We need to have gulati fired, so he doesn't make any more stupid decisions. Bring in a new capable president, and allow them to make the choice. Nothing will change with Gulati at the helm. He has conned people with his Columbia University job (must be a real smart guy which naturally translates into soccer.... /sigh) and he rests his laurels on the womens team successes.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who is apprehensive about Big Sam. He seems old school and one dimensional. Granted, we need a coach who knows how to make good use of American grit, but I don't see Big Sam as a savior of our program.
When will people understand that Gulati was elected and can not be fired? He can only be voted out this February.
As a Dynamo fan, I don't know... this has a real Owen Coyle-type of feel to it. While it's nice to throw all of these managers names around. Personally, I'd prefer someone who has some sort of American / MLS-connection beforehand, such as Martino or Pareja..
As somebody who's been telling people this for the past decade...................the answer is NEVER. They will never understand. As far as Allerdyce goes, he might be an OK "bridging" coach. Some of these names I'm seeing mentioned on these threads are delusional. I know people want a "sexy name," but what sexy name is going to coach the USMNT right now. Somebody desperate to coach at the 2019 Gold Cup? What we're probably looking for is a "bridging" coach to get us thru for two years. The USMNT roster needs almost a complete overhaul as the team Arena took to T&T was very old. Many, many players over 30. So we're not going to get a coach looking for glory and trophies. We're looking for a coach that's willing to put in the time working with young players. I wouldn't be surprised if its not a sexy name, but an MLS candidate. Somebody like Oscar Pareja..........................(who's had a down year, but many good years previously working with young players.)
Lol. Calm down, lion. Are you just equivocating on "fired"? I mean, the President can be removed by the Board for "cause". If you want to try to figure out what constitutes "cause" in the context of the bylaws, then feel free. But -- spoiler alert -- it's undefined.
If it is undefined as you said in a previous post and no doubt most of the board are his cronies, what are the odds?
A poster above referred to Big Sam as a "relegation specialist." That title is appropriate, although he is clearly more than that as a coach. The fundamental point is that Allardyce manages to get the most out of teams that are not doing well. So, he would have been perfect for the US during the last 2 yrs. Although I admire Arena as a coach, he clearly failed at the task of getting the team to play up to its collective potential. Allardyce would do that. That said, I do wonder if his selection would be appropriate now. The US is out of the next WC and is history. The team must move on to the new era with a central group untested young players, not yet functioning as a team, that will bring to any coach a different set of problems than those with which Big Sam has had so much success addressing in the Premier League.
Not my first choice, but we could do worse than a guy with a proven track record of taking under-performing teams that lack significant quality and guiding them to relative success. In hindsight, he'd have probably been a good hire Post Klinsmann when we really were fighting for survival and needed the defense sorted. He looks less attractive as a guy to guide a bunch of young players over a five year stretch.
First- pass. Second- to all the people who want “outside the box”: I’m all for it, but remember that’s exactly what we did about 6 years ago.
Gosh, people need to be more careful with pronouns. Look at the equivocation above because of the use of "it"! Words have meaning. So if the President can be removed for cause, then it is true that the president can be removed. This is an extraordinarily simple concept to grasp. The lack of content given to "cause" has nothing to do with the in principle allowance of the bylaws to oust the President. What is not known is whether a case can be made -- but not whether there is a mechanism for removal. Dig it: True: the board can attempt to remove Gulati. Unknown: whether an attempt would be successful. So I don't understand why posters are interested in perpetuating the idea that Gulati cannot be removed when the bylaws explicitly state that the President can be removed. It's difficult and unlikely, but every time a poster yells "HE CANNOT BE FIRED YOU IDIOTS," that poster is wrong.
Just because Gulati hired Lionel Hutz to run our entire program shouldn't prevent the Fed from thinking outside the box in the future.
K. Words DO have meaning. Here is my take Let's talk about the word hire. I would consider that an antonym of fire(d). Webster defines hire as: a :payment for the temporary use of something b :payment for labor or personal services etc., etc. Gulati is not a hired individual. He is an elected volunteer and doesn't get a paycheck from the USSF. He is not employed by the USSF. So the poster saying he can't be fired, is not wrong. He can be dismissed I suppose. He can be pushed out. I think most would relate the word fired to having once been hired for something. Which he never was.
Oh.Hell,No I despise Sam Allardyce. Sure, he managed to get Notts County out of the (old) third division and managed my West Ham back to the Premiership (while "managing" to secure one more win than loss in his entire 4 year tenure), but I despise him. He is scuzzy from the get go.
Allardyce is uninspiring to say the least. Awful brand of football based on statistics that have no merit or meaning in real terms. He suggested when in charge of Newcastle that you should get the ball in their half by any means possible as soon as possible as they can't score from their own half. This sort of works against poor opposition as you can fight for the ball in their half (as unattractive a proposition as that is) but against a good team you're basically just surrendering possession back to the opposition. Like I said, it may help you beat weaker teams and survive, but against the best in World football you're going to get destroyed. As an Englishman I was forever frustrated watching Lampard, Beckham and Gerrard pinging crossfield 1 in 10 balls every few minutes. When they were playing Brazil you were effectively passing directly to Roberto Carlos or Cafu ergo setting them up for a counter attack. The US have several technically gifted players that were they employed in a role and team that played to their strengths could be very effective. I would urge your board to look for a more progressive coach, someone looking to play football more suited to your team's talents, Teuchel would be perfect. With regards to the lack of English coaching talent, I think that's a myth - there are plenty out there, Howe for one is great. That said, as a fan of more intricate football I would always prefer my manager not to be a retired defender. I always thought Laudrup was very unlucky to be removed by Swansea, wasn't backed in the transfer market and lost a bunch of key players to transfer or injury. Great player and very good coach.
I agree, but I would add a 3rd element...we are scarred as a soccer nation. We need healing. We need someone charismatic and smart and diplomatic. That ain't Sam.
My first response....Bwahahahahahahahah /Sigh Sam. We need to wait until after the World Cup if we are smart. That doesn't meant we aren't talking to people and already have it lined up before hand so they can scout etc. Now is the time for a big time hire. A coach players have to respect because of the coaching resume.