Who, has said that? I'd argue the folks you're falsely attempting to generalize(the current modus operandi of BS elementary debate tactics) for the most part recognize finishing 4th is far from a good result, but don't consider that result to have as many far-reaching consequences as others do, and that in fact our mediocre talent base and gap in development does play a part in it. Then what, exactly, does that have to do with dialogue on BS? Would it not be preferable to actually respond to posts/arguments made on this media platform rather than another, where you can actually engage arguments made here? You come across as not being aware of anything BS posters have argued, which makes sense since you're responding to supposed arguments made on facebook and ESPNFC.
If you read my posts, I dislike Klinsmann immensely but I definitely agree 100% with the bolded statement. I believe that US soccer is moving on and the people involved have a relatively short impact. Klinsmann has virtually no impact on the development of American soccer players unless recruitment is somehow counted as development. When he leaves, some of the players that he ignores will instantly be given a chance. Some will turn out to be extremely valuable and some will, of course, fail at international level but soccer will go on and US soccer will continue to improve by every metric, attendance at games, interest in MLS, quality of play in MLS, depth of the talent pool. quality of the top players (some peaks and valleys will be expsected). Individual players will be affected (Donovan at the 2014 wc), Feilhaber (what kind of chance was he given?), there are others too. Some will still be around when Klinsy leaves some won't but US soccer will be fine. the damage will not be irreparable and it won't be long lasting. Of course if you believe in Klinsy, we are in trouble because he will not be around for ever. When it becomes time for him to leave, the US is in trouble.
Individual players are always affected positively and negatively by a coaching change. For example Beckerman, Cameron, Evans, Beasley, EJ, Davis, ...
I have no idea why you think the coaching change positively affected Cameron... Or Beasley for that matter. Seriously, your shilling for JK is so tiresome.
Why were those comments so bothersome to you? He threw some people that Klinsmann has liked? It didn't seem like he was shilling for anyone.
I agree 100%. I was mainly trying to say that while individual players will be affected (Donovan will obviously not be able to play in another WC) the affect on soccer as a whole is minimal. In the long term, Donovan's absence, while a major disappointment for him (and many others), will turn out to be a minor blip. As you said, other players are affected by other coaches. Klinsmann is not alone in having positive and negative impact on his players. Ching is an example of a player that missed out and there are examples of players that got their start when a new coach entered the stage. While I don't like Klinsmann, I really wasn't trying to make value judgments with the post.
I approve this message . I would say that the economics professor overestimated the potential impact of the Euro poseur group. The thing to keep in mind with this group is that by definition they are fickle and will jump on the latest and greatest bandwagon. In the meantime, the coach, in trying to appeal to this group by declaring in action his superior judgment when he cut the icon representing the epitome of the American-developed player (so far), lost a great deal of the support of the hardcore USMNT fanbase. The right prescription, dear economics professor, would have been to increase the demand for your product by continuing to improve your product. The right formula was already in place, instead we got New Coke.
Disagree with this last sentence. With player development alone, he would not be leaving the cupboard bare. Plenty of talent around to do something with. Personally, I think Klinsmann's tactics are not correct for the players he plays. He plays them out of position constantly, it drives me nuts. Then when said player (Geoff Cameron comes to mind), goes back to his normal position, he shines.
Naturally he's best at center fullback, but Klinsmann dumped him on the wing against Brazil and it did't go well, then he played CB against Mexico and was the best player on the field. But that really is just the beginning. Its a constant issue with Klinsmann. he's done it with many players
It is not that simple. Houston Dynamo: Cameron played both CB and CDM. USMNT: Cameron broke in as a CB and played primarily CB in 2012 and 2013. Played CDM once in 2013 Stoke: Cameron played primarily RB in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 USMNT: Cameron played primarily CB in 2014 and 2015 Stoke: Cameron played primarily CB and CDM in 2015 - 2016 Lots of folks on this board believe he is best at CDM.
my quote was tongue in cheek. As far as Klinsmann's affect on player development, I don't think he has or will have any significant impact one way or the other. Player development is no longer driven by USSF and MLS is increasing it's role. In fact, you could argue that even when USSF was teh only game in town, with Bradenton, that they didn't do much development. In my opinion, the real advancements are/will be made through the clubs. At some point, USSF may be able to have a greater impact on player development by directing MLS but I don't see that. I expect that MLS will continue to grow, become more powerful and may get to the point where MLS controls USSF in most all of the important areas that affect MLS. I know that the MLS teams are required to have an academy team but I believe that was a league directive? Am I wrong?
yea, hes listed as a CDM too. I happen to believe that that position is one of the strongest the USA has, or had anyway. Bradley, Beckman, Jones, Edu all played there, now Danny Williams and Morales can play there. Certainly given the USA poor performance with CB's, I'd hope Cameron would be a starter there and they don't need him at CDM
Missionary... oi. He was DM and CB for Houston. Tony Pullthis tried him at Dmid (against Arsenal and he was bangon, then promptly moved him to right back and strangely attacking CM at one point). Sparky has bounced him from RB to CB to DM. I think in interviews he has said he feels his natural role is center of the pitch, DM.
Boring could mean a lot of different things. It could mean the quality of play on the field is dull (not sure this version is the worst of the last 15 years since I've been watching); or it could mean that the personalities are les interesting (maybe but I don't really care about that). But what many others have voiced is the opinion that I share, which is that the team is less interesting to me for a bunch of reasons. I'm not as excited to see them play; I'm not as happy when they win or bummed when they lose. The difference is not massive; I still care a lot, but it's just not as compelling at it was even a couple years back. One reason some have pointed to that I totally feel is that JK gives the sense that he just doesn't believe in US Soccer. Arena and even Bradley gave the team an underdog, us-against-the-world, scrapper vibe that I could really relate to. I remember Eddie Lewis saying "Don't sleep on the US" after the Portugal game in '02, and that about sums it up: We may not have a lot of rep, but we're better than you think, and we might just kick your ass. JK, I think, strikes me along the lines of a teacher at a fancy east coast prep school who gets paid a lot to teach at an inner-city magnet school and just thinks the new kids are dumb shits (rather than, perhaps, talented but in a raw and less obvious way). Dude just does not believe in US Soccer; I think he sees the players and programs as beneath him and is frustrated and annoyed with them. This does not inspire confidence in players or fans. Second reason is that this team seems to be on the decline since WC14. The results are bummers, 2015 maybe the most disappointing year we've had since 2000 or so. And there's no reason to think things will get appreciably better. Donovan gone, Dempsey aging, and no one who looks capable of stepping up and taking this team to the next level. Someone could, of course, step into that leader/game-changer role, and I hope that a Hyndman or Pusilic or Zelalem will do just that. But from what I've seen in the past six or so months, this is a team whose stock is dropping--not plummeting, but on a discernible though by no means irreversible down slope--and that's harder to get behind than a team with lots of exciting young players and good results. All that said, I'm not bored, exactly. I still watch every game, stayed up later than I should have to watch the goddamn Camp Cupcake match against Canada, for Christ's sake. But I'm just not as excited about this team as I have been about pretty much all the prior editions. Maybe that'll change. Hope it does. But I don't see it changing without a new coach (or JK dropping the Euro-ego and having a radical change of heart/philosophy) or an infusion of transformative new talent.
SO basically you are saying you have an inferiority complex and would rather us struggle along with mediocre players, mediocre scouting, mediocre domestic league and mediocre results indefinitely with the occasional shock result instead of admitting we have a systemic problem and fixing it so we can become consistently good to great and perhaps even win a WC? There is justified pride in excellence and then there is the type of pride that people have because they think winning is our birthright and convention is for everyone BUT us. The first type is natural and even sometimes good. The second type is just arrogance and will get us nothing except more random R16 appearance every other WC or two and maybe a QF once every 30 years. I want no part of that future. I want a NT that reflects our actual country, not only elite club players who's parents are able to fork over 1500 or more per year to some elite club coach who is basically lying to them and extorting them. I want players who have basic skills and confidence to dribble into defenders and take chances. I want a team that expects to make at least Quarterfinals even in our down cycle WCs, not because MURICA but because we have world class, proven and healthy quality through the roster and we know it. I want a domestic league that is attractive to watch and not an embarrassment where players don't even have basic skills. I want the manager to be able to choose his players without pressure from the domestic league to leave quota for domestic league players even if they might be inferior to other options. I want success for our domestic league and national team but realize the whole system is corrupt and people are fighting to keep the corrupt system in place because they are benefitting from it financially.
That is what I was saying in my post in the same sense that your post exposed your latent desire to have a greasy-good three-way with American Pharaoh and the late Bea Arthur. That is what I was saying in my post in the same sense that the U.S. Constitution is a YA novel about a young boy and his dog growing up in Kansas. That is what I was saying in my post in the same sense that John Waters' "Pink Flamingos" was a devoutly Christian film about the importance of fidelity and family as a spiritual lodestar in the modern world. That is what I was saying in my post in the same sense that .... ah, you all get the point. But you have a lot of feelings, and they got hurt, and I forgive you for that. It's all good. I mean, we just played Canada in the second leg of Camp Cupcake, so emotions--and, apparently, hysterical misrepresentations of others' relatively innocuous posts--are bound to be running high. And say what one will about the moribund state of US Soccer, the level of crazy on BS.com is apparently higher than ever. Can't wait to see what lunacy prevails when the March WCQs roll around! Hasta entonces, amigos.
There is no sincerity in your post. You aren't clever. You aren't funny. You are not highlighting any underlying hypocrisy that undermines my point.
There's a lot of sincerity in your post. You're very clever. You're very funny. You're highlighting any hypocrisy that undermines Beerslinger's point.
You don't find them annoying? It's impossible to talk to a bunch of people here, because you can't find even the first bit of common ground with them.
Middle ground? If you had the slightest intention of pursuing middle ground in the debates around here, your posts wouldn't regularly be so extreme. Well that's just asinine hyperbole most know has zero basis in reality. There is no middle ground to be had with statements suggesting the likes of Colorado and Chicago were better than the USNT. You're basically the guy arguing the worst NBA or NFL team would get soundly beaten by the top college teams, which of course is ludicrous. More hyperbole and arguments devoid of reality, after introducing first timers/newer guys Acosta, Vincent, Morris, Kiesewetter, Finlay, Nagbe, Nguyen, Birnbaum, Tchani, Trapp. It's as if you want all new guys, yet at the same time you've set it up so you can argue the other side/result, essentially wanting all new guys and still being able to complain about the lack of chemistry. There is no middle ground in that type of an argument. That you can't tell Acosta/Vincent at LB, Nguyen at AM, Finlay/Kiesewetter on the wing, Tchani at DM, Morris starting with Jozy, Nagbe in front of Bradley are experiments and are a coach looking for answers, shows you have no intention whatsoever to have a genuine conversation or discuss anything which opposes your pre-determined agenda. You don't have to agree with those moves, but that's not what you argued. Yes, so you can turn around and argue the lack of chemistry angle, never mind that again, when you play all of Acosta, Vincent, Morris, Kiesewetter, Finlay, Nagbe, Nguyen, Birnbaum, Tchani, Trapp, chemistry will suffer. But sure, the "others" are the ones who it's impossible to find the first bit of common ground with. Que your "you just back everything Jurgen does as an apologist/MLS basher" auto-response without discussing the middle ground you apparently are in search for.
I started following the team around 2008. I haven't seen a major difference in our style of play except we actually attempt to play out of the back more (often unsuccessfully), and will keep more possession against less talented teams. (A lot of it without any purpose.) We still mainly bunker down against elite teams and probably always will until we get some elite piano players in the pool. I generally think Bradley had the same amount of hate if not more as Klinnsman it was just from the Euro/Latin America > anything American crowd making the most noise instead of the pro-MLS/Landon crowd making the noise now. I really think a lot of the doom and gloom comes from the fact that the '85-'90s (the guys who should be in or entering their primes) have been largely disappointing. Outside of Jozy, Bradley and Bedoya, no one from those years have managed to become semi-permanent fixtures on the full national team. (You can maybe include Besler, Zusi, Omar and Cameron as permanent fixtures but they seem to be in and out to me, and none of those guys are exactly board favorites. ) We are best a producing Goal Keepers and Defensive midfielders not exactly the most entertaining positions. Edit: Left off Fabian Johnson probably probably our best field player at the moment.