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

Can you provide links where JK is quoted as saying that he would change the US developmental system if he was was hired as the USMNT coach?

 

During JK's tenure, we also won in Italy for the first time, beat a very good Bosnia team in Bosnia and got our first win in Azteca.

When has that ever happened?

 

There is a lot wrong with this post.

First of all, I would like to say that when you wrote "Yes, he is absolutely accurate in where he is placing that bar. But it's not what we were told by the Fire Bob/sweatpants/nepotism crowd about 4 years ago." But as a member of that Fire Bob/Sweatpants crowd, I will replace your strawman with a real poster, so things won't be easy for you. Just sayin'.

Okay, for one, this statement: "Some of us, myself included, were saying at the time that in terms of results, there was no stagnation -- we had just found our level for the medium-term -- a country that had a 50/50 shot at the knockouts, and who would have a crap shoot from there. All but about 7-8 countries in the world fit this profile, incidentally. ", is an opinion. I am glad that you realize this. Because the fact was that after the World Cup, there was tremendous stagnation in the US system, the Gold Cup more than proves this. Meanwhile, Bob Bradley was making questionable lineup decisions--Playing guys like Bornstein and his son without regard to form. (Remember, as much as I like Micheal Bradley, at the time the motif was that Bob was a guy who was going to give Micheal a full 90 regardless of form, and his form quite frankly was not good in the immediate aftermath of the World Cup and in the 2011 Gold Cup.)

The bar hasn't really changed, but may I remind you that when we lost the Gold Cup, and got trounced out of the World Cup, it wasn't so much as the quality of the play as it was the nature of the way we got beaten. In short, Bob Bradley, as good as he was, made tremendous errors in judgement over his roster selections and/or substitutions. The distinction here is that Bob Bradley lost games that were certainly winnable. We didn't get blown out by Argentina and Spain here. The difference here is that we lost important matches primarily because of bad coaching decisions, even by BS standards, much less by our national team manager. So I am sorry, when you say "I believe the improvements we have seen have largely been the result of external factors that are completely exogenous to his management, and would have happened anyway." I say, I am glad you believe that, because I will believe in facts, and the facts say that you are pretty much dead wrong there. I mean, it's nice we have a great roster and a bunch of new players stepping up, but if we continued to drop games we should have won, then what good is our newfound depth in our player pool?

The thing is, after the Honduras Game, JK has yet to lose a match by his own hand. Yes, we lost in Costa Rica, but even with massive amounts of misfortune, the US was still in the game. What I can say is that JK is far more adept than Bob Bradley is (And believe me, Bob Bradley is a great coach) at picking out the best personnel to get the job done, and motivating our players to execute. So while the bar hasn't exactly been raised, I have a lot of faith in JK's roster selections, who tend to dumbfound BS observers but happen to actually work when put on the pitch. This is a far cry from the end of Bob Bradley's career, where I had very little confidence in his roster managment. Now, I feel if we meet a side like Ghana or Bosnia in the round of 16, I tend towards optimism and the feeling that we should win. The coach is no longer a question mark.

So, in closing, when you say "For the record, I like JK as a manager (lately), but I also think Bob Bradley is a solid, tactically astute manager who was never given the credit he deserved by US fans and the current coach. So seeing where JK is setting the bar -- same as four years ago -- is a bit rich.". Sure it is. It was also rich to Ghanaian fans that the US effectively burned an unnecessary sub. So it all depends on what is funnier to you.

 

Well, there is the issue of how much of our improvement is owing to more/better players vs how much is owing to Klinsi. Suppose we take Bradley out of the lineup and take on Costa Rica .......

Being prepared in such instances means we are shooting for top tier status. Being unprepared, as Bosnia was unprepared against us without their starting cb's in the second half, means we are still a second tier soccer nation at best. Klinsi is precariously in command of this team, even as he puts on a brave face. It will be easy to paper it all over in the next 9 months, more difficult to deal with the problems that can suddenly pop up 9 months from now in Brazil.

 

Never. And I totally agree with you.

That said, in SuperDave's defense, we always win 2-0 in Cbus. Let me put it this way--

We went into Cbus back in 2001. In the first half, we were outplayed, and we lost our two biggest starters--McBride and Reyna--To injury in the first half. Suprising everybody, our bench players rallied the team and blew up Mexico.

Of course, when JK did it, we had lost our two biggest players, Bradley and Altidore, and had just come off a beating in Costa Rica that left YankeeRoyal's underwear looking like a North Carolina swamp, and we got outplayed a little in the first half... But, you know the story.

The last time that happened, we went to the Quarterfinals in the World Cup. So......

 

Better fix that quick before the Mexi Gringo Hall of Shame trollers have a field day;-)

 

And, frankly, I detect some angst in Germany over USA's progress which can only be related to the chance they could face us in Brazil. You can bet they will be messing with Klinsi in the next 9 months and it will be worse if we draw them in group.

 

They always attempt to have a field day with my posts. It's funny because my posts about Mexico are correct for the most part, which is why BSMX hates me with the passion of a million burning suns. Little do they know that I developed Mexican fan butthurt into a renewable and limitless energy source which powers my laptop I am currently writing this post on.

 

JK's quotes on this were discussed at my house this past weekend. My friends who don't follow US Soccer like I do (all of them, really) were pretty unanimous - How can he say we won't win it? "You can't go into a tournament like that thinking or saying that you can't win it all." They really could not understand how he could say that.

I think his realistic comments about our chances could be more controversial with the general public. Those of us who really follow the team and world soccer know what a long shot it is to actually win the WC finals. If we do it in my lifetime I'll be ecstatic, and I certainly don't expect it in Brazil.

I'll say this for Klinsmann - he is good at the PR part, and he has helped the continued growth of the public profile of US soccer. He is not the only factor, but he's a good spokesperson to have at this time.

 

This.

That is such a foreign mentality for most US sports fans. To walk into an even and basically conceding failure or lowering a victory below winning the whole thing is a bit alien. Personally I get it but it took me a long time to accept that. Then again, we can win it. Anyone can. It's a matter of probability and likelihood. Nothing wrong with saying you're going to win - I mean, why not? Just don't be dellusional but no one should go into a game thinking they'll lose. That's weird and poopy- and if our team concedes to the "well as long as we make a good show of it" mentality then the US MNT is dead - that's why I like our team so much cause we do have an "anything is possible attitude".

 

Really? I have yet to hear any paper in the Tampa Bay region ask Schiano if the Bucs will win it all this year. If they did ask I think he'd say much the same as Klinsmann. So I'm not sure how those guys could be so shocked.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any coach saying anything more than "I aim to make the playoffs and take it game by game at that point."

 

Good point. I think it's just the "No" at the beginning of his quote below that my friends could not relate to. The rest of it is more normal, like you say, and typical of coachspeak.

 

I have to disagree that this is such a foreign concept to most sports fans in the US. The fact of the matter is that it was just a really dumb question to ask. There are plenty of teams in all of the US sports leagues that have no realistic chance of winning a title. All of these teams have fans. The majority of people in this country are fans of at least one team that they know will not win the championship. The only difference is that the coach of the Cleveland Browns doesn't get asked in preseason "So, are you gonna win the Super Bowl this year?." They get asked what they think they will accomplish during the season. NBC should have asked Klinsmann what he thinks would be a successful tournament. They way in which they asked forced a yes or a no, with either response sure to create displeasure among fans.

 

http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/6823622/juergen-klinsmann-confident-improve-us-team

It was a major part of the rationale for hiring him, in his eyes. He talked about it all the time. He talked about it in 2010 too.

 

After being so close so many times, you become like that.

 

That's a positive sign attitudes about the game here are progressing. 20 years ago those friends would have said, "Well, of course...the US is no good at soccer and no one here cares about it."

 

Yup, and it was a big reason why he didn't get hired in 2006/2007 and why we instead went with Bob Bradley because they couldn't come to agreements on his control/influence within the US Fed and structure.

 

The U.S. has basically alternated not getting out of the group with getting out of the group in the WCs starting in 1990. On that track record, the odds of getting to the knockout stage are exactly 50-50. If one believes that this team is significantly better than most of those, then the odds should be over 50-50. Yeah, I know I am talking from a relatively small data set, but that's true whenever talking about World Cup tournaments.

 

I think the U.S is going to be one of those teams nobody wants to get drawn with. We could easily make the group we get put into the group of death.