Arena, the prophet of doom

[sidefootsitter]

Arena took over the struggling New York Red Bulls on Tuesday, but also predicted that his former squad — the U.S. soccer team — would not win consistently at the World Cup until 2018.

"Why did I say 2018? Because I know that it's not going to happen in 2010, 2014," I know the quote has been posted in other threads but, since this totally pisses me off, I think this deserves an own thread.

Mods... back me up on this.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060719/ap_on_sp_so_ne/soc_mls_red_bulls_arena;_ylt=AqF.54GPxjJm0FukmEUd4pd2yLQF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

[lmorin]

Why does it piss you off? That he said it? Because it's true and you wish it weren't? Because you believe it's not true?

BA knows this team inside out. He knows full well what did or didn't happen at this WC and he saw all the other teams play. He knows the US has no striker who can score goals, let alone two, plus reasonable backups. He knows the US has no Viera-like central midfielder, and no Zidane-like playmaker. He knows Clint did well on the right, but there is nobody to back him up. He knows that nobody could get the ball to Donovan and that Donovan should probably have been in the midfield (but see the first issue--lack of strikers). He knows that the backs generally lack foot skills and there are no reasonable backups at either left or right (assuming there is even a reasonable left back to start with). He was able to look at left midfield and think that he had strength and depth in Convey, DMB and Lewis, but that's about it. Off course, for whatever reason, he felt DMB had to be played over Dempsey, but he knows how that story played out. Sure, there have been grand improvements to the general quality of the starters, but the team has only reached stage 2 of its development (stage 1 = try to get into the WC; stage 2 = get to the WC every time; stage 3 = defeat Euro teams regularly (33% of the time) in Europe; stage 4 = get out of the WC group stage nearly all the time; stage 5 = have a realistic chance of going beyond the round of 16).

[JohnR]

Pretty simple - he says that the newest crop of professionals won't cut it.

2014 would be 8 years from now, making the current 17 to 21 year old set between 25 and 29 years old. The heart of the 2018 team. Arena is saying, they ain't that good. Spector. Nguyen. Altidore. Bradley. Freilhaber. Wynne. And so forth.

[dcole]

I'm not really sure what it means to say that we won't "win consistently" at the world cup until 2018. What does it mean to "win consistently" in a tournament like the World Cup? In most cases, one win, one tie and one loss gets you out of group play, so advancing to the knock-out rounds does not require "winning consistently."

If he's saying that we won't win consistently in the knock out rounds, well, what team does win consistently in the knock out rounds? Three teams (Germany, Italy and Brazil) have made it to the semis in three of the last five world cups, and France made it to the semis in two of the last five world cups. No other country has made it to the semis more than once in the last five cups.

At best, I think you could say that Germany, Italy and Brazil "win consistently" at the world cup. France, maybe. Nobody else. Not Argentina, not England, not Portugal and certainly not Spain.

In other words, I don't think it's really saying anything to say that we won't win consistently until 2018. In fact, if anything it's a stretch to say that we will win consistently in 2018.

Now, if he's saying that we don't have a good chance to make to the last 8 before 2018, I call BS on that one. I think we have a very good chance to make it to the last 8 in one or both of the next two cups. And I wouldn't be surprised if we made it to the semis in 2010 or 2014. But I'd have to agree that we won't be able to say that we "win consistently" at the world cup anytime in the near future.

Bruce is a master at the seemingly meaningful but actually meaningless sound bite. It happens way too often to be accidental.

[golazo68]

I know the quote has been posted in other threads but, since this totally pisses me off, I think this deserves an own thread.

Mods... back me up on this.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060719/ap_on_sp_so_ne/soc_mls_red_bulls_arena;_ylt=AqF.54GPxjJm0FukmEUd4pd2yLQF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce- have you learned nothing from this past World Cup?

Keep your mouth shut. You will need that extra energy to figure out a way to get NYRB to the mountain top.

The comments were inappropriate to say the least. Is Bruce this hell bent in destroying the mostly good memories we have of him?

[JRstriker12]

It does kind of tick me off that he's badmouthing the US team now. I mean, would have have said that while he was coach? Probably not.

We aren't a soccer world power, but there's no need to cast a dark shadow on the next coach to take over the U.S. program.

However, the odds are on Bruce's side. Let's be real. What team "wins consistenly" in the world cup besides, maybe Brazil?

[MightyMouse]

LOL! Comments like that just fuel the fire. When we win the world cup we can tall him to shove it. Now, we just have to win the world cup... right... well... get on with it people!!! MOVE IT MOVE IT MOVE IT, GO GO GO GO!!!!

[DoctorD]

This prepares the ground for someone who works for the richest club team in the US to demand changes in the way MLS develops youth players.

[dcc134]

I'm not so sure he is that far off the mark. In 2010 are we going to have a roster full of players comparable to that of the final 8 in this past WC? I'd argue not. Will we in 2014? Maybe.

Assuming the next generation is full of players capable of developing into starters for the top 20 clubs in the world, they are still at least 4 to 8 years away from their prime.

In 2010 the US squad is still going to be alot of mid level euros, MLS players, with maybe 1 or 2 players at the highest level. Its just not enough to consistently win WC matches, especially if the other teams scout us.

The US may win some games at the next couple WC's, but to EXPECT deep runs is unrealistic.

[tab5g]

one man's doom is another man's reasonableness.


i have no problem with an outgoing coach establishing/claiming a more realistic set of goals for the team he is no longer in charge of.

there's no need for Arena to put any real level of expectation on the next coaching staff selected. actually seems pretty classy to me for Arena to state that he doesn't expect miracles by 2010 or 2014.

[golazo68]

Why does it piss you off? That he said it? Because it's true and you wish it weren't? Because you believe it's not true?

BA knows this team inside out. He knows full well what did or didn't happen at this WC and he saw all the other teams play. He knows the US has no striker who can score goals, let alone two, plus reasonable backups. He knows the US has no Viera-like central midfielder, and no Zidane-like playmaker. He knows Clint did well on the right, but there is nobody to back him up. He knows that nobody could get the ball to Donovan and that Donovan should probably have been in the midfield (but see the first issue--lack of strikers). He knows that the backs generally lack foot skills and there are no reasonable backups at either left or right (assuming there is even a reasonable left back to start with). He was able to look at left midfield and think that he had strength and depth in Convey, DMB and Lewis, but that's about it. Off course, for whatever reason, he felt DMB had to be played over Dempsey, but he knows how that story played out. Sure, there have been grand improvements to the general quality of the starters, but the team has only reached stage 2 of its development (stage 1 = try to get into the WC; stage 2 = get to the WC every time; stage 3 = defeat Euro teams regularly (33% of the time) in Europe; stage 4 = get out of the WC group stage nearly all the time; stage 5 = have a realistic chance of going beyond the round of 16).

It is not appropriate for a guy who just 1 month (and for many weeks before that) represented publicly, on many occasions, that he planned that the US Men's National Team would be 'staying awhile' (meaning- at least group of 16). Is Bruce a liar (did he not believe that)?

Alternatively, if Bruce wants to so radically change his opinion on things, then he can hardly blame anyone who calls him a crap coach for World Cup 2006 (throwing out our full knowledge of his 8 year tenure). If he wants to be so narrow and paper-thin in his analysis, then the same can apply to him.

For Bruce to equate the current talent level with 'we have no chance to be in the final 8 in 2010 makes no sense'. By that measure- we had no chance to be in the final 8 in 2002. But we were. At the 2002 Cup, Turkey made the final 4. Are we 'erasing' that as well? Australia could have gone to PKs vs. Italy and been in the final 8. Remember Australia- the team that Bruce equated with the most marginal soccer powers in the world.

It is one thing to say we must do better. It is another thing for Bruce- who knows all the variables at play at a World Cup...some material ones that are out of his control (like referees call- think Gooch)...and to proclaim ANYTHING with certainty. How the hell can he know where we will be at WITH CERTAINTY in 2010?

This is all very much a sad indicement of a man who is trying to reclaim his legacy, make the stink of 2006 World Cup smell better- by taking shots at everyone and anyone he can (remember the challenging of Beasley's manhood after Czech Republic? What the hell was that?).

This points to a deep insecurity in Bruce that is a bit startling actually. You'd think he'd understand his place in US Soccer history. Guess not. And if he's smart, he'd realize that these off-the-cuff outbursts are now inappropriate and only manage to tarnish the good, remaining memories of him.

Shut up now Bruce, support the new Men's guy + team- and focus on your job.

[tab5g]

This prepares the ground for someone who works for the richest club team in the US to demand changes in the way MLS develops youth players.

excellent point.

it will be very difficult for the USMNT program to improve (toward truly being a top 8 team in the world and one that performs that way at WC finals) without significant strides of improvement in the area of youth player development by MLS.

[Tobin]

Why does it piss you off? That he said it? Because it's true and you wish it weren't? Because you believe it's not true?

BA knows this team inside out. He knows full well what did or didn't happen at this WC and he saw all the other teams play. He knows the US has no striker who can score goals, let alone two, plus reasonable backups. He knows the US has no Viera-like central midfielder, and no Zidane-like playmaker. He knows Clint did well on the right, but there is nobody to back him up. He knows that nobody could get the ball to Donovan and that Donovan should probably have been in the midfield (but see the first issue--lack of strikers). He knows that the backs generally lack foot skills and there are no reasonable backups at either left or right (assuming there is even a reasonable left back to start with). He was able to look at left midfield and think that he had strength and depth in Convey, DMB and Lewis, but that's about it. Off course, for whatever reason, he felt DMB had to be played over Dempsey, but he knows how that story played out. Sure, there have been grand improvements to the general quality of the starters, but the team has only reached stage 2 of its development (stage 1 = try to get into the WC; stage 2 = get to the WC every time; stage 3 = defeat Euro teams regularly (33% of the time) in Europe; stage 4 = get out of the WC group stage nearly all the time; stage 5 = have a realistic chance of going beyond the round of 16).


It's annoying because this past squad is arguably better and definitely more experienced that 2002 was. Many of the same players that featured in 02 were in 06's squad. If the players werent good enough, Arena should have bothered looking into players that could make a difference. With that being said, there is no excuse why USA could not have done better. Getting out of the group stage was always going to be difficult...but they played horribly throughout the group stage except for some spirit, but not scoring chances, against Italy. I would be willing to take three losses if they played with heart all three times. They played scared and team preparation falls on the coach. He is acknowleding that 2002 was a fluke as well.

[art]

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce- have you learned nothing from this past World Cup?

Keep your mouth shut. You will need that extra energy to figure out a way to get NYRB to the mountain top.

The comments were inappropriate to say the least. Is Bruce this hell bent in destroying the mostly good memories we have of him?

Why? a) he's never been a guy to pull punches, so why would he start now; and b) he's right.

[JoeW]

I don't think Arena is a prophet of doom. I do think he was overconfident (as were many of the players) going into the WC. But he's spot-on with his talent analysis.

I thought France was not an especially impressive side. But other than Keller, who else from the entire USMNT pool (in-case you think Arena didn't start our best 11 or didn't chose our best 23) would start for France in this WC? Donovan had an abyssmal cup, otherwise I'd say that LD might earn a spot somewhere on their team. As for Italy--we'd struggle to have a handful of players make their roster as reserves (Keller, Onyewu, Donovan). Portugal--a few of our guys would start for them. Ditto with Germany (and half of their starters were 22 or younger). Keller would start for Argentina and that's about it. What about Brazil--anyone want to argue we displace many of their starters? I mean, we can keep going through the rosters but right now, we are substantially less talented (especially if you look at form) with the quarter-finalists and above.

Additionally, we were not only in the real Group of Death, but we were in a group with two tactical geniuses (Bruckner and Lippi). And we were badly out-coached by Bruckner (the Italy match you can't say b/c 9v10 is a freakish game). So I"m not trying to argue that Arena is some genius who if he'd only had Cannivaro and Pirlo and Toni, we'd have been hoisting the Cup instead if Italy.

In retrospect, if you look at the players on our roster and especially the form of our key attackers going into the WC, it's real hard to conclude that we were NOT the 4th best team in our Group.

As for winning the WC, we're being entirely too optimistic here. The Netherlands has far more talent than the USA (in terms of players and coaches) and always had (at least for the past 60 years anyway). But if you talk to the Dutch (fans, players, coaches), NONE of them talk about winning the WC in the next cycle or the cycle after that. The list of WC winning nations is very small and very exclusive.

For us to be able to speak/think/plan credibly about winning a WC, several things seem to me to have to happen:
--we (our NT) has to consistently win in Europe against really good teams (not a 1 goal win against the run of play in Poland played in front of US serviceman in Germany in a snowstorm).
--we have to have a couple of players that the top teams in the world want to have. No Adu b/c of potential or Donovan b/c he won a U17 Golden Ball. But Adu or Donovan b/c they accomplish at the club level what Nedved or Zidane or Ronaldo or Ronaldinho or Shevchenko has done at the club level.
--we have to have a lot of depth. Depth that is demonstrated by winning a couple of consecutive U17 or U20 championships (like Ghana or Argentina have done) or by having a club or two that is considered one of the top clubs in the world (or it's a competitive, dynamic, high-level playing experience).

Let's put this in perspective. The Czech Republic has a guy (Nedved) who's one of the best in the world--an incredibly dynamic player. They have a gifted tactician who the players love (Bruckner). They have a group of great attackers (Rosicky, Koller, Boras, Smicer), a veteran side and have done well in Europe (so they don't have the reputation of Spain). Did they win a WC this time around? Come close---say semis or quarters?

We don't have to be the Premiership or Serie-A. France demonstrated that. But there is so much more further that we need to go. And it's not just about a NT coach and a NT. The NT performance is driven by so much else that has to happen. And we're not close.

I'm not arguing we're dreck. I'm not arguing we should close up shop. But the list of Nations that can reasonably claim to be a serious contender to win the WC is a very, very small list. And we're not on that list and won't be for some time. If Freddy Adu turns into the best player on the planet in the next 4 years (not likely), that will help. But remember, N.Ireland had George Best and Liberia had George Weah and neither even qualified for the WC, let alone won the sucker.

For Arena to be a prophet of doom, he would have had to say something like "now that I'm gone, the NT will fail to qualify for the next 4 cycles" or nonsense of that order. Instead, what he said was a reality check. We're still a "small footballing nation" to quote another US NT player with a lot of experience in other countries. That's not going to change overnight.

[lmorin]

It's annoying because this past squad is arguably better and definitely more experienced that 2002 was. Many of the same players that featured in 02 were in 06's squad. If the players werent good enough, Arena should have bothered looking into players that could make a difference. With that being said, there is no excuse why USA could not have done better. Getting out of the group stage was always going to be difficult...but they played horribly throughout the group stage except for some spirit, but not scoring chances, against Italy. I would be willing to take three losses if they played with heart all three times. They played scared and team preparation falls on the coach. He is acknowleding that 2002 was a fluke as well.
I pretty much agree with your analysis, particularly with the sentence I bolded. Of course, 2002 was a fluke in the sense of requiring luck. A lot of WC play is all about luck. We had some this time, then threw it away. In the first and third games, unlike games 1 and 2 of 2002, there was not enough skill combined with heart to create the needed luck. I would also say that I think BA did look at all players who were potential "difference makers" and learned that they really weren't. At least not at the WC level.

[art]

It's annoying because this past squad is arguably better and definitely more experienced that 2002 was. Many of the same players that featured in 02 were in 06's squad. If the players werent good enough, Arena should have bothered looking into players that could make a difference.

And where would these players have come from? there's this fantasy among some Sams Army lunatics that we have this incredibly deep player pool. Let me straighten you out: we don't.

I would be willing to take three losses if they played with heart all three times.

On this point we agree.

He is acknowleding that 2002 was a fluke as well.

Well, it sort of was...we really only got out of our group because South Korea scored a late goal against Portugal, and we really only got to the quarters because we were lucky enough to play Mexico in the round of 16, a team we always do well against.

Not trying to be a super downer or anything, but I do think far too many US fans live in a fantasy world.

[dcc134]

It is not appropriate for a guy who just 1 month (and for many weeks before that) represented publicly, on many occasions, that he planned that the US Men's National Team would be 'staying awhile' (meaning- at least group of 16). Is Bruce a liar (did he not believe that)?

Alternatively, if Bruce wants to so radically change his opinion on things, then he can hardly blame anyone who calls him a crap coach for World Cup 2006 (throwing out our full knowledge of his 8 year tenure). If he wants to be so narrow and paper-thin in his analysis, then the same can apply to him.

For Bruce to equate the current talent level with 'we have no chance to be in the final 8 in 2010 makes no sense'. By that measure- we had no chance to be in the final 8 in 2002. But we were. At the 2002 Cup, Turkey made the final 4. Are we 'erasing' that as well? Australia could have gone to PKs vs. Italy and been in the final 8. Remember Australia- the team that Bruce equated with the most marginal soccer powers in the world.

It is one thing to say we must do better. It is another thing for Bruce- who knows all the variables at play at a World Cup...some material ones that are out of his control (like referees call- think Gooch)...and to proclaim ANYTHING with certainty. How the hell can he know where we will be at WITH CERTAINTY in 2010?

This is all very much a sad indicement of a man who is trying to reclaim his legacy, make the stink of 2006 World Cup smell better- by taking shots at everyone and anyone he can (remember the challenging of Beasley's manhood after Czech Republic? What the hell was that?).

This points to a deep insecurity in Bruce that is a bit startling actually. You'd think he'd understand his place in US Soccer history. Guess not. And if he's smart, he'd realize that these off-the-cuff outbursts are now inappropriate and only manage to tarnish the good, remaining memories of him.

Shut up now Bruce, support the new Men's guy + team- and focus on your job.


2002 was a confluence of everything going right, while 2006 was everything going wrong.

Can the US go deep in future WC cups? Sure, but it is going to continue to need to get all the breaks, because the talent simply isn't good enough to overcome when they don't go their way.

[Dr. Wankler]

And where would these players have come from? there's this fantasy among some Sams Army lunatics that we have this incredibly deep player pool. Let me straighten you out: we don't.



I agree with this point. It's not like the difference between, say Ching and Twellman, for instance, is the difference between a donkey and Ronaldinho. It's the difference between two fairly decent MLS players. It's not like Arena left guys off the roster who should be playing at Chelsea or Real Madrid.

Like I said all along, Arena did a terrific job taking decent, competent professional players as far as, if not farther than, some nations that are blessed with legitimate world class stars. We don't have any world class stars. Yet.

It was time for Arena to go, but it's not like he was actually bad for U.S. soccer. It's not like we would've won the damn thing if only we'd hired Hiddink or Klinsman back in 2002 or something. We clearly underperformed this year, but we could've actually better and still not made it out of the group.

I don't think that's gloomy. I think that's reality.

[golazo68]

Why? a) he's never been a guy to pull punches, so why would he start now; and b) he's right.


First of all, the World Cup is not about 'winning consistently'- its about getting out of your group (which may or may not consist of 3 wins, but certainly consist of 2 wins, and maybe even 1 win).

Of course, once you get to the 16- you need to keep "winning". But guess what- a lot of games go to PKs. Korea managed to be a PK-playing machine and make the final 4. If you call PKs winning- yeah, I guess one has to be 'consistent at winning'.

Greece WON the Euro 2004 championship on neutral soil- what was their level of talent vis-a-vis their opponents? Where are those players now? Did they not succeed due to fortuitous (and skillful scoring), a very solid defense, great teams tactics + some good ref fortune?

Bruce has too be either a liar or an idiot to believe getting to the final 8 is only about talent. That is his ultimate fallback position why he FAILED in this 2006 World Cup. Because its just not digestable, and not very forgiving to mention it was a combination of things that led to our doom: yes, we were under-talented, but even more-so damming was the poor decisions to have Pope mark Koller (at any point of the Czech game), Mastro/Pope's rash challenge + PK vs. Gooch and some of Bruce's tactical decision. We could have overcome our 'talent' disadvantage and made the 16.

ALL things that were in a large part preventable. All things that had less to do with skill, and more to do with common sense + good reffing.

For some odd reason, the higher many soccer folks get in the food chain, they start talking in grand platitudes about why soccer games are won and lost, and look for ephemeral explanations for the obvious. (I think its a function of finally traveling to a few countries and seeing the world- as it is- in a spherical sense and not in straight line, like some in the US). But this kind of mountain top, after-the-game rational is absurd. I don't even think Bruce believes it.

This is about legacy. This is about a defeated guy who tried his best, and still can't accept he screwed up. So he's taking down whoever, whatever he can to make HIS legacy look better.

The problem is he is wildly inconsistent (when you put his statements back-to-back, and in sequence) and it looks like a guy grasping for straws while in quicksand while not recognizing the vine right next to his face.

But it is not right, nor fair, nor Bruce's job to 'frame' the argument for the next World Cup cycle for our new coach. Let that coach have the same freedom + support that an unknown Bruce Arena had in 1998. Let that coach frame the argument, and let us follow.

What's absolutely laughable is Bruce being 'certain' about 2014, and just as certain about '2018'. Ha ha ha. What I find putrid is that just a few days ago, Bruce was arguing to keep his job- and now he says we have no chance in 2010. Oh, so the great Bruce was in it for the paycheck, the 'challenge' of getting us to the next World Cup- but not believing we were good enough?

That's not being bold or honest. That's being two-faced, selfish and political.