Review: Klinsmann: The USA is making progress, but we have to be realistic about the World Cup

In terms of giving the big nations "real battles" -- I mean it's not like this is a novel concept to US soccer. See the US against Portugal and Germany in 2002, Italy in 2006, England and Ghana in 2010 (OK, not England, they stunk). Even US-Brazil in 1994. We've given some pretty credible performance in games that mattered in recent WCs. I don't think we've rolled over in any knockout games, and against big soccer nations. One-goal matches, right down to the wire.

While I like Klinsi a lot and think he's had some real success with this group, I am sympathetic to the people who think Jurgen gives short shrift to Arena and Bradley. If I were those two, I'd be a bit miffed hearing Klinsi talk as if he's forged a new path for US soccer.

 

He said his goal is to go "a bit further" than ever before, luck of the draw permitting. How is that giving short shrift to Arena and Bradley?

 

Words just fall out of his mouth and form incoherent sentences.

 

Klinsmann's gift, if you will is in adding a "self evident" attitude to the USMNT's psychology and results. Not that every game will be won but that there is now an expectation of beating CONCACAF minnows by multiples, an expectation of dominating the rest (in soccer terms) with the occasional upset, an expectation of showing well in Brazil. It may just be the natural progression but in the previous regimes, there seemed to be an almost tolerance, an embracing of just getting by, of status quo capping and the expectation of setting up of chairs at the next "disappointment"- quote filled press conference.
I no longer am surprised when the USMNT goes to Europe and wins- I won't be if or when they move through the rounds in the WC. The mantra of the Coach is "Raise the bar". What I thinks that means is not slogging uphill, moving forward in increments but in thinking it is evident that they are so past any lower or even present rung, that they are deserved of the confidence that the top teams have.

 

He is right about realistic expectations. The USA is likely underdogs in at least 2 of 3 games in the group stage (largely dependent on draw) so I think it is less than 50-50 they reach the knockout stage in the WC. The USA still does not have the players. No one good enough (yet) to make the rosters on the kinds of CL-caliber teams expected to make it to the CL knockout stages (Sorry, Anderlecht is not on this list). E.g. Bradley, arguably our most important player and best prospect for a bigger club, is a squad/rotation player on a Roma team which is not even playing in Europa cup, let alone the CL.

Altidore has yet to make an impact in EPL (perhaps the wrong league for him), Dempsey took himself out of the picture but that could be partially based on Tottenham telling him he was "excess to need" for that club. Donovan maybe was good enough to be a starter for a "big" club but he chose LA to play his football (not that bad a choice) and he likely is past his prime. Cameron is good enough for the Stokes of the World but Man U ? Jury is still out on Bedoya, Brek, and the other youngsters.

 

Our last group was Algeria, England, Slovenia. I don't think we were underdogs in 2 of the three games then.

Did Algeria and Slovenia have players on CL knockout stage teams? Did they have players who often started on Serie A leading team or the fifth best BPL team? On Man U?

I think the flaw in your argument is that it is no means give that we will get two teams better than us and that have players that meet these benchmarks better than the USMNT does.

 

He did say “But why not [go] a bit further than you ever did before?", but then follows it up with, "Why not [give] the big nations, whoever that is, a real battle?".
I would argue that we have given the big nations a real battle, at every WC after 1990 (except for 1998). And until Klinsi takes a US team to wins akin to Colombia ('94), Portugal ('02), or Spain ('09), a tie as monumental as Italy ('06), or knockout "battles" in the WC/ConfedCup like Brazil ('94), Germany ('02), Brazil ('09), or Ghana ('10), I think he needs to rein in his judgements about prior US achievements.

(That being said, I think we can go farther than we have before, and Klinsi can take us there. But please: I've seen the US give the big nations "real battles" before in games that mattered, and that's actually the reason why I'm optimistic about the future.)

 

This is pretty much how I interpret it. I said at one point we would be working to get rid of old mentalities and this is a good, short description of something I couldn't form at the time (specifically the bold points). We're obviously not there yet, but if we can start gaining a higher level of confidence then the expectations will follow. It's only when expectation supersedes the confidence of the players that we get into trouble. Previous teams had the "tough" underdog, us-against-the-world mentality, but I seriously think that just does not translate between age groups and is not really sustainable long-term.

Not giving all the props to Klinsmann (so many great people involved over the years), but at the same time I really don't think everything he says is hollow or empty; he is reckless enough to say some of this stuff in public! Enough to make people hate his guts.

 

Ehhh... Love all the things Klins has done. However, he is a bit dismissive, overly so sometimes, of our past successes. Sure some were ugly wins and gutted out with lack of talent, focus, or technical ability but they are our memories, fond ones at that.

Honestly... being a "great" soccer power is the goal and is what I want to see happen but doesn't mean I won't look back with fondness the scrappy wins we have had... and truly, I think I may enjoy those "SHOOT THE DAMN BALL!!" moments more than some of the more recent "better" runs of play. I'm a sucker for punishment I suppose.

 

I did love it when he was asked if we could win the world cup. He answered as above, but it took him a second...like he didn't quite know how to answer. I liked his answer because it was truthful. Also I like his attitude. In his early days, Arena was okay, but I will never forget his negativity regarding the 2006 WC start against the Czech Republic. He kept going on and on about what a good team they were...I think he had his team really worried about the game. We all know the outcome. Was not DMB the left back?

 

I'm confused; what were the "old mentalities" that he's getting rid of?

 

The ones from the 1980's that he keeps referring back to and he believes still exist.

 

Ah. That one.

I mean...he's done an excellent job in 2013 (really, really excellent) but the taking-credit-for-things-that-have-been-a-thing-for-years thing is just...ugh.

He's a very good self promoter.

 

I agree 2013 has been a good year for results and style of play, but he has for a long time before he was ever hired, talked about the state of US Soccer as if it 15 years earlier. His opinion was basically that of the lazy European opinion on US Soccer.

 

We got possibly the best draw available to us. Two (2) mediocre European teams and a mediocre Algerian team. We were more likely to draw two good European teams and a good African/South American team. Just as we will be for 2014....

Algeria and Slovenia are not capable of fielding WC contending teams. THe USA aspires to be a WC contender. We are simply not good enough yet. Maybe good enough to beat a contender or two in a small tournament. But beating four (4) WC contending teams in a row in the WC knockout stage ?

 

The US expectations are identical to ~25 other teams expectations in the WC.

1) Pray to avoid to the hardest two groups in the draw
2) Get out of your group
3) Win a knockout round game
4) Hope for the best

I think we still have a long way to go to improve on these expectations.

 

Honestly? People are going to criticize these comments? He's absolutely correct, not matter what you think of him or what he's said about other things in the past. Sure, we've given good teams tough games in the past. But the goal of this team in 2014 should still be to play the good teams tough and advance further than you have in the past (the draw will obviously have a lot to do with that).

There's nothing to question there. You obviously play to win the whole tournament, but if he said that you'd all be jumping all over those comments! His comments are spot on.

 

I agree, it was the best draw anyone could have planned out.

1) Arguably the weakest #1 draw
2) Arguably the weakest team from the Euro bowl
3) The weakest African team

I fear we are going to pay for that incredible 2010 draw in 2014. The opposite of that 2010 draw in 2014 would be:

Brazil, Belgium, Ivory Coast

The odds of getting out of a group like that is very very low.

 

I think the point people are making is that he gave a slight bit of air like these are suddenly new and improved expectations for the US, which is not really true.

 

Huh? At best, he said something completely obvious and utterly unremarkable. At worst, he's downplaying the actual accomplishments of every US World Cup team that wasn't the 1998 version.

That stated goal of "play the good teams tough and advance further than you have in the past" has probably been the goal of literally every team we've sent since 1994.

 

And, when we're finished overanalyzing the hell out of his comments, at face value, his observations are accurate.

 

No, they aren't. They are non-observations. Completely and utterly useless and meaningless.

Stating something that everyone knows is true, and everyone knows isn't new isn't some sort of brilliance.

 

I tend to see it more as that draw was karmic compensation for getting arguably the toughest draw we could have had in 2006.

On average I would expect us to get something more like the 2002 draw: very tough, but manageable.

 

Never said brilliant, just accurate. Nothing to get all bent out of shape over.