SS debuts with Costa Rica [R]

[Various Styles]

3-2 victory for the Ticos over Chilean Club Universidad Católica. Steve O comented after the game that the team needs to work on their ball posesion and overall velocity..

http://www.laopinion.com/deportes/?rkey=00030203182710456610

[Femfa]

Jones makes brief mention of Sampson's debut here, but doesn't provide much commentary.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-soccer4feb04,0,3509118.column?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsports%2Dsoccer

Steve Sampson, who coached the United States to the 1998 World Cup and who now is coach of Costa Rica, won his debut game in charge of the Ticos when they defeated the Chilean club team Universidad Catolica, 3-2, Sunday in Alajuela, Costa Rica.

[Bruce S]

I pray with that he stays with CR as long as possible. My hope is that they discover his abilities way into qualifying. My fear is he will be discovered soon enough to repair the damage.

[Bruce S]

how long before we see the 3-6-1?

[Eliezar]

Originally posted by Bruce S
how long before we see the 3-6-1?

Well we play Argentina in less than a week...but on the other hand they did seem to be going with a 4-4-2 against Jamaica.

[Sweeper]

You're right, the guy who led us to victories over Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina is an awful coach.......Forget the 98 meltdown, we live and we learn; I doubt Sampson will make the same mistakes again. He is going to be well versed on the United States side when qualifying comes around again, and determined to beat us.

[michael greene]

As good as a job BA has done, I thought Sampson got a raw deal. IMHO Sampson was right in trying to move out some of the older players. His mistake was in the timing. Bruce had a couple years to get rid of Harkes, Balboa, Lalas, Wynalda, Goose (well, he blew that one) and turn the roster over. Sampson tried to squeeze it in to the spring before the Cup.

I'm not sure if it was the last game before we left for France, but I remember the 3-6-1 putting a 3-0 flogging on Austria, in Vienna. I'm sure many fans thought the team was headed in the right direction, before controversy and reality set it.

Not that any team in CONCACAF needs extra motivation to play us, but it will be grudge match for Sampson.

[stopper4]

Isn't that similar to how they play, anyway?

Mauricio Wright in the back as a sweeper. Clog the midfield and everybody makes runs off Paulo Wanchope up top.

Has is occurred to anyone that CR might have a little more success with those 2 players in this formation than we did with Tom Dooley and Eric Wynalda?

[bmurphyfl]

Originally posted by michael greene
I'm not sure if it was the last game before we left for France, but I remember the 3-6-1 putting a 3-0 flogging on Austria, in Vienna. I'm sure many fans thought the team was headed in the right direction, before controversy and reality set it.

While the US-Austria match was a good performance by the US, the match was followed by three miserable performances in May before the cup. I forget the exact results and my Internet connection is too slow to track them down right now, but the 3-6-1 formation got bogged down by such powerhouses as Kuwait, Macedonia and Scotland leading up to WC98.

Murf

[michael greene]

Originally posted by bmurphyfl
While the US-Austria match was a good performance by the US, the match was followed by three miserable performances in May before the cup. I forget the exact results and my Internet connection is too slow to track them down right now, but the 3-6-1 formation got bogged down by such powerhouses as Kuwait, Macedonia and Scotland leading up to WC98.

Murf

I should have recalled the Scotland match since I was there. To this day, the worst US game I have ever seen:

Wednesday, April 22 United States 3, Austria 0
Saturday, May 16 United States 0, Macedonia 0
Sunday, May 24 United States 2, Kuwait 0
Saturday, May 30 United States 0, Scotland 0

True, not exactly a runaway train, but that year we also defeated Brazil, Sweden and Costa Rica, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe those mediocre results spurred Sampson to try and change too much, too soon, but I think he had the program going in the right direction. He just didn't manage the personalities of the team well, which admittedly, is a big part of the job. Bruce benefited from coming into a situation in which change was obviously needed, and had a sort of mandate to do what he wanted. Plus, he had the success of VA/DCU as credentials.

[MarioKempes]

Originally posted by michael greene
I should have recalled the Scotland match since I was there. To this day, the worst US game I have ever seen:

Wednesday, April 22 United States 3, Austria 0
Saturday, May 16 United States 0, Macedonia 0
Sunday, May 24 United States 2, Kuwait 0
Saturday, May 30 United States 0, Scotland 0

True, not exactly a runaway train, but that year we also defeated Brazil, Sweden and Costa Rica, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe those mediocre results spurred Sampson to try and change too much, too soon, but I think he had the program going in the right direction. He just didn't manage the personalities of the team well, which admittedly, is a big part of the job. Bruce benefited from coming into a situation in which change was obviously needed, and had a sort of mandate to do what he wanted. Plus, he had the success of VA/DCU as credentials.

It was 98 degrees at the Scotland game. Hard to do much of anything in that weather. Scheduling Kuwait and Macedonia was a bit of a cluster fuuuck, but at that time it was probably difficult for us to get good games. Still, it was imperative that we got better competition.

[flanoverseas]

Originally posted by michael greene

True, not exactly a runaway train, but that year we also defeated Brazil, Sweden and Costa Rica, so it wasn't all bad. IIRC, we didn't play a 3-6-1 in those games, did we? I thought that it was something that he changed very soon before the cup.I'm not sure if it was the last game before we left for France, but I remember the 3-6-1 putting a 3-0 flogging on Austria, in Vienna. I'm sure many fans thought the team was headed in the right direction, before controversy and reality set it.I admittedly know a lot more about our team and the sport in comparison to '98, but I do remember wondering what the hell Eric Wynalda was going to be able to do against top defenses in the WC as the lone forward. EW was great for us, but that formation was doomed from the beginning. Didn't Argentina try it this last time around? And France?

I had high hopes for the U.S., but I wasn't real surprised.

(not picking on you MG. :))

[michael greene]

Originally posted by flanoverseas
IIRC, we didn't play a 3-6-1 in those games, did we? I thought that it was something that he changed very soon before the cup.

Good point re: the debut of the 3-6-1. That might have happened during the Austria match. I guess my point is that Sampson had done some good things with the team prior to that, and I saw the formation change as his attempt to integrate some new players into the lineup to prepare for the Cup. It obviously generated some resentment among folks like Harkes, Agoos, etc. and backfired on him. Not to be dramatic, but '98 was a cusp year for US soccer; from bad teams to the team we have today that can play some quality football. Sampsons biggest mistake is that he didn't manage the changing of the guard well, IMHO.

Considering the Central American soccer culture, perhaps we will see a 1-6-3 when the US visits the Monsters Cave?

[Mr Martin]

Yes, Steve Sampson messed up at the 98 WC. But he had a nice career overall, won some big games with the team (at Copa America, vs. Brazil), and he now has a unique opportunity for an American coaching a foriegn national team.

Real US soccer fans should be cheering for him. I wish him the best of luck, except when playing the US.

We should also get off the tired, old 3-6-1 lament as well. Formations are just a starting point in soccer and lose much meaning as a game unfolds and players face matchups and movement. Heck, that free-flowing nature of the game is one of the attractive things about it.

Tell me there is much difference between a 3-6-1 with one forward and two attacking central mids compared to a 3-5-2 with two forwards and one attacking mid. Sampson only used the 3-6-1 for one game at the 98WC anyway. Jeesh...

Players matter much more than formation.

Sampson messed up in getting the player mix wrong. I don't mind the 3-6-1 or the 3-5-2 at all if you bring along the right players, but Sampson didn't. He brought a 4-4-2 team with some conflicting personality issues and tried to shoe-horn them into something else. If he had had the right players to play a 3-6-1 or a 3-5-2, the story could have been different, but he didn't have the right players.

Look at the 3 WC98 losses. They played a 3-6-1 against Germany and a 3-5-2 in the Iran and Yugo games. But he didn't have the right players on the roster or on the field. For example, in game #1, Mike Burns, a career outside defender, played RIGHT MIDFIELD!!! But that position required a speedy work-horse type of player. The whole right side was a disaster in the first half. When a more appropriate player, Frankie Hejduk, stepped in for the 2nd half, the US actually took over much of the game (go watch the tape, the US looked pretty good in the 2nd half until Klinsmann made Dooley look like me).

Then against Iran, Sampson switched to a 3-5-2, but again he didn't have the right type of players. Heck, Joe-Max Moore and Tab Ramos started as DEFENSIVE MIDS!!! Just tink about that for a moment. And think about where the 1st goal was scored from -- the defensive mid's responsibility. The player mix was all wrong.

So, yes, Sampson messed up, but the 3-6-1 wasn't the reason and wasn't used very much. 3-6-1 is just a starting point in a free-flowing game. The player mix was wrong, both personality-wise and skill-wise.

Good luck SS!!!

[Arisrules]

Calm down guys. The 3-6-1 didn't work out with Argentina last year. No matter what anyone says, Batistuta was all alone up top.


Looking back, I think the run to the WC for that team was amazing. We defeated Brazil (obviously with the heroics of Keller and Preki) in one heck of a game.

Also, we had a chance to pull out a victory against Yugo and Iran. The fact is Sampson didn't have the personnel that BA has.

[SamsArmySam]

Originally posted by Mr Martin
Look at the 3 WC98 losses. They played a 3-6-1 against Germany and a 3-5-2 in the Iran and Yugo games. But he didn't have the right players on the roster or on the field. For example, in game #1, Mike Burns, a career outside defender, played RIGHT MIDFIELD!!! But that position required a speedy work-horse type of player. The whole right side was a disaster in the first half. When a more appropriate player, Frankie Hejduk, stepped in for the 2nd half, the US actually took over much of the game (go watch the tape, the US looked pretty good in the 2nd half until Klinsmann made Dooley look like me).

Then against Iran, Sampson switched to a 3-5-2, but again he didn't have the right type of players. Heck, Joe-Max Moore and Tab Ramos started as DEFENSIVE MIDS!!! Just tink about that for a moment. And think about where the 1st goal was scored from -- the defensive mid's responsibility. The player mix was all wrong.


Ahhh, the dog days of WC98! Seriously, thank you for the recap. I'd already forgotten some of the gory details.

Originally posted by Mr Martin
I wish him the best of luck, except when playing the US.


Amen to that, brother. It will be a grudge match indeed.

[USA4Life]

Lets all relax.

Germany scored the only goal that mattered on a corner kick.

The formation made no difference.

[Bruce S]

Sampson got good results coaching Bora's team. When he was eventually forced to bulid his own team he had not a clue.

[Triggerfish]

Originally posted by USA4Life
Lets all relax.

Germany scored the only goal that mattered on a corner kick.

The formation made no difference.

And let us not forget how they scored on the corner kick, either...by sqeezing the ball between the post and the player who was supposed to be covering the post. Sad, sad, sad...

[lurking]

SS is the ultimate yank abroad, and I hope he does well coaching CR (except vs. the US). Its good to have at least 3 strong teams in the region, and its good for our coaches to show that they are of international caliber, and that we arent being just a bunch of provincial hicks for selecting coaches from our own country.

As for his coaching credentials, people put too much emphasis on 1 spectacular failure, and none on any of his successes. Apparently you get 1 shot and thats it in peoples minds. Well CR is giving him a second shot, lets see what he makes of it.