I don't know if that's completely fair. I feel like you are projecting a bit of the stereotype/people you've met onto him. He literally says that he was there to work, not to have a good time. To try to win a world cup and he didn't care whether he was at the chateau or somewhere else. I agree with you that this is a somewhat depressing (yet interesting) listen.
Well, even if you only follow for the WC, you know all the basics he explained. It's not a major complaint or anything. I just can't imagine more than maybe a person or two listening who might've needed some of those explanations. It was still a great listen.
I'm a few episodes in, and it's worth a listen for any US Soccer fan. I like Bennett and love the amount of work he put into this thing, though I do kinda wish the podcast was more of the interviews and less of listening to him talk.
The thing is, this shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody on the team. Sampson was recruiting, for want of a better term, Regis for over two years. It just took that long for the waiting period to run it's course, despite him being on the fast track for citizenship (as I recall, his wife was part of the State Department). You have the opportunity to bring in someone who makes your team better, you do it. To me, it's just another instance of the club team mentality left over from '94. Regis "wasn't one of us", so he wasn't welcome. Contrast that with Regis' attitude about being on the 2002 side, yet never seeing the field. He never complained, and I believe was one of the first bench guys to mob Donovan after scoring against Mexico. Perhaps a few of our guys, past and present, could learn a lesson from him.
I'm not convinced that Regis was better than Agoos. That goes for most of Sampson's decisions involving veteran players. My take is he did as a tool for controlling the team, not to put the best player on the field.
the first lb we had id even argue for over another was cory gibbs, so the only issue with agoos/regis for me was the bringing in a "foreign" player over a stalwart aspect. but id agree regis never made all that much impact anyways, so i think its fair to say it was a fully poor decision in hindsight.
Fair enough. My point was that it was an additional disruption on a team that was already reeling. In that context, maybe it wasn't going to make the team better?
^^^^ Pope's a pretty taciturn guy and still works in the industry. Not surprising if he declined to comment. Wynalda on the other hand - never met a subject he didn't want to chat about. In my recollection, only Regis and Hejduk stood out as having good performances. The romance of Regis may have been tactless, but he was a big step up. The errors Agoos/Agoof had leading up to '98 make Omar look like Maldini: too slow for the outside, too error prone for the middle, simultaneously no quickness and no speed, touch like a rock. US fans loathed him.
i think people see regis as a step up in the same way i see trapp as a step up on bradley- he was simply someone different.
^^^ Regis's reputation took a downturn from the Italy friendly and he was always seen as a Francophone mercenary. But compared to the backline then, he was a professional competing against amateurs.
What a fantastic podcast! Great storytelling from Roger Bennett, and the music really captured the mood and conjured up all the feels/emotions from the time. A few observations: I think Steve Sampson was in a no-win situation with regard to John Harkes. I definitely think it was sleazy of Harkes to be in denial and publish that autobiography in which he flatly denies any wrongdoing, and I admire Sampson's sense of principle as well as his refusal to reveal anything to the media following the World Cup. At the same time, if Eric Wynalda is to be believed, do you let the players work out and compartmentalize what happens on the field vs. in their personal lives? I don't think there's an easy answer. That said, Sampson is culpable for some poor personnel, tactical and managerial decisions. All that said, I think many of the players come off as the biggest culprits in the fiasco. I hadn't fully realized what an entitled bunch the '94 vets were. If you play on the national team, you do so with the expectation that your spot can be taken away from you any time - Harkes, Lalas, Balboa, Wynalda and Ramos seemed to think they were untouchable. In reality: Eddie Pope was a better player than Balboa and Lalas by 1998, so even if we had played a 4-4-2 with two CBs, it means one of them would have been sitting on the bench. Wynalda was still our best striker around that time, but as I recall, had been dealing with injuries and was not in great form. The David Regis situation was also a difficult one - on one hand, you always want the best players on your team, and Regis was a better LB than Jeff Agoos. On the other hand, if your team chemistry is already tenuous, maybe you don't rock the boat and adversely affect the mentality of other players on the team by bringing in a mercenary at the last minute. I'm with Frankie Hejduk about the players being drama kings and spoiled. While it was probably a dumb idea to isolate the team at that chateau, deal with it - you're here to win soccer games. And complaining to the media after a 2-0 opening loss to Germany - get over it, that was always going to be the most difficult game of the group, we didn't need a result, and we were still in decent position after the first game of the group stage.
The whole Harkes-Wynalda business couldn't be the only factor, things like that cause a collapse when there are already several fault lines under the surface. Same this cycle, I suspect. Whatever happened with Cameron in the locker room that last game was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Bennett did a great job. I was surprised how many willingly said things this many years on to make them come off in such a poor light. Anybody who thinks we have lost our way and should get back to "who we were" should realize we havent really been that consistent over the last 25+ years. Those that think that Bora ball is what we should strive for should listen to the players talk about the early part of that cycle. Most of our players dont want to defend and counter. When is he going to do Fiasco II? Completely different story, but he could find many common themes.
It's an absolute disgrace that Alexi Lalas gets to announce soccer or be on soccer shows in this country. What a great podcast, clearly showing that letting a national team become an entitlement will end up with drama and disappointment.
Close friendly match, Regis playing outside back has the ball. He does that move that forward always do and usually succeed at, where they shield the ball, feel minor contact and throw themselves down. Except he's a defender and this is in Italy. When he doesn't get the call, the Italian player embarks on a 40 yard counter attack and sets up the winner. It was seen as weak, un-American play and he was blamed or the loss, which fed the whole "he shouldn't be there" narrative.
Agree. The Germany game certainly wasn't his finest. Jurgen beat him on the corner kick to head back across the box for the assist on the first goal against us (the Mike Burns post goal). And then Regis dove in and missed the tackle at midfield that gave Germany all the time and space they needed to launch a cross into Jurgen, who was then isolated 1v1 against Dooley as Pope moved over to pressure the cross. Regis is the #6.
Agoos was so bad it was a running joke during all NATS telecasts at my soccer local. Regis was universally rated an upgrade at the time.
In my opinion most all of the vets come across as grade A jackasses. I’ve met Harkes, and he comes across on the podcast like my meeting with him - arrogant, self-absorbed, and thinking he was special. Lalas, Balboa, Agoos - these guys probably don’t realize how poorly they come across.