Arena, the prophet of doom

[tab5g]

2010 is ONE TOURNAMENT, 4 YEARS AWAY!

2014 is 8 years away! 8 years away! You are telling me you KNOW the future of that tournament? Hell, Brazil might not even qualify (yup, I said it- they likely will, but it is entirely within the range of possibility that they won't).

England didn't qualify in 1994. France didn't either. France didn't get out of the first round in 2002. Argentina didn't either. Face it, only God knows who is going to 'win consistently' at the 2010 and 2014, and he sure as heck didn't tell Bruce (or Bruce wouldn't have wasted his time begging for his job back the other day).

But, of course, that didn't stop Bruce from playing God (Bruce says,
"I KNOW......")

BTW- I find this 'reasonableness' so appealing as an American. We built our country on it, now didn't we?

right, it is one tournament. i took Arena's quote to be in the context of consistency.

anything can happen in one tournament, or not happen as you have pointed out. we don't know the question Arena was responding to, but the writer of the article made it seem like it had something to do with consistent success.

Arena's opinion or assessment of what will (in his mind) or likely could happen in 2010 or 2014 for the USMNT is just one guy's opinion. it is easy to disagree with, but that doesn't mean it is wrong (or right) or ruining soccer in this country.

[tab5g]

BTW- I find this 'reasonableness' so appealing as an American. We built our country on it, now didn't we? Why did the European basketball squads take this 'reasonableness' message from the 1992 Barcelona Olympics that they could never catch up to the US superiority in talent, and therefore they'd have no chance at any major international basketball tournament?

What a waste of time their efforts have been! What have they done since then?

i hope for US Soccer to improve as much as (or even more than) other nations have improved in basketball.

it would also be nice if Brazil, Italy, Germany, etc. suddenly had soccer stars refusing (or finding excuses not) to play for their national teams, and the level of excellence maintained by the top countries were to slip so the rest of the soccer world could catch up (kinda like how US basketball had some really substandard years there).

but, i think US Soccer's road to improvement and consistent success will be a bit more involved, and the level of international football competition at the WC finals level won't be slipping anytime soon, or ever.

[JoeW]

This is an oft-repeated falsehood.

While a national roster's quality can be measured by the market value of its individual players, one must not ignore the team factors either. For example, a team size and a team speed could add up to give an individually lower rated side a significant advantage visavis its assumed worth.

In other words, a team like Ghana can compete against the nations with greater individual pedigrees because it has a very good speed-size ratio for its top 11-15 players. As I had pointed out in another thread, Ghana started players who were employed in Israel, Serbia, Ghana and Denmark, which by definition places them far below a team like Czechia with its AC Milan-Juve-Ajax-Chelsea-Arsenal contingent ... yet, Ghana dominated the game and won deservingl (snip)

That's a terrible example. Ghana has been dominant in two consecutive U17 World Cups--they've produced two very deep and talented sides. Now you see, if the roles were reversed (and we'd had two dominant U17 sides recently), I'd absolutely buy the argument that there is talent in the pipeline. I believe (based upon what I saw at the WC), that Ghana had a more talented roster than did the USA. And based upon U17 results, it is reasonable to argue that Ghana has more talent in the pipeline than does the USA and those should be ahead of the USA in 2010 or 2014.

But what the Ghana example tells you is that you have have phenomenal talent in the pipeline (better talent than the USA had at similar events) and most of it ends up playing in Israel or doesn't turn out to be great. I"d ready somewhere that a FIFA study found that 1 out of 18 U17 WC players with an extended professional career. What that says is that the "mortality rate" of young players is high--most of the Nguyens and Adus and Altidores never turn out to be stars or even solid pros.

I agree that you don't determine a NT's ability on the basis of their transfer fees. Nor is about who has the most pros (then let's crown China as WC champions) or the most playing at a high level (that's probably England than). The Netherlands puts the lie to all this: small country, not rich clubs, tremendous talent, two WC finalists, two European champions. But at some point the size of the pool does matter. If you've got Cruyjff and Neeskens and Rensenbrink and Haan in your pool, you don't need a big pool (ie: 500 first division pros) to be good.

Let's choose just one example: let's assume that Reyna injury in the warmup doesn't recover in time. And assume that Donovan sprains an ankle. Our attacking midfielder at that point is.....uh...Convey? Josh Wolff? DMB? Tab Ramos comes out of retirement again? We're a really shallow pool right now--deeper than it was (in earlier years it wasn't a pool but a puddle or a couple of drops from a spilled glass) but still so shallow that we can't handle much adversity. Take another example: name the Czechs 4 best attackers and you probably have Nedved, Barros, Smicer and Koller. The played the entire WC without 2 of those guys and most of it without Koller. And they didn't advance. Stuff like that happens and (as bad as an England was this WC), you need to be able to put in Crouch when Owen and Rooney go down.

I totally agree that "team" factors are critical here. That is why a North Korea could upset an Italy. That's one of the reasons the USA has been competitive in the past--Arena has worked to build a strong team (cohesive, clear roles, lots of games together). That is also why the Netherlands has been so inconsistent in the WC in the past and probably Spain for that matter as well. But even then, both of those countries have better WC records and are more likely to get seeded in future WCs than the USA--primarily b/c they have so much talent that even with poor coaching or a team that lacks cohesion or has critical gaps, they're competitive enough to be strong. It's an illusion to think that we're going to win a WC in the next two cycles because we become a better team WITHOUT a significant upgrade in talent (both in width and depth--significantly better players and more of them). And even then, we could be the "94 Colombia, "02 Portugal, "06 Czech Republic, etc.--a team with talent that got some bad breaks, or had a bad coach, or got into a tough group. and then we don't even advanced to the knock-out stages.

[Soccernethost]

Voros, how is saying that we won't CONSISTENTLY be successful at the cup in the next eight years the same as saying we won't get LUCKY like Greece?

[Soccernethost]

How did Ghana do in the 2002 World Cup? 1998? 1994?

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

That's a terrible example. Ghana has been dominant in two consecutive U17 World Cups--they've produced two very deep and talented sides. .

I thought most of their youth dominance was from playing overage guys?? Didn't they have a title taken away.....???

Or am I thinking of somewhere else?

[golazo68]

it would also be nice if Brazil, Italy, Germany, etc. suddenly had soccer stars refusing (or finding excuses not) to play for their national teams, and the level of excellence maintained by the top countries were to slip so the rest of the soccer world could catch up (kinda like how US basketball had some really substandard years there).

.

But you don't even try to hard enough to find similiar alternatives in soccer.

It is highly likely that one of the reason traditional 'powers' did so poorly at the 2002 was the long, grueling season (which doesn't seem to be getting any shorter). In addition to league games, there are national team, several Cups, etc. You play on a top European team a lot AND your team goes deep into competitions- what happens?

Will this be the case at every tournament for every player? No. It will happen at some tournaments, for some players..but it massively effect that team's overall performance.

Do you think Frank Lampard's issues at this World Cup are totally related to 'choking'? Don't you think the fact that the guy plays in-tense, box-2-box and played a ton of games over the past 2 years has anything to do with it?

Being tired or unfit can make a superstar player suddely look average. Being in a team in which you are playing out of position, or not comfortable (Ronaldinho) can have a huge effect on performance.

This should be obvious stuff.

What is also amazing: There is some sort of underlying assumption amongst Bruce 'supporters' on this thread that he did the maximum. best possible job at this past World Cup. In other words, there is NO other coach in the world could have squeezed better performance out of the 2006 group. No one could have prevented the Czech debacle, or pulled out a win vs. Italy or Ghana. I find that insinuation absurd. The sub-standard coaching was a material (but not the only) factor in our poor performance- just like finding a better coach for 2010 and 2014 could be a material factor in the US doing better.

A clear example is Bruce's total lack of offensive acuman + tactics. Players on the 2006 team have commented in the past that Bruce basically DOESN'T GIVE advice on the offensive end. Let's compare this with how a Hiddink operates, and you tell me that Hiddink doesn't get more out of his players.

[tab5g]

How did Ghana do in the 2002 World Cup? 1998? 1994?

they consistently didn't show up at the WC finals, whereas the US did.

but for consistent results at the WC finals, the USA still needs to improve and develop or the pattern of '90, '94, '98, '02, '06 could and probably will continue. nothing will be handed to the USMNT, or Ghana or Greece or Brazil. The good teams will improve, and the best teams will consistently be at the top.

[golazo68]

Voros, how is saying that we won't CONSISTENTLY be successful at the cup in the next eight years the same as saying we won't get LUCKY like Greece?

You keep saying eight years- like they play the tournament every 6 months. We are talking one tournament in the next 7 years! And then another in year 8!

Oh, when Greece does wins, they are 'lucky'. When Italy does it, they are 'good'. I get it. Was the Italy PK against Australia due to Italy's superior skill, or getting lucky that the Australian player made a bonehead play. If it is latter, did the Italian who squibbed a shot in for a US goal- was that 'unlucky' or an 'untalented' play?

So, in 2002, was France 'unlucky' or were they just not good?
In 1994, when England didn't qualify- were they 'unlucky' or just not good.
Italy beat Germany 4-1 just a few months ago- so clearly they are much more talented than Germany. But wait, didn't Italy need all of 120 minutes to score on Germany at the World Cup just past? What was 'lucky', what was 'good'??

And RATT screams: "Round and round"...

[tab5g]

What is also amazing: There is some sort of underlying assumption amongst Bruce 'supporters' on this thread that he did the maximum. best possible job at this past World Cup. In other words, there is NO other coach in the world could have squeezed better performance out of the 2006 group. No one could have prevented the Czech debacle, or pulled out a win vs. Italy or Ghana. I find that insinuation absurd. The sub-standard coaching was a material (but not the only) factor in our poor performance- just like finding a better coach for 2010 and 2014 could be a material factor in the US doing better.

A clear example is Bruce's total lack of offensive acuman + tactics. Players on the 2006 team have commented in the past that Bruce basically DOESN'T GIVE advice on the offensive end. Let's compare this with how a Hiddink operates, and you tell me that Hiddink doesn't get more out of his players.

for this thread, it would be useful to try to separate your thoughts on and level of support for Arena's tactical decisions and the 0-3, 1-1, 1-2 results obtained, from the quotes Arena made in the article linked in the first post of this thread.

i don't at all support most of Arena's managerial decisions during the WC in Germany (nor do I think he did the maximum possible with the team available), but i do see the logic in his line of thought with regards to consistent success for the USMNT. they are two separte things, and I try not to let my emotional reaction to a dissappointment as a fan cloud my view and analysis of the big picture.

[tab5g]

Oh, when Greece does it, they are 'lucky'. When Italy does it, they are 'good'.

Oh, when Greece does it once, they are 'lucky'. When Italy does it virtually tournament after tournament, they are 'consistently good'.

[golazo68]

The good teams will improve, and the best teams will consistently be at the top.

I guess then France and Argentina don't qualify based on 2002 (or do we make exceptions now?). After all, it seems kindof silly to count an exception as 1, when the sample size is only 2. Holland wasn't in Korea were they? No, they're not consistent. Portugal either.

Italy only made it to the 16 in Korea. Do we give them a pass?

Germany and Brazil- now there's 2 consistent teams we can count on. But wait- Germany played at home and had a fairly easy group. Were it a neutral country, would they have done so well? OK, let's still count Germany even if the next Cup is in Africa. And Brazil.

So Bruce is saying we won't win as consistently in 2010 and 2014 as Germany and Brazil have in the last 2 World Cups? I guess I would concur (although that's not what he said- I am massively helping Bruce here), although I certainly wouldn't say I KNOW IT (for a fact). That would be supremely arrogant. And wrong. And a naive thing to say (given all the factors that go into success and predicting tournaments that are 4 and 8 years away respectively).

[golazo68]

Oh, when Greece does it once, they are 'lucky'. When Italy does it virtually tournament after tournament, they are 'consistently good'.

A ha. So past performance is the only indictor of future performance. Are you a broker?

[golazo68]

and I try not to let my emotional reaction to a dissappointment as a fan cloud my view and analysis of the big picture.

Emotional? Bruce's comment was about the most emotionally-charged comment you can say-given the context. It threw out all the variables that any one who even analyzed one World Cup would understand, and not only that- it showed extreme arrogance is claiming he knew the outcomes of sporting events 4 and 8 years in advance.

I won't go into the self-serving and 'ass covering' part of it- since you clearly will not understand this important nuansce of Bruce's immaculate 'frame' job.

[sidefootsitter]

I find it interesting that so many people don't believe how true Arena's statements are... we WILL NOT consistently WIN against the best in the world for quite some time... Of course, this is just one of the problems with Arena's statement - its philosophical imprecision. "Winning consistently" at the WC level is just something that only Brazil and Germany do or maybe Italy, that's been in the final game 4 times in the last 10 Cups. As has been pointed out, England, France, the Netherlands, Czechia, Portugal, Denmark have all missed recent Cups by failing to qualify for them. Argentina had failed to advance from the group stage. This is not the NFL where winning 10 games per season is consistent enough. WC is a much higher plateau to achieve.

and we don't have enough TALENT in our program to completely make up the gap with the better teams in the next 10 year A few days ago, I was watching the Red Bulls - Crew highlights. 25 seconds into it, there's Marvell Wynne - all of 20 years old - picking up the ball near the midfield stripe and then just gliding around four Crew defenders as if they were standing still. Could he do that just three short months ago? Could he do it at the U-20s? Can he still do that consistently?

Get that kid two years in MLS under a decent MLS level coach, even if it's Arena, and he'll be snapped up by a big Euro club. By 2,010, he can be a splendid player.

Oh, but you know this can't possibly happen already?

That's a terrible example. Ghana has been dominant in two consecutive U17 World Cups--they've produced two very deep and talented sides. U-17s? Who cares? Really ... African nations dominate the youth championships because their athletes mature earlier. When has any of them done anything worthwhile at the Cup?

[illinizissou]

right, it is one tournament. i took Arena's quote to be in the context of consistency.

anything can happen in one tournament, or not happen as you have pointed out. we don't know the question Arena was responding to, but the writer of the article made it seem like it had something to do with consistent success.


Considering the US plays a fairly weak schedule, with the exception of the World Cup and the Olympics the USMNT is already consistently successful. The US already has consistantly been successful in CONCACAF, the Gold Cup, winning on US soil, friendlies, qualifing, etc.. Therefore the only possible direction of Bruce's comments are the World Cup and/or the Olympics. So saying "anything can happen in one tournament" doesn't relate to Bruce's comments since they were made specifically about that one (or two) tournament(s). He also specifically said:

Because I know that it's not going to happen in 2010, 2014

2010 & 2014 refer to one tournament, the World Cup. There's no way to change this quote to make it any less stupid. He doesn't know what's going to happen in 2010 or 2014. How could he know when he didn't even know what was going to happen in 2006?

[Rodan]

Voros, how is saying that we won't CONSISTENTLY be successful at the cup in the next eight years the same as saying we won't get LUCKY like Greece?
"CONSISTENTLY be successful at the cup in the next eight years "

This is so overtly obvious that it's entirely meaningless. There are only maybe four teams in the world who "consistently" successful in the World Cup. This we've established. Besides that, it doesn't even preclude that we'll be successful by some exceptional effort, "fluke", or managerial masterstoke - depending on your point of view - like we were in 2002. Just not consistently so.
Well, if that doesn't have you scratching your head...

So IMO the best that can be said about Arena's remarks is that they are boldy proclaimed platitudes. This, I'll admit, is not completely unthinkable.

The worse that can be said is that the ex coach is making semi-denigrating remarks about his country's talent pool and future performances in order to justify his own dubious role in the 2006 disappointment. Intuitively, this seems a little more on track to me - especially given Arena's earlier remarks.

But to claim these remarks are a kind of crying out in the wilderness, an effort by a devoted but hard-bitten pragmatist to stir his obtuse countrymen into action...well I find this notion fairly comic.

That just ain't Bruce I know.

[tab5g]

A few days ago, I was watching the Red Bulls - Crew highlights. 25 seconds into it, there's Marvell Wynne - all of 20 years old - picking up the ball near the midfield stripe and then just gliding around four Crew defenders as if they were standing still. Could he do that just three short months ago? Could he do it at the U-20s? Can he still do that consistently?


in ten or 12 years maybe the Crew defenders will be able to consistently defend a bit better as well.

this discussion needs to be about more than the skills/improvement of one player or the comments/beliefs of one coach.

[sidefootsitter]

in ten or 12 years maybe the Crew defenders will be able to consistently defend a bit better as well. But within two years, Wynne will have decent skills to go with his phenomenal speed. Within four years, he might have very good skills and still the same phenomenal speed.

But Arena knows this can't possibly happen?

[tab5g]

But within two years, Wynne will have decent skills to go with his phenomenal speed. Within four years, he might have very good skills and still the same phenomenal speed.

But Arena knows this can't possibly happen?

no, I think Arena believes that the improvements within the entire USMNT pool will not be enough to consistently be a top8 or so team at the next 2 World Cups.

He seems to believe top8 (or higher) success (and the ability to maintain that level) could happen by 2018.

Arena could be off in his thoughts, but I think he is being generally reasonable.