I dont know what to say to this. The interview in question was an informal breakfast interview with several journalists. Most have filed their stories, but Davis has chosen to stretch it out over a week or so. They cant all be hard hitting exposes. He's simply reporting what the man said, there was no "getting Davis to write the article." Disagree with what he says, but to somehow blame the journalist for what Klinsmann said is disingenuous.
1. The United States record with Torres as a starter in his first 7 matches as 0 wins, 2 ties, 5 losses. 2. In addition he was a central midfielder played out of position by Klinsmann when other options were available. 3. Landon Donovan was the USA star vs Scotland. He had three goals and 1 assist vs Sunderland left back starter, Phil Bardsley. I was at the match and I was right there on that sideline in the first half. Donovan was the guy. The Scots at the Waffle House the next morning in Jacksonville were laughing and saying the Scotland team did not take the match seriously and viewed the trip as a Holiday (vacation). A lot of folks (maybe even you or I) might have looked like they fit in nicely on that particular night. And JFT did get in the win column that evening. 4. It's fine with me if you like Torres, rate Torres, consider him a core player, consider him useful, whatever. Good on you, props to you, I got no problem with it. Just for me, and I am not representing a group here, as far as I know, I have seen enough of him and would prefer to see some different options. And I would offer it appears that Klinsmann has moved on from Torres. Good. 5. We have had some problems at left back before Fabian Johnson came into the picture. To a certain extent, Bornstein played left back because, as limited as he might have been, he may have been the best option we had available (and hopefully, this won't turn into another Bornstein blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Bornstein hijack). The point here, is really that there were few options at left back. 6. So anyway, There were a number of folks who could have been played at left midfield, particularly given what we had already seen of Torres. For a variety of reasons, I do not see him as a USA International starter. And after a few games of watching him, certainly hoping he might step forward, that has always been my impression. 7. And certainly, I'm ok to be wrong. And hopefully, this is the last of the discussion of Torres.
Today's segment on Bocanegra was also pretty good. Add that to the good segment about Jones. The others segments were mostly fluff, and my disagreements with Davis about the structure of the Dec 11 segment are clear; his examples don't match the title or the theme of the Dec 11 story. I'm choosing to blame Davis for sloppy writing and being charmed by Klinsi. If you would prefer to blame Klinsi, take that up with Mestes and a few others who were unhappy with my opinion about the Dec 11 segment in the Klinsmann Coaching Thread.
Wow that is pretty offensive. Did he pander to the Nigerian American community when he selected Edu and Adu or the dreadlock American community when he picked Beckerman
Ah yes, I remember the debate over Bradley's rejection of the Nigerian style of soccer quite clearly.
Still, you don't explain how you were wrong on saying JK was pandering to the latin american audience. That had NOTHING to do with going after guys like torres over players in MLS. I am done talking about Torres, cause sadly... I think he's on the outside looking in. Thats not to say its not with reason. His game vs. Mexico was his weakest, and reason why he's gone. JK hoped he'd one day have it in him to pull more of a '10' type role when pushed further up the field... but he never responded. JK cut a guy he basically built his team around. This SAYS A LOT about JK as a coach. I like it, even though he basically cut a player which I had high hopes for. With that said, watch the highlight again. Torres had a pretty damn good game and helped tie together some neat, tidy, passes that led to many of the goals that game. Take him out, and we probably don't win as big, and have as free flowing of a game. Edit: Look at the first goal, Torres challanged on a tough tackle, won it and caused a boble by the defender... a quick, neat touch, to MB when he could have easily freaked out under the presssure and given it up or backed down because of fear on getting hacked by scotland... instead he gives a nice, quick, 1 touch to Mikey, and the rest hapepned from that. Still don't think we have anyone as neat on the ball in tight spaces like torres. Vs. the right opponent, he can really add to an attack in his own way. or the back heel (cheeky) to Donovan which led to his shot off the post at 4:10. Or his first touch back pass to Mikey who then hit a first time chip for landon's second goal? He played a HUGE part in one of the games that has defined JK's tenure as coach.
It will be fascinating to see how your post is related to the charge that JK "pandered to the Latino communities with his early selection".
Not the community, just the constituency that relentlessly argued that US Soccer is getting it wrong by ignoring the "Latino" style of play. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, I want what you're smoking. But yes, let's go back to your off-topic rant about the Nigerian (or dreadlocked) style of soccer.
I think he was referring to Klinsi's initial interviews, where he expressed a strong interest in adding Latin style and players to the US team. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/02/jurgen-klinsmann-latin-american-spirit On the subject of what style of football he would encourage the side to play, Klinsmann was enthusiastic about the possibility of incorporating the talents of players whose heritage comes from football's more traditional powerhouses south of the US border. "Oh, definitely [the style would be] influenced by the Latin Americans, I mean, because they are such a huge part of the population here," he said. "And they love the game. I mean they're all soccer freaks. And they will have an influence on that. I think that the appointment of Claudio Reyna as the technical director of youth development, this is the first signal – [saying] we want to dig into the Latin community and we want to get those kids ... And we don't want them to go back to their home countries. We want them to become real American players." http://www.socceramerica.com/article/43285/klinsmann-clears-the-air.html So Klinsmann has proved that there are young Hispanics with considerable talent and great promise for the future -- maybe even for the immediate future if they are given strong encouragement. It is that encouragement, that faith in their potential, that has been so crucially lacking in the past. In showing that, despite that lack of interest, a few top Hispanic players have surfaced, Klinsmann has gone a long way to proving the point about the USA’s pool of Hispanic talent. The next step is to show that Castillo, Orozco and Torres are not just one-offs, and that there is more to come, that they represent the tip of the iceberg. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1188920/index.htm He promises to pursue a more entertaining style with the U.S.'s youth and senior teams, both by bringing in more Latino players—"There's so much influence coming from the Latin environment over the last 15 to 20 years that has to be reflected in the national team"...
But why? Deut' tried to make it seem like it was trying to win over fans, but it had more to do with the style of play he wanted out of our guys, and he'd be able to get that (short term) out of mexican americans quicker to later on down the road have their better american, counterparts learn and mimic that style. Reason why he had the lesser talent of Beckerman in as D mid, but now our best DM in Mike has taken over that role, and made it his bitch.
As hard as it may for some people to understand, what happens on BS is very different from the real world. This just sounds like perhaps another silly BS vendetta from before my time. It just seems bizarre that JK is accused of pandering just because he selected 3 Mexican American players that in fact had previously been capped by Bob Bradley. They were not guys off the street corner. If you look at the players; a slick attacking LB, a possession/ball circulating CM, and a quick small CB with ball skill who could play out the back, the selections are reasonable for the scheme JK wanted to play.
Well, the move on style of play fits both criteria, though the Bradley benching only fit the fan aspect.
Yeah. But even if it was/is a reasonable thing to do, he's still "pandering," because that is what "politicians" do. I'd like a coach who panders to fans who enjoy supporting teams that win games.
Wasn't Bradley in between jobs? I wouldn't be surprised if Mike wasn't 100percent fit around that time, and that is why, or didn't show as 'sharp'/maybe rusty in practice? Remember, he was 'torres' as the '10' vs. Mexico in his first game as coach. Fell on his face playing that position. Granted... he's not a '10'... and I think was in between teams and not playing for club at that time. Was he benched because of BS? LOL I doubt it....
Not BS, but the fanbase/media in general. The easiest way to quiet the screams was to let them see the other options - so any new manager would have done the same, even me.
Who knows. IMO it was his opinion, and yea... maybe he did agree with the fans, "lets see how the NT looks like without Mike.......just to see" Perfect time to try also, considering he was in between clubs... But fast forward to now where MB is a 'untouchable' again for our NT, but as the '6'. The best '6' IMO we have.
Yeah, I could go for this too and fortunately it's a bit more of what we are seeing, now. Early on, there were more headscratchers for me. Why were MLS players overlooked (certainly there were exceptions like Beckerman and Shea)? What about his remarks to the Dutch press about the Belgium league and Kljestan? Why play Danny Williams at right midfield? Why call in three Mexican league players (not Herc) who had not done anything of significance in earlier trials and present them as new flavors? (And I thought BF offers a plausible explanation regarding them fitting into a style he was presenting more favorably, Fine) And it's fine if folks disagree about any or all of these thoughts. What is a dubious decision from my perspective may be an obvious one from someone else. It's ok to agree to disagree . . . it diminishes the quality of discussion around here, when things get nasty because someone needs to be right. Regularly, I learn something here, from someone who has a different opinion than mine. Again, things, in terms of results and player selection, have improved substantially in the past year. Personally, I give a coach or even a player a little room to be unorthodox if results are produced. Getting back to the article, really my only issue (and it really is just a small one), is that he has gotten the reporter to present him in a certain way, which I'm not sure is exactly who he is or has proven himself to be.
That is not "pandering", JK clearly has a firm belief in the kind of background and styles that produces great players. He talked about that in the WC video linked earlier. Maybe the OP does not understand the meaning of "pander"?
Well, with Klinsmann, the Latino player has gotten more chances than under Bob. The results have been divided. Torres looked to be the same, great for friendlies with no pressing, bad for competitive games with pressing. Gomez has been better than we thought. Orozco is what we thought.
You mean Paul Gardner. Gardner wrote in World Soccer a couple of months after JK took over for Bradley, how great it was (and I am paraphrasing here) that finally we had someone calling in Mexican-American players, and playing that style, castigating Bradley for "ignoring" Latino players. It was an absurd article, even more so after we learned that JK went on to ignore Gonzalez for several months, and rescinded Corona's call up (that Bradley had made) which then made Corona take some initial youth call ups with Mexico.
Actually this is kind of a reverse prejudice... i.e. Latino players are all skillful, technical, and play a certain beautiful flowing style. It is basically a myth, and kind of pollyannish thinking by both JK and guys like Gardner. Sure, they tend to do it more than some soccer cultures, but it is far from the majority. Plus, seriously, how is a German who played his career in Germany, England, and Italy really going to know anything about Latino soccer? It is the great American soccer "white whale" myth. If we just get more Latino's we will be able to compete, we will be better, we will play beautiful soccer. How about we just put the best players on the field... of course Balboa, Reyna, Bocanegra, Armas, Llamosa, Perez, Gomez, Ramos, and several others were never Latino enough.
As a result, any Americans performance for that match should be considered suspect. Still, it does raise the question, "Aren't the Scots a little embarrassed about letting 5 goals in?"
Really? Bradley used Torres and even started him in the WC. Bradley used Gomez almost immediately after he got hot. Bradley at least gave a look at Castillo, once his paperwork got switched. He capped tied Orozco. He had even called in Corona before he got fired. And then he was blooding Gonzalez into the team. Is Feilhaber considered a Latino? He is a Jewish-Brazilian. Bornstein is Latino as well. Maybe Bradley was just a better judge of actual talent. Bradley was pretty wide and diverse in calling up players. He gave everyone a chance. Basically the current state of things bears out why Bradley never locked in on Castillo or Orozoc... Castillo has been awful until last year, and Orozco isn't very good as a CB... although I think he could have been useful on the wings in a pinch but with Johnson, Chandler, Lichaj, and Parkhurst I don't see a real need for him.
In short, JK started having success once he started following on BB's footsteps. Paying 10 million for that seems quite excessive, still. Does anyone see signs of total reforms at the youth level? Will we see the first fruits in April (U-17 WC CC-CAF quals)?