Photo by Tommy Gilligan/USA TODAY Sports
By RYAN TOLMICH
WASHINGTON – Like many fans of the U.S. Men’s National Team, head coach Jurgen Klinsmann was far from happy with the Americans’ performance at this summer’s Gold Cup.
Klinsmann says that, to this day, there’s “still a little bit of anger” with regards to the recent tournament, which saw the U.S. suffer a semifinal loss to Jamaica and fall to Panama in the third-place match.
Despite the feelings towards the Gold Cup, Klinsmann now says that it’s now all about turning that ill-will towards October’s playoff against Mexico. That’s a game that gives the USMNT a chance to right its wrongs while earning a berth in the 2017 Confederations Cup, and one the Americans are preparing for with Friday’s friendly vs. Peru and next week’s clash with Brazil.
“I think it left something in our stomach,” said Klinsmann of the Gold Cup. “The way it happened there, the decisions of referees, and a lot of controversial stuff happened in that Gold Cup. It left something bitter, sour, with us. We have to go the extra mile. We will go the extra mile, but that can only help us.
“It will be a tremendous experience for players to step on the field in front of 90,000 (fans) in a one-off. This is a huge learning curve, especially for younger players that aren’t used to playing with this crowd or aren’t used to getting it all together for just one game. We’re looking forward to it.”
Here are some more of Wednesday’s USMNT news and notes:
JOHNSON, BEASLEY REMAIN FIRST CHOICE UPON INJURY RETURN
Heading into Friday’s riendly with Peru, the USMNT is facing some major difficulties at the fullback position due to the absences of Fabian Johnson and DaMarcus Beasley.
Widely regarded as one of the USMNT’s more versatile players, Johnson is set to miss out due to a hamstring injury suffered last month while Beasley’s absence comes after the veteran pulled up with a calf injury this past weekend with the Houston Dynamo.
Even fellow fullback Timmy Chandler is set to miss out due to injury, leaving Klinsmann with a dearth of options at the fullback positions. Lacking available options there other than Greg Garza, Klinsmann has summoned Jonathan Spector for the first time in over a year. Klinsmann has also called in a number of natural centerbacks that can fill in on the outside, including Geoff Cameron, Tim Ream, and Michael Orozco.
Still, Klinsmann insists that the team will have to make due in the absence of Johnson and Beasley, two players he still considers his go-to options.
“We’re trying to make the best out of it,” Klinsmann said. “Not having Fabian Johnson is really a bummer because of the qualities he has. Also, DaMarcus Beasley, we hoped, still until Saturday that he is back on track. We talked last week on the phone, but then he walked off the field and said, ‘I’m not there yet’. (Dynamo head coach) Owen Coyle called me after the game and said ‘We’re not risking anything right now.’
“We need Beas against Mexico, so that leaves some places open there and we’ll fix it as good as possible. The preferred roles would go to Fabian on the right and Beasley on the left, but it is what it is.”
JONES HAPPY TO RECLAIM PLACE IN MIDFIELD FOLLOWING CENTERBACK EXPERIMENT
When U.S. Soccer released the roster for the pair of upcoming friendlies, Jermaine Jones was listed in his more familiar position of midfielder.
Having missed the past several months with ongoing injury woes, Jones’ last action with the USMNT came in a centerback role. With Jurgen Klinsmann experimenting post-World Cup, Jones was given a chance in central defense on a number of occasions, a position he proved more than capable of playing.
However, Jones is somewhat relieved to be back in the midfield, even though he remains more than willing to play in the defense. Still, Jones can now just focus on reclaiming his spot in the national team following an extended absence.
“I said before that I respect what the coaches try and what they want from me,” Jones said. “Jurgen told me that he wanted to see me and try me as a centerback while he wanted to give younger players a chance in the midfield.
“I always say that the position I like and want to play is in the midfield. This, for me, is the best position where I can help the team.”
—
What do you think of Klinsmann’s post-Gold Cup feelings? How do you expect the USMNT to cope without fullback starters in Johnson and Beasley? What are your expectations for Jones in his more familiar midfield role?
Share your thoughts below.
I pose this question:
What players would you select?
Who would get left out?
What formation?
Who would start?
The answer is most likely about 1 million + different permutations.
We have 6 potential starters injured…
I have my thoughts, but what are yours?
Everyone complains like hell but I’d be willing to bet there isn’t two of you that could agree on a roster, a formation, or even a starting 11…
Lather, rinse, repeat….
The thing is now everything kind of changes. In the Gold Cup we lacked the width to really pull teams out of shape. We were narrow and allowed teams to just stay compact. However now, we’re probably going to be the side staying compact and looking to counter.
Jack,
1. That really doesn’t address my point, which has been consistent for the last few years, which is that people get on here and complain like hell yet when posed with questions about what their alternatives would be, nobody can say the same thing. People call u a fanboy, or shift the paradigm into another topic, or just don’t respond because it’s easier to just complain.
2. I don’t think we lacked width just in the GC, we lack width period. It’s because we don’t have enough good players.
I asked a rhetorical question several times, and the few answers I got didn’t come close to the actual question.
– US player is out on the wing 1v1 attacking towards the goal. He has to either beat his man wide and deliver a good cross, or beat his man inside and create his own shot-
Your tournament life depends on US player executing- He has to have the ability to do either…
Name me that player…..
Landon
I think Finlay and Lletget would at least be an upgrade right now over some of the guys we’ve seen there recently, like Zardes, Yedlin and Zusi.
How good are Lletget and Finlay at defending?
I have seen Lletget play practically every Galaxy game. He looks good, but there is no telling how good he would be in a higher level of competition. Remember, West Ham let him go for nothing. It looks like a mistake, but to say he will somehow be better than other US players we have tried is a pipe dream. I’m a big Zardes fan, but i will be the first to admit that he is still pretty raw in a lot of areas and needs a lot more work and experience to be a top international. Yet, he has become a starter, despite his shortcomings because of his athletic ability and potential. Top teams have guys as talented and a lot more skilled than Zardes. The US still has a long way to go to catch up with top 10 or even top 15 teams and saying Lletget or Finlay, who have ZERO international experience, will somehow make a lot of difference is just totally unrealistic.
Jack,
How many big, do or die, life and death, cup final type games have Lletget and Finlay played in?
Can you promise they would react well to such an atmosphere?
Zardes has just played in the Gold Cup and has played in some big games for the Galaxy and won some things with them.
Yedlin was in the WC in Brazil and played well in some pretty big games.
Zusi went through WC qualifying and played and got an assist in the World Cup.
Why would I trust Lletget and Finlay more than those guys to produce when it is life or death?
Zardes played most of those big matches as a forward, not on the right. Yedlin looks great coming off the bench. Zusi if he was in 2013 form, then he’d be my starter.
I’m not saying Lletget or Finlay are complete players or should walk into the line up. I just think they bring some of those elements we were missing.
The evidence is the Gold Cup. It wasn’t working so why not give someone else a chance.
Jack,
You said:
“I think Finlay and Lletget would at least be an upgrade right now over some of the guys we’ve seen there recently, like Zardes, Yedlin and Zusi”
Which means you have lost patience with Zardes, Yedlin and Zusi and think that Lleget and Finlay should replace them and walk into the starting lineup right now. If they are better why sit them?.
I don’t agree with you. I’ve gotten used to hearing the same refrain about previous MLS standouts like Pontius, George John, Zach Loyd , etc.
One of the problems with MLS is that success there does necessarily guarantee success at the international level. For example, Chris Wondolowski and Brad Davis are unarguably two great MLS players. but their impact on the USMNT has not been what we all would have hoped for.
Shifting over from your regular team and playing with a completely new team is hard enough if you do it in the same league. It becomes harder when you change levels and leagues like you do when you go from MLS to the national team. The guys who can do it more or less seamlessly, like Zardes for example are rare and it takes time.
I’m all for bringing your two in for the January camp but not for the next three games.
Dempsey 4 years ago… oh, you want someone today?Johnson/Yedlin.
Have you ever seen Yedlin take someone on like that and create his own shot?
The last USMNT player I saw do that was Jozy.
The criticism is so inconsistent. It’s obvious that a lot of the criticism is not thought out because he will do one thing and get criticized and then if he does it another way that someone urges, he will get criticized by the same people who will then add that he isn’t consistent.
Also, to which I will add that too many people are delusional as to how good the US is, how many good players we have, etc. as if there are all these hidden gems that Klinsmann could call in that would guarantee that we win the Gold Cup-, advance farther in the World,
Cup and so on. I am a political scientist and I see the same thing in regards to foreign policy, that we can go into any situation in another country and change things however we want and, if we don’t, it;’s because of lousy leadership. The US is not all powerful and when it comes to soccer we are still nothing more than a sometimes regional power. People who think that by bringing in someone like Feilhaber or Nguyen will transform the US team into a world beater or some other choices of a similar ilk, just don’t have any conception of the value/ability of these players on the world stage. All the Benny fans, for example, seem to ignore the fact that he wore out his welcome overseas, wore out his welcome with Bradley and basically has had one good and one excellent season with SKC and they think that makes him the equivalent of Eden Hazard or something. He couldn’t even keep his starting job in Denmark for heaven’s sake.
I hope that just off screen in that picture of Jurgen up top is a mirror. Because if anyone deserves criticism, it’s you, pal.
He picked the the Gold Cup team and they stunk the place up. It’s his fault. So what does he do? Bring in a high percentage of the same guys that failed before. Even the one he kicked out. If we fail again against Peru and Brazil and Mexico… then what? WHos fault will it be this time?
It’s ok Jurgen, the fans are bitter too.
That statement doesn’t sit well with me at all. The tournament was a mess in many ways. To improve it and the refs in CONCACAF is always a fantastic aim. What that has to do contextually with the US performance this GC is…. ZERO. We have PLENTY of advantage in this tourney/ playing every match at home… way more resources than most- please stop with the lame excuses. Management and most of the players need to be accountable and own up. They performed well below their ability- period and played as if they thought a trip to the final was a foregone conclusion. Got news boys- not nearly enough talent in our program to coast. If any team had a gripe with officiating or reason to lay down, it is the purportedly much less talented team that showed up and beat us the final day.
Leaving everything else aside does the USMNT really have a home field advantage in the Gold Cup?
I really don’t think they will have one in the playoff game in the Rose Bowl..
I’m curious to see where we stand in the attendance ratio. I’ll be there early with family. I guess is going to be 60-40 Mexico.
You’ll be able to tell by the how loud the P*to chant is.
I’m guessing it will probably be more like 70-30. There are something like 2 to 3 million people of Mexican heritage in southern California. Plus, you’ll probably even have a lot of people coming from Tijuana.
As you assert, the statistical evidence is overwhelming that we do not have a home field advantage in the Gold Cup. Mexico holds that advantage by an absurd margin, and we are actually clustered in a big peloton with “everyone else”
Broken down here:
http://www.businessofsoccer.com/2015/01/19/gold-cup-attendance-1991-2013-trends-observations/
The Rose Bowl/ Confed Cup one off match is a different thing… not so much. There’s plenty of reason too. I’ve lived in Socal for past USvMx matches. Heard endless commercials on TV and radio from Mexican soccer promoting the game… zero from US Soccer in our own country! For the GC. Yes we an advantage. Plenty of fan support in our own country, playing in cities and stadiums our group is well familiar with and NOT having to deal with the adversity we’d find anywhere else. No comparison to how it would be for us playing in any other country and if we are honest- we’d ALL bring up that factor if we played the home side if the tourney was held elsewhere. If our advantage isn’t as good as it should be- it is on US Soccer to do a much better job at promoting itself and the game/supporters in this country.
Refs, when, where, how… None of this has anything to do with our result. The team/manager didn’t perform. Didn’t deserve a result by any measure.
+10. You are dead right. Match promotion for US games in LA has been a shambles… nothing really, as you have said.
I saw that they had transferred the marketing function to SUM for this game. Not entirely sure if this is a positive, but anything really would be an improvement.
In the nation that practically invented in your face marketing and developed information technology, it never seizes to amaze and frustrate me just how abysmal we do not only attracting fans to the stadium, but to watch soccer on TV. Competition for entertainment and attention is fierce! A soccer fan has to actively seek out and pursue information on upcoming games, when and where it will occur, if, when and where it will be televised. If one was to go about everyday life without doing detective work- you’d never even know a game was being played.
dalomismo,
I don’t know what sort of relationship UNIVISION has with the Mexican national team but if you watch the telecasts of the national team games they seem to have a lot more access to the players and the management.
When they play the US I always try to watch at least part of the game on UNIVISION, especially for the goal calls.
I wonder how much the USSF spends to promote US games. I never see any TV advertisements, except when on of the cable channels is carrying it and they want to promote their telecast. One could conclude that perhaps USSF cares most about the money and if the people come out, even if they are fans of the other club, it’s okay that they don’t spend the money because that way they will get more in the way of revenue exceeding expenditures.
Ok I am assuming some of you here must be in the official US Soccer supporters group or know someone that is. If so, you probably got an email today with a presale code for tickets to the Concacaf Cup. If you aren’t planning to go to the game (you don’t live in the L.A. area), perhaps you can send me your code?
You can sign up for free to be a US Supporter and get access to to pre-sale tickets, you do not have to be a paying member. Granted, you are in the second round of pre-sale, but it’s still pre-sale.
I already used up my 6 tix. But I have more friends/family that want to go so I need another code. There are plenty of US Supporter group members that got a presale code but won’t be going to the game or even buying tickets. Eventually all those un-bought tickets will end up with Mexico fans.
Based on my last experience doing this, it would seem many of the Mexico supporters have already figured out that they can simply sign up for the US Supporters Group and poach from that allocation anyway.
I’m not expecting much but I think it’d be great if we could at least get 25% US Supporters in there, it would be a huge improvement over 2011.
At least we’re doing our part….
20-18-15-10-1-14-19
all capital letters…
That’s funny. is that directed at UCLA Bruin Great?
It would be nice is Jürgen took some responsibility for his team selection mistakes, instead of hiding behind bad calls by referees.
Supposed to be a big IF^ in there
I’m struggling to remember any time where a coach has publicly taken responsibility about team selection. One player in one game, maybe, but nothing more than that.
I don’t think anyone is expecting him to come and say he chose the wrong team, that would be a death sentence to any coach but I think people have a issue with his constant hypocrisy when it comes to choosing players and blaming everything and everyone else but the staff for not getting the team prepared properly which includes roster selection
If you read the quotes carefully you will see that JK speaks as if he is still a player .
He is not happy with the refs and the conditions, etc.For some reason I find that very unsurprising.
Jamaica won that game mostly because they wanted that game about three times as much as the US. I’m assuming JK and his staff saw their performance in Copa America and the previous Gold Cup games and discussed it with the players.
I’m curious as to how you would have had the US “prepared properly ” for Jamaica?
<Nere about three times as
Hey Jurgen,
Mexico may have under-performed for quite a bit of the tournament and been helped through at points by controversial calls.
There were a few minor controversies with the US, but the reasons we were nowhere near competing for the trophy and the pass to the Confed Cup were team selection and team performance. Don’t point at unrelated controversies as a smokescreen for failures on your watch.
Yeah, you can’t pin a tournament performance that resulted in a 4th place finish on the refs JK.
He could have said a lot of players sucked and didn’t perform as well as they could have or should have and he would have been right. A good coach doesn’t do that in public. I suppose he could have said it was all his fault, but then it damages his standing with the players. I suppose he could have assumed more of the blame, but I think the only blame really that belongs his way is the Panama game for 3rd place where Panama wanted it a lot more. There were some of us then who thought we should not even use our best players because it was meaningless. As for the Jamaica game, the US really outplayed them, 10 shots on goal vs. 3, but it wasn’t Klinsmann who gave up the free kick converted into a goal that won the game. In about 40 years of watching soccer, BTW, that is the first time I have ever seen that penalty called, so it’s hardly the coaching staff’s fault that Guzan made that mistake; it’s hardly something anyone looks out for. As I have pointed out elsewhere, sometimes the better team, even when they play better, does not win. That was true with the Jamaica game. For those who forgot, the US won its group and it was the toughest group. I guess pointing these things out makes me a JK fanboy., but I don’t know what he could have done differently for that game except for maybe playing different CB’s and that wouldn’t have mattered with the second goal. You also have to hand it to Jamaica for scoring two goals that those two players may never duplicate.
“but I think the only blame really that belongs his way is the Panama game for 3rd place where Panama wanted it a lot more.” Uhh what?
We were poor throughout the entire tournament, just like we played poorly during the WC. Even during that brief stretch during the Jamaica game where we looked dangerous that was mostly due to Jamaica sitting back and letting us have the ball. Jamaica was the more dangerous team in the first half.
You give JK far too much leeway. Statistically speaking (possession, chances created, shots taken) we were historically bad at the WC and very poor at GC. He deserves much more blame than you are willing to admit.
your comments that we were poor throughout the tournament shows 2 things: 1. you don’t understand why were were poor in a couple of those games… What happened is that 2 teams came out and basically kicked us off the pitch… literally, I remember watching and wondering why the ref was allowing the beat-down that the US was being given. 2. you are remembering past worse CONCACAF opposition. I have news for you… Panama is REALLY GOOD, Honduras… Costa Rica… they are REALLY GOOD. Jamaica… they are GOOD and getting better (see their fine performance against Brazil in Copa America). So the US not thoroughly dominating them in a situation when the refs are allowing epicly dirty play is weak sauce.
Lot’s of US Soccer fans are angry – not just at performance, but team selection. After great play in friendlies against Germany and Netherlands with a balanced team of fresh team of younger players with experienced players, Klinsmann goes back to starters from 4 years ago. And we ask why has the team not advanced?
Going back in time won’t bring us to the future!
But the biggest mistakes were made by the (relatively speaking) newbies at CB.
I think that was part of the problem but not having the right balance up on top was the biggest issue. Even when we were winning games against powerhouses, it wasn’t because our defense was strong, it was because our offense.. Beckerman was already slowing down and not having Williams or Cameron or even Jones to play the 6 was a BIG blow. Compound that with Bradley underperforming again in a major tournament was the final nail in the coffin.
Concerning player selection, it’s going to feel like that for a while, the US talent pool is still transitioning up to elite standards (and given the undeniable acceptance of soccer in the US now, there’s 320 million reasons to expect that it will get there within a generation or so).
In the meantime, veterans are simply more consistent, even if their max performance level is less than the young ones.
CONCACAF is a particularly tough and chaotic mental environment to perform in. It’s a big difference from a European friendly with players in preseason form, and any coaching staff would recognize this.
I feel your pain, the Gold Cup performances never reached the Euro friendly standards, but Klinsmann deserves credit for deepening the pool in a way that exposes himself to such selection criticism.
He’s going back to the players who got us out of the toughest group in the 2014 World Cup.
The toughest group? Ha! Every Group the US has Played in since the ’90 WC has been for the US, the toughest group. We won ONE game at the recent WC, a win against a lower ranked opponent. We backed in to the group stage because a Ronaldo-less Portugal imploded against Germany and gave up four goals. We did nothing special. we defeated no teams ranked ahead of US, and we should have, could have brought a much better team and we certainly could have brought a much better coach. We were not that good at the WC and we are, under our current tutelage, not good now. While we have some good players old and young, we have not, except on a few occasions, jelled as a great team and after all this time our player depth is still not good. Our team selection is guided by a person who is there for his own aggrandizement and the sooner we realize this, the sooner we will be better off
Did you just fall off the turnip truck? In 2010 we got a point from England because of an historically bad mistake by their GK. We won the last game in the last couple of minutes. For those who forget, they had a break on, something like 3-2 and had Howard at their mercy and kicked a soft kick right to him, which set off the winning counter attack. Had they scored, or even kicked the ball over the goal, we probably don’t get the win. You can find instances like that throughout any World Cup. By rankings of teams, the US group was clearly the toughest. This was the first time we beat Ghana and we really outplayed Portugal, which had Ronaldo. Germany won the whole damn thing and look what they did to Brazil. You can take whatever metrics you want, but the result was the result. You can play the what if game all day, but it proves nothing. Only results matter. Sometimes the best team wins, sometimes it doesn’t, but it should be clear that the US did as well as any sane person could expect and, arguably, over achieved. Sometimes the US over achieves, sometimes (2006) it doesn’t. All you are showing is that you hate Klinsmann and facts don’t matter. You rely on speculation without evidence (we could have brought a much better team).
There you go again Gary. Always emphasizing “facts” because you feel it makes your argument look stronger but you don’t really provide any pertinent facts either.
To review, Bottlcaps facts:
“We won ONE game at the recent WC”.
Gary Page facts:
“We won the last game in the last couple of minutes.”
“Germany won the whole damn thing.”
Does are the only facts provided by either of you. The rest is just subjective personal views. So for you to say “All you are showing is that you hate Klinsmann and facts don’t matter” is laughable. All you are showing Gary is that you love Klinsmann.
*Those are the facts provided by each of you.
“All you are showing is that you hate Klinsmann and facts don’t matter” is laughable. All you are showing Gary is that you love Klinsmann.”
There is no difference between you and Gary Page, one pro JK another anti JK.
There is a difference in the way we argue our sides. I at least understand that it is subjective. Gary seems to think his position is superior because he calls his opinions (subjective views) facts.
Also my favorite Gary Page line (because it is so dum b) goes something like “you say Klinsmann is a bad coach just because you don’t like him”. He fails to realize that people have started disliking him BECAUSE of his coaching. People weren’t born with an anti-Klinsmann gene.
UclaBruinGreat
“There is a difference in the way we argue our sides. I at least understand that it is subjective. Gary seems to think his position is superior because he calls his opinions (subjective views) facts.”
You post a statement about something. GP tries to answer it in some fashion. You rarely answer GP’s reply directly and then the two of you go round and round.
If GP fails because he does not understand you are arguing from a subjective pov, then you fail equally because you do not adjust to his different approach. The end result is a lot of what I call “copy”. You two don’t argue your sides, you just throw a lot of copy at each other. That’s not an argument.
Saying you are not interested in facts is not a very endearing quality.
“Also my favorite Gary Page line (because it is so dum b) goes something like “you say Klinsmann is a bad coach just because you don’t like him”. He fails to realize that people have started disliking him BECAUSE of his coaching. People weren’t born with an anti-Klinsmann gene.”
Very condescending on your part. I fail to see why that GP line is dumb. There is a lot of evidence to support it.
There are people who dislike JK because of his coaching.
And there are also a lot of people who like JK because of his coaching. People weren’t born with a pro-Klinsman gene..
GW, there you go putting false words in my mouth. You wrote, “Saying you are not interested in facts is not a very endearing quality”. When did I say that? What I said is that Gary emphasizes facts and their importance, even though he rarely uses any. He argues with opinion just like everyone else. So my point is stop talking about facts if you aren’t using any. Facts are appropriate if they are actually facts. But saying something like, “the U.S. group was the toughest group” is not a fact. Saying that “the U.S. exceeded expectations” is not a fact. People seem to think that if they believe something strongly enough that makes it a fact.
UclaBruinGreat
“ Facts are appropriate if they are actually facts….But saying something like, “the U.S. group was the toughest group” is not a fact. Saying that “the U.S. exceeded expectations” is not a fact.
People seem to think that if they believe something strongly enough that makes it a fact.”
That last sentence is an interesting statement coming from someone who, with little factual evidence, believes as an article of faith that Landon would have made the USMNT better in Brazil.
The “toughness” of a World Cup Group are as you say, opinions.
However , there are at least a few people who bet on those “opinions”
The odds for those bets are set by professionals who research them as thoroughly as possible because they involve literally millions of dollars and it would not do for their overall well being to be wrong very much.
Vegas odds makers are not frivolous people.
The facts are that you would have been hard pressed to find any odds makers who had a list very different from this one:
Odds to win Group G
Germany -175
Portugal +270
USA +900
Ghana +1000
http://www.vegasinsider.com/soccer/story.cfm/story/1474935
I think you will find that if you canvas all the major sporting publications, that list would reflect the majority of the published informed opinion, which was that Germany and Portugal would advance.
All of this means it is a FACT that the majority of the posted expectations were that the US would not advance out of their Group.
That they did so meant that,in fact, they exceeded expectations by advancing.
.
And if that is not convincing enough for you, you can take it up with everyone’s favorite Peruvian dual national who said so, even before he was sure of them advancing in his GOAL article on US vs Portugal dated June 22, 2014:
“If we’ve learned anything about this World Cup, particularly for the U.S., it is that you can’t assume you know what will happen. What we do know is that this U.S. team has impressed at the World Cup, exceeding expectations and giving all the Americans here reason to be excited.
It might not feel that way immediately after Sunday’s draw, but it will eventually settle in that this U.S. team can play with anybody, which bodes well for the rest of the tournament.”
Obviously, the GOAL correspondent was just stating his opinion but no one is perfect I guess.
You can’t even get your quotes right. You are mixing what I said about 2010 and 2014 and presenting them as if I was talking about the same event. No, I do not love Klinsmann. I did not dislike Bradley or
Arena and thought both did a good job. I didn’t think much of Steve Sampson as a coach, but didn’t dislike him as a person. It is the people who are against Klinsmann who seem to have a personal dislike of the man, for reasons I can’t discern. I have been a sports fan for almost 60 years and have followed baseball, basketball, and football, as well as soccer. I have studied the management styles of several coaches because good management is good management, no matter the setting and I was a manager for over a decade. So, I know a little about management and have seen a whole lot of coaches and managers. I try to evaluate them dispassionately. That means putting things in context and considering all the elements. As for the facts I presented, my facts are results from past performances by the USMNT to show that bottlecaps argument was meaningless. Almost every time we have advanced from a group we have won only one game. In fact, off the top of my head, I think that every time we have advanced it has been with only one win. Further, that is a common occurrence in the World Cup. Often a win and a draw will get you out of a group, so to present that as some failure shows incredible ignorance of the event, an ignorance which you seem to share. I rely on facts because I was educated as a social scientist and made a good living as someone who analyzed facts, compared data, examined alternatives, etc.
Two things to respond to.
You write “It is the people who are against Klinsmann who seem to have a personal dislike of the man, for reasons I can’t discern”. This is exactly what I am talking about. That above quote is your assumption and that’s what I am arguing against. Have you ever considered that maybe people just disagree with you and think that Klinsmann hasn’t done a good job? But no, you automatically assume that it can’t have anything to do with his performance, and it must be because of a personal dislike against him, and you do this with no evidence. Explain yourself.
You write, ” I rely on facts because I was educated as a social scientist”. My argument was that you rarely rely on facts. You talk about facts but don’t use any. For you facts seem to be statements like “the u.s. was in the toughest group” or “the u.s. exceeded expectations in the world cup”. Those are not facts my friend. Those are opinions.
The usmnt performance in the 2014 world cup was not a failure, but it wasn’t a good showing. We got vastly outplayed in every game we played except for the Portugal game. We couldn’t win the Portugal game though. Somehow we beat a Ghana team that dominated us. Record 1 win, 2 losses, 1 tie. Definitely not a failure, but when you add our bunker-down approach the whole tournament (which was supposed to be anti-Klinsmann), you have to say it was not a good performance.
bottlcaps,
Go back and study the 2002, 2006 and 2010 US World Cup campaigns before you dismiss the 2014 WC accomplishment.
If you knew anything about those campaigns it might add some credibility to your comments, .
Sorry to break it you Gary but we just barely squeezed into the knockout rounds and every game aside from the Portugal game was a lethargic and very uneven display by the boys. JK brought a very underimpressive team to Brazil , one that had no depth, hidden injuries and some would say run down because of the rigors of the pre tourney camp. This man still refuses to put any of the blame on himself so instead he’ll blame referees and other lame occurrences for the team not producing! I’m not ready to throw the towel in on this regime but in order for this team to get to the next level the coach has to stop getting in his own way
Ronniet ignore GW. For some reason he loves harping on the past. I know all about the 2002, 2006 and 2010 World Cups but you know what, it doesn’t matter!! Those were different teams coached by different coaches playing against different teams. What does the 2006 USMNT World Cup campaign have to do with how we performed in 2014? Absolutely nothing. Everybody needs to judge Klinsmann on what he himself promised, and how the team has looked since he took over. Stop trying to use irrelevant past information to spin his evaluation.
“For some reason he loves harping on the past. ”
That’s ironic coming from someone who is upset because JK picked a more present/future oriented roster for the 2014 World Cup by leaving out a Landon who he felt was clearly past his best.
Instead his young guys, Green, Brooks and Yedlin all produced.
Umm you don’t see the difference GW?? C’mon this one is too easy. The Donovan snub was during the Klinsmann era. It was just last year. As I said “Everybody needs to judge Klinsmann on what he himself promised, and how the team has looked since he took over”. You are over here talking about the 2002 – 2010 World Cups, which have nothing to do with Klinsmann.
I’m really at odds with that statement about the toughest group, I think Costa Rica’s group was just as tough ..England, Uruguay and Italy. Was Ghana tougher than any of those teams? Portugal may have been ranked higher, but I would taken Uruguay or Italy in a one game play-off.