I think a lot of posters rate him on what they WANT him to do and not on what he has ACTUALLY accomplished.
and we are supposed to see posters on BS as true soccer gurus who single handedly or communally make the USA the finest Soccer team in the world if only on their willingness to criticize everyone else and dismiss opposing opinions. Fire Klinsmann and hire the BS sages.
Tactics - The numerous 3-DM setups have been frustrating and conservative, but I do agree with typically using a more dedicated #6 to screen the CBs. The desire to play the ball more on the ground and build out of the back has been good. The mediocrity of the wing play has been dissappointing. Pushing Dempsey forward more has been good. Rating = C+ Expansion of the Player Pool - My #1 concern since the end of the World Cup has been to develop a new, younger pool of CBs to be ready for 2014. JK has basically ignored this issue and played older veteran CBs the bulk of the time. His only real test player was the underwhelming and now forgotten Orozco-Fiscal. Hopefully the recent use of Cameron is a sign of a change in plans. Using some German-Americans more has been nice, but hardly a surprise. Shea's drop in form put to waste one of JK's only extended trials of a young MLS player. Rating = C- Use of the Player Pool - Took a few games too long to bring Jones and Bradley back into the XI, but that has now been fixed. Puzzled about why Jones has never been tried as the dedicated #6 (which was also true of BB), since he's been a true #6 with Schalke and Blackburn. His rosters have been top-heavey on DMs and holding mids and light on creative mids. His bench personel have been too similar to the starters, providing no stylistic or creative boost or change-of-pace subs. Not enough testing of the dual striker systems, which suits our striker pool better. Overuse of aging vets in 3 of the 4 starting spots along the back line, particularly in the friendlies. Generally, though, he appears to understand who the top US players are, but just hasn't sorted out how to best use them yet. Rating = D+ Youth Development - JK has brough in a number of youngers guys to Nats camps (Hamid, Corona, Boyd), but then didn't really use them much. The Olympic team failed, but the U23 player pool was also deeply flawed all along the back line and a serious achilles heal that may have been hard for any coach to overcome. It may be too soon to give a rating here after only 1 year and only a supervisory role over the youth system. Rating = incomplete Results - The opening results were very underwhelming. Then some improvement vs Slovenia and Italy and with the B-team. The first two qualifiers were adequate, but underwhelming. Rating = C JK has seemingly helped a number of US players get nice club opportunities in Europe. His generall positive, media-friendly personality is nice. Overall, I'd rate JK as earning a C Rating in his first year. And there are some signs that he's getting a better handle on the player pool. But he's still a work in progress to be sure.
I'd rather we stick to the thread topic and grade JK on his first 12 months. Rehashing the BB era has been done ad nauseum elsewhere. Plus, the vast majority of fans agreed that BB's time had run its course and that new coaching blood would be nice. Hardly anyone wanted BB to stay another cycle. Let it be and respect the intent of the OP and stick to the topic. Actually, if you look back on JK's first 12 months in charge of Germany, you will see that he had overwhelmingly positive results. He won like crazy that first year. There is no similarity between JK's first year leading Germany and the first year leading the US, at least in terms of results and performance trends.
I will go on the record that I had a beef with BB because of the way of doing things...he did messed up in the world cup with his questionable selections, like Gooch; not managing his starters time. That was the best draw any non ranked team could wish for, straight to the semis. The Ghana game was winnable if he would have used his players better. Then the GC fiasco with the left back position, BB was just in denial that his boy bornstein was any good. Now we have JK, he gave us what we wanted to hear, his plan hit a snag because he just doesn't have the personnel to make it work, so he adjusted to BB's way for now but with a bit better passing game, the main reason?...MK florished in Italy, you have to give the kid credit for getting his game up another level. As to finding new players, that is a hard to beat since any decent player is usualy found and groomed a couple of years in advance but I would have to give him credit for Williams which he was never contacted by BB and Boyd, some may say they weren't ready but let's face it, JK took a gamble on them when they were still green. As to formations and player selection JK has given me some head scratchers, no other way to put it. My grading for him is an overall of C+
Tactics Build the attack from the back with ball possession. Emphasize short 1 touch passes. Increase the speed and tempo of the attack as we move up the field. Express yourselves; on the flanks, take on defenders 1v1 in order to unbalance your opponents. Play a high defensive line and try to win back the ball as soon as it is lost. Attack and defend as one, everyone back behind the ball on defense. Play a dedicated #6 to shield the back line. Be strong and nasty in the middle of the pitch. Boss the midfield. A minimum of 6 players involved in the attack with the weak side FB advancing to increase to 7. The #6 sits at the tip of a triangle with his CBs and plays short safe passes. Play a proactive 4-3-3 variant. There is a reason the top teams and the last 4 in WC2010 played a 4-3-3 (4-2-3-1). From a slow start of 1-4-1 (W-L-T) we have finished 6-1-2. Rating is A Expansion of the Player Pool B Shea, Fab Johnson, D Williams, T Boyd, E Castillo, B Corona, J Torres, A Morales, H Gomez, B Zusi, M Parkhurst, G Cameron and Wondo are all firmly part of the extended 29 roster. Veterans Buddle, Gooch, DMB, and Rodgers have had extended looks. Orosco got an early run and Ream was at the first 5 camps. Hamid was the backup GK before the U23 Q’s started 13 players who were not part of the GC2011 roster plus 7 veterans got extended re-looks. Rating is A Use of the Player Pool There is any player that should have been looked at as a fit in the new system that was ignored. Injuries and club opportunities prevented Camp Cupcake looks at Gonzo and John. The rosters lack a creative attacking option off the bench. That needs to be addressed before WC2014. Rating is B Youth Development – NC Results From a slow start of 1-4-1 (W-L-T) we have finished 6-1-2. We have had close 0-1 losses on the road to Belgium and France. We have had a 1-0 win on the road at Italy, a 3-2 win at Slovenia and a signature 5-1 domination of Scotland in the US. We started the WCQ with a 3-1 win v A&B and a 1-1 draw at Guatemala where we had a clear penalty on Altidore not called and an advantage goal to Altidore disallowed. With a new coach and new system mid cycle we are doing much better that I anticipated. Rating is A Overall a B rating
I think this has been a major benefit, and I'm excited to see who else gets a call from European clubs.
I know you singled out "not on GC 2011 roster" as an ass-covering measure, but every player I just bolded had been called up and looked at by our previous coach. You labeled this category "expanding the pool" not "expanding from the 23-man Gold Cup roster"; the pool has really not been widened outside of the diaspora guys from Germany and Zusinho. You seriously think "expanding" the pool to increase the roles of lousy players like Orozco, Buddle, and Rogers was a good enough idea to deserve an "A" rating? I don't understand the grammar of your first sentence there, but I think you mean that there hasn't been a single player that Klinsmann hasn't looked at. A laughable claim that couldn't be made by any national team manager anywhere. Oh, unless you mean..players who fit his system. I'm getting pretty irritated lately by these narcissist Barca-phile coaches like Klinsmann and Brendan Rodgers delineating which players are worthy-or-not of their glorious possession systems. Somewhow, Klinsmann felt for quite a while that our two best central midfielders were not refined enough to play his gourmet football. That doesn't strike me as above-average player pool management. Of course Klinsmann's results look great if you don't mention the bad ones. So I take it you think losing 1-0 to Belgium is some sort of landmark result for this country? What are your thoughts on the losses at home to Costa Rica and Ecuador? How about the 5-1 shellacking by a Brazil youth team and the scoreless draw with Canada? Ref decisions can be shitty in any game, they're not an excuse for subpar results in WC qualifiers; prior to that game many were calling for us to beat Guatemala by two or more goals with our sexy new possession game. You should probably re-assess your grades to state that if only we had not tied Guatemala based on what you believe to bad calls, Klinsmann would have gotten an A on results. Even then, if you think the results of the last year have been A-quality (even if we had gotten the calls you think we should have in Guatemala), you must have never watched this team prior to JK being hired.
I think managing starters time becomes a lot easier if the US doesn't get robbed of 2 points against Slovenia. That forced him to start his regular 11 for a third straight game. Then when we had another legit goal early in the Algeria game taken away, it again forced him to keep his starters out there longer than necessary. It wasn't Bob's fault that our starters got gassed in the group stages. It was bad officiating. Bornstein didn't play at all in the Gold Cup until Cherundolo got injured and Bob was forced into a decision between Spector and Bornstein. I personally would have gone with Spector, but lets not rewrite history and pretend that Bornstein was a stalwart in the lineup throughout the Gold Cup. This is something that a small group of posters (myself included) had been telling people for years. People like you refused to believe that we didn't have the player pool. Now here you are, after the expirament failed, making excuses for JK and blaming the player pool for his lack of judgement and talent evaluations. If a handful of guys on BigSoccer knew that our player pool wasn't capable of playing a certain style of game, then a guy making $2.5 million per year should have been able to figure that out by now. We don't know if they had been contacted by Bradley or not. That's pure speculation.
Thanks for the rebuttal, now my turn.... I think you are making excuses by putting the blame on the refs, rather than BB own decision making. Having Gooch play in the Brits game had nothing to do with the refs. Electing to have Edu on the bench for the crucial Ghana game was also a mistake, when asked why he didn't start Edu, BB's reply was that he played a full previous game, which didn't sit well with lots of followers since other players including MB had played the whole tournament. By the time the GC came around Borstein wasn't his go to guy at LB unlike the 2010 qualifiers, yet, he went against common sense when at the pivotal Mexico game was for him to make the simple sub, spector for DOLO, one position change, rather than bring JB and make TWO position changes, even after JB's lack of playing time in the Mex. league, to me that was such a blatant mistake. In my paragraph I never said that JB was anything close to a starter in the GC games, not sure how you derived to your conclusion that I'm changing history. I advocated for BB to expand his player's pool but he was very much uncommited to give players that didn't play 1st league minutes, BB wanted to wait for those players to move up before he would take a look at them, which I felt was a waste of precious time. JK at least is turning every rock to find the people he thinks can help, even if it means turning rocks that BB already turned over and cast asside, he probably wasted time by doing that but any new coach is going to check things out before making his conclusions. I have given numerous new players a chance to make my teams even when they failed at a given position in other teams, sometimes is the coaching method, sometimes is players being at the wrong position, like forwards that are dropped because their scoring rate is low, those players make excellent outside fullback if they have the desire. I believe there was an article in Y.A. in which Williams was asked if BB or USSF ever contacted him before JK found him and his reply was "no one contact me", he is one of the few that went on the record, another player went on the record stating he didn't get a fair chance when he tried out for the NATS by only playing with B team players. As for Chandler, neither the federation or BB's people contacted him it was Saneth that found him while working at Nuremberg, he just passed on to his friends in the USSF. In my opinion BB did just ok getting new players exposed, I think JK is doing a better job, are his results better? at this point is not by much, Johnson seems to be top of the new finds. At this point I'm not giving anyone credit for him, maybe later we would know how he got in the USSF radar.
I was refuting the point you were trying to make that Bradley did a poor job of managing his starters minutes. That is a completely seperate issue than which players were his preferred starters. I find it funny how you've specifically brought up MB twice now, trying to sneak in hints of neoptism. Its no secret that MB is one of the most fit if not the most fit player in our player pool. And even back then, MB was one of our top 3-5 field players. Outside of two broken knee caps, MB should have been on the field for every single second. Period, end of story. Any argument the contrary is wrong, biased and dumb. If you go back to my posts immediately following the Gold Cup final, you'll see that I was the first poster that brought up the argument that bringing in Bornstein forced two position changes rather than one. I agree with you. The way you worded your initial post intimated that Bornstein was an integral part of Bob's plans in that tournament. The fact is, we were razor thin at fullback and Bob made adjustments to try and keep Bornstein off the field. This statement is so wrong its comical. You could say that humans breath carbon dioxide and shit out of their belly buttons andthat woudl be a more factually accurate statement than saying that Bob Bradley didn't expand the player pool. Bob Bradley capped more players than any coach in USMNT history. This is a verifiable fact. In fact, one of the loudest gipes of the Fire Bob Mob (which you were a card carrying member) was that Bradley too often gave regular minutes to players who weren't getting regular minutes with their clubs. And they were singing to heavens that Klinsmann said he would only give minutes to players who were playing for their clubs. The hypocracy and revisionism are really getting thick. This is somehow even more wrong than you assertion that Bradley didn't cap players. Klinsmann has barely given anyone a look. That is the single biggest criticism that pretty much everyone has of Klinsmann. Outside of bringing in 3 guys born in Germany that weren't eligible to play for the US under Braldy, Klinsmann hasn't given anyone new a look.
Who cares if he plays in a bunch of friendlies when he skips all matches that would cap tie him for one dubious reason after another?
Check the Chandler thread there is another article that came out that suggests that he will be playing in the September WCQs.
I count 12 players that got their first US callup from JK. The 4 German born players were eligible to play for the US from birth. Players with first callup (0 caps) by Klinsmann F Johnson D Williams A Morales T Boyd G Zusi B Corona B Hamid S Johnson C Pontius AJ DeLagarza (CC) Camp Cupake J Parke (CC) CJ Sapong (CC) Players with low (<5 caps) who are now firmly in the extended 29 player Roster B Shea 2 prior cap E Castillo 1 prior cap T Chandler 2 prior cap J Larentowicz 1 prior cap G Cameron 1 prior cap Wondo 5 prior caps Players with low (<5 caps) who are now in the extended 42 player Roster M O Fiscal 1 prior cap Z Lloyd 1 prior cap T Bunbury 2 prior cap Brad Evans 4 prior cap N Rimando 5 prior caps
lol...It's comical how you are giving Klinsmann credit for giving caps to guys that were already being brought into the fold or had been capped and already proven that they weren't good enough. Its also funny how you are giving credit to Klinsmann for capping guys who had been brought into camp by Bradley in the past but just hadn't been used. Lets not forget that Joe Corona almost jumped ship to Mexico on JKs watch because Bradley had been in regular contact with him and Klinsmann had ignored him. It wasn't until Corona said in the press that he was considering playing for Mexico that Klinsmann "discovered" him. Anyone can invent stats. But unlike stats, the truth can't be skewed.
Spot on. I think this rating criteria can be simplified in order to get the overall level of the team and it's projection into the future.The question should be, how has the team performed in relation to the performance they should have based on the human capital (talent) at JK's disposal? I think Bradley's team over performed during his tenure, even through the Gold Cup last year and I believe this was a result of Bradley's tactical defensive counter attacking style. The problem occurs when you exaggerate the talent on the team and, not only misdiagnose the problem, but get rid of the style of play that gave the US team the best 8 years in their history.
Let's keep in mind that Houston is inventing stats, and then getting his invented stats wrong. He lists 12 players that got their first US callup under Klinsmann. 4 of them received their 1st callups under Bradley, and it's 5 if you count the leaked August callup when Bradley was fired. 2 of Bradley's Gold Cup callups, Chandler and Wondolowski, are only now part of the "extended 29 man squad". And supposedly Klinsmann has both an "extended 29 man squad" and an "extended 42 man squad". What's the criteria, and what's the difference between the two?
I'm sorry but this really only happened in your fantasies. We've all extensively gone over every single Klinsmann game, and we all concluded he's a conservative coach who has trouble setting up a team that can create chances. For one thing 'cause he hardly plays any creative players and instead plays many holding players. For example: Eight players behind the ball on attack. Three dedicates sixes to shield tye backline. It's almost like you've written up your report card to troll.
The player pool is till weak up top. The back line is slowing down and aging. The midfield has some good players but they all overlap a bit and are tweeners to a degree. We can't afford to rely on our back line or attack, so, we overload the midfield at times which leads to disjointed play. But it is the best option. At the same time Mexico is also getting much better due to an infusion of money into their youth development that we can't match. I think Klinsi has done fine, considering what he has had to deal with. He has not made any glaring tactical errors in competitive games(imo). For me this is a transition cycle. They usually never go as smoothly as you want.