will get us through to Russia, and after that - well, it's the draw, and injuries, and God knows what else.

That's what happens on the field.  It will be a lot more exciting than it will be beautiful.  This is the US men's national team, I assume you've met?

Off the field - well, I feel like the voice in the wilderness, or at least the voice in Disney's Wilderness Lodge.  But the time will come when we realize that national team coach and technical director are two full-time jobs that should be held by two different people.  Those two people will have to agree on many things.  But the duty of growing the talent pool, and the duty of getting results out of the existing talent pool, are both so different and so onerous that the idea of combining the two would be the product of, I don't know, a celebrity soccer egotist and a surprisingly gullible economics professor in a mutual fit of highly wishful thinking.

Klinsmann's surprisingly numerous, noisy and tiresome defenders point to the importance of his work as technical director, because his work as national team coach, regrettably, screams at the top of its lungs for itself.  There's of course as gaping a lack of tangible success as technical director as there is in national team results. However, because the US technical director job has been defined so intangibly, defenders have joyfully created and projected all sorts of magical fantasies upon it.  We can sum up these fables under the umbrella term "changing the culture."

The most generous thing we can say about "changing the culture" is that, to hear Klinsmann's defenders tell it, the job is so monstrously challenging that Hercules himself would take another try at the tables.  So why is it a part-time job, again?

To my admittedly skeptical ears, defenders of Klinsmann's efforts to "change the culture" sound so hollow as to bring into question the need for a single technical director for United States soccer in the first place.  Allow me to elaborate.

What will undoubtedly change the culture - continue to change the culture - is what is happening before our eyes.  The new fans we see at every game, and at every event, is what changes the culture.  This isn't intangible.  The new fans will spend money that will go into the national team program.  The new fans will make national team players rich(er) and (more) famous.  This will generate a larger pool of athletes enthusiastic about making a living at a fun game, which will slow down the "What if our best athletes played croquet?" hand-wringing.

Some of those new fans will become such great fans that they expand their fanning to their local club.  That local club, whether MLS or NPSL, will have more bucks to improve the game experience - which means more bucks.  Some of those bucks will find their way to development, because someone's gotta play.  More teams and more players playing more games will...and so on.  Now, show me where Klinsmann even enters into this, let alone where he's indispensable.

Maybe Klinsmann's contribution to "changing the culture" is him reaching out to existing coaches in America.  Am I going to sit here and say asking Klinsmann to teach coaches how to coach is like asking Dracula to teach courses on suntanning?  I sure am.

The USSDA has a Digital Coaching Center, with World Cup winners Juergen Klinsmann and Jill Ellis front and center.  I can't wait to give it a try.  I could use refreshers on Throwing Players Under the Bus and Asking Abby Politely If She Could Pretty Please Consider Coming In As A Sub.

The larger point is that Klinsmann and Ellis are extremely different people with extremely different coaching styles.  Do we teach One Culture?  If so, how?  If not, then where's the point of a technical director?

These, fortunately, are problems for the future - a future that will, at worst, look like today.  The floor is higher than ever before.  That's not comforting when you're face down on that floor in a puddle of your own sick, granted.  But the view will be great when we get back on our feet.

[Golden Avalanche]

As usual, trying to be too smart obscures a simple reality. The US played a road game, went down a goal twice, recovered twice, and lost on a (literally) last minute side winder that misses 99 other times. crap happens.

Besides, a meaningless game doesn't deserve hand-wringing of any kind.

[GGGG]

Yeah that was a good article.  Especially this:

"What happens next is up to Michael Bradley.  He is our only remaining star, and the one man Klinsmann can not, will not, and should not drop.  He's the only proven performer in his physical prime, and among the things he has proven is his willingness to perform as hard for the man who replaced his father as for his own father."

I guess as a relative soccer newbie, I see this as a pretty simple exercise.  When I see more than a handful of Americans playing key roles in the top European leagues, then I think we should be more competitive.  I just don't think we have the talent to do so right now.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As usual, trying to be too smart obscures a simple reality. The US played a road game, went down a goal twice, recovered twice, and lost on a (literally) last minute side winder that misses 99 other times. crap happens.

Besides, a meaningless game doesn't deserve hand-wringing of any kind.

A, it wasn't meaningless.

B, it says something when the US team plays in the US and it is a road game by massive proportions

C, Mexico isn't that good and we were outplayed all game.  Don't let the score fool you.

[jesmu84]

A, it wasn't meaningless.

B, it says something when the US team plays in the US and it is a road game by massive proportions

C, Mexico isn't that good and we were outplayed all game.  Don't let the score fool you.

A. True-ish. Bruce arena said earlier that the gold/confed cup really don't matter. He's right, the world cup is what matters. But klins said it was one of his goals, so he should be held accountable.

B. All that says is the USSF wants $$$. They could have played in KC, Colorado, Columbus, etc and had more fans.

C. Mexico is in flux right now. We were outplayed and were still in the game with an old/out of sync lineup. That's says something. (Doesn't say we're anywhere near elite though)

[GGGG]

Regarding (B), didn't Concacaf choose the venue?  My guess is that that Rose Bowl was the choice because...

1. It's huge...meaning a bunch of tickets would be sold.
2. It's in the United State
3. Would have a huge Mexican contingent. 

[jesmu84]

Regarding (B), didn't Concacaf choose the venue?  My guess is that that Rose Bowl was the choice because...

1. It's huge...meaning a bunch of tickets would be sold.
2. It's in the United State
3. Would have a huge Mexican contingent.

Not sure. Good point though. Either way, that selection was all about $$$

[Henry Sugar]

A good take on current state of USSF/USMNT: http://www.bigsoccer.com/blog/2015/10/11/concacaf-cup-mexico-trumps-us

My only beef with this article is that it still sets the bar of expectations as "qualify for the WC". The US has been doing that for decades.

We should expect more by now. We were promised more.

[PaintTouches]

Regarding (B), didn't Concacaf choose the venue?  My guess is that that Rose Bowl was the choice because...

1. It's huge...meaning a bunch of tickets would be sold.
2. It's in the United State
3. Would have a huge Mexican contingent.

CONCACAF chose the venue to maximize $$ and try to balance fan bases. If Jamaica would have won the Gold Cup. It would have been held in Red Bull Arena in NJ.

Obviously there were going to be more Mexico fans, but other than Columbus or Portland, that would have been the case everywhere. With the Rose Bowl, they all get to siphon a bit more cash.

[WarriorInNYC]

CONCACAF chose the venue to maximize $$ and try to balance fan bases. If Jamaica would have won the Gold Cup. It would have been held in Red Bull Arena in NJ.

Obviously there were going to be more Mexico fans, but other than Columbus or Portland, that would have been the case everywhere. With the Rose Bowl, they all get to siphon a bit more cash.

If they held it in Seattle it would have been a massively pro-US crowd, and they would have packed the house (listed at 67,000 - Sounders this year draw on average 43,000 - World Cup Qualifier for a weekday game drew 40,000 in 2013 against Panama). 

But agree to your point, larger crowd at the Rose Bowl, and at most other big city venues, would have been more Mexican support (Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Chicago, NY, Philadelphia, DC)

[ChicosBailBonds]

A. True-ish. Bruce arena said earlier that the gold/confed cup really don't matter. He's right, the world cup is what matters. But klins said it was one of his goals, so he should be held accountable.

B. All that says is the USSF wants $$$. They could have played in KC, Colorado, Columbus, etc and had more fans.

C. Mexico is in flux right now. We were outplayed and were still in the game with an old/out of sync lineup. That's says something. (Doesn't say we're anywhere near elite though)

Point is, it isn't meaningless.  100K people don't show up for a meaningless game.  If we had won, it puts us in the Confederations Cup. 

Yes, $$$ drives the selection.  But again, shows how imporant soccer is in this country to Americans...not very.  Sure, we get excited every 4 years. That isn't enough, not if we want to be an elite program.

US lost on home soil again last night, in what truly is a meaningless game in a half filled stadium at Red Bull.  Lost to Costa Rica.

We have a long long long way to go.

[Golden Avalanche]

In March, I was told repeatedly that the wins over Germany and the Netherlands were meaningless. Suddenly, in October, meaningless games now have meaning. I mean, people think having meaning over not over meaning is meaning something but I'm not sure it means anything.
 
Bob Bradley lead the US to epic collapse in the 2009 final and returned the next summer to a Round of 16 berth. The US didn't participate in the 2013 tournament and arrived the next summer to a Round of 16 berth.

In the grand scheme, the Confederations Cup means jacksquat. Thus, last Friday's game was meaningless for the US. Much more important for the Mexican federation with their 78th coach coming in over the last decade.

[WarriorInNYC]

Point is, it isn't meaningless.  100K people don't show up for a meaningless game.  If we had won, it puts us in the Confederations Cup. 

Yes, $$$ drives the selection.  But again, shows how imporant soccer is in this country to Americans...not very.  Sure, we get excited every 4 years. That isn't enough, not if we want to be an elite program.

US lost on home soil again last night, in what truly is a meaningless game in a half filled stadium at Red Bull.  Lost to Costa Rica.

We have a long long long way to go.

To be completely fair, Red Bull arena always has trouble getting filled, even for the team that is in the lead for the Supporter's Shield.

That loss last night was awful.  Not only lost, but were completely outplayed and outworked.  Brek Shea looked awful, Danny Williams was terrible.  Altidore and Zardes completely ineffective.  Yedlin had some decent runs, but was sloppy on the ball.

The only bright spots for me last night were Tim Ream and Timmy Howard.  A few other subs were ok (Wood, Mix, Nguyen).

[WarriorInNYC]

In March, I was told repeatedly that the wins over Germany and the Netherlands were meaningless. Suddenly, in October, meaningless games now have meaning. I mean, people think having meaning over not over meaning is meaning something but I'm not sure it means anything.
 
Bob Bradley lead the US to epic collapse in the 2009 final and returned the next summer to a Round of 16 berth. The US didn't participate in the 2013 tournament and arrived the next summer to a Round of 16 berth.

In the grand scheme, the Confederations Cup means jacksquat. Thus, last Friday's game was meaningless for the US. Much more important for the Mexican federation with their 78th coach coming in over the last decade.

This.  Those games against Germany and the Netherlands have now been completely forgotten.

I'm definitely not a Klinnsman supporter, but unless there is an absolute homerun out there, I don't see a reason to get rid of him yet.  Now, if WC qualifying starts to go very, very poorly, then we may have to make a change.

That said, I would not call last Saturday's game against Mexico meaningless at all.  The Confederations Cup is a great opportunity to play against top competition and really get revved up for the World Cup.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In March, I was told repeatedly that the wins over Germany and the Netherlands were meaningless. Suddenly, in October, meaningless games now have meaning. I mean, people think having meaning over not over meaning is meaning something but I'm not sure it means anything.
 
Bob Bradley lead the US to epic collapse in the 2009 final and returned the next summer to a Round of 16 berth. The US didn't participate in the 2013 tournament and arrived the next summer to a Round of 16 berth.

In the grand scheme, the Confederations Cup means jacksquat. Thus, last Friday's game was meaningless for the US. Much more important for the Mexican federation with their 78th coach coming in over the last decade.

Those games were meaningless...they were friendlies against teams that weren't ginned up to play us.

How can you say Saturday's game is meaningless compared to a friendly?

[GGGG]

Playing in the Confederations Cup is better than not playing in it.

Therefore it has meaning.

[Henry Sugar]

Legit analysis

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/10/14/armchair-analyst-more-problems-no-solutions-us-national-team-after-loss-costa-rica