According to an article out there somewhere (sorry don't remember who interviewed him) Michael Parhurst implied that for a while players have looked to the national team as a chore. If that is actually true it makes a lot more sense to get an ex American national team players as the coach for this cycle to repair that than a big name foreign coach. If the Berhalter can fix that then the next cycle when the players will be better anyway may be the time for wish list coach. Right now it may be more important to get players to buy back into the program an patriotism stuff.
Here is Parkhurst's actual comment: For those asking....here is @MFparkhurst response on @MLSRewind #MLS #USMNT https://t.co/f7tCBZrCkH— Taylor Twellman (@TaylorTwellman) December 2, 2018 The context is that he is talking about the current situation. We have had American coaches for the last 2 years. His 2 USMNT teammates are Guzan and Nagbe FWIW.
Sure, sounds good. After all, the idiot who ordered the French forces into Dien Bien Phu, without having prepared the logistical support and completely devoid of preparation for how to respond to setbacks, only got 20% of the blame. The poor shlubs who were cast there by him definitely deserved 80% of the blame.
In your haste to sweep all the dirt into the pile marked Klinsi, I guess you've forgotten to factor in the 'get out of jail free' card Arena was issued in Trinidad? He has admitted he didn't prepare for it, didn't look past the home match against Panama. Your continuous harping on the faults and responsibility of Mr. Klinsmann borders on religious conviction. It has the same fervor and articles of faith as the most superstitious of sects.
I'm not so foolish as to ascribe any responsibility to a manager who was fired before the test was completed. It can only be marked as 'Incomplete.' It's true the team had not looked sharp against NZ and Cuba warm ups prior to qualifying loses in two of our three most difficult matches. But before that, the side had looked good in Copa America, and there was no reason to believe it couldn't rebound. Sunil panicked, never a good strategy. The US couldn't have been expected to win in Costa Rica under any manager, so I assume he was fired for his loss to Mexico, in a place the USMNT had always done good. So let's isolate the argument: Arena lost to a young, inexperienced side in T&T on a rainy night in front of only 1500 fans, negating home field advantage, with all the money on the table. JK lost to a v. good and motivated side in Columbus in the first match of the last stage. Best foolish guess? 80% Arena, 10% Klinsmann, 5% Gulati, and 5% to the fans who harassed and whispered in Gulati's ear about how bad Klinsmann was as a manager.
Klinsmann was fired because he lost his team. It's not abnormal to lose in Costa Rica, but the performance clearly showed these guys were done playing for Jurgen. Remember, in the Mexico match before that, Bradley and Jones had to pull Jurgen aside mid-match to switch up the formation because they were getting overrun by the Mexicans. It is undeniable that Arena shat the bed, but he also inherited a team that was in disarray and had an established trend of under-performing in important games. I include the Copa in that: what people call "looking good" in that tournament overlooks things like suffering the largest margin of defeat the US has ever suffered at a major international tournament against Argentina at home. Losses to Jamaica and Panama at home in the Gold Cup. Loss to Mexico at home in the Confed Cup playoff. Losses to Guatemala (a team ranked about 50 spots below T&T), Mexico and Costa Rica in World Cup Qualifying. That team did not look like one that was going to bounce back and suddenly start getting results.
I give Klinsmann 100% of the responsibility for failing to make a Gold Cup final for the first time since there are no CONMEBOL invites. Also, 100% of the responsibility for not even sniffing a Confederations Cup during his tenure. And 50% of the responsibility for not making the Olympic Games any more. The U23 was shared duty with Porter/Herzog. Same with the Pan-American games, where the main coach shares responsibility with the assistant in charge: under JK, we just withdrew without playing Mexico for the one open C-CAF spot. I also give him 100% responsibility for selling snake oil to the masses with the whole "Youth Revolution" mantra while he kept playing guys in their last legs, while only rotating youngsters for cameos while barely integrating any.
I don't think either one of us can produce "hard evidence" either way, But there were lots of indications and I'm not the only one that holds this opinion. Remember, yes, it is common to lose in Costa Rica, but 4-0 is still a historically poor result, the last of many historic lows in the last year of Klinsmann's tenure. Also remember that after Bradley and Jones visibly pulled Klinsmann aside during the Mexico match to beg him to switch away from the 3-5-2 they never practiced, Klinsmann threw those players under the bus in his post-game comments saying they didn't do enough in midfield. Klinsmann regularly did things that would toxify any locker room; when the results stopped coming, it was only a matter of time. For sure, I see little reason to believe Jurgen would have turned things around at that point.
Except I didn't assert anything about the locker room attitude, because I had no evidence one way or the other. One thing I do know is all of the players in a USMNT shirt were professionals who got to where they were by a competitive internal drive to win. To say they gave up on Klinsmann is to say they gave up on the fans and their natural competitive impulses. The only USMNT team member I ever saw give up on the side was one that took a vacation in the middle of a qualifying round. I don't know whether they practiced it or not, but if you say so, you must have some evidence. It seems doubtful, but if true an argument for incompetence, surely. This is the second time you've mentioned this incident which I remember very clearly. The USMNT was getting overrun in midfield and Bradley and Jones consulted w/ Klinsmann to solve the problem. If they'd given up on Klinsmann, they wouldn't have bothered to consult with him. He respected their suggestions and implemented them. Not the behavior I'd guess from a manager w/ little respect for his players. In my world view, this is a better indicator of their respect than their scorn. I don't remember anyone getting thrown under the bus, but if he made public quotes to that effect, post them and let me revisit the incident. I pay little attention to post match remarks, so I must have missed them. That he did things regularly to 'toxify' any locker room is an assertion I simply do not believe. If you were to say he regularly did things that would toxify a credulous fan base, I might agree.
You have now resorted to lying. “It was a 3-4-3 with Christian Pulisic having all the freedom to roam with the two strikers out front,” he said. “We trained that and it went really well in training, but the key in that system is that your center midfielders need to get into these one-against-one battles, and that’s something that wasn’t happening in the first 25 or 30 minutes. No Michael Bradley, no Jermaine [getting] into these battles. Their players could roam, and that really puts you in difficulties, so that gave [Mexico] their chances.” ... It appeared that Bradley and Jones went to the touchline to discuss the formation with Klinsmann during a stoppage in play in the first half before it was eventually abandoned. Jones was asked if he told Klinsmann the formation needed changed and he said there was “no point.” “We trained it in training and we looked really good,” he said. “But it’s like I said, you have to respect that Mexico is a good team, and they’re especially good with the ball. In the first half, we were always too late and we never really got on the guys. That’s why we decided to switch it over to the old formation, and that was way better, then.” https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016...sa-player-errors-formation-issues-mexico-loss
I assume you mean Donovan. There was also Fabian Johnson, allegedly. Howard and Nagbe also took time away from the NT during Klinsmann's tenure. Besides that, despite being professional and respecting what it means to represent their countries, players quitting their managers is part of sports. At the end of the day, playing soccer is a job and it gets hard to do when you hate your boss and / or teammates. To correct myself, they apparently did train the formation; but the team had not played it in an actual match prior to that. I misremembered that. Bradley implied in his post-match comments to the press that the team was not well drilled tactically in the formation they started with. Bradley and Klinsmann publicly disagreed with the reasons for the loss after the match. Bradley came out and said there was a lack of tactical direction, while Klinsmann said he needed Bradley and Jones to be more aggressive in midfield. So, it seems weird for the coach to accept his players recommendations, after which the team played better, then be like "well, they weren't doing what I told them to, that's why we we so bad in the first half". To me, this is something that is going to strain a relationship between a coach and his players and Klinsmann had many such moments over the years.
Genius, playing a formation they had never used in an actual game in a must-win game against the big regional rival. If that's not brilliance I don't know what it.
Fans will see what they want to see. A side has to play a new formation against somebody for the first time, why not in the first match of the final stage? After all, it's logical to change formations to meet new conditions. Plus, no first match in the Hex is a 'must win.' You know that. If he hadn't changed formations and lost 2-0 you'd be here complaining about his lack of flexibility and sarcastically calling him a brilliant genius. There's an element of selective perception in all analysis, but usually it reflects the analyst's personal preferences. Some like different formations or players or tactics and their analysis illustrates, more than anything else, that preference. In the wildcat walkout mentality of criticism of Klinsmann's tenure as manager, it's evident there is more behind the negativity of the assessment than mere preference or disappointment he wasn't able to milk more from the team. I can't say what it is, because I perceive it to be a generally shared emotion I don't have. Like the guy with two European chicks who laugh at the fashion choice of an Asian woman.
Great, honest comment from Parkhurst. These are not FIFA video game players but human beings, and humans are messy. Simpy the fact that Berhalter is the full time manager should help going forward.
This is a strange amount of hand-waving what was ultimately a poor decision that caused the team to lose an important game. I'm pretty sure a friendly, which NTs have a surplus of, would be a better place to try out a new formation than a qualifier. It's not about changing formations. It's about fielding and unprepared team which results in them losing matches they should win, which is a bad coaching. Not sure what that last comment is about, but Klinsmann's second cycle specifically was rife with historic losses and failures, culminating in the failure to qualify for the World Cup. That is plenty for a fan of this team to be justifiably angry about. There is no personal animus required: Klinsmann is being called a bad coach because people believe he did a poor job coaching the USMNT, simple as that.
Klinsmann's early tactics fall flat, giving Mexico confidence to break Columbus curse Really, this is not a new allegation about Klinsmann, so it should surprise no one. From the Ringer: From B. Strauss All corroborated by Philip Lahm: At this point, saying Klinsmann did not provide good tactical instruction to his team and that it lead to frustration with his players and ultimately poor results in his 2nd cycle should not be thought of as controversial.
In the end we missed by a point. So, you can point to any result that wasn't a win and say, what if. However, you would have to rank the loss at home to CR and the loss away at T&T as the two worst results. The latter because you only needed a draw against a reserve team from a small island nation. The team played bad in several games. Away at CR was one. But also away at T&T and away at Honduras. In the previous round they looked bad away at Guatemala and CR of course. I think the only road victory in all of WCQ'ing was away at SVG. Neither Klinsman or Arena got a win on the road and both had four games to do it; outside of the Vinnies. Klinsman was 0-2-1 (W-L-D) against Hex opponents and Guatemala. Arena was 0-1-3 against Hex opponents including a reserve T&T team. Both coaches had issues on the road. That was the problem. Would have been ok but they both lost a home game. You can say 50-50, but really it is probably Flynn's fault most of all. If he had set up a chain of command for his medical absence, then Arena would have been in charge from 2016. Maybe that would have worked; hard to tell. I think if Berhalter had been hired in December 2016, we would have qualified. Actually, almost any coach other than Arena. Since Sunil made that hire, it can be seen as all his fault. 20% Flynn, 20% Klinsman, 30% Arena, 30% Sunil. Oh, and several of the players...
And 0% Italy. For the old rocking chair crowd, there's great war stories over on this thread https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/kl...st-stretch-of-us-coaches-of-all-time.2090067/