Hahahahahaha. Such a level headed post from a guy who has a reputation for being not so 'level headed' on his neg reps. Just show yourself for who you really are bud.
some of us are simply gluttons for punishment i guess. To be fair, the posters you are referring to about JK are not criticizing him endlessly, they are reposting the same criticism over and over, because others argue against it. Most of the posters who are criticizing dont dislike JK, most hope to see success and growth under him. However, that doesnt mean that we shouldnt voice our dislikes of certain actions. The problem here is debates RARELY take place about the positives, but rather the negatives. Those of us who've been critical and vocal about it have also listed numerous positives we've liked under JK. But those are typically glossed over and the few negatives that are brought up are brought up over and over.
but that is what it is, it gets reworded over and over, says the same thing but it gets repeated endlessly and no matter what statistics may prove to the contrary it is dismissed and more negatives are pointed out saying exactly the same thing. In my particular case I want him to succeed not for his sake but for our National Team. None of us know the particulars, we all are making assumptions, we all are judging without relevant information, none of us are flies on the wall hearing what actually is going on and thus we are presumptuous Monday quarterbacks both pro and con and alienating each other. How more constructive we would be if we not only criticised that which did not work but also mentioned that which did. OK, then it would not be BS,?!
the same can be said about both sides of the arguments. Such is a debate when neither side is willing to give in. However, that does not mean we are criticizing him endlessly, but merely re-posting our initial argument due to the fact the initial argument has never really ended... and probably wont end.
I didn't mean to rehash this tired argument. However, I'm not going to sit back and let Bolivianfire insult my national team by saying they were scared to play someone. The USMNT is never scared to play anyone, anywhere, ever. In other words (1:00 mark)... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYb_anBMus"]The Otter Defense - YouTube[/ame]
Bol means well. He just has a clear case of Latin-itis No different than Englishman who think they have a bunch of WClass players every cycle. it runs deep in some folks.
Why such anger? I never 'insulted' the national team. You're taking it as such though. I can't interprut the way my opinions are viewed. I personally thought all the players looked intimiated, because they played that way! Booting the ball out of danger because of fear of losing it on our half, or playing long through balls up top which our guys were never going to get before Brasil controlled it and passed it up. Thats how I interpruted it..... I've played for and against teams that would rely on tactics as such, to get it out of the half and to not 'concede'. I still stand by my last post you never quoted when responding.
Hey, if spain/barcelona could do what they've done over the last couple of years, don't you think we can learn a thing or two from them? (I am NOT saying we should learn to play like them... but take a thing or two from) Our soccer culture herei n the US is still too much based on England IMO.
LOL I've said that like 2 weeks ago. This thread won't die though, and it's what keeps me awake here at work. Truthfully though, we'll never know how things will end with Klinsi' at the helm, how damage or help he does.... until the end of his time. We all just have to sit back, buckle up, and see where all this goes!
If he doesnt start producing more quality chances all the possession in the world wont matter. And dont get me started on his players selection...
I agree. If he doesn't produce during the qualifiers.... then we got ourselves an issue. Until then, I will wait patiently. But with the slow progression, I can see why posters are 'statistically' worried.
The USA didn't play that way because they were afraid. They played that way because BOB BRADLEY INSTRUCTED THEM TO. If there is anything that I have re-stated more than anything else, this is it. Bob Bradley's manner of managing the game was to boot the ball long up the field and re-organize lines and prepare for the next attack. That is not a reflection of the players. That is a reflection of the coaches tactics.
while i wont argue that there wasnt a fair share of long balls, once again, someone neglects the fact that we maintained a decent amount of possession under bob. We certainly looked for the quick outlet further up the field, but there were plenty of times where we managed possession through the midfield as well. Let's avoid blanket statements for any manager.
Exactly!! Thats why I think our guys are up to playing more a possession style game. :runs out of thread:
But not when we were winning. When we were looking to score, we didn't do bad with holding the ball. Once we were in a favorable situation, we started seeing the long balls up the field. Maybe not EVERY time, but frequently enough. I'm not even talking about a possession game here. I'm talking about the fact that you called our players scared because they followed the coach's orders. So get back in here and put your tongue back in your mouth.
depends on the situation under Bradley. If we had a 1-0 lead in the 15th minute we'd likely continue on with our game plan. However, if the 1-0 lead occurred in the 70th minute, it was probable that the team sat back and relieved pressure more often. While it's only being removed for a few seconds it is another way of managing time. Problem with it is you are ultimately giving it back to the other team and allowing the process to start over. I know your point is using full possession as a means to manage the game when we have the lead and i am not arguing against it. Merely pointing out (prior to realizing what you were referring to) that the "boom ball" argument is blown out of proportion given that we actually managed possession pretty well under bob (though room for improvement). I cant speak for Bolivan, but i'm assuming his post was also meant to be Humor.
I'm just waiting to see the Zimmerman effect on Klinsmann's approach to managing the USMNT. That blast must have taken him by surprise. Big changes coming. I think it might force him to start two apple pie Americans together, and I'm talking about Donovan and Dempsey. Look for it against Italy.
I think JK is well aware now that we aren't as quiet and submissive as maybe he thought in this country. Still, it's all about managing the team. As long as the players buy in, and as long as he isn't making omissions that can factually be questioned with reason, and the results and play are decent, then it shouldn't be an issue. I think he will do what he wants but he is aware now that the media isn't a bunch of mindless sheep, and that there can be issues if he doesn't handle things smartly. Pretty much the way it should be in any soccer passionate country. It's just that it's still a relatively new thing here.
You are kidding? Why would a rant by a nobody affect anything done on the National level?? We, here on BS, have maligned him more severely for thousands of posts and many threads, all critical. A player of little accomplishment and mediocre talent and ranting with little knowledge of anything other than his aborted dream of soccer fame is nothing but envious hyperbole and a deplorable attempt at self validation. Even Lahm's book (and he is a recognized BL player) has been condemned as lunatic self-aggrandisement by many who are actually in the know and by coaches and players alike...
This wouldn't affect him, but it could be an issue if more established players cause a stir. The media has shown they can ask proper footballing questions which he dinn't expect. Also, while Lahm's book was lambasted, much of it has to do with German culture. What he did just isn't done or accepted. You should know that. The questioning of his tactics, coaching accumen is a whole different story, and has been done by quite a few respected players, analysists and outlets. Two different things.
Well it is and it isn't. It boils down to shifting blame. Saying it wasn't the players it was the coach is simple finger-pointing and you do have to ask yourself why Schweini, Ballack and some of the others did not back Lahm up. Secondly, being a foreigner allows me to see past the fingerpointing and gesticulating without prejudicial baggage. But that is how I see it. May be wrong but hey it is what it is.