Klinsi and Plan B: Excellent Jen Chang Article

[Tony in Quakeland]

This just posted on ESPN.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=374034&root=us&cc=5901

Very good article and introduces a couple names worth discussing.

[golazo68]

The great thing about Chang is you never get the feeling that he writes to shock or stick out. He doesn't try to promote himself at the expense of others (Wynalda, Trecker) by trying to be flippant, caustic or cute.

No, he is more middle-of-the-road in his analysis (as any mature analyst should be- things are rarely black and white..and most soccer situations have material variables outside the control of the actionable parties).

Good show Jen Chang. Thanks for some needed sobriety and sensibility in the post-Cup debate.

[IndividualEleven]

Bruno Metsu. I'd forgotten about that dude.

[england66]

Klinsmann is a total no brainer....for the USA and for himself....IMO its a done deal and has been for awhile

[Tony in Quakeland]

Bruno Metsu. I'd forgotten about that dude.
My reaction exactly. I think (and hope) it will be Klinsmann, but he is an intriguing alternative.

[IndividualEleven]

My reaction exactly. I think (and hope) it will be Klinsmann, but he is an intriguing alternative.

A charismatic fellow who seems to have little problem fitting into different cultures.

[lurking]

"

Although the U.S. still lacks the abundance of technical players to play a short passing creative possession game along the lines of that of Spain or Portugal, the fact is the younger generation of U.S. talent -- such as Clint Dempsey, Freddy Adu, Justin Mapp and Lee Nguyen, etc. -- all show far more precocious on-the-ball ability than U.S. players (Tab Ramos excluded) typically have shown before. It's time to embrace a more rhythmic style and move away from the drilled-down structured approach the U.S. has adopted in recent years. A domestic coach simply is not going to bring this outlook."

I have a problem with this comment, as I feel both Houston and DC play a very fluid short style of soccer, and I think Yallop tried to bring this style of soccer to Canada, a team with less talent then the US. Id say Chivas is trying to play this style of soccer as well.

So in short, I dont think this statement holds true. There are a number of MLS coaches who would try to bring a flowing passing game to the US national team.

[sidefootsitter]

Gerets did not distinguish himself in Bundesliga with Kaiserslautern.

[Haig]

Bruno Metsu. I'd forgotten about that dude.

He's worth forgetting about. Senegal did a nice job hiring him, because he did well to bring a lot of the French-based Senegalese on board. But the comparison between Metsu's 2002 team and the 2006 side that didn't qualify seems specious. Senegal qualified over Morocco on goal differential, in a very tight group, right? And Togo picked up their necessary points to qualify on the last day, when a close match they were leading was suddenly abandoned to crowd trouble, edging them over Senegal. That was pretty controversial, but it's not like Senegal was great in 2002 qualifying and sucked in 2006-- they did pretty much the same.

A bunch of the Senegalese seem to have gotten a bit big for their britches after 2002-- El Hadji Diouf, who can't settle at a club for more than a year, and Henri Camara (who promised Celtic fans he would make them forget Henrik Larsson) come to mind. But didn't Metsu do the same damn thing? Didn't he take a job with South Korea, then, after he signed a contract, demanded more money? Did he really make a difference with Senegal, or did he-- possible like Bruce Arena and the USA-- just catch everyone by surprise, including his players? And why get a guy who is apparently pretty happy coaching a sort of bad UAE national team (who beat them in their AFC group? North Korea???), who knows jack and shit about MLS and USA players, and did he understand English at all in his interviews in Japan/Korea?

Garbage name that Chang threw out there. Just a coach with lots of buzz from 2002, who would fit better in a "whatever happened to.... ?" column. There are a few brilliant mercenaries out there, and Chang rightfully mentions Scolari and Hiddink. There are fakers out there too, like Terry Venables. But Metsu seems like a name out of a hat. Why not Pekerman? Why not Quieroz, or Lippi? I'm dreading the months of columns ahead where the name of anyone who had fleeting success with a country or club but nothing sustained and not the foggiest notion of the special challenges of assembling a USA team is touted like a damn patent medicine.

[Haig]

A charismatic fellow who seems to have little problem fitting into different cultures.

By converting to Islam, right? Will he become a Southern Baptist if he sets up shop in Cary, NC? And he sure as hell didn't "fit in" when he irritated the South Korean FA to the point that they told him to get stuffed, AFTER offering him a job.

[highlander]

I don't think that Klinsmann is the best possible match for the job. US fans have expectations for results that are not realistic, given where we are as a soccer nation at the moment. Out of control expectations, albeit a different kind, are what burned Klinsmann out from the German position.

I actually think that we are going to do well in the next World Cup, regardless of who the coach is(including if it is Klinsmann), but a foreign coach is going to have to deal with wildly out of control expectations along the way. It is important for the coach to understand the unique nature of the type of out of control situation that he is getting into.

Also, let's get something straight. A foreign coach can get you through one World Cup, but then is gone. They tend to have less impact on the country's development because they are not familiar enough with the culture to do that AND lead the national team at the same time. If Klinsmann wasn't willing to even live in Germany as their coach, what makes people think that he is going to want to spend time improving our system of player development? To truly become a soccer power, we have to develop domestic coaches that can lead our national team on the World's stage.

If we have to hire a foriegn coach for the time being, then fine. It is just really, really important not to think that this is the long term answer for American soccer. It can be a short-term, quick-fix, but nothing more. Bora was a nice, short-term, quick-fix. He got us to the second round of the World Cup, but upset both casual and die hard fans with his decidedly un-American defensive approach. He served his purpose. Let's just keep things in perspective as we search for a new short-term, quick-fix.

[DurlP]

Why not Pekerman?I can think of about 12 minutes at the end of a certain 1/4 final why not.

He singlehandedly lost that game for the Argentinians.

[Flyin Ryan]

I don't know anything about this guy Metsu, but I just couldn't see U.S. Soccer hiring a Frenchman, for purely marketing reasons.

[WJMarx]

...Also, let's get something straight. A foreign coach can get you through one World Cup, but then is gone... If Klinsmann wasn't willing to even live in Germany as their coach, what makes people think that he is going to want to spend time improving our system of player development? To truly become a soccer power, we have to develop domestic coaches that can lead our national team on the World's stage...

1) Every successful world soccer power uses this formula. They know that after 1 cycle a coach is out of fresh ideas and a new one is needed. Arena became stale right after WC 2002.

2) A Coach is hired to select and train the available talent.

3) A Technical Director is hired to oversee a system of player development. Unfortunately Arena was hired to do both, player development was largely ignored.

4) Finally, a domestic coach of world class must first be developed and then hired, not visa versa. There are no American coaches of this ilk currently. Hiring one solely due to his birth would be folly.

[Casper]

I can think of about 12 minutes at the end of a certain 1/4 final why not.

He singlehandedly lost that game for the Argentinians.

Couldn't be more true. That was a not only tragedy for Argentina, but also for fans wanting to see an exciting overtime. He really fell asleep at the switch.

[giffenbone]

He's worth forgetting about. Senegal did a nice job hiring him, because he did well to bring a lot of the French-based Senegalese on board. But the comparison between Metsu's 2002 team and the 2006 side that didn't qualify seems specious. Senegal qualified over Morocco on goal differential, in a very tight group, right? And Togo picked up their necessary points to qualify on the last day, when a close match they were leading was suddenly abandoned to crowd trouble, edging them over Senegal. That was pretty controversial, but it's not like Senegal was great in 2002 qualifying and sucked in 2006-- they did pretty much the same.

A bunch of the Senegalese seem to have gotten a bit big for their britches after 2002-- El Hadji Diouf, who can't settle at a club for more than a year, and Henri Camara (who promised Celtic fans he would make them forget Henrik Larsson) come to mind. But didn't Metsu do the same damn thing? Didn't he take a job with South Korea, then, after he signed a contract, demanded more money? Did he really make a difference with Senegal, or did he-- possible like Bruce Arena and the USA-- just catch everyone by surprise, including his players? And why get a guy who is apparently pretty happy coaching a sort of bad UAE national team (who beat them in their AFC group? North Korea???), who knows jack and shit about MLS and USA players, and did he understand English at all in his interviews in Japan/Korea?

Garbage name that Chang threw out there. Just a coach with lots of buzz from 2002, who would fit better in a "whatever happened to.... ?" column. There are a few brilliant mercenaries out there, and Chang rightfully mentions Scolari and Hiddink. There are fakers out there too, like Terry Venables. But Metsu seems like a name out of a hat. Why not Pekerman? Why not Quieroz, or Lippi? I'm dreading the months of columns ahead where the name of anyone who had fleeting success with a country or club but nothing sustained and not the foggiest notion of the special challenges of assembling a USA team is touted like a damn patent medicine.

glad I wasn't the only one who realized this about Metsu.

[sidefootsitter]

2) A Coach is hired to select and train the available talent.

3) A Technical Director is hired to oversee a system of player development. Unfortunately Arena was hired to do both, player development was largely ignored. Just saw an interview with Guus Hiddink and he says that one of the first things he was going to do was to talk to the Russian national youth coaches and officials.

[JoeW]

1. I think it's nonsense that you need to recycle WC coaches every 4 years b/c they're out of ideas. I would argue that most WC coaches turn over so quickly b/c of the pressure. Many of these guys get death-threats. Plus, most FA's are jerks to work for and a club generally offers better pay, more perks and more challenges (if you live for competition). So you get someone like a Matsu or Queiroz who does something internationally and then a club grabs them up.

For those who argue this is BS, then what about Helmut Schoen? That man was the coach for West Germany for far more than 4 years. I'm not trying to defend Arena here. In fact, Cheng hit the nail directly on the head here--Arena knew US soccer well, built up the confidence of our players and was a good manager. At X's and O's--not so good. And we got put in a group with 2 guys (Bruckner and Lippi) that are as good as it gets when you're talking game adjustments and tactics.

2. I don't think Klinsi is a done deal. He's my first choice now. But remember, the USNT plays MORE qualifiers than European teams do. We're talking about a full summer of soccer next year with first the Gold Cup (figure 2 week camp, 3 weeks of competition) and then the Copa (1 week of camp assuming we turn over most of the roster and 3 weeks of competition if we make it out of the group). Even with many of the Gold Cup games in LA (play Mexico? Guatemala? Honduras? in LA? That's dumb scheduling), that's still a lot of traveling. And remember, as host, Germany had very few games out of Germany and fewer matches to play prior to the WC.

3. Gerets and Metsu--both have pros and cons. Of course everyone would want Hiddink and Scolari--they're the no-brainers. If England flames out at the Euro Cup, those two guys are probably the top two choices for England. Ditto if Germany burns out. And in both cases we're talking about bringing them on just before qualification (which means that they're not involved in developing any players prior to qualification). Not exactly an ideal situation.

For those who argue that Gerets and Metsu aren't good enough, I think they're exactly the kind of coaches we've got a reasonable shot at hiring. Also on that list, I'd add Quireoz. Remember, the top two foreign choices the USA was looking at after "98 were: Andy Roxburgh (of Scotland and the FIFA technical staff) and Ruud Gullit. So if you could find out which member of the FIFA technical staff was assigned to watch the USA in this last WC, I think that coach is probably a contender as well (b/c they'd be knowledgable of our current team and would be impressive in the IV). Now, none of this means that Gerets, Metsu, Quireoz and FIFA Technical guy are 4 great choices. Just that those are the kinds of foreign coaches we're likely to have good (though not guaranteed) shots at who have international experience. After that, we're talking about guys like Rene Simoes, Thomas Dooley--in other words, coaches with significant gaps (either haven't ever been a head coach, or no international experience).

4. I would not be surprised in the least if this issue (NT coach) is not clearly and cleanly resolved for some time. If Kinsmann is serious, he may not be prepared to say "yes" until January 2007--if then (and it may be more like a year or longer). So it wouldn't surprise me if we were looking at an interim coach like Sigi Schmid or Glenn Myernick for 1-2 years.

5. I could be wrong but I thought I'd read somewhere that Jose Pekerman doesn't speak English. Certainly that would be a HUGE barrier to him coaching the NT. As for Lippi, I think he's brilliant but I can't for the life of me think of one reason why he'd want to coach here. There is tremendous turmoil in Italian football right now and I expect to see a lot more movement of players and coaches. Lippi is probably the name that every Italian club (and most super clubs in the rest of Europe) are muttering. SGE got about 24 million for 4 years (I think that was in dollars not Euros but I could be wrong) and I just don't think the USSF has that kind of change.

I do think Cheng's point about sophisticated attacking, the abilty to break down defenses by something other than a wide run and cross is a good point. I"m not sure how much of that is due to coaching: at DC United, Arena's teams weren't really noted for fast wingers who'd cross to the big target man.

[bwach]

Also, let's get something straight. A foreign coach can get you through one World Cup, but then is gone. They tend to have less impact on the country's development because they are not familiar enough with the culture to do that AND lead the national team at the same time.

I agree. Prior to the cup I felt the best route would be finding a new coach from within the US Soccer ranks who knew and understood the system that had been developed over the last 8 years and also understood a vision for where it was headed. While I like Chang's viewpoint, I still mostly feel that way.

Soccer is a sport that relies heavily on developing players that fit into and understand the system/style of play that is advocated by their coach. That's why I don't believe it's wise for a national team to jump from one coach to the next, and especially don't believe it when Chang mentiones that we need to drastically alter our system of play.

It's not the system in place that defines your success, rather how well you implement it and impose it on your opponent's flow of play. While I enjoy a more attacking style of play just as much as the next guy, I still have serious doubts about the team's technical capabilities and feel that we have a young core of players from this World Cup that know, understand, and believe in the system US Soccer is developing - it's not like the US or England have failed due to the "direct ball" approach they employ. The US has seen success with it and England loses on PKs (and to Brazil) every go-around.

Changing that drastically every four years by bringing in an outsider seems like folly to me.

[auf Amerika]

I don't think that Klinsmann is the best possible match for the job. US fans have expectations for results that are not realistic, given where we are as a soccer nation at the moment. Out of control expectations, albeit a different kind, are what burned Klinsmann out from the German position.

I actually think that we are going to do well in the next World Cup, regardless of who the coach is(including if it is Klinsmann), but a foreign coach is going to have to deal with wildly out of control expectations along the way. It is important for the coach to understand the unique nature of the type of out of control situation that he is getting into.

Also, let's get something straight. A foreign coach can get you through one World Cup, but then is gone. They tend to have less impact on the country's development because they are not familiar enough with the culture to do that AND lead the national team at the same time. If Klinsmann wasn't willing to even live in Germany as their coach, what makes people think that he is going to want to spend time improving our system of player development? To truly become a soccer power, we have to develop domestic coaches that can lead our national team on the World's stage.

If we have to hire a foriegn coach for the time being, then fine. It is just really, really important not to think that this is the long term answer for American soccer. It can be a short-term, quick-fix, but nothing more. Bora was a nice, short-term, quick-fix. He got us to the second round of the World Cup, but upset both casual and die hard fans with his decidedly un-American defensive approach. He served his purpose. Let's just keep things in perspective as we search for a new short-term, quick-fix.


Klinsmann IS American though. He lives here and his wife is American. And he was involved with US youth development before being hired by Germany simply because he was famous and they had nobody else from his generation of Germany players to hire.

Comparing him to other foreign coaches, especially Bora, isn't fair.