BTW, regardless of what the BS thinks of Klinsmann, the Euro media is going ga-ga over him and I can easily see him making a few phone calls on behalf of every decent US U-17-18-19-20 prospect interested in a Euro club. It may not be Real or Barcelona but, for the US purposes, Hoffenheim or Hertha would do fine as well.
Every foreigner I have met thinks that Klinsmann is great for the USMNT. Then again, it's generally not because they have watched very carefully. For the most part, it's because they figure that a world-class German player must be a better coach than a U.S. guy, and that the USMNT has always been terrible so if it beat Ghana and tied Portugal under Klinsmann, he must be doing a great job. I told a couple of them that the USMNT had made the Round of 16 two of the previous three tournaments. They said, "Really?" But yes they all love JK.
Yes, that's correct again. I remember 'arry Redknapp doing the 2010 commentary - slaughtering Capello during the England-Germany match - and giving high plaudits to Bob. My response then was, "'arry, Bob always brings in Feilhaber on in the second half for Findley and moves Dempsey on top. That's been his standard move for a while now. It has nothing to do with the opponent. It's just how he plans". On the other hand, there's something to all that Klinsmann popularity. A contrast between the dour big name/high salary coaches - Capello again, Prandelli, Hodgson, del Bosque, Scolari, van Gaal yesterday - and a rather exuberant Klinsmann is rather obvious. Most nations understand that they will not win the Cup but they, at least, want to go down swinging.
I can't believe in 2014 that I'm still reading that if we had black guys playing soccer, we'd be awesome. As if Africa doesn't have black guys playing soccer.
If Parker would have switched, me most likely taken Green minutes. With little time, JK would never have played them at the same time.
Canadians think the World Cup is a drinking contest. Serbian, Argentinian, two Mexicans, Brazilian, etc.
I think the idea is having the really talented black guys that we see starring in baseball, football and basketball. I don't think anybody thinks we just need slow, try hard guys with extra melanin.
And I do not think it is a racial thing I think it is expanding the player pool thing. So that we can reach a point that kids of lesser means have just as much of a chance as making it. I feel that is how it is in England, Brazil, France,etc can anyone say that is the case in the US? I think everyone knows Clint Dempsey's story but in a story about Omar Gonzalez in the LA times it was mentioned that his family struggled to pay the club fees for the Dallas Texans. A family who already had a son on the team were nice enough to pay his club fees. If it wasn't for them Omar Gonzalez probably ends up being a division 1 football(like his brother was) or basketball players. How many cases do you think are out there like this but, the player was not as fortunate as Omar was?
Jamaica, Belize, Cuba, Nicaragua and T&T are much closer to home. Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia and Honduras also had a significant contingent of black players. Of the European squads, so did England. Mileage varied.
And Netherlands, and Belgium... Argentina and Germany rarely field black players on the Senior National sides in Soccer, maybe that has something to do without our dual national German contingent...Anyway, I guess this is your year JohnR .
I was born and raised outside the US, I come from a soccer nation. Anyway you look at it the best European footballers are not usually athletic and rely on their skills, Xavi, Pirlo, Ozil, Lampard etc. Just saying that athleticism does not equal success. So all those running backs and all those point guards and small forwards are good at their sport because they're athletic, it wouldn't help them much in soccer, its very very different. Yes you need balance and coordination but you don't have to be "the best" at that stuff. But you do have to be the best in decisions and creativity. There are 2 things that need to be addressed by US soccer if it truly wants to challenge for a world cup and become a soccer powerhouse. 1 The philosophy it follows (Are we going to focus on hard and gritty like Uruguay or are we going to focus on tiki taka like Spain) 2 The youth set-up. As far as I have seen the first point is a failure, everyone in the US claims they are following a philosphy of creativity, but that's not what I am seeing in reality. Most coaching comes from englishmen and is based on the English style. Its the wrong way. English coaches are incredible failures and their style of football is very much behind the times. So US soccer has to stop raising English coaches here to celebrity status and get rid of them. More continental football should be played. The second point, clubs instead of a pay to play system should employ an academy system, where youth players play for free, and that way you will see truly the best players succeed, a meritocracy will arise among players and coaches. No taxpayers shouldn't pay, its ridiculous that some people couldn't figure out who is responsible for paying for all this, the answer is the clubs of course, its an investment to the future of the club (or MLS actually since the system is a little different here than in the rest of the world) I think this is the best way forward. Don't forget that the countries with the best teams in the world cup have clubs famous for their academies and youth set-ups.