Keeping Devil US Knew?

[Grandpa Goal]

http://www.soccertimes.com/oped/2006/jul16.htm

Soccer Times Op Ed by Andrew Rogers

"In the conversations I had, the word coming out of the national-team dressing room have been positive and imply a level of respect that is rare in modern football. This was enhanced by the fact that the players looked to themselves, rather than the figurehead, in relation to the supposed lack of success. So with strong performances, a huge amount of experience and control over the dressing room, where was the necessity in heading for managerial pastures new?"

Wonder who and when he talked to his sources. If it was Reyna, Donovan, or the coaching staff, would we expect anything different? If it was other people, were they still intimidated? Article looks like a "plant" to me.

[StillKickin]

I don't think it's a plant at all. Seems pretty good in its arguments.

And as for your comments re: who he must have talked to in the locker room:
well, here are some quotes from players re: Bruce:

"I don’t think it was anybody’s fault, just as a team in general we didn’t perform right"
- Carlos Bocanegra

"It's tough to see a good coach leave, especially with what he's done for the sport of soccer in this country...The way I see it, if it's not broke, don't fix it."
- Clint Dempsey

"Bruce makes good decisions. I’m fine with all of his decisions.”
- Steve Cherundolo

"Guys were in their positions. It’s on guys to perform wherever they’re playing. That's never been an issue."
- Landon Donovan, when asked if Arena's lineups/formations were a factor in their losses

Doesn't appear to me that it's only the "status quo" who are in support of Bruce or there's any kind of intimidation factor.

*quotes courtesy of a post by miked9 in another thread. Thanks.

[superdave]

1. That guy needs a proofreader. That was some horrible and imprecise writing, to the point of distraction.
2. Bruce deserves to be sacked because his tactics at the Cup were stupid, and that was obvious before the fact, and he gave us very little chance to succeed. He lost his mojo. It happens.

[illinizissou]

The article says:

Getting to the quarterfinals in one tournament does not mean next time around means a trip to the semis, even if the squad is perceived to be better. Most nations go into the World Cup believing their side is superior to previous campaign.

Furthermore, given the quality of the opposition, I would go as far to suggest Arena showed the side was still progressing, even though it did not reach its full potential. But, then again, most nations don't. That is the nature of international football.

I'm absolutely stunned that anyone, and I mean ANYONE who saw the gutless, heartless effort the US put up against the CR would ever say that the US side was progressing.

[NBlue]

The article says:



I'm absolutely stunned that anyone, and I mean ANYONE who saw the gutless, heartless effort the US put up against the CR would ever say that the US side was progressing.

I was at Schalke Arena for that match.

And I was also in Kaiserslautern for the match against Italy. Frankly, I have never seen our team play with more guts or heart than they did there.

Inconsistency was the touchstone of our performance at this Cup and BA is rightly criticized for it. Still, if one looks at one game in isolation one can take any position one wants.

His point, which to me is well taken, is that progress cannot be measure in total by the US performance in Germany but must viewed in the greater context of our squad's overall advancement over the last several years. I disagree, but only to an extent and I remain of two minds as to the overall decision to fire Bruce. I suppose I come down on the side of those who agree it was the right thing to do but only because I think the public and media constantly clamoring for his head if we were to, tie Jamaica, or the like would be detrimental to our continued development and severely undermine player confidence.

[illinizissou]

Still, if one looks at one game in isolation one can take any position one wants.

To say a team is "still progressing" requires someone to look at more than one game. Considering the Ghana and CR games and the overall US performance I don't really see how anyone could claim that was progress.

[LORDEYE]

I don't think it's a plant at all. Seems pretty good in its arguments.

And as for your comments re: who he must have talked to in the locker room:
well, here are some quotes from players re: Bruce:



Doesn't appear to me that it's only the "status quo" who are in support of Bruce or there's any kind of intimidation factor.

*quotes courtesy of a post by miked9 in another thread. Thanks.

By the time this WC had ended, it was clear that the US team was "progressing" in exactly the same way a Soviet 5-Year Plan was progressing to the Radiant and Brilliant Future.:rolleyes:

[LORDEYE]

I was at Schalke Arena for that match.

And I was also in Kaiserslautern for the match against Italy. Frankly, I have never seen our team play with more guts or heart than they did there.

Inconsistency was the touchstone of our performance at this Cup and BA is rightly criticized for it. Still, if one looks at one game in isolation one can take any position one wants.

His point, which to me is well taken, is that progress cannot be measure in total by the US performance in Germany but must viewed in the greater context of our squad's overall advancement over the last several years. I disagree, but only to an extent and I remain of two minds as to the overall decision to fire Bruce. I suppose I come down on the side of those who agree it was the right thing to do but only because I think the public and media constantly clamoring for his head if we were to, tie Jamaica, or the like would be detrimental to our continued development and severely undermine player confidence.

Yes, in the SECOND HALF, when the situation with cards had thrown Arena's "master plan" into the gutter, and so the players simply had to rely on themselves and improvisation, then, and only then, did the team seem inspired. And even then, with his "all I want is a tie and 2 front teeth" version of sideline leadership, refusing to even use the last sub and try for victory, Arena was the one significant downer we had in that second half.
And the other 5 halves this team played? Stilted and undaring play, seemingly more fearful of deviating from Arenaball than hungering for victory.
If there was any progress over the last three years, it came from the upswell of yankee talent, which overrode somewhat even Bruces dunderheaded, almost Svenian, fixation on his favorites who no longer had it, or were injured, or never had it [Wolff, Pope, O'Brien, Reyna, Lewis, and to some extent McBride and Keller].
For a long time I was a fervent Bruce supporter, as those who peopled the BBCs 606 can testify. But, when the sick truth hit, this spring, that his claims of honestly considering all available talent without prejudice, and that stellar performance in the January-February camp and current form would be the proper measure, were just PR balderdash, and that he had always intended to go with the old, almost no matter how they objectively stood now, the Illusion that is Bruce was revealed. And through his management of this squad through the WC preliminaries and the group round, a consistent trail of hesitant and lackluster play conjoined with indifferent use of tactics and substitutions [at best], and gad awful leadership in reaction to what occurred, what was revealed was a man who had simply lost it and had to go.

[superdave]

And the other 5 halves this team played? Stilted and undaring play, seemingly more fearful of deviating from Arenaball than hungering for victory.
JMO, but that strikes me as a very unfair characterization of our first half against Italy. Their goal was definitely against the run of play.

[DurlP]

Bruce is a players coach. They love him.

But if players decided who stayed, half the coaches of any sport would never get fired.

[MrSparkle]

"Arena, through his success in South Korea and Japan, created a level of expectation that did not match the reality of U.S. soccer. "

I might get crucified, but I think that is a valid point, one I tried to get across to my buddies who joined the wagon following 02. We have a good team, but so do a lot of other countries in this world.

[RSwenson]

There is no downside to a player supporting a recently fired coach...

-they get to look noble...
-they show whoever the incoming coach is that they can be loyal...
-and they know that they won't be stuck with him, even if they have disagreements...

It is really a no-brainer and only shows that we have intelegent players (despite their gutless, heartless, frightened performances against Czech and Ghana)...

rand

[Ringo]

keeping the devil the us knew? I thought this was going to be a thread about hiring a mexican coach.

come to think of it, wouldn't hiring hugh sanchez (is that his name?) really piss off the mexicans? we should interview him just to get them riled up down south of the ol' 2-0 border.

:D

[Adam Zebrowski]

the biggest quation is...

is gulati capable of pulling off hiring a coach to take the usmnt to a higher level??

who's making the actual decision...

i more trust arena to make a correct choice, NO, not hiring himself, BUT selecting a pool from which the final guy gets picked from....

could gukati be MORE in over his head than we realize now...

or does ussf have the suffiicient selection process and ability to make the right choice??

[StillKickin]

By the time this WC had ended, it was clear that the US team was "progressing" in exactly the same way a Soviet 5-Year Plan was progressing to the Radiant and Brilliant Future.:rolleyes:
I didn't say I agreed with the guy; just said he had some good arguments, i.e., pros and cons and not just some off-the-wall emotional blathering. [and to be honest, I think I kind of glossed over/misread his "progress" stuff. :o

I think it was a good thing that Bruce was "let go."

And I also don't think it's unusual for the majority of the players to be supportive of Bruce.

[haven]

In defense of the writer, I think he's right that there's a real probability that the replacement could be an inferior manager to Arena. I don't want to make this about individual choices, but I think that many of us would say that, in the abstract, Arena is a better manager than some of the names currently mentioned. If we get Klinnsman or another eminent figure - great. If we end up with Arena-lite...well, why did we sack the better model?

[DonJuego]

The article says:



I'm absolutely stunned that anyone, and I mean ANYONE who saw the gutless, heartless effort the US put up against the CR would ever say that the US side was progressing.

CR beat us 5-1 in 1990. So we are progressing.

All kidding aside, I seriously disagree with you. If Rosicky's shot knuckles 6" right, his shot misses. If Reyna's shot bends 6" right, it scores. If those two things happen then that game finishes 1-1, or 2-1 CZR most likely, and none of you are unhappy or think the performance is "heartless and gutless." You look at our play a decade ago and we are not close. We are close now. We clearly have improved. We still have a way to go.

[DonJuego]

~~~ long rambling post basically saying Arena played the wrong players.




Who would you have played rather than those who were played?

[DonJuego]

Though I disagree with some of the article, I agree with the main thesis. We may well wind up with a worse coach. Especially we might get one unable to meet the unique demands of being the USMNT Manager that Arena excelled at.

I don't defend everything Arena did. I often disagreed with some of his decisions. But I've been around long enough to not assume the next guy will have done different. I also think he has as much capacity to learn from past mistakes as we do when we second guess him. We also get to claim results would have been different if only he had ..... [insert all you people's ideas]. Yet only his decisions have results attached to them, while all you critics have never lost or drawn a match.

A recurring theme I've read is bitching about player selection. I can't think of one clearly-better player who was left home or on the bench. (Save JOB but we are led to believe fitness was the issue -- witness he is not playing for Chivas now.) I would love to read opinions to the contrary that specify which player should have been on and which one off. Every one who screamed for Eddie Johnson -- did you watch his nightmare against Ghana in the second half? I like EJ, but he is no clear difference maker.

Having said all that, I got the impression watching Arena that he was burned out and sick of the ugly part of the job. The stupid hounding from press and fans who have not a clue. The microscope of questioning and second guessing from every quarter, none of which seem to understand that to most problems he must deal with there is no perfect answer, and often not a right one available. I think Arena's heart was out the door and he was looking forward to the end. I'm just guessing here from quotes and body language.

[sidefootsitter]

Though I disagree with some of the article, I agree with the main thesis. We may well wind up with a worse coach... But you can fire this guy as well.

And then keep firing them until you get it right.

Arena was only the forth one in the post-90s era.

He won't be the last.