Comparing Bruce Arena to other "Dynasty" Coaches

[Karl K]

Originally posted by Rodan
Thanks VA, a momentary respite from the unabashed hero-worship is kind of nice...

He's no hero, he's just a very good soccer coach.

Originally posted by Various Styles
most impressively, DCU won the InterAmerican Cup against perennial Brazil Club power Vasco de Gama in 1998

This wasnt Impressive. Dont want to be negative but South American Clubs have never taken this Cup seriously. Why do you think it hasnt been played since 98. Lets also remeber that Both games were played in the U.S.. Interestingly before and after Vascos plane ride from Tokyo were they played for the Toyota Intercontinental Cup.

BA is a good coach theres no denying this but Outside the U.S he has yet to win any Silverware..

Question of the last, say, six Mexican national team coaches, how many have won "silverware" outside of Mexico??

[ursula]

Another point about dynasty coaches is that they are much better than their opposition. This point seems obvious but isn't. Guys like Joe Torre, Phil Jackson, coach K, and Bruce Arena are after all directly competing against some very good coaches and their task was (is) to outcompete them: to recognize their opponents for what they are and assess how to beat them regularly. Since VS has now trolled on by, we can see that Arena has done that versus Mexico. Now if Mexico has hopes to compete with Arena they better not hire a coach who has VS's attitude since great coaches don't rationalize victories or defeats. (Well they may rationalize to the press like Jackson does, but that's a different story.)

[kayasoleil]

In response to Sachin's comments that great coaches focus on winning at their respective levels (high school, college) I HIGHLY disagree. Great coaches at those levels develop their players and winning is a natural by-product (or not, it does not matter). If young players, especially at the high school level (and college) are concerned about winning, and their coaches coach them to win first and development is seen as a by-product, they may remain mediocre players with poor fundamentals that are necessary for being world class.

I predict that in the very near future, especially for soccer coaches in college, you will see programs market themselves as development institutions- not championship ring collectors.

That is best way to grow the sport soccer in this country. Focus on development.

[Sachin]

Originally posted by kayasoleil
In response to Sachin's comments that great coaches focus on winning at their respective levels (high school, college) I HIGHLY disagree. Great coaches at those levels develop their players and winning is a natural by-product (or not, it does not matter). If young players, especially at the high school level (and college) are concerned about winning, and their coaches coach them to win first and development is seen as a by-product, they may remain mediocre players with poor fundamentals that are necessary for being world class.

I predict that in the very near future, especially for soccer coaches in college, you will see programs market themselves as development institutions- not championship ring collectors.

That is best way to grow the sport soccer in this country. Focus on development.

I don't see how you can have one without the other. But ask any coach in any competitive sports league what their priority is and almost all of them (good, bad, mediocre) will answer "winning" not "develop them for the next level."

A college basketball coach who turns out NBA first round draft picks but doesn't win anything is going to be out of a job soon, while a coach who wins a national title every third year but doesn't turn out NBA studs all the time has job security for life.

Sachin

[lasoccervegas2002]

I of the most important things for a coach ( in any sport for that matter ) is well liked by the players and I'd heard that the players like him a lot.

[kayasoleil]

That may be true for basketball and football due to the dollars that may come from alumni demanding wins... But since this is a soccer forum, and since soccer is really completely different at the collegiate level, I still say watch for programs that are soon to say in a very public way, "come to my school...winning a ring is not our primary goal here because we are focused on developing you as a player in such a way that, if you choose to go to school versus another professional development structure, you will have a better chance of making a professional side and excelling."

Very compelling... UVA will be one of the first to embrace this publicly (they do so in practice now, ask their coaching staff).


Soccer coaches do not have the pressure to win.. but with this approach, winning will come naturally.


At the high school level, very few coaches in any sport (other than maybe a few hard core football schools in texas) are required to win to keep their jobs. It is much more effective to develop and place kids in the next level with scholarships (or pro contracts :) ).

[Bajoro]

kayasoleil,

I wish you were right but I don't think you are.

The number of people who want to win is always going to be far greater than the number that prefers great development.

Perhaps you haven't been to a youth soccer match lately?

:)

Most parents are going to equate a trophy with success. Then if the kid doesn't make it to the next level, they'll assign blame elsewhere.

[Bajoro]

Let me add this to qualities of a great coach, as embodied in Arena:

While everyone believes he has a great ego -- it's quite healthy, no doubt -- he's comfortable enough with himself to know that he doesn't know it all.

When Arena was at a level at which many coaches slip into complacency, he still made a concerted effort to learn more about the game. At Virginia, he would go to Europe during the summers to learn training techniques and advanced tactics. Because this effort resulted in greater success year by year, it became part of his M.O.

It's been pointed out that BA learns from his mistakes. You can't learn if you can't admit you were wrong, and someone else knows more than you do.

(This level of self-comfort reminds me of Coach K, although their styles are dramatically different.)

So in spite of his healthy ego, Arena continues to learn. That's perhaps my biggest reason for hoping his tenure with the US men continues.

[SamsArmySam]

Originally posted by Karl Keller

And, finally, players always seem to say they love playing for these coaches, and they generally mean it.

I thought it was telling that Jason Kreis in a recent interview said 1. he was very disappointed he had not had more opportunities to win a spot on the 2002 World Cup team, and 2. the favorite coach of his playing career is Bruce Arena. To me, that speaks volumes. And yes, I know he still hopes for a shot at the team and doesn't want to burn bridges, but there was definitely some grudging admiration for Bruce in his comments.

Nutmeg, great job with a thought-provoking read on the side of coaching we so easily overlook--player selection, player management, communication.

[kayasoleil]

Originally posted by Bajoro
kayasoleil,

I wish you were right but I don't think you are.

The number of people who want to win is always going to be far greater than the number that prefers great development.

Perhaps you haven't been to a youth soccer match lately?

:)

Most parents are going to equate a trophy with success. Then if the kid doesn't make it to the next level, they'll assign blame elsewhere.

I have been to more than a few and realize that is the reality. However, just because the parents may miss the point (and some coaches and players and fans) does not mean that we should perpetuate a paradigm that is unhealthy at best and destructive at worst.

The institutions, organizations and people who really understand how to move soccer forward intelligently and with long term vision for long term prosperity should take the lead and lead US soccer down a more beneficial and healthy path. Winning should not matter one tiny iota until the big stage (and that is not the Snickers Championship or Super Y). That does not even include high school or college (and of course this is all IMHO). The Big Picture is the key.

Cheers

[Nutmeg]

Hero worship? What a laugh. Rodan, if you know anything about me, you would know that Arena is hardly a "hero" of mine. Nor Jackson, nor Torre, nor Coach K.

I'm a Blazers fan, which would explain my STRONG dislike of anything Phil. I'm a Mariners fan, which would explain my even STRONGER dislike of anything Yankee. And to top it all off, I am a fan of PAC-10 basketball, especially the Wildcats of Arizona, and I cannot stand ACC basketball, first and foremost the Duke Blue Devils.

So none of these guys are anywhere near heroes for me, but I respect their ability to win consistently and build dynasties wherever they coach.

[Various Styles]

Karl Keller

Question of the last, say, six Mexican national team coaches, how many have won "silverware" outside of Mexico??

If you want to Count the Gold Cup then Lapuente and Bora Milutinovic would be the only coaches to have won any silverware outside of Mexico.

There was also another coach. cant remeber his name but he won a Club Title in the Honduran league. I know nothing to brag about, i cant even remeber his name..


Aguirre and Mejia Baron came close in Copa America (93/02) Also Carlos De los Cobos with the U-23 in the Mar de plata games losing in penaltys to Argentina. Speaking of which Trejo with Cruz Azul lost the Copa Libertadores to Boca jrs in pk's. Damn Argies :(

ursula

Another point about dynasty coaches is that they are much better than their opposition. to recognize their opponents for what they are and assess how to beat them regularly. Since VS has now trolled on by, we can see that Arena has done that versus Mexico.

Arena was never able to beat Lapuente. Who won a Confeds Cup and a Gold Cup :)

Anyways why is it that i am considered to be trolling ??? Because i believe that the DC U victory over Vasco de Gama was not impressive ???

[ursula]

Originally posted by Various Styles

ursula

Another point about dynasty coaches is that they are much better than their opposition. to recognize their opponents for what they are and assess how to beat them regularly. Since VS has now trolled on by, we can see that Arena has done that versus Mexico.

Arena was never able to beat Lapuente. Who won a Confeds Cup and a Gold Cup :)

Anyways why is it that i am considered to be trolling ??? Because i believe that the DC U victory over Vasco de Gama was not impressive ???


Because you have no recollection of the game. Vasco gave no excuses. They played as hard as they could, as they ever did. They were just beaten and they recognized that on that night, United was the better team.

As for Lapuente beating Arena, you are bringing up one of the more unusual qualities of Arena: on every level he coached, he started out slow, evidently re-assessed his opposition, then beat them when it counted. Then he beat them over and over again. It happened in college. It happened in MLS and the CCC. It's now happening in CONCACAF: Mexico, Costa Rica and the rest are now Arena's drum.

[Various Styles]

Because you have no recollection of the game.

Au Contraire. I remeber hearing newsbriefs on the Radio. My recollection is that both games were played in the U.S.. Vasco traveled to Washington D.C for the first game. The return Leg was played in Florida in their return trip to Brazi from Tokyo where they played for the InterContinental Cup.


As for Lapuente beating Arena, you are bringing up one of the more unusual qualities of Arena: on every level he coached, he started out slow, evidently re-assessed his opposition, then beat them when it counted.

Yeah but he failed twice. Gold Cup and Confed Cup. This is against Lapuente not Meza or Aguirre. Other American Dynasty Coaches do not have to compete against the world :D

[Karl K]

Hmm...how would Lapuente respond now you think if asked to coach the Mexican national team against the now experienced Arena and his deep pool of players?

I bet he would just tug his trademark hat and smile.

[Eliezar]

Originally posted by kayasoleil


I have been to more than a few and realize that is the reality. However, just because the parents may miss the point (and some coaches and players and fans) does not mean that we should perpetuate a paradigm that is unhealthy at best and destructive at worst.

The institutions, organizations and people who really understand how to move soccer forward intelligently and with long term vision for long term prosperity should take the lead and lead US soccer down a more beneficial and healthy path. Winning should not matter one tiny iota until the big stage (and that is not the Snickers Championship or Super Y). That does not even include high school or college (and of course this is all IMHO). The Big Picture is the key.

Cheers

Couldn't disagree more. A, AA, AAA baseball have development as their goal not winning. This is because they are rooted to a proteam and the proteam's success is what the entire operation is aiming for.

A college team is a college team. Only 1 or 2 players on that team *might* have a shot to get a try out with MLS much less have a soccer career. For them this is the biggest stage for their abilities and their goal is to see how well they can do.

Its the same in highschool except that there are some schools that can place 15 kids a year as starters in Div 1 college programs. However, high school soccer in itself is very bad for the average soccer player because the competition level is nonexistent. I'm sure someone will try to disagree, but to put it in perspective. There were 10 first division youth teams in my age. There were some 70 schools in our high school "region" and in our district (regular highschool season) we played against 4 schools that had ZERO combined first division players and then 3 other schools where freshmen regularly started but each had a handful of first division players. I think in the 4 years of highschool we lost 1 game and tied 1 game in the regular season and my junior year played 1 good team the entire year and that was in the state semifinals. My senior year we played 1 good team in the entire year and it was in the regional finals and we lost in a shootout.

I can tell you that we would have been much better not wasting our time playing these teams we thump 5-0, 7-0, etc. There is no way to develop good teamplay in that atmosphere you just develop bad habits and do stupid things.

Another reason why colleges and highschools cannot be "developmental" teams is simply they wouldn't know what to develop. A proteam can have its reserve teams play the same exact style and groom players to play specialty roles (take BAs national team and you'd be grooming a target forward, midfield destroyer, wingbacks, etc) but for colleges and highschools you typically see the best players all playing center mid with a few exceptions at forward or defense.

This was so bad that in 1990 our u16 national coach Roy Reese got his national player pool together and practiced them to pick a team. He had to go looking outside the pool to find a starting sweeper because there were virtually no defenders in the pool. He went down and picked up Gabe Serta (last name probably spelled wrong) who he knew from local club soccer and who was *just* an state odp defender because he was better than any of the national team defenders according to Roy. So not even our development program seems to be developing talent. 8/

[Captain10]

Originally posted by Nutmeg
While I may have been an ardent Arena detractor, his performance leading up to and in the World Cup were splendid, and I hope he leads us to the 2006 WC, too. I reserve the right to criticize mistakes Arena makes, as no coach is perfect. But overall, he has at least this poster's support.
I've been away for a while ... who are you and what have you done with Nutmeg?!?! :mad: :p

Just kidding. While I'm not ready to call the USMNT a dynasty, the WC performances (excluding Poland) were very impressive for a US team. Arena clearly did some things right and I give him props for that. However there were also some other events (injuries) that occurred that changed some personnel (IMO for the better) that I think would otherwise not have been done.

I'm not ready to give Arena *carte blanche* and it will be interesting to see how he does in the next few friendlies and tournaments...

[Cweedchop]

Originally posted by Captain10


Just kidding. While I'm not ready to call the USMNT a dynasty, the WC performances (excluding Poland) were very impressive for a US team. Arena clearly did some things right and I give him props for that. However there were also some other events (injuries) that occurred that changed some personnel (IMO for the better) that I think would otherwise not have been done.

I'm not ready to give Arena *carte blanche* and it will be interesting to see how he does in the next few friendlies and tournaments...

Welcome back Captain..

Damn.. This could almost be considered a compliment coming from you....


Who are YOU and what have YOU done with Captain10? :p

In regards to your comments, I think it's a tad difficult to predict injuries and I think it's safe to say that on more than one occasion during the World Cup, Arena came out with lineups that for all intent and purposes shocked most knowledgable US fans.. Injuries and suspensions were the chief reason for these changes (obviously) but he also made some tactical changes designed to flumox the opposition (Reyna to right mid against Mexico for example) and he did this most successfully..

The only difference between these changes made during the World Cup and during qualifying was that he had better personnel to work with during the WC than in qualifying due to the massive amounts of injuries to key offensive players during that time and the results reflect that fact..

I've always maintained that when we have a full and healthy squad to choose from, we would do quite well.. This was a luxury that was not afforded to us during most of qualifying and it showed.. I've always think that for the most part, it's the players who shine and get the results and the coaches job to put them in that position and to tweak occasionally when it is needed (tactics and subs)..

Obviously I am a big Arenaphile, but for my money, it was the players that did all the work in the WC and that is why Arena was successful.. That has always been his M.O. and probably the most misunderstood facet of his coaching ability.. He doesn't claim to be a genius or tactical wizard, he just wants healthy dedicated players and he'll get the desired results...


Arena lovers unite!!!!!!


C'mon Captain and Ghosty, jump on board the bandwagon, there's plenty of room.....


Chris

[Bajoro]

All:

I think one of the most interesting/important points made thus far is that few or none of us have the inside scoop as to what Arena was trying to accomplish with many of his personnel decisions. eg, his call-ups of Richie Williams, an endless source of ridicule and scorn, which now looks like a perfectly reasonable way for BA to implement his style and system among a bunch of players who didn't know either.

I think it's fair to be critical of Bruce Arena or any coach who's not winning every time his team take the field. But what has irked me from time to time has been unreasonable criticism from people who just don't know or understand what he's up to. Eg, he called up Richie because he hates such-and-such, or he only plays his favorites, etc.

I hope that for at least the next year or so people will give Arena the reasonable benefit of the doubt: to wit, I may not understand or agree with his strategy/lineup/roster for a particular match, but chances are, he knows more about what he's doing than I do... so I'll refrain from calling him an idiot... for now.

[russ]

WHAT!!!

Do you realize what would happen to the post count?????