Why the US head coaching job sucks

[Sandon Mibut]

My wife was recently offered a really tempting job at a rival company. More money, great benefits, less travel and shorter commute.

At first glance, it sounded great. But then we looked more into the job and realized that while she would have a lot of responsibility, for which she would be well-compensated, she would not have very much authority.

She tried to lobby for more authority but couldn't get the guarantees she needed and turned the position down.

Why? Because despite all the money and perks, she was ultimately in a no-win situation because she didn't have the authority to fix and maintain all the things for which she'd be responsible.

And, responsibility without authority is the worst type of job.

ANd that got me thinking, as most things do, about soccer and I realized that the US National Team gig is such a gig.

We - the collective we that now includes us fans, the media, sponsors and the folks within the American soccer community - expect better and better results from our national team coach. THe pressure isn't as great as in Europe, but it is increasing.

The national team coach is responsible for creating a team capable of doing better than what we showed at this World Cup.

However, the coach doesn't have the authority to make the changes - the deep-rooted, institutional changes that have been delayed and postponed and ignored and downplayed for too long in this country - needed to create better players that can get us better results.

A new coach, be it Klinnsman or Hiddink or Mourinho or Ferguson or Nowak or Schmid or the ghost of Sir Alf isn't going to be able to make our players more technically adept or more tactically astute. He can't make them more athletic. He can't get them more pro experience at an earlier age, he can't get them more experience in high-pressure league games.

All he can do is work with what he's got and hope to be able to make gourmet chicken salad out of less-than-the best chicken parts. (I didn't say chicken shit because our players aren't shit. BUt they aren't the best, either.)

The cold, hard reality is that we have to make a LOT of changes in our developmental system to create better players. MLS needs youth teams and academies. We need to tap into the Hispanic market. We need our youth clubs to put more emphasis on skill and individual play than winning and we need fewer and fewer of our best players to go the college soccer route.

But unless US Soccer gives the new coach the authority to make the changes needed to enable us to develop better players, these changes likely don't get made.

But the expectations, the responsibility, to get better results and play better soccer, will remain.

And that's what makes the US Soccer coaching job an undesirable one. Yes, in a lot of ways, all national team jobs feature a degree of responsibility without authority. The coaches don't see their players enough on a day-to-day basis to be able to be in charge of their development and form yet their success is dependent on their form.

But other countries don't have the developmental challenges we do. They don't have the alphabet soup of fifedoms and the institutional resistance to changing our development so that it's more in tune with the rest of the world. In short, the national team coach can focus more on just making his players into a better team without worrying about needing to make his players, and the way they are developoed better.

But we do.

So, unless US Soccer gives the next coach the carte blanche - the authority - to make the changes needed, this job will suck and as such, will remain undesirable to a lot of candidates who would otherwise be very qualified and potentially successful at it.

And that's a shame.

[Attacking Minded]

I read an article a few months ago written by Peter Drucker. He called such jobs "Widow Makers." That seems about right.
ANd that got me thinking, as most things do, about soccer:D Me too.

PS - I think BA has shown that the nat coach has a huge effect on the coaching community as a whole simply by using patronage positions.

[JoeW]

And the irony about all of this (and I completely agree with Sandon's post) is that some people insist that we should make the NT coach just a coach--eliminate responsibility for development and overseeing the Olympic and U20 and U17 sides. Which only exacerbates the problem b/c they still have the responsibility for getting good results but would then have even less influence over some of what impacts those results.

[IndividualEleven]

Another Bruce Arena apologia...

...all I ask from the coach is that he have the team prepared to play and does not suffer humiliating losses...and I don't think that is too far from from what the rest of the soccerball community including decision makers want.

[spot]

My butt wouldn't hurt so much if I could fly. I guess all I can do is complain that evolution didn't provide me with wings.

Mmm hmmm

[Dogmatagram]

Sandon --

Great post and I understand your point but I have to disagree. I think your point proves too much. Let's assume the USMNT manager has ultimate and absolute authority. What does this mean? It means he can manipulate the internal structure, choose players, etc., etc. Does this mean that Michael Vick plays soccer rather than football? Does this mean that soccer gets the best talent, or even any significant portion of the top half?

It's not about a coach's authority (or lack thereof). It's something more fundamental. If given ultimate and absolute authority, maybe a manager can get the ball rolling such that in, say, 2018 we reap the dividends.

But it's not about responsibility without authority. No amount of authority would enable a manager to make Vick play soccer.

[glove]

The Wizards are sitting on 20 points in 4th place in the East and Bob Gansler up and leaves his coaching job? Does this make any sense? I know he's old but God this scares me ;has Sunil spoken to Bob without anything getting leaked to the press? If the unthinkable were to happen I am gonna fuggin burn my Nats jersey a la Agoos. Sunil certainly would have his puppet and could run the show his way if Gansler were coach. Uhhhh just hope this is just a wierd thought on my part...

[IndividualEleven]

I'd be cool with Gansler as the interim coach. He might have been lookin to get out of KC as he didn't convey since of urgency--through the media at least--of KC's situation.

[ugaaccountant]

A head NT coach generally gets 1 cycle or less at the helm, which I would argue is appropriate. How is a coach supposed to change the 10-17 year old development age culture in a way that will help his current squad? No matter how many of the current u-17's go straight to pros or how the club teams train, develop and even sell on their players will not benefit this coach. Our top of the iceburg 18 year olds all seem to have found a pro environment and that is happening more and more each cycle. I just am not buying your argument in light of our progress and good placement rate of those who seek out overseas opportunities.

I agree that MLS should take a much more active role in developing US players, it's a part of their mission statement so it should be important to them. I just fail to see how the NT coach can dictate this in any way. I'd say be thankful Bruce Arena seems to have taken on this part of the challenge.

For these reasons the Technical Director of the US soccer program should be someone other than the NT coach with a different method and timeframe for evaluation. I'm not entirely sure but don't we have someone in this role? No one coach can effectively manage both the NT, the various u-something teams and the grassroots training and development. Like it or not Gulati is the point man on the overall culture and should be held accountable for it. He's the CEO and should act like it. Our NT coach should coach and should have a network from US soccer supplying him good talent.

[Stuart]

The coach of every national team complains that they don't have enough authority.

The good coaches just work with what they've got and do the best job possible.

The US has two great advantages: 1) a population of 300,000,000 - the same as England, Germany, Italy, France and a few other combined probably; 2) we have a large immigration from soccer-playing countries who take citizenship and can play for us.

Let's stop with the excuses and look for someone with the ability to take us forward.

[IndividualEleven]

Considering the available pool of reasonably proven talent:

Donovan, Buddle, Rolfe

Adu, Mapp, Clark, Deuce, Beasley

gibbs, gooch, spector, cherundolo, marshall

and not including relatively unproven talents like Cooper, Feilhaber, Smith, Davies, Nguyen, Wynne who could break through in a major way,
I'm expecting the team to at least challenge for a quarterfinal spot in '10 and not get punked. If we get stuck in some insane group of death then at least have the team ready to play.

[lurking]

And, responsibility without authority is the worst type of job.

Well I start out being able to agree with you.

ANd that got me thinking, as most things do, about soccer and I realized that the US National Team gig is such a gig.

We - the collective we that now includes us fans, the media, sponsors and the folks within the American soccer community - expect better and better results from our national team coach. THe pressure isn't as great as in Europe, but it is increasing.

The national team coach is responsible for creating a team capable of doing better than what we showed at this World Cup.

However, the coach doesn't have the authority to make the changes - the deep-rooted, institutional changes that have been delayed and postponed and ignored and downplayed for too long in this country - needed to create better players that can get us better results.
First, its highly unlikely any national team coach, even if they are given unlimited power within a system, will tangibly effect the players they would have available to them in a cycle. Most coaches get 4 years. Just 4 years.


And already it's clear that your arguing no national team job in the world is worth taking. The number of national team coaches that actually get that kind of power Id say is almost none.

A new coach, be it Klinnsman or Hiddink or Mourinho or Ferguson or Nowak or Schmid or the ghost of Sir Alf isn't going to be able to make our players more technically adept or more tactically astute. He can't make them more athletic. He can't get them more pro experience at an earlier age, he can't get them more experience in high-pressure league games.

All he can do is work with what he's got and hope to be able to make gourmet chicken salad out of less-than-the best chicken parts. (I didn't say chicken shit because our players aren't shit. BUt they aren't the best, either.)

You know, most people arent unrealistic about the results they expect, if they play well, and lose, most people be happy. Its when they play like a bunch of girls that people get upset. Because they played like chicken shit out there.

The cold, hard reality is that we have to make a LOT of changes in our developmental system to create better players. MLS needs youth teams and academies. We need to tap into the Hispanic market. We need our youth clubs to put more emphasis on skill and individual play than winning and we need fewer and fewer of our best players to go the college soccer route.

But unless US Soccer gives the new coach the authority to make the changes needed to enable us to develop better players, these changes likely don't get made.

Im sorry, but dont expect to see a grand poobah of all things US Soccer anytime soon. First, thats way too much authority, second, most vested interests are way to heavily entreched to unseat easily. The bottom line is that any improvement in the US Soccer player development is going to have to be a collective effort.

But the expectations, the responsibility, to get better results and play better soccer, will remain.

Better results at this stage are more than 1 point in the group stage. You make it sound like there is an impossible bar set.

And that's what makes the US Soccer coaching job an undesirable one. Yes, in a lot of ways, all national team jobs feature a degree of responsibility without authority. The coaches don't see their players enough on a day-to-day basis to be able to be in charge of their development and form yet their success is dependent on their form.

But other countries don't have the developmental challenges we do. They don't have the alphabet soup of fifedoms and the institutional resistance to changing our development so that it's more in tune with the rest of the world. In short, the national team coach can focus more on just making his players into a better team without worrying about needing to make his players, and the way they are developoed better.

All coaching jobs have their pros and cons. You neglect to cite the advantages a US coach has. Lots of time for camps. A high degree of cooperation from clubs. Total freedom to select players as they see fit. A high degree of willingness and commitment to team success over individual success. A lack of media interference. In a lot of ways the US team is a coaches dream. Yes, the talent isnt top notch, but everything else a coach could want to help them succeed is there.

[sidefootsitter]

If the US hires a "high profile" foreign coach and that coach insists that his most promising prospects take their behinds to Europe's best leagues, then his insistence will not only be adhered to, it'll open even more doors to those American players interested in improving themselves and testing their mettle against the best the world can offer. In that regard, the new coach won't have to do as much elementary/fundamental coaching as Arena had to do and instead will defer that part to the best soccer organization on this planet... he'll only enjoy the fruits of their labor.

[dirtskier]

why the hell does everyone look at the next coach as the magic pill that will solve all our country's ills? A good national team coach plays the hand he's given, fits the players he has into the best possible spots, and doesnt play Beasley on the right. We dont need a freaking overhaul of our program, we need a coach who wont make the same stupid mistakes that Arena did in Germany.

[Sandon Mibut]

So, do you guys really think the only problem we had in Germany was coaching?

That there wasn't a fundamental difference in class and caliber of play and technical ability and skill between our players and the players from the other teams that finished ahead of us?

Because, while Arena certainly deserves his share of blame for the team's poor performance, what I saw was a lot of problems that go way beyond tactics and using what you have and are problems of development.

Yeah, playing Beas on the right was a mistake and yeah there were other personel errors.

But we didn't have a frikkin' left back. Not one. Not a 4-4-2 left back. (Please don't give me Gibbs and 'Los because those guys are centerbacks playing out of position.) And it was the second straight WC we didn't have a natural left back.

Our forwards were outclassed. McBride busted his ass and at his best he can hang with, but not dominate, world class talent. But who else? The players weren't there.

Where were the attackers taking guys on 1-v-1 (successfully; Convey, to his credit, tried a lot but just didn't get it done) and where were the shots on goal from distance?

Developing those traits in players isn't the job of the national team coach. If you don't have that by the time you get to the national team level, no coach is gonna be able to teach it to you.

Changes need to be made at the core levels or else we're just gonna be going around and around every 8 years where we have one decent WC and one crappy one. And the person in charge of those changes SHOULD be the US National Team head coach.

But he won't be given that authority.

[DSM1]

Thoughtful posts Sandon, but really a national coach is never goint to have the authority he would like. They know this going in and just have to deal with it. As others have noted, the positives still make the job attractive as long as the money is good.

[lurking]

So, do you guys really think the only problem we had in Germany was coaching?

That there wasn't a fundamental difference in class and caliber of play and technical ability and skill between our players and the players from the other teams that finished ahead of us?

Frankly, I thought we should have done better, though how much better I am not sure. The bottom line for me is that the team underachieved, and played poor soccer. I think the next coach probably will and should expect to get more out of our player pool than Arena did this cycle.

And I think that giving the coach more authority as you suggest will do nothing to improve the situation, be nearly unprecedented, and probably wont result in much changing, as NT coaches tend to be easy to outlast if your well entreched.

[Redhawk1]

I hope US Soccer does NOT give the coaching job to Bob Gansler, unless we want boring, losing soccer. Although, I guess we can't get much worse after seeing our guys play in Germany. But trust me, Gansler is horrible. He definitely can't develop talent, at least not in K.C.

[Mistake]

I reported on here two weeks ago that Gansler was the number #1 American coach on Gulati's list after Klinsmann.

[russ]

Changes need to be made at the core levels or else we're just gonna be going around and around every 8 years where we have one decent WC and one crappy one. And the person in charge of those changes SHOULD be the US National Team head coach.

But he won't be given that authority.
And he shouldn't.

National team coaching involves keeping track of a 40-50 player pool,scouting youth and college levels,maintaining relationships with league managers,developing tactics,man-management,and banging your MILF secretary-oh sorry,that part's just the England job.

Most FAs have a youth development program entirely seperate from the National team.It's the difference between operations and strategic planning.Two seperate functions,two seperate jobs,two seperate people.

Sorry about your wife's job hunting experience.Sounds the hire was for a designated scapegoat to take blame for the boss's son-in-law's failures.Every company needs someone like that,and if she was good at it,they might have kept her on at the great salary regardless of what her job description was supposed to be.:)