Getting through the group stage should (and pretty much is) the mandate of every guy who accepts the job of USMNT manager. But, as I'd said and pretty much everybody knows, history has shown that the draw has a lot to do with how successful we can expect to be. A good draw, and we really should advance. A poor draw, and it becomes extremely difficult. As for finishing first in the group... that's nice, but that's not the mandate, nor should it be. Qualify (by any means), then get us through the group stage (by any means).
I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me that advancing in second is success and the other guy is wrong, or are you agreeing that Klinsi has to win the group to be considered successful?
I'm agreeing that advancement is the primary criterion of success that we should judge Klinsmann (or every other coach of this era) by. I don't really care about whether it's in first or second place, on 4 points and goal difference or sailing through with 7 points (of course I care, but I'm not going to deduct style points from Klinsmann if he just barely gets us through a difficult group on goal difference). Our player pool is still such that the draw has a significant influence on how well we can be expected to do. But no matter how difficult the draw, that's exactly the challenge that the USMNT manager signs on the dotted line for.
What an understatement, but it sure was legendary. I don't expect Klinsmann to be a miracle worker, but I like that the USSF showed the balls to want to make real changes.
I don't think most people think he failed at the WC, but most people were not in favor of a second term based on history, and think the last year shows why....
No, he didn't fail at the World Cup, be he came about as close to failing as you can get. And we were going in the wrong direction. Looked good and played good in beating Mexico at the 2007 Gold Cup. Up and down Confed Cup that could have ended after group, didn't, could have ended in glory, didn't. And then another great escape and wasted chance at the WC, and then the embarrassments vs. Brazil and Spain, the loss to Panama, and the collapse against Mexico. Past time for a change. Can't say Bob failed, but it's hard to say he was the guy to take us where we needed to go.
I know all I need to know about him: he was a failure at Chivas and an integral part of the disappointment at Bayern (and you can try to paper over the issues there all you want, but they were better before and after Klinsi was there). He's just about the only guy Klinsmann could have hired as an assistant that would worry me. Literally, the only guy. It screams of lessons not being learned from his experience at Bayern.
Sounds like it's going to be a tough 3 years for you. I'll wait to see a full & official announcement of Klinsi's staff before I rush to any judgement but don't have any big issue with Vasquez being an assistant.
Vasquez being an assistant is not a problem. If Vasquez turns out to be the top, second-in-command assistant, then what Craig P said is pretty spot on.
If it's a tough three years for me, it'll be a tough three years for all of us. While I'll criticize moves he makes in the interim, he'll ultimately be judged on results, and I think my expectations as far as results go are more moderate than most. I expect him to qualify before the last match day and perform respectably at the World Cup. That's it. Not win the hex, not win the group, not advance to the quarterfinals, perform respectably given the opponents that are in front of him.
Well, atleast we something in common with regards to our expectations. So then, who would you have liked to be our coach? Realistically speaking of course.
I don't know for certain who was available for a price that the Fed would have paid. The most likely candidate who was probably available and who I would have been reasonably happy with is Jason Kreis---I'd rather have him than Klinsmann, I think. Most of the other MLS coaches have some sort of blemish or another on their resume. As far as European candidates go... Lippi's history is solid, though I'm not sure how he'd have meshed with the program; was there anybody else who was ever linked with the job? The problem we have is that generally speaking, anybody from over there who's worth a damn can get better jobs than the national team job. I dunno, while I'm not the biggest JK fan, maybe he really was the best the fed could do on short notice.
I honestly wonder if this was truly short notice. My gut feeling (not backed up by anything in particular, just my idle speculation) is that Bob was rehired last year as a sort of "interim" solution yet again while negotiations continued on-and-off with Klinsmann, until the two sides were finally able to reach some sort of agreement, and that there was an appropriate lull. (Ie firing Bob and hiring Jürgen in May would've cut both former and new coaches off at the knees.) Perhaps the GC results gave a renewed sense of urgency to those discussions, but I kinda doubt that Sunil and Flynn waited until after the Mexico match to call up Jürgen. I think he's always been there. And I think the flirtation with Bielsa and Peckerman and others was just that: flirtation. It was always going to be Klinsmann. They've wanted him for 5 years now, and it took 5 years for it to happen. I think that if this were truly a panic, "Oh crap, things just went bad and we have to fire Bob right now!" move, we would've ended up with another "interim" MLS guy like Schmid.
I know, right? Must be tough to be a fan of a team they're always so pessimistic about. As for me, I'll give them a chance to prove what they can do.