[1a] you know the probability of a 22 yo putting his game together? [1b] I was not excited and understood a coach gets fired for not getting results when it matters. I did not believe there was much risk of not qualifying at that point but I had no idea of the disaster to come. [2] I think Stanko got 17 mins in a friendly and has since gone 90 mins in the Bundesliga. He is former ynt captain and now versatile 24 yo that can play many positions. [3] hopefully some day soon all our players will be top players at top clubs in top leagues. Until that day comes, It would be great if we didn’t have to hear from mls fans how bad the Swiss or Scottish leagues are. I don’t think where a player plays should matter but the focus should be on the talent and potential of the player. By that metric, it’s rare that an MLS player rises to the top and then can keep acsending. Not many American MLSers that don’t plateau by year two or three.
For all the criticism that Klinsmann has gotten for a comment about left backs, has he ever put one out in a game that mattered that was worse than Zusi or Villafana? We didn’t qualify by a very small margin so not sure how you determine that playing better options wouldn’t have gotten us an additional point against Costa Rica and Honduras. Zusi was a liability defensively and impacted how the other defenders needed to play. He also didn’t support CP so he was further isolated and double teamed out wide. Zusi may have not been his worst decision, but it was still bad. Putting it on top of the others may have been just enough to make difference. Gonzalez over Cameron, Villafana over FJ, and Nagbe over JJ was absurd.
I think that Klinsmann got most of his criticism for his statement that "anyone can play left back". I don't really think he was serious...at least not completely serious. I don't know how Zusi could have possibly contributed to the US loss against T&T from his position on the field. At left back, I do not disagree that Johnson would have been a better option than Villafana but who were the other choices? (Garza?, Orozco?, Beasley?, someone else?). What, exactly was the conversation between Johnson and Arena regarding Johnson's position and alleged request to only be called for "important" games? There is enough of a question my small mind to say I don't feel 100% confident that I know what the right choice was. Either way, I don't think Villafana was our weakest point either. I don't believe I said that playing better options would not have help...I believe I said the opposite. Apparently, we disagree on what position(s) hurt us the most. Please read my post a bit more closely. I specifically said that if Arena had played different people I feel we would have won. I mentioned McCarty but I also feel Feilhaber and Cameron would have been good additions. I have always been a Dempsey fan and would say I wanted him to play also but at the time I was worried about his fitness (he is old afterall) and without first hand knowledge I wasn't ready to demand he start, The players I would sacrifice to add the players would be Nagbe, Arriola, Gonzo and either Jozy or Wood (if Dempsey started). I believe we lost the game in midfield. Of course there were other areas of the field that contributed but midfield was the area in which we lost the game. Actually, for all the gloating that went on after the Panama game, I felt we were lucky that Panama was so bad attacking in the last third. We were unable to control the midfield and they also went right through us and put our defense under a great deal of pressure if I remember the game correctly (I have deleted it because I do not plan to watch it again). In the end, our inability to control the midfield against Panama didn't hurt us until we got to T&T. McCarty is one of those players that has bite, determination, smarts and seems to play above his skill level just because he wants it more. If not McCarty, Acosta. I know Nagbe has some very good attributes but he doesn't seem to be nearly the player Feilhaber is when it comes to breaking down a defense and making that killer pass. I believe he would have been a better complement to Pulisc and the forwards.
The fact that Klinsmann's joke gets repeated as a Klinsmann criticism proves @bsky22 point that for some in US soccer anything that Klinsmann ever said is picked apart and portrayed in the worst light possible. With his two left backs out, Klinsmann tried to put a positive spin on a tough situation. "We always have left backs, anyone can play left back," Klinsmann joked. http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1679...both-left-backs-to-begin-world-cup-qualifying
one more thing to add to my post above. (too late to edit) My comments about roster change were assuming he did not change the 23 available. I know there is a great deal of controversy about players left off. My point is that regardless of who actually deserved to be in the 23 (including JJ, FJ, et al) there was enough quality in the group he had on hand. the results could have been changed with slightly different personnel and or approach to the game.
No argument on that point. You may find this ironic but I actually think it was a pretty good joke. Of course the over the top and extreme scrutiny is par for the course when you are in a high profile position. As soccer grows in popularity and stature, that will only increase. I think it is fair to say, for example, that Arena was held more accountable for things he said (even before the failure) this go around than he was previously. It is also human nature for people to latch on to a perceived weakness and beat it to death. As exhibit number 2 I give you the telephone books. by the way, it doesn't really matter too much but I took Bsky's point to be that Arena's choice of outside backs (Villafana and Zusi) were much more damaging to the US' fortunes than I believe they were. I think that Arena's most damaging errors were elsewhere. I