OT: Klinsmann (Likely) Out as UMNT Coach, Off to Southampton
Multiple news outlets reporting that Klinsmann is likely out as the USMNT coach and is off to Southampton for the same position.
Honestly, I don't think it is a coaching problem so much as it is a culture 'problem.' What drives the kind of change the US needs and will respond to? It isn't a coach. It isn't a system. It is a hero. The US needs to be inspired. Little kids need to wake up on summer mornings and go dream about being.... who? Right now, kids dream of being LeBron, Curry, Jordan, Brady, Wilson, and a host of other American legends with international acclaim.
Funding, academies, coaches, scouts... all of them enable those who would be legends to maximize their potential. But the big boosts to American soccer came after 94, 2002, and 2014 World Cups. The problem though was that a true hero to inspire our kids didn't emerge. Our 'heroes' Donovan, Dempsey, and Howard roughly equate to your local home-town football star who has their name on a water tower. It has done a lot to bring soccer along, but the kind of leap people want to see now is the kind of leap that requies an international star on the level of those named above. They don't want to hear about promising talent who might become legendary, but they need to see an American control a tournament like Messi has. It's just the way Americans have been wired for the last century.
Do the heros have to be American?
The dramatic change in the amount of soccer that's televised is creating soccer heros for kids. They're just not American. At my kid's school, which is admittedly in NYC, I'm very confident that Messi would win a poll for "favorite athlete." Soccer jersies far outnumber any other sporting appearal in the hall. I overheard my kids in an animated debate the other day, not over Messi vs. Ronaldo (which is very common and heated) but Ibra vs. Alexis Sanchez (which is a bad debate, but still). They constantly search for "best football skills," "best Messi goals," etc on youtube. And they and their friends play pickup soccer far more than any other sport, doing the "I'm Messi" "I'm Ronaldo" thing that I did with Jordan or Magic when I was a kid.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If nothing else, it needs to be someone they can identify with. Your kids are already in the system and have a passion for the game. From their perspective, the youth system needs to be stronger to help them reach their potential. But in terms of attracting those that might go play baseball, football, basketball, etc, Messi likely won't do it.
Messi is rightfully a legend and hero. But is he ours? That free kick delivers a resounding no, despite how sublime it was. To reach those who wouldn't otherwise play the game, I think that legend/hero might need to be on the US team and perform the feats of greatness that Donovan, Dempsey, and Howard did against Algeria, Ghana, and Belgium -- but against Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Italy, and France.
Why is the WNT so strong? Funding, more progressive attitudes towards gender equality, greater opportunity...? Or was it because Mia Hamm inspired a generation of young girls?
On the WNT, all of those things, plus the comparative advantage of the US being far more committed to women's soccer than any other nation.
And the WNT suffers from some of the same technical deficiencies that the men do. In the last WWC, there was a lot of dismay about the desultory tactics (get it wide and cross it) and critique that France and Germany were technically superior. But the difference was not nearly as stark, and the coach figured out a high-pressing style that could counteract the issues. (And I think men's team coaches in the US, down the ladder, should be encouraged to play high press, both because it suits our particular advantages and because playing against it is the best way to get better technically).
Of course. I'm talking about an alternate universe here, where soccer is the most popular sport. If soccer were the most popular sport in the United States, everything would be different, including coaching, obviously.
"If athleticism was all that was required then Altidore would be a star."
Nobody said athetlicism is all that matters, but it certainly helps.
The point is if our top athletes spent time training for soccer from a young age instead of football/basketball, we would be better. This is mathmatically inarguable.
Best palyer in the world or not, Lionel Messi is not the most athletic. Nowhere close. Hell, he looks like a Cost Accountant.
Pick any athletic measue you want - speed, strength, etc. and there are 10,000 people in this country that are more "athletic".
And yet he is the best player in the world. Because there is much more to it than just raw athleticism.
I'll say he probably has the best spatial intelligence of any soccer player, which I consider to be an athletic measure. Reminds me of Wayne Gretzky. Reminds me of Magic Johnson.
People in this thread want soccer skills to be so unique, but they aren't. Trapping a long ball doesn't take more or less skill than making a 3 pointer. Dribbling a soccer ball doesn't take more skill than dribbling a basketball. Understanding of spacing isn't more important for Bobby Wood than it is for Danny Amendola or Darren Helm. Eye-foot coordination isn't more important for a soccer player than eye-hand coordination for a baseball player. And so on.
yes, offensive linemen aren't going to be good soccer players, but if every defensive back, slot receiver, basketball guard, shortstop etc. were growing up with a soccer ball, playing on the playground aquiring the skillset that is so crucial for soccer, we'd produce a lot more elite soccer players.
You're right, we don't need them all the play soccer to be good, but without them, it lowers the ceiling significantly.
If anyone is saying that athleticism is all it takes, they're wrong.
When you say that "our best athletes" lack a "tactical approach," you are treading in dangerous waters.
The bottom line is that other countries' kids grow up wanting to be stars in soccer. Ours want to play football, basketball or baseball. I would guess that less than one out of ten thousand US kids dream of being soccer stars. In other countries, kids play pickup soccer games. They do the same in "international" neighborhoods here.
But nearly everybody else playing pickup games in the US is playing football, basketball or baseball for their recreation, depending on neighborhood, space available, etc.
If anyone thinks that one kid out of 10,000 is going to produce our "best athletes," I would like to talk to you about some great land for sale down here in the swamp.
Bottom line: we need a large pool of our best athletes who are learning the tactics of soccer from when they are old enough to kick and run.
Soccer requires a completely different set of skills and athleticism. Implicit in being able to perform the basics of passing, shooting, etc. that most pro atheletes would be able to train themselves to learn, you have to do it while essentially running a half marathon. Players have to cover a lot of ground to play the game effectively. I am sure some atheletes in other sports would be able to do well had they played soccer from their early days, but in the same way that football and basketball cull those who don't have the right physical composition, so does soccer.
I agree with your premise though. Where the funding goes, success is more likely to follow.
Iceland is beginning to prove that. . .
In which he played almost start to finish if he could still run. He said he's gladly go run out a 5 minute mile to show that he's just fine.
Our athletes, minus a few positions (designated hitter, offensive line, defensive line), would be just fine on the soccer field when it comes to raw conditioning. They just need to learn the game from a young age and the skills required on a soccer pitch.
The problem in the USA is that there is too much choice. I do think soccer will see an upswing in participating as football continues to battle the concussion stuff.
Your example helps prove my point actually. Rip was not the typical NBA athelete. I'm not saying that there is no transferrability, just that the atheletes aren't funneled into soccer. You attribute it to choice, which I don't disagree with. The other side of that coin is why soccer isn't an attractive choice. My point lies with the fact that youth soccer just isn't there.
but imagine if people with Lebron's natural gifts started playing soccer early instead of basketabll/football/baseball/hockey. People like Lebron are natural born (with tons of effor obviously) amazing athletes, his entire life has been focused on turning him into a near unstoppable basketball force -- if the US had someone with his gifts and that kid grew up loving soccer instead, he'd almost certainly be very very good.
Soccer requires different technical skills for sure, but those are developed on top of natural gifts and work ethic. Do you think Messi isn't a world class athlete because he's smaller and plays soccer? No, because he's a great athlete with amazing technical perfection that has been developed over his life. The US has plenty of athletes with the natural gifts to be exceptional soccer players, we just need to be able to build the technical skills early like we do with other sports. Promising basketball kids are in AAU traveling camps by 10 now, football has year long 7 on 7 leagues and now camps all over with top tier hosting. Soccer has youth traveling teams as well, unlike the others it's just not near up to snuff globally; here a lot of 12 years olds are still playing in co-ed rec leagues coached by some kid's dad or a random gym teacher even when they're good because not many other good options, in Europe they're in development leagues by that point getting real coaching. Jurgen wanted to work on that, and started good things, but his performance with the USMNT despite a semis appearance at the Copa wasn't really up to expectations even for the US.
Pretty sure guys like Mike Trout, Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, Gincarlo Stanton, Patrick Kane, Dustin Byfuglien, Blake Wheeler would all make outstanding soccer players if they had grown up with the sport.
There are over 300 million people in this country, and I find it hard to believe that we can't find 30 or so who are exceptional soccer players.
because of shitty youth soccer training. Technical skills development is not emphasized for years. Now, we are much more educated about it and it's starting to shift towards that way, but still a long way from it.
even with soccer development solidly on the back-burner in this country. If we cared, we would field an elite team. In what sport or athletic competition we care about are we not able to pretty much compete at the highest levels in the world?
If we cared like the rest of the world cares, we would easily be #1 in the world. Being competitive internationally with it being our 4th-5th most popular professional sport here speaks to that
Easily?
Are being talked about as doing just fine, by multiple posters.
The 2016 Euros are the FIRST major competition Iceland has participated in.
Northern Ireland has participated in two major tournaments before this Euro competition.
They don't manage. They haven't been anything at all in the world of competitive soccer.
You can talk about the unskilled lineup he had against Argentina. Go ahead and pull out Wondo and Beckerman and start your young guys. Think that would have done ANYTHING in that game? Argentina possessed the ball from basically start to finish and did whatever they wanted. You think two guys would have stemmed that tide?
Formations and lineup selections don't mean a thing when the USA's youth development is so far behind other countries and there's just too many other options for our best.
In Europe. It's not life here. We have athletes doing too many different things and not focusing on soccer long enough.
USA was in a do-or-die in 2010 and required a miracle under Bob Bradley.
2002 was the best USA soccer performance in my lifetime, and that was a quarters. In 2006, Arena's team was laughably bad in the WC.
It's not a coach dude. It's not Klinsmann, or Arena, or Bradley. It's DECADES of a system that need a complete overhaul. If that's Gulati, fine. Send him on his way. But trading Klinsmann for another coach who will get swatted in the first round of a major tournament does nothing for the long-term prospects of USA soccer. It goes beyond him.
For God's sake, whoever we get please emphasize not losing the ball in our own fucking penalty area.
Again, with the size of the population here, the sport of soccer doesn't need to be life for everyone. It doesn't have to displace football and basketball as the #1 sporting interest. Soccer is already the second largest youth sport in the States. The problem isn't more players, it's better players. No one says "If only the American soccer players were better athletes, they'd be a world-class team." Because it's not true... skill is the true importance when it comes to soccer, and that can be taught, but it has to be taught at an early age.
But an influx of skilled players won't suddenly make the USA a world power either. Look at England, Holland, Brazil's form of late... The US could go out and hire Zidane or Pep or Sir Alex to come manage the side and they'd run into the same issues that Klinsmann has in terms of elite talent. To be successful in any sport, you need both talent and coaching... look at the difference Harbaugh made last year over Hoke with very similar players. If Harbaugh was coaching SDSU again, he wouldn't have the talent to win the NCAA title, but they would certainly be better than they are right now.
We're not going to be the #1 team in the world in the next 20 years. The elite talent is just not there at the moment and it won't be for a while. That problem can only be solved with solid leadership, money, and time. But in the meantime, there's no reason why we can't be a good international team (ranked between 10-15) that gets by on strategy, a little skill, and a lot of effort. But under Klinsmann, we have no strategy, we choose not to use the little skill we have, and we rely almost entirely on effort and willpower.
Doesn't work. Michigan already had PLENTY of highly talented players on the team, it was a matter of good coaching bringing out that talent.
USA Soccer does not have anyone good other than a few, and no coach or tactics will bring out the best of them.
It's just a deep, embedded culture of pathetic youth development that needs to change. It's overhauling decades of not properly conducting the younger players.
You are talking a little bit out of both sides of your mouth. You say Klinsmann needs to go, and then say no other manager could fix this. So what good would it do firing the guy before this cycle is over?
I wasn't drawing direct comparisons to Michigan football; I was speaking to the principle that better coaching can have on the same group players.
Just to clarify, I said no other manager could make the US into a world power at this point in time. I fully believe that that another manager with better tactics and system could build a better team right now and for the future. We may not be able to be the best, but in the meantime, we can at least get better.
(I disagree with your statement that the USA has nobody good and that no coach can fix that... if we were really that bad, we wouldn't have made it to so many consecutive World Cups. We don't have any 5-star talent, but we have a wealth of 3-star talent)
When you say I'm speaking a little out of both sides of my mouth, I think that's holding a balanced view. There can be multiple reasons for one problem. I think there is a bigger issue with the talent pool and player development (that US Soccer/MLS/Adidas has slowly laid the foundation over the last decade and should continue to improve), but I also think that there is a more immediate problem with our current pool of players being mismanaged by the coach. We shouldn't have to wait for the bigger issue to be fixed so we can then fix the smaller issue.
If Klinsmann is out, I certainly applaud this decision.
I simply don't understand why he has shut Feilhaber out of the USMNT pool. From Feilhaber's early years at the national level, he was a player who stood out to me as someone who had the vision & technical skill that seems so rare on the USMNT. Did he have some deficiencies in his performances in those early appearences? Yes, of course, all young players do. But, it seems like he's become a much more well-rounded player (i.e., able to play well defensively and stand up to rough, physical play) since then. And, yet, Klinsmann opts for Beckerman and Bradley over Feilhaber (and Kljestan). I repeat myself, but I simply don't understand.
A couple of interesting articles on this topic:
<<Grantland piece on Feilhaber by Noah Davis>>
<<Feilhaber's thinking on this situation with Klinsmann/USMNT>>
And, then there's Stuart Holden. Another of the rare USMNT players with superb vision & technical skills - a potential star for the USMNT.<<Sad story>>. Though, I do wonder, even if he had not had his career cut short due to injuries, would Klinsmann have ignored him too?
+1
Absolutely agree on all points. Feilhaber showed real promise in the 2009 Confederations Cup and was the best attacking player off the bench in the 2010 World Cup team (should have started over Ricardo Clark). He did have defensive issues and some attitude/work ethic issues which slowed his progress, but over the last 3 years he's showed a better all-around game.
Also, f*ck Nigel De Jong for eternity for what he did to Stuart Holden.
I was with you on the Feilhaber thing. I totally lost you on the Kljestan.
I would like to think JK would have called up Stu. His injury is something that set back the USMNT. In the last WC it would have ben great to have him and Bradley in the middle. The would have put Bradley in the holding role where he is best.
While I would cetainly prefer Holden or Feilhaber to Kljestan, I do believe that Kljestan would be a better choice than anyone that Klinsmann selected for the 2016 Copa America roster to be the primary playmaker - i.e., the player who has the inate ability (gift?) to see things developing slightly before anyone else does and then delivering the ball precisely where it needs to be based on such early vision/diagnosis.
While I've not watched a lot of Red Bulls' matches of late, this recent Sports Nation article by Joshua Hargett is relevant here: LINK
LeBron would be a pretty mediocre goalie, I imagine. Being 6'8 is too tall to be a top end keeper. 6'4 seems about the top end. The extra inches don't do much to protect the upper parts of the goal (which tops out at 8 feet). It would be an advantage cutting out crosses, but being that tall makes it take longer for a keeper to get down quickly to stop shots and opens up more spaces in the junctions of the body to shoot through.
I agree but LeBron is the rare specimen for whom his hieght I don't think would be too much of a disadvantage as a striker. He is fast enough, strong enough and coordinated enough that, had he played soccer his whole life, he could have made one hell of a hold up forward. But LeBron is just about the most freakish athlete of all time and would probably excel at any sport and is probably not the best example to extrapolate.
He also could have been a CB.
drupal is garbage
LeBron would be a basketball player no matter what country he lived in. Guys his size in Europe are playing basketball, just like they are here.
It's about athletes like him and how he could handle soccer.
I get the point completely. There is no reason to believe that a tall, heavy guy like LeBron with a high center of gravity would be very good at this sport, other than cheap platitudes like "He's a born athlete."
In Europe - where soccer is the #1 sport in most countries - "athletes like him" aren't playing soccer. They play basketball, because that's what their physical frame is better suited to. You don't see a lot of 6'8" dudes playing in the Euro or Copa America.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Iceland is a fluke, AND they aren't even that successful - less successful than the US, really.
It's sort of like every club thinking they should be winning championships because Leicester did. They are the exception to the rule.
double-post
On Iceland. This is their first major tournament appearance. They could end up going quiet for the next 30 years.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
US problem is the system development, most athletes refuse to play soccer since we have sports who pay a looot more to be an athlete.Lots and lots of American kids play soccer these days. The argument that we don't have enough participation is a bit dated.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad