Sporting News Piece with anonymous player quotes on JK

Pretty sure one of the ways Klinsmann's chose to attempt to recover was to tell the German press that the American reporter had made up the quotes which were attributed to the USNNT players. More snake oil peddling. .

 

Simple subtraction works, I guess, but only if you don't really read the relevant paragraph.

At the bottom of that paragraph Straus says that the attributed quotes from players (MB, TH and Davis) were generated before SN began reporting on the story. At the top of the paragraph he notes that in the course of reporting on the story (which occurred after the attributed quotes had been made) he spoke to 11 players. Taking his words at face value (and using a bit of logic), I can only conclude that he spoke to 11 anonymously.

Further, you'll note that he says in the course of reporting on the story SN spoke with 11 players. I read that to mean that these conversations were exclusive to SN and no other media outlets were privy to said conversations. You'll note that most, if not all, of the attributed quotes from players appear to have come from post game press scrums where I can't even be sure if SN had a reporter (you'll even note that one of the attributed quotes is credited to the NY Daily News (I believe, too lazy to check again)). Even if SN was present when these quotes were generated, I'd be disappointed if SN attempted to pass off quotes provided to numerous press outlets in the manner they do in the above paragraph (which is as information provided exclusively to SN).

Hey, I could be wrong, but I'm not sure how anyone could read the above paragraph and conclude that the most likely scenario is SN only spoke to 8 anonymous player sources. And while this certainly is a relatively minor point, I tire of a certain poster (not you) playing fast a loose with the facts in order to push his agenda.

 

The tactical competence vs. Mexico depends on how one rates the relative strengths of the two teams. I don't rate Mexico highly at this point - their three ties to open the Hex aren't coincidental - and I don't consider the bunker-without-a-counter to be an example of some brilliant preparation. Part of the success was due to an opportunity to train at altitude prior to the match; part was due to the current Mexican roster weakness and poor chemistry; part to a little roll of luck.

Overall, the team looks worse than when it was losing close games to Belgium and France and even when they lost big - but played well - against Brazil at RFK and this represents a pattern similar to JK's and MV's reign at Bayern. The longer the two of them stayed in charge, the more wheels seemed to come off. Chances are that this has been due to the lack of organization and planning from the coaching staff and that more or less proves Straus' anonymous quoters right.

 

Well, Klinsmann's are negative. The guy can't even defend himself properly. I know he was a striker but come on.

 

Just going off the Cameron and Altidore quotes you used before this post they seem very general, "I support the gaffer", type stuff. There's nothing specifically addressing throwing unpracticed formations and lineups out there or any of the specific claims.

Also just logically the 2 results don't prove anything, this is a game where one event can change the outcome so it's very susceptible to outliers and requires a solid sample to draw conclusions. Orozco-Fiscal scored a game winning goal against Mexico in Azteca but that doesn't make him a lock starter just like getting an away point doesn't mean we're as sharp tactically we could be. I know there's a human impulse to declare a definitive outcome as soon as possible but we won't know for sure how to judge Klinsmann until his tenure is over. To account for that I try to look for progress over the course of a cycle. What mistakes that have been made that are repeated and which aren't.

 

What would be the point in judging him when is tenure is over. CEO's do not keep their jobs by arguing that they can only be judged at the end of their tenure. They are reviewed by the board and they argue for their agenda.

 

The World Cup is what international coaches are judged on. Misaligned incentives and the failure of good corporate governance explain a huge part of the financial collapse we just experienced.

 

This sure is fun. Shouldn't it be moved to USA Men general at this point? Or merged with another Klinsmann thread over there? For consistency's sake, and all.

 

It's certainly commendable to want to wait until the World Cup is complete to evaluate coaching performance. Many countries, however, are unwilling to compromise by wasting a cycle to offer the coach the benefit of being judged in the WC, at the expense of movement in the appropriate direction ( and no saying one way or the other that this is the case with JK and the USSF).

The following coaches have been determined to have delivered sub-par performances, to the point that their associations thought best to remove them prior to completing the 2014 cycle.

1.Pitso Mosimane South Africa
2. Jinnah Phiri Malawi
3. (2) Henri Michel, Francis Kimanzi,Kenya
4. Goran Stevanovic, Ghana
5. Sergio Batista, Argentina
6. Bob Bradley, USA
7. Craig Levein, Scotland
8. Claudio Borghi, Chile
9. Mano Menezes, World Cup Host Brazil

I'm sure, I missed some, however, waiting until the World Cup is complete to judge coaching performance is a model shared by few in the World soccer community.

 

Oh my.

In the end, obviously JK is going to be judged by the results. But in the context of this article, we should be talking about his tactical decisions and whether they worked. My opinion is that, for various reasons, the snow game isn't a plus or a minus for JK. He didn't do anything tactically that was interesting in either a positive or negative way, and the conditions made tactics borderline irrelevant.

The team did show terrific team shape and defensive awareness against Mexico, so I'm going to give JK credit for that.

As a side note, JK has put out tactically prepared and aware teams when we play an opponent he respects. But against sides that JK thinks aren't that good, we seem to be winging it.

 

It would be like judging Joe Montana playing in a torrential downpour and wondering why the west coast offense wasn't clicking. Everyone pro and con should just take the 3 points and shut up about what it means or doesn't mean. It gave the US a much needed lift despite that 90% of us had it as a win in our minds when mapping out qualifying. Getting the points makes JK's job safe, without question, barring a June collapse. The only other positive was a (hopeful) beginning of solidifying the middle, whether it be because Guzan was in or Cameron was out, or Gonzalez was more comfortable. Or we can thank JK for a more dedicated DM stand.

It was a repeat performance as seen vs. Belgium, France, Italy and Mexico. It was the best they have looked so, yes it is a positive, but we've done it before. He should lose some points for not figuring out some, any final third answers. But a result is a result in qualification.

We get nearly as many shots vs. other CONCACAF teams as we do against the big teams, which isn't saying much.

 

Here's a key point that you never seem to grapple with.

What, precisely, did they "go on record" with?

 

I'm pretty sure they all said it was nepotism. Can't you guys go grind your axes elsewhere, please.

 

It has all been posted in this thread. Start with Geoff Cameron right after the story broke saying "All of us support Jurgen. He’s brought a lot to this team and he’s helped me become a better player.", move to Altidore in response to Straus' piece questioning JK technical acumen “That stuff is nonsense,” "At the end of the day I hope those guys look at themselves in the mirror and change their attitude”. Work your way through MB90, Dempsey, Boca, Gonzales, Beasley, Gomez and end with Howard taking a shot at Straus for cutting and pasting (Howard's) old quote and placing it in the article out of context.

 

I'll give statman a good beating soon... I don't understand strawman references. The world over, people want 'evidence' and 'proof' for sh*t we all know is obvious. Then by the time all your evidence and proof is collected, the moment for positive change is gone.

All the players have gone on record to call for the team to come together, for points to be earned, for others to stand up and stop talking out of class, for world peace, but they didn't stand up and say Strauss or the quotes were wrong, JK and MartEEn wear the cat's pajamas, and the team is a force of brutal nature, did they?

I think I will disagree. If Mexico make it to the WC, I think they will go far (great 8) and give at least one good team a hell of a spanking.

 

Could list the reasons why + performance curve? (I would give you double rep for that )

 

Apparently not

 

I suspect they were removed because their federations didn't project a positive outcome in the World Cup in their future. We will not know how good Klinsmann is as a coach until after the World Cup, we can make projections and judge progress, but the nature of this job is that there's a tournament once every four years and if you exceed expectations in it your a hero and if you underwhelm you're the goat. As his tenure continues there will be more and more evidence that will be used to bolster projections, qualifying and official tournament results being the best examples. My point is that there's a difference between knowing and projecting, handling that uncertainty is part art part science (although generally I suspect it's treated as much more of an art as currently practiced).

 

I don't know how you can be so certain after the WC either. See Klinsmann 2006, Bradley 2010, etc.

 

How about it's okay to criticize any coach within reason at any time?

You're never going to stop people from having opinions.

 

The analogy only works if it was the first few times that Joe had run the offense and it wasnt yet clear that is was a game-changer.

After winning Super Bowls, Joe Montana can afford to have a bad day or two, especially due to inclement weather.

JK's body of work is such that he has no real coaching credentials with THIS team to fall back on and his previous coaching stints are mixed.

So while I agree its not fair to draw conclusions from Denver, its hard to say that our offensive output and control of that game are an anomaly for a JK coached sqead. I am delighted we got 4 points but I remain concerned about our coaching.

 

No, you can't disagree with me by saying, "if they make it". (you can by saying, "they'll win the Hex by 8 points", although I don't think it's a possibility at this point - 24 pts vs. 16 - either)

If they had the talent to run away with the Hex, they'd be running away with the Hex. Remember, the last two times they were in trouble, they were able to call on Aguirre to save their butts. But Aguirre is doing well now with Espanyol and won't leave it for peanuts on a one year contract. And, if not for Aguirre, where will they go?

 

La Puente?

 

Ya quemaron La Puente dos veces. No se puede regresar.

 

Y su gorrita?