No, I don't think that. I respect your opinion as well. I agree, great 2013. He's done well. As poorly as we did in 2012 in the games that matter, he did literally everything better this year. Full credit where credit is due. I don't know that I see wholesale changes in the way we play yet, since the results we've seen aren't orders of magnitude different than before. Admittedly, I weigh a lot of my evaluations of him on the games that matter, i.e. qualifiers and tournaments. I only consider the friendlies useful for individual player performance purposes. I'm really arguing minutiae, in the sense that when opinion turns in to fact, and is applied to a contract decision, it just boggles my brain. This tangent began with someone pointing to "changes" justifying the contract. That I don't get, for reasons that have already been stated. If these things that you, and @NMMatt and @deejay are saying are things that, in your opinion, are there, then that's awesome. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. And I agree with some of it, but its hard for me to agree with them as some of the reasons why we extended him early. From an organizational standpoint, I have to believe USSF had reasons beyond the nebulous for doing what they did, because smart organizations don't just hand out big money extensions for fun.
I couldn't tell you what JK has specifically done, but when he was seeking the job it came with the guarantee that he would have control over the whole structure of USSOCCER, from youth development up. If I recall correctly (and I'm pretty gd certain I do), his offer was all or nothing. I can't imagine that he would get his deal and then coast.
Here is what I said and will continue to say: 1. To win an important game a team should play to their strengths. 2. The USMNT's strengths are constantly evolving. We look better than we did in 2010. And in 2010 we looked better than we did in 2006.
I don't see wholesale changes in our style of play either--but that has more to do with the personnel available. Klinsmann's stated goal when taking the job was to change, to overhaul really, the USsoccer system so that it can become more competitive in the long run. I think we've seen some modest improvement in the play with this generation of players, but that mostly has to do with the individual players' development. Though, I do think that Klinsmann has seen, and utilized, some more creative-type players that Bob was maybe averse to using--though Feilhaber was probably the only guy that fit the bill last cycle. But, that could also be because this younger set of guys coming in now (Diskerud, Corona, Johannsson. Hell, even Omar Gonzalez) are from the new global trend toward developing more creative and positionally flexible players. Whatever the case, you can't expect that you can take a set of guys who come from, mostly, rigid footballing backgrounds and make them flow differently. The kind of change people on here seek is something that comes in generational waves, and laying the groundwork for that is absolutely key. Disclaimer: none of this means that I think that Klinsmann should remain COACH through the next cycle, and I'm on record suggesting that he could still get the boot as coach but stay as technical director if he does poorly in the Cup.
What a politician! Essentially, your butt is covered with taht answer no matter how we do...because if we're doing well...we're playing to our strengths. If we play bad, you can totally go back to your 'world is ending' replies when he was first hired and how you were right all along. lol
I was very happy when he was hired and upset it took the Federation so long to get it done. I was unhappy during the first round of qualifying and the Honduras away game. I'm very happy with what he has done since then. I don't believe in a 2 cycle coach period. You can look all my posts up if you care to, or you could keep making stuff up.
This about sums up my thoughts on the matter. A good coach plays to the strengths of his players. Bruce did it. Bob did it. JK is doing it. Although there are small ups and downs we're still developing as a soccer nation, and we have an ever developing pro league. Thus, the player pool will be (on the whole) improving with each passing year. On the whole JK has done a great job up to this point. He's hit all his goals in record fashion. However, my opinion is that the head coach of the USMNT has the primary job of qualifying for and performing "well" in the World Cup. Since he hasn't played the world cup yet I don't see why he was given a 4 year extension at this time. That's my own personal opinion and if people don't like it that's fine. Now if they had given him the TD title and ONLY the TD title at this time I might be able to stomach that. Although I'd still like to know what his involvement has been in the youth ranks other than appointing coaches and giving seminars.
I suggested in another thread (or maybe earlier in this one) that it's entirely possible that the new contract he signed has a clause that says that he can be canned as coach and kept as TD if he doesn't meet some performance goal at the WC. We don't know what his contract looks like, so this is pure speculation on my part.
He probably used the TD role as leverage to get an extension as coach. Giving me a pink slip for getting knocked out of the group of death? Fine, I'm going to Switzerland/Spurs/whatever - I'm too young to just sit in an office and give benevolent advice. He probably also wants a say in the succession plan, i.e. Löw at Germany. Besides, who else is going to be available on short notice in July 2014 right after you give Klinsi the boot? And who's going to sweet-talk Julian Green?
So far people hold him to the higher standard demanded by his higher salary and deeper player pool, I'm ok with it. But if the team goes out after losing all three games, without ever looking likely to win, and people around here use the excuse that it was the "group of death," I'm going to start punching walls.
I don't get the Group of Death excuse at all. It is a World Cup, not a Gold Cup. And I don't think Klinsmann is making that excuse either. The goal has been clearly stated when Klinsmann was hired: to do better than before; which is not to get eliminated in the 1st knock-out stage, but to compete with the top 10 teams in the world. The goal was not: oh if we end up in a group with bigger teams than Slovenia and Algeria, we're okay with not advancing out of the group stage. Neither was the goal that if we'd meet a team bigger than Ghana in the knock-out stage we'd be okay with not beating them. What's the whole point of paying the national team coach $2.5 million if you're okay with him not even getting out of the group stages or the first round of knock-outs? Klinsmann will have had 3 years to prepare the team, and will have been paid around $7.5 million (not counting any bonuses or his recent salary bump) in the summer of '14. That and taking our record setting style of play, makes it fair to expect some fireworks during the next World Cup. We've beaten Germany, we've beaten Italy, we've tied Russia, we've beaten Bosnia, we've beaten Mexico, I'm expecting us to beat Ghana now that the 'first touch' is there, and not unlikely grab a point from Germany and most likely beat Portugal. Then we'll play either Russia or Belgium and that's where we'll prove that we've made a lot of progress since the World Cup of 2010.
Some on here said that Jurgen could not make major chances. Because he doesn't have the players long enough to change them from the way they are already playing with there club teams. There is some truth to that. I think when Ceaser Maldini the Daddio of the great Paulo Maldini. Was name coach of the Italian national team he tried to change tge Italian defense from a zone back to man defense. He coached the Italian youth teams for a decade and they won consistently playing a man defense. So he tried to the same with the adult national team it did not work. Because the players club teams played on zone. But there were things tge German teams did like their movement off tge ball. That Jurgen could have done, but so far I have not seen. The excuse that tge Germans have better players then our player is ridicules. When it comes to off the ball movement without the ball. Anybody can learn to move in a way to clear and open space when they don't have the ball. If he does separate training sessions for tge strikers like tge Germans do I have not heard that he does that either. There was a coach from the Metrostars from Portugal. I forget his name. He coaches the youth team of Portugal to great success. He was pretty successful with tge Metrostars as well. The USSf wanted him to take over our men's national team. He wanted that job. But they also wanted him to take over our national youth team system. He would have been perfect to take over our youth system. But he refused because he knew he could not do both the national team and our youth system. But Jurgen thinks he can do both? I will believe it when I see it. Not enough hours in the day for one man to do both even with a ton of help. What is he going to do bring in Germans from their youth system to make that happen?wait maybe that might work.
In some other thread I argued that JK might deserve a full second cycle with the US. I wasn't as concerned about the players tuning him out after barely 3 years in charge. As a quite inexperienced professional coach when he was hired, he really was/is still learning how to coach, and he was clearly still learing the US player pool during the initial 1.5 years. JK isn't some old timer locked into a coaching style groomed over a couple decades that the player pool will be bored with. But I do have misgivings about extending his contract now. It feels too soon. We shall see if the USSF made a good choice or not after the Cup. It seems pretty obvious, though, that the USSF felt: a) there was some chance that JK would get a much better offer after the Cup, one that the USSF could not match later; and b) there must be some confidence that the USSF revenue stream is strong enough going forward to handle a multi-million dollar committment to JK, even if the relationship were to turn sour a year from now and JK is fired. Countering some of my misgiving that the deal was too soon is the general sense that stability is preferable to knee-jerk instability. For all its flaws, the USSF has not acted like a third rate organization in terms of frequently firing and hiring the National Team head coaches. I've always felt much better about how stable the USSF was compared to the Mexican Federation, for example. There is definitely some gambling with this contract extention. But, I think the odds favor this contract turning out well, with only a small chance that it could become a real headache. A reasonable gamble. Knock on wood.
The bottom line is that the timing of this is extremely odd to those of us who aren't in the know. There could be very good reasons we're not privy to that lead to this extension. Unfortunately for us the media hasn't been able to provide such information. Also, I think it's very likely that we'll play well in the group stage (even if we don't make the round of 16). I don't like having ANY coach for 2 cycles, but I realize I'm in the minority. So if we play well then the extension is more or less justified. Thus I expect this discussion to be a moot point after the World Cup. Again, my only qualm is the timing of all this.
Mexican federation is relatively stable they only fire their coaches when they lose to the United States. That's what makes it fun for The US to beat them.
The "some day in the future" is the longest running scam ever. That's why successful religions never give you a precise date for Doomsday. It's always "some day in the future" and they are somehow "preparing" for it. We haven't heard of any timetables, or any fixed plans, of any deadlines. I want to believe the USSF does have such information. The U-23 failed to qualify for London in March of 2012, second time they fail to qualify for an Olympic event, fine. Too early to judge Jürgen. This year, the U-17 fell to Honduras and also failed to qualify, something they normally do, to the U-17 World Cup. Ok, bad result, it happens. Then U-20 team for massacred in the World Cup, Yep, it was a Group of Death, not enough time, etc. At least they qualified, which is something they always do, as countries like Honduras and Costa Rica don't really seem to care about the U-20 level, and the toughest competition after Mexico is Cuba, El Salvador and Panama. All in all, it's been a streak of bad results, when compared to what was achieved before. We don't see any positive effects after a couple of year. Too early? Probably. But at some point people are going to start doubting the Second Coming.
Meh. Youth results are pretty meaningless IMO. Young players aren't nearly as consistent as their older counterparts. The focus should be on quality of play rather than results at a young age. Also, the hope is that our best young players are too busy with club commitments to participate in these kinds of tournaments. I don't really care too much about the youth national teams. Only that they are receiving the proper training. I'm more concerned about the academy and reserve league structure in MLS and how they are handling the vast youth landscape in this country.
But wasn't bringing in Klinsmann part of a "greater plan" that included the youth teams? So if we don't care about the youth teams, and we don't care about the World Cup either because, well, it's the Group of Death, what do we care about? Having a hip manager? Cute jerseys? Awesome chants?