The Klinsmann Coaching Thread, v 2

Yeah, it's been a joy to watch, but I must admit, I have wondered what we would look like on several occasions without him.

Think JK did a great job of showing we can play and produce without him over these last few mths.
Great for the team without him, and it takes pressure off LD of having to be the man.

Had no issue leaving him off. Bold move that could and has paid off...just wanted JK to shut up.

Very curious to know how these guys would have reacted without him.

Oh well, I'll just enjoy the show.

 

Puebla thing. Lied about offering a contract, and for how much. Showed up, not out if shape, and was basically told he wasn't needed...then Puebla spun it as if it was EJ.

 

The strength of this squad is sort of a weird convergence of bad luck that the USMNT has turned into good luck. EJ, Holden, LD and Beas all have been lost to us, we were forced to find alternate solutions and now they are back to us. In the end, we are all the richer.

 

Who gives a shit?

If a team brings 23 players to a tournament and 3 of them are legit A team players (in that 1-18 range) then its a B team. A person doesn't really need to be so anal retentive about the definition. "Arrr, its only a B team if every single player on the squad falls outside the top 18 players in the pool....arrrr, everything is black and white, I must always stay between the lines when coloring. I hate curved lines. 90 degree angles are the only correct angles in the world....arrr"

However, when a team brings 23 players to a tournament and 7,8,9 of those guys could legitimately fall in that 1-18 range, you're talking about a mixed A/B team, which is what we have in this Gold Cup. Hence and A-/B+ rating.

My definition isn't that rigid. Its more of a baseline. I just think that cutting off at 11 is too rigid of a definition, especially considering if a coach uses his subs, we have basically just switched to our B team by your logic. Or if we change formations (which causes a personnel change) based on opposition, that's our B team.

I really don't understand why you feel the need to argue with me on this. I will never ever ever ever agree with your definition of A, B, C teams. And quite frankly, I don't give a flying f*ck if you agree with me.

 

I've thought of that also.

Outside of 2002, we have bad some real bad luck when it comes to injuries...maybe things will start change for the better again.

 

Yeah, I sort of get that vibe from you in a lot of things.

This is not an argument from my part. It's a presentation on a standard and a discussion on which is more convenient. It doesn't matter whether you or I like a definition or not. What matters is if we as a community agree on it. Otherwise it's pointless to use the A or B team terminology at all! For my part I will use whatever terminology that has consensus.

 

Then explain 2006. JOB, Gibbs, Hedjuk and Italy, Czech Republic and Ghana.

 

If you were to present an argument based on something other than there are 26 letters in the alphabet so we have enough to go around, then I'd listen to your thoughts...But that's all you've come to this discussion with.

If the cutoff is at 11, what happens when two starters are injured headed into a World Cup game and by the 75th minute we've used all 3 subs. Did we finish the game with our B team because half of starting field players weren't on the field?

Or what if everyone is healthy, but we opt to play a 4-5-1 and one of our starting strikers is replaced by a midfielder. And instead of two attacking central mids, we start two defensive mids (thus replacing another starter. And again, we use all three subs. Is that a B team that finishes the game?

Provide something other than the number of letters in our alphabet to define your reasoning and I'll happily engage in the discussion with you. And believe me, it will be completely civil, even if we never agree.

But if that's the best you've got, then its a complete and total waste of time, because nothing I say, logical or not, will inspire any thought of any kind from you. So what's the point?

 

How about Charlie Davies, Rossi and Subotic?

I know the answers already for the above.


We had some poor luck at poor times.
Only way u beat that is with depth. Getting there. Next cycle will even be better depth wise.

 

Hmmm....I just remember them cutting him because he couldn't contribute right away and was months from match fitness. Could have spun it on him. I thought he showed up to seattle out of shape?

 

I think the pitch took some time getting used to. Mix looked a little out of sorts, too. Coming in as subs, they were compared to others who already had 70 minutes time to get used to the concrete.