You left off Reyna and McBride who I think belong in that group, if not at the top of it. I picked that time because it was in some ways a peak for us, as 2002 was a culmination of the growth of the game with quality from veterans down to promising young players. Even with those top players, we were still playing Vanney, Armas, Casey, and Ching who I don't think would be near our team today. So the top end of the roster may have been better/more exciting, today's depth far exceeds what we used to see and there are over 10 kids currently 21 or under who could become the type of stars that we've had before and maybe even better. That January camp lineup is about as mediocre as it gets. I don't get why you and others are putting this on Klinsmann. It's about the talent of the players, not who he is selecting. I don't understand the interpretation of what Klinsmann is doing and why he is doing it is very strange to me. I think insulting the players is a bit strong and "deliberately defacing the program" is spinning his motives. I think he's just being honest and sometimes that is tough for people to hear. Our players aren't good enough to compete for a world championship. We may be able to rally a group together, devise some nice tactics, and win a game here or there, but I haven't seen a group of our talent level ever get past the quarterfinals of the World Cup... And if I missed someone, then they were beaten in the semifinals and didn't come close to that the next go round. Our top players are average when compared to those of the the top 10 teams. Clint Dempsey hasn't really accomplished anything, so why is it so wrong to say it. Why not shine a light on it so very player now and in the future know that isn't the goal? I appreciate what he's done, but if we are going to compete, it isn't enough. I'd much rather go through difficult period and be better off at the end (no way of knowing that will be the case in the near future) than keep acting like what we are doing will get us there. For all that pride you had with those players in 2004, how did it feel when the Czechs ran us off the field and then when we were still alive after the fight with the Italians, we played completely flat against Ghana and went home early? Why not have a lot of love for all our players now? Why is Frankie Heyduk revered so much more than Jermaine Jones? Why was Earnie Stewart a great addition, but one of the current foreign born and raised players is an affront to US soccer? Why can't all of our past and present players just be appreciated why accepting that they have strengths and weaknesses, instead of propping up the good ole days and claiming this is the worst team in 25 years when the all of the top players haven't been together in the last year and half? Why can't the teams be different?
I was mainly trying to epitomize this critique, which was spot on. Because there's a vertiginous myriad of intellectual wormholes, and all too much grist for the mill out there in front of me. I must be really into soccer - rather than alchemy or philately or the NFL, or any number of things I could find coldly interesting and engaging - because I have an emotional affinity for soccer. Yes, a passion - if you're hopng to sell me to sponsors. That's what makes us such suckers for this garbage. I think our emotional affinity is especially engaged by the grand long term mission of American soccer gaining respectability and overcoming all the doubters and bias. Hiring a foreign coach is saying ours aren't good enough - which is bullshit, but we can buy some bullshit, we like it. We want to believe. Then that coach takes a kid like Julian Green or Tim Chandler to a World Cup over guys like Donovan or Michael Parkhurst, and you disconnect fans and players IMO from some of the power that drives our program. You're telling us that all these things Landon did and represents don't matter one bit. That's disheartening. Exile skill in favor of brawn and "nastiness," then suggest we don't have the talent to attempt to raise our level of play, and our faith will be sorely tested. Whitewash some of our hard won achievements and status from historical memory, and you're again disconnecting us from our myth of progress. Klinsmann has made a very authoritative, sometimes spiteful assertion that this is his team, not ours. So why should we care?
Looking at this from another perspective. Say you're an economics professor who's very familiar with marketing soccer in the US. In fact, marketing US soccer is your personal legacy - and you have a magic wand. It's 2006ish. Say there's this burgeoning core group of US National team diehards. You've got them. Then there's this great number of influential consumers: young adult male Europoseur EPL fans who routinely parrot Sky Sports pundits but dismiss the US program. Then there's this very young generation of soccer players and Messi fans watching little video windows and thumbing nadsat into their phones and Xboxes. And you're thinking of this guy sitting in California waiting for the job offer - and this guy would totally change the OPTICS of US Soccer among this up and coming generation. And he's the real deal, right? A World Cup star as a goalscorer AND a coach who got to the semifinals preaching youth movement, new thinking and attractive soccer. And he knows our scene, has bet his credibility on California philosophies and Landon Donovan. Sounds like you can't lose. Then said coach goes Colonel Kurtz. He does the absolutely unthinkable and cuts Landon Donovan. You would rather he cut out your heart. You find out he was something of a fraud, especially as a coach. Your program hits historic lows, and deliberately plays some of the most primitive soccer in your 20-some year tenure of helping to run this show (and you're a Tahuichi-eating, dyed-in-the-wool Paul Gardner acolyte! "The horror...") And that magic wand you had can't be found. The New Optics are cold comfort, a kind of hollow victory. What do you mean I'm projecting?
I am hopeful with the young talent coming up. The most exciting USMNT play I have seen in the past year was when we went young. Whether it be Morris and Wood in 2015 or Kieswetter vs Iceland. Pulisic looked good for Dortmund this weekend as well.
Problem is, if the coach is a tactically inept moron, it won't matter how good the youth are if they are not being put in positions to succeed.
I for one am tired of the Klinsmann apologists telling us that 4th place in the Gold Cup was a good result for us because we don't have world class talent. Neither do Jamaica and Panama. And the thing about Klinsmann's player selection that gets to me most is the disconnect between his selections and his stated philosophy. He wants to play "proactive" soccer, yet drops most of the technically skilled players in favor of speed, strength, and "nastiness" (his word, not mine). And then he complains about the lack of technical ability in his squad. It seems like the only position where he actually picks players with better ball skills is center back, the position where ball skills are least critical. I like having ball-playing center backs as much as anyone else, but not at the expense of, y'know, defense. It's also bizarre to see him constantly pick Orozco and Alvarado over other center backs because of their technical ability on the ball, when he's simultaneously filling the midfield with nothing but destroyers and runners.
You should have seen the 70s. But put me on the list with those who have never felt such apathy towards our NT as I do now.
If there are folks on those media outlets saying "4th place in the Gold Cup was a good result for us because we don't have world class talent" then they are morons and should be ignored as such. To suggest that that is a point of view of a significant number of Klinsmann supporters is in fact a strawman. I have not seen any JK supporter on BS make any such statement or even any statement that would be even in the same universe as that preposterous strawman that you have created.
I'm tired of anyone not hating Klinsmann and think he is the sole cause of all of our problems being labeled. I haven't seen anyone call our fourth place finish a good result. I know I've said that I didn't care about the 3rd place game and only asked why the historic loss to Jamica was worse than the historic loss to Panama in 2011. Our performances weren't good enough and we all know this sport produces "unfair" results. I think he views speed, strength, and "nastiness" as a prerequisite. He used to call in players like Torres, but decided the other short comings made him ineffective. It's needed to play out of the back, which he may view as the first step in playing that way offensively. Those runners also have technical abilities. Beckerman (who I am not a fan of at this level) is a good distributor of the ball, Bradley and Jones are not inept (though have seemed so at times), Nagbe is very strong on the ball, Nguyen looks to be getting a real run out.
Just because some people don't approve of Klinsmann's performance, that doesn't make their criticisms straw man arguments. Sorry to inform you, but great players don't always make great coaches.
We're at the very start of the mid cycle. The only people paying attention are the very core of the USMNT fans. The core knows what is going with this coach and team with some notable exceptions present on these boards. The fish is rotten at the head. Only the delusional and disingenuous continue to back the current regime. Jim Jones had nothing on this guy. But, as always in sports, winning cures all.
Agree with this also. I also wonder if others would agree that saying the result against Mexico, on our home soil was a good result for us because we don't have world class talent? I wonder how the players feel about this? I wonder how Klinsmann feels about this? Just to be clear, I am not implying that you said or even implied that the result against Mexico was a good result. It is just a question for the masses.