The Bradley to Klinsmann transition is complete. (r)

No "transition is complete" until it includes a competitive match. Jurgen wouldn't have a problem with that statement, I'm sure.

Or have their hands cut off so they had to type with that headband with the stylus on it, one letter at a time. It would at least slow down their replies o they could think before they post.

For shits and giggles. The transition had only just begun 13 years ago.

I'm going to guess that JK won't think any "transition" is complete until the WC Finals. Even then, he may be thinking more about the transition in youth development, which isn't going to be complete for a long, long time.

Truth is that we played a great game and won big after beating Italy at home. Those are great results, but just a couple of games in a long slog towards the WC. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here.

I truly hope some day people realize what men like Manfred Schellscheidt did for youth development in this country, for the last three decades, most of it on a volunteer basis, without self-promotion. Talk about a labor of love that has gone unappreciated by the masses. Being 48, I used to think the World Cup was something the U.S. wasn't allowed to play in. To think where we've gone since the 70s and 80s.

Simply incredible.

Sorry, off the rails, I know.

BB played a fairly attacking style across the board. With the exception of games versus Spain, I don't really think we were a bunker and counter team.

It is quite incredible. It can also get better. We can want it to be better without disparaging the work that's been done in the past (you know, "standing on the shoulders of giants"). As the baton is passed in any organization, it's the responsibility of the new blood to appreciate the foundation laid for them and strive to better than work. Not the place to talk about youth development in the USA, but I think everyone can agree that (1) it's come a long way and (2) it still has a ways to go.

. . . . back to regularly scheduled programming . . .

For Kiro and Reyna, that was the top of the mountain. Everything thing else was pretty much down hill from there.

You're 48? How can that be? That would make me old as well, and that can't be right...

And I know we here at BS can be a bunch of knee-jerk reactionaries, but I wanted to express my heartfelt thanks to your brother for raising our national team standards over the past several years. I am sure he doesn't need or care about the accolades, but I wouldn't mind you passing that on to him, even if it is from some anonymous U.S. fan. I appreciate everything he has done, and since I cannot thank him directly, I have to do the next best thing and thank his brother.

Sorry, a bit off topic, but my Tuesday-morning-after-holiday brain is feeling a bit nostalgic right now...

Kirovski, sure. But Reyna???

Reyna still had superb World Cup games vs Mexico and Germany in 2002 and vs Italy in 2006, and that excellent effort vs Holland in the 2002 pre-Cup friendly, just off the top of my head. That 1999 friendly wasn't the top of his mountain at all. Not even close.

I smell a book idea. Anyone know any decent writers around here?

Someone tweet Ives.

To me it always seemed as if we could play with anyone until we got to the top of the box and had to work against a set defence at which point we didn't know what to do, even playing with a world class player like Donovan.

Even in that 3-0 USA/Germany match, the first two goals were scored on the break.

With Dempsey in EPL, MB in Serie A, Jozy at Alkamaar, Jones in BL and Dono still playing, that has to change, not to mention we have Klinsmann now. I'm sure Bradley would be doing better, too, with our improved players but a new broom sweeps clean.

He had one good pass against Mexico, but was otherwise average. Average against Germany, and well as for 2006, he might have been good against Italy, but well, we know how the Ghana game went, don't we.

Ohh, a friendly.

Aside from Mexico, it was practically the last game he contributed to for a win.

If an player has a complaint about their role during the transition it should be JJ. He has gone from a mainstay in the midfield under BB to getting his first A team start in game 11 of Klinsmann's tenure!

I had forgotten how anti-Reyna you were. I won't engage further after this reply, in part because it is pointless and in part to end the threadjack.

Ohh, a friendly... like the 3-0 friendly win Jeff Bradley posted a link to and you felt the need to mock Kirovski and Reyna for? Yup, a friendly.

/End Threadjack.

Yeah, Jones' previous lack of serious game time with the A-team under JK, especially considering the influx of German-Americans, has stood out.

I do think the comparing and contrasting is interesting. I agree with Nutmeg that bringing out the same baggage and reigniting tribal wars does not lead to great discussion, but I also knew in starting this thread it is a sensitive topic. I tried to keep the assessment at a level where we did not need to demonize either coach, but I think I failed. I think both coaches went through some pretty rough patches this past year. Both dealt with a number of players who were in their own transitions. I think Klinsmann is benefiting from players like Bradley, Jones, Johnson, Dempsey and Altidore being in much better places professionally than they were a year ago.

I want to apologize to Jeff publicly. I should have left out the "rumor" stuff. I am usually pretty cautious about putting any rumor stuff out here because it tends to take on an ugly life of its own. I should have followed my own counsel.

The reaction to the Scotland match reminds me of the reaction to the U23's win over Mexico, which spawned a thread titled Caled Porter is a Master Motivator. To be honest, there were better and more reasons for taking the U23 match against Mexico seriously than there are for taking what happened in the Scotland match seriously. There was one potentially significant development in the Scotland match. Giving both Bradley and Jones more freedom, with a 6 covering their backs. It was very insightful and creative of JK's part to try this. But it still has to be tested in a real way. Brazil will provide such a test if we go with the same approach.

BS on the whole has this bizarre habit of being unable to praise a coach or player without knocking that person's "competition".

This entire post makes me believe you did not watch a single Chelsea game in the Champion's League. They won the arguably greatest tournament on earth by out coaching and being superior strategically to their opponents. They adjusted their game plan to every opponent they played and on a macro level in the last few games.

You do not attack Barcelona because you get blown out. You play to your strengths not to theirs. In that case they have no aerial threat. range threat and poor gk/defending. You park the bus and disrupt the game and win on counter-attack. Don't swarm them or you will be exhausted and down 3-0 in the first 20 minutes.

So of course we would love to control the flow of the game against Brazil and I believe we can do more then ever before. But not for a second are we fooling ourselves and thinking we can take it to them for 90 minutes. Strong, disruptive defense with quick counters wins this game. Our ability to control pace for large portions will be HUGE in winning at the highest level. See Confed Cup Final.

I fully expect to see Danny Williams come on for Torres in this match as a defensive midfield type like against France to deal with Ribery. Dempsey won't play. Save him for Guatemala.

Agreed, but for tactical reasons (Brazil's width), I have a feeling we're going to play more like we played against Italy than we did against Scotland.

And I just have to ask, did Levein fail to field any DMs in his squad against us because there were none available, or because he didn't think it would be necessary against our "humble" yanks on our own turf? I mean, you'd think the results of trying to play a 433 against us without a backbone would be predictable enough.

Williams wasn't cleared by his club to play in any of these games, so he won't be on the roster.

Look at that finish from Sanneh on the break.

Dammit, man. MLS should've never done away with the shootout.

(yes, I'm kidding)

The real importance of the Scotland match is that for the first time for large stretches of a match we saw major elements of the kind of soccer that Klinsmann has been trying to implement. We saw possession, 1 touch passing, increaing the speed and tempo of the attack as we moved up the field. We saw high line pressure, aggressive pressure after we lost the ball, and the shape transitioning from offense to defense and back as one team.

We have seen pieces of the building blocks before for small stretches of time (see the first 40 minutes v CR) but this was the first time most of them came together for major stretches of a 90 minute game.

For casual fans it was the first chance to get a glimpse of what JK has been talking about. The scoreline helps market soccer to the mainstream public but other than that it says very little. We easily could and should have scored scored 3 in the first half v CR.

What the Scotland game did was put a concrete face on Klinsmann's "proactive soccer", Brazil if Klinsmann goes for the gusto as some are suggesting will sober us up to the realities of that approach v a top 10 soccer power.

He helped us in qualification in the next cycle. In particular, I remember the 2-0 win against Mexico played in Columbus on September 3, 2005 as one of his best performances as a US player. Perhaps it was with that match in mind that you used the word "practically" to qualify your comment.