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

The point being, 4. the USA is not one of those teams.

I know, irrelevant to what the BS faithful are really upset about: Klinsmann's failure to preface his remarks with adequate verbal fellatio to Bob Bradley, the guy that BS couldn't wait to get rid of when he was the USA coach.

 

People are gonna get upset because they'd rather have an optimist than a realist as coach. Most people realize that Klinsmann is speaking the truth, which is the problem. However, Klinsmann is a great motivator, so I don't see the problem. None of our players think we're going to win next summer either. It doesn't mean they aren't going to do everything they can do to try and accomplish that anyway.

 

Klinis has gotten us results in Europe. He has a great record with the team. We qualified. Why would he not puff his chest a bit?

 

Because if he says, "Yes, we have a chance to win the whole thing next year," and we don't, people worldwide are gonna call him out on in. He's being realistic. There is next to no chance we beat 3 soccer powers in a row, which is what's required to win a World Cup.

 

Uh...okay? Nothing there has anything to do with anything.

 

I think we have to be honest and concede that we are lacking in talented soccer players. None of them play for top teams. However, good/excellent coaching could (and kind of has) brought together a group of guys who can certainly hold their own in Concacaf. Now for the rest of the world, it is not so clear. Did Arena just have an outstanding group of guys in 2002? Not really. Good players, but again, not any outstanding ones. I really want us to do well next year, but will be happy to reach the knock-out round.

On another note, the question of our defense is always a sore spot. I believe when JK took over, he was all on making our defense outstanding, and then moving on to attacking players. I think that he cam to the realization that, (1) we needed to play attractive attacking soccer for fans and the players; and (2) we were never going to have a really good selection of defenders. I think he has looked at a lot of them and realized that none of them were going to set the world on fire...so move on to plan B...a strong attacking midfield and forwards. This was Brazil's MO for many years. Their attackers were so good, that, other than the goal keeper, they did not need a heavy defense.

I give JK props for somewhat recognizin

 

There's always a chance otherwise we wouldn't be playing.

Providing some respect to those who came before him would be pretty neat. Where we are now is a culmination of those who came before him. He's building on others work.

He's done well... and I like what he's done. But sometimes his attitude is a bit grating.

 

Huh? Maybe not everyone is top shelf but we do have a significant bundle of talented soccer players. We wouldn't be a top 20 team if we didn't have a talented team. We wouldn't be able to go to Italy and beat Italy, or get results in Bosnia or against a traveling Germany team or win the Gold Cup or Qualify early or... or...

What you need to admit is that we have a great team doing great things. We aren't the greatest but get some pride and stop selling ourselves short. I am confident we can beat any team in the right circumstances. Not every time but that's what a sport is about - chance. But whatever, I hate the self-defeatist mentality of US Soccer fans. We could win the World Cup and people would come up with an excuse as to why we really aren't THAT good.

 

I think you're wrong; we have talented players. It really doesn't matter who pays their checks at the club level. The inferiority complex of some fans is baffling.

Our first XI can compete (and has) with anyone on the day. We may not have the depth that other countries have, but saying we're lacking is selling our guys pretty short.

ETA: Just to be specific, all but like 3 countries in the world would fap it if they had keepers like Guzan and Howard, let alone one backing up the other. Michael Bradley is an excellent, excellent midfielder; better than any CM in our federation. Donovan and Dempsey have proven their class time and again; most international teams would find a use for those two, even now. Altidore and Johannsson are young, promising attackers, and Jozy has a World Cup and a bunch of international goals on his resume. Jermaine Jones, for his faults, is a very, very good midfielder who lots of international teams would die to have in their pool.

Our whole is usually more than the sum of our parts, yeah, but those parts add up to a lot more these days than they used to. We don't have to have a roster full of guys who play for Real Madrid or something to win games at a World Cup.

 

Have you even read his response?

“No, you've got to be realistic,” he said. “I mean, I think we have the potential, obviously like in the past, to get out of the group stage – it depends, obviously, who you have in your group – and then it's all down to 50-50 games.

 

Those number are a cold reality check.

 

That also apply to every nation not named in that post.

 

Fine. So let's focus specifically on the USA's illustrious recent world cup history. Since 1990, the USA's record in the World Cup is 4 wins, 5 draws, and 13 losses. What arrogance on Klinsmann's part to be unwilling to prostrate himself in homage to the USA's massive 0.295 winning percentage. The man truly has no shame!

 

In case people are wondering about the other 5 teams....

Uruguay (2)
England
Argentina (2)
France
Spain

All are seeded teams

 

In addition,

6 WCs were won by the hosting nation
5 WCs were won by a nation sharing a border with the host.
2 WCs were won by a nation in the same confederation as the host.

The nations that have won a WC outside their confederation reads like a who is who of the greatest teams in history.

Brazil '58, Brazil '70, Argentina '86, Spain '10

For the United States to win the 2014 WC in Brazil would be the Cinderella story to end all Cinderella stories.

 

Just for fun, identify these national teams by record during the last 3 World Cups (a far more reasonable sample size):

5W, 5L 3D
3W, 3L, 4D
6W, 2L, 6D
6W, 3L, 5D
4W, 3L, 6D

We are 3W, 6L, 3D, for the record. Not all that far off from a couple of them.

 

Why would France and England be seeded?

 

And

• Only 13 teams have played in the semifianl (including the round robin in 1950).
• We have to go back to 1962 to find one of the non 8 champions other than the Netherlands.
• On the other hand Spain highest finish was 4th prior to their win.
• 24 (with the USA in 1930) teams have finished in the top 4.

A top 4 Finish is probably the most teams outside the elite 5-8 can really "realistically" dream about.

Just looking back at the past 4 WC's Portugal, Turkey, Korea, Croatia, Bulgaria and Sweden have been to the semi's.

Japan, Korea (been there), USA (this time with an actual 3rd place game), Mexico (if they get there), Uruguay (like last one), Colombia, Russia, Belgium, Sweden (again) I think fans of those teams would blow a load if they can make it (shit even lose) the 3rd place match.

For that to happen a team would need some luck, getting in a weak bracket (Uruguay), getting some calls go your way (Korea) and maybe a big upset or two.

 

What about the '94 WC in the US? That should be one of the exceptions as well.

 

France and England won't be seeded, and might not even make it. So, while we're discussing how awful Klinsmann is for saying we won't win next summer, let's take a moment to be thankful that we aren't England. They're a team that has as little a chance as us to win next summer. The only difference is that their fans and media will crucify the team even if they make the quarterfinals, which would be, under reasonable expectations, a successful tournament for the quality they have.

 

Well you need more than 3 wins to make the final (I guess a bunch of draws and PK wins would also do).

3 Wins in 3 world cups is not that impressive, I guess the secret is to get your wins in 1 tournament even if you go 0-0-3 in the other 2.

 

I meant teams that have been seeded on a WC.

Which brings up a question, has there ever been a team that has won it and not been seeded for that WC tournament?

 

France has shown the way. Finals or bust. Their final runs are inspirational, their three and outs are meltdowns.

 

Exactly. Overall record over a long enough period of time means jack crap. Those counties were, in no particular order, Portugal, France, Uruguay, England and France. "Big" countries with the exception of Uruguay, I guess, and a couple of whom if you reverse one result our way, we have a more or less similar record in a World Cup.

Point being, if we go 4-1-1 and make a QF, our three year record goes to 5W, 3L, 2D. And then we look badass.

Other, main point being, like 3 or 4 countries can boast being favorites in every tournament, and then it comes down to current form, the draw, and luck/statistical variance. Poor finishing and defensive/GK'ing lapses put us in a position where the statistical variance in 2010 hurt us and was ultimately our undoing.

If JK puts us in a position to succeed and minimizes the potential for statistical variance to impact us negatively, we'll have as good of a shot as anyone not named Brasil, Germany, Italy or Spain to make a run.

 

Oh boy. Yes, I forgot Brazil in '94 and '02. Not great teams but basically points out that Brazil is the only nation to consistently win anywhere they go.