Seeing as how the combination of Juergen Klinsmann and Jogi Low worked pretty well in Germany, I feel as though some of the complaints I have for the former German coach should at least trickle down to Martin Vasquez. Low has been widely accepted as the tactical mind that was a pretty huge part of the German machine that many feel actually exceeded expectations with a third place finish in the World Cup, while also not being far at all from a spot in the final and at least the second place podium in their homeland. As such, it seems Juergens strengths lie in his vision and drive to achieve. What Juergen WANTS for this team isn't necessarily wrong. It, to say the least, remotely resonates with what a lot of people have been calling for, which is why people happily bit into the sandwhich Juergen was feeding American soccer supporters for so long. But it feels like Juergen has either put his trust in the wrong man, or failed to realize the kind of tactical acuity required to translate his ideas onto the pitch. The kind that U.S. Mens National team assistant Martin Vasquez may not possess. Now that's not to say that 100% of what's going on with the team is on Martin Vasquez, or maybe not even half that figure, even if Vasquez were THAT bad. However, there has to be some scrutiny drawn upon Vasquez's record. One fairly big blip would be his managerial stint at Chivas, were he lost 18 out of 30 games in the 2009 season. He won eight and drew four of the other games. There are other small details like a women's soccer team he coached folding ( although I'm sure there's more to that). The most damning evidence undoubtedly lies in his stint as an assistant manager at FC Bayern Munich alongside the current. U.S. coach, who was fired along with Martin Vasquez. So you can at least see how I would be somewhat concerned with the state of our national team? We hired a man mostly due to the body of work that he had done with a bigger, better country and was at least partly attributed to having a pretty exceptional assistant manager, and the man who is currently at said position not only doesn't look to have past credentials to back up deserving such a role, but actually has a less-than-stellar resume with the man who we're paying something like 2.5 million dollars to not only get us to a World Cup, but advance the quality of American soccer as a whole. Jogi Low's record when he was brought aboard by Klinsmann should be looked at as well. Low did actually have success though when he took VfB Stuttgart to the final of the UEFA Cup Winner's Cup before losing 1-0 to Chelsea in his second season in charge. His first saw him win the DFB-Pokal. He also endured a strong season with Fenerbahce in the 1998-1999 season. After that, Jogi took a job at Karlsruher FC in the German second division, but his team was relegated and he was dismissed. Low then went back to Turkey to coach Andaspor, but was dismissed due to poor results in March of 2001 after being hired in December of 2000. He took Tirol Innsbruck to an Austrian Championship in 2002, but the club declared bankruptcy and was liquidated. Overall, it seems Juergen requires the right people around him to do the job properly, and you have to wonder if he does at the moment, most of all Martin Vasquez.
I have to assume that one of Klinnsman's conditions was that he could hire whomever he wanted for his staff. Otherwise, as we discussed in the other thread, Vazquez's resume is pretty underwhelming. His playing experience outweighs his managerial experience, and, quite honestly, I think there is too much of an importance placed on playing resume for managers in general. Some of the best managers in the world were quite mediocre players. I'd rather have someone with a more extensive and proven managerial career.
If u want to get technical...the whole staff is underwhelming. Head coach....40 games or so coaching for his entire career. Think about it.
It sounds a lot like we've got a coaching staff led by a smooth talker who thinks he's too good to play a more negative approach. He seems so condescending whenever he says anything about opposition that bunkers or sits back.
Under oath I doubt Vasquez would say he chose personnel. I return to a chess analogy to make a point. A chess game begins in perfect equilibrium, the match begins, each player moves his pieces (players) to gain an advantage from the opponents mistake by playing a combination that wins a piece (scores a goal) which is decisive. In chess nobody has to build a team first. Suppose that JK built his team on the assumption that he needed to have as many BL players as possible in order to play his style (term used in the broadest sense). I thnk there is a legitimate argument for the proposition - which I would not favor, incidentally. In any case, Klinsmann picks the chess pieces, arranges them on the board the way he wants, then hands the chessboard over to Vazquez and tells him to play. That is how I see it and therefore I believe there is limited value in scrutinizing Vazquez too much.
There is a lot of value scrutinizing both. My hunch is that Klinsmann is a type of a German who values will and effort more than a match of wits. That's the type of a player he was - 110% all the time - and that's probably the type of a coach he is. Felix Magath, of course, was the opposite of a player and seemingly a bit more intellectual as a coach. But Felix's last season at Bayern was worse than Klinsmann's.
Germans tend to confuse discipline and preparation. Jurgen isnt stupid at all. He has been in just about every game except Brazil. I've always wanted that in the USMNT but I am horrified at the lack of preparation on this team. Example: Gatt was sent home after Canada when he could have stayed with the team to prepare for an eventual call up in the future, even if he did not play in Honduras.
I think your post makes a lot of sense but I disagree with your initial assumption. 2002 Japan/Korea: Germany 2nd 2006 Germany: Germany 3rd 2010 SouthAfrica: Germany 3rd If anything 2006 (at home) seems a missed opportunity.
I see. I thought the German public had relatively low expectations for the team ( low in comparison to their stunning record in World Cup play up to that point), and that the German team at least looked good, even if results weren't always easily attained.
Should be obvious. In 2010, Martin Vasquez elevated Chivas USA to the very top of the Western Conference, reason why they begged him to stay, but bravely he refused and departed to seek new challenges. More or less the same situation his boss had the next year, with that Canadian outfit whose name I can't remember, taking them to the top of the Eastern Conference. Those two seem to go around the world sowing victory after victory.
There were two threads on MartEEN when JK was hired. Both comments and results out of Germany were embarrassing. Here is a name, someone I know the US players respect, we know he can coach, and he will not back down form Kaptain Karma's rahrah tactics: Steve Nicol. You can bet the team would be well organized under him and he could probably use a nod right about now.
He works with the backline in training, organization, shape. Also him and Klinsmann are good friends, so there is perhaps a "Yes" to everything Klinsmann says or does.
It's somewhat amusing and frightening at the same time to be having this type of discussion now. I imagine there was some critical analysis around the specific qualifications of JK and MV in advance of them being brought in, but in hindsight I think the movement for change and wishful thinking probably distorted a lot of that analysis. Either way we are where we are now and we won't gain anything by burying our heads in the sand, which is why I think this topic/question, as late as it may be in its timing, is still incredibly important. First of all I think Vazquez' coaching credentials are very easy to summarize, and unless someone can add something significant that NearPost left out, or provide some insight as to what Vazquez hidden coaching talents might be, then I think we are left to conclude that there simply isn't much there there. I'm sure he's a great person and may in fact be good coach but we have nothing at all to go by to suggest the latter. Taking a broader view we could ask the same things about JKs coaching talent, and as far as I can tell the evidence isn't any clearer. Obviously he was the head man for Germany and Bayern so that suggests..... something (?), but I've not seen anyone clearly spell out what that something was supposed to be that he brought to those teams. Furthermore both of those teams had a lot talent on hand to work with so I imagine a vast number of coaches could have achieved mixed results with either squad. Bayern was a mixed bag so the German side performance appears to be the only attribution that Klinsmann can bank on and yet there are open questions about how much of that performance he was actually responsible for. The bottom line being that we are looking at the possibility that the current Nats coaching staff possesses 1) very little actual coaching experience for a position of that caliber and 2) little to zero evidence that they possess any unique or inherent coaching talent based on their performances elsewhere. Now its one thing to criticize their coaching decisions, player selection and the performances of the Nats since they took over, but based on what I outlined above why would any of us expect them to get any of those things right? As far as I can tell nobody in this current coaching staff has demonstrated anything to suggest why they are fit for the job, either now or in the past. That may sound overly dramatic, but I am really hoping that someone can provide counter-reasons why this isn't actually the real state of things.
Vasquez and Klinnsman also just have resumes that are too similar; both are heavy on playing and light on coaching. Klinnsman was a great player, has held a couple prominent coaching positions, and obviously has some great charisma and communication skills, so I get it. Fine, put him in charge, but his right hand man should be someone who has been coaching for years and years with a proven track record.
I guess another question to ask is how desirable is a position as the U.S. National team assistant coach? Is it more or less desirable than an MLS head coaching gig? A smaller Euro league? A smaller national team?