Alert: Klinsmann expresses absolute desire to continue coaching past the 2014 World Cup

Bingo.

 

Like many, I have my doubts about keeping a coach for 2 full cycles. Staleness in the squad from a coach set in his ways can be a problem. However, there is no hard and fast rule here. Some nations have done fine with coaches returning. Others not. The US track record is way too small to draw any strong conclusions.

I'm just going to enjoy the next 7 months and then make up my mind next summer. If Klinsi and the US have a strong World Cup, I would have no problem keeping him on for another cycle.

One of the many things that makes Klinsi "different" from Arena or Bradley, for those trying to find historical parallels to draw conclusions from, is that Klinsi is still a very raw, new coach in the big picture. Barely 2 years with Germany, having Loew hold his hand and less than one year at Bayern before the US hired him. Klinsi is still learning and growing as a coach; on the job training to a degree. Arena and Bradley each had a far longer track record as coaches when they took the US job and were arguably far more set in their ways, less willing or able to adapt as the player pool changed. Seems to me that under a Klinsi 2nd cycle there would be a smaller chance of staleness creeping in than there was under Arena and Bradley. No guarantee, mind you, but a lower probablility.

 

Ehh we all know the World Cup is what will ultimately be the deciding factor and results are what will matter. The thing is, where the USA is right now, us playing well should get us out of any group....maybe not a Brazil/Netherlands group which I coin the SuperGOD....SGOD.

Even if the group of death is drawn, we have to remember that WE are one of the main reasons it is a group of death. We are a team not one single country wants to draw out of Pot 3....even Ghana!!

I personally like what he has started and think 1 more go around as coach and then a long term Technical Director job after that is the way to go.....assuming there isn't some massive fall out with the team or something.

 

Looks like Rusians want to re-up Capello thru 2018

http://www.straitstimes.com/breakin...-want-fabio-capello-stay-till-2018-world-cup-

Anybody think Capello would be better for us in the next cycle than Klinsmann?

 

This and it's not really important compared to the WC.

If JK's team does a stinker in the WC then no one cares about the hex.

 

If keeping a coach for two cycles is OK for Spain and Germany, then we shouldn't rule it out. I'm not saying it's always the right move, obviously, but if JK is the best available coach moving forward, then we should continue with him at the helm.

 

I actually think this notion that you judge a coach by how many players he has tried out is utterly pointless. All those call ups of guys who don't make the grade are just wasted minutes and faulty speculation. It's like saying whoever makes the most mistakes wins.

But yeah, any decision about what should happen to Klinsmann post cup is gonna hafta wait until post cup. It all boils down to how things go in Brazil. I think the need to swap out coaches after each cycle is a bit overstated around here to be honest. I think it's more or less a wash between cohesion and keeping the momentum going and bringing in fresh ideas, merits on both sides. But if he succeeds at the cup and wants to continue, I don't have a problem with it. There is always the option of making a change after a year or so like we saw this cycle if it looks like things are going too stale.

 

I dont like the replace him after a year or so into a cycle thing. That is really not a habit I want us to get into. Barring a collapse or implosion at the WC, I want to see him through Russia.

 

I agree that we should keep him. What is being attempted here is more foundational than a typical coaching job. This type of stuff requires more time.

 

No. I think JK knows the pool and the system quite well. I'd support his staying if the showing at the World Cup is decent. He didn't get a full cycle, and for the sake of continuity, I'd support his staying.

Also, while at the time of hiring I didn't think he was an upgrade on Bob, and he had much less experience, I also think that, given such lack of experience, he has a higher ceiling as a manager. If a guy with 2.5 years coaching experience is matching a guy with 10+, it means the former can grow into an even better manager.

I think we may be seeing it with our own eyes. But it's a process. I feel he needs another term to complete such process. That some are ready to claim him a top manager already and have inflated expectations can actually affect such process, since I bet they'd be asking for his head if the team doesn't survive the group stage in Brazil.

 

If we do okay in Brazil I'd absolutely be fine with keeping Klinsy past 2014. It should also be noted that if we keep him after Brazil we're not stuck with him through Russia. In 2015 we get the Gold Cup and in 2016 we get the first round of qualifiers as well as the possible Copa America (if it's an A squad tourney). If we come out flat next cycle changes can me made

 

He had sufficient time to do some things he failed to do. Those were mistakes of leadership. He wanted to be all things to all people in the hopes of shedding the baggage he brought from his previous gigs. I understand why he did what he did but I dont approve it. I would definitely recommend him for a spot at any other Nat Team but with the development of the game locally in recent times I would prefer a fresh approach for the USMNT because we are entering a phase where we could have England type problems and Klinsi isnt the guy for that.

 

Only if Clint keeps taking free kicks.

 

Comparing Arena coaching the USMNT and in college and MLS to Europe is hysterical. Not even close.

 

Sure, he can stay, if the WC results are acceptable/great. If we have a bad GC afterwards, though, consider other options.

 

My fav has always been Peckerman among the guys I think we might be able to get. I wonder how many would truly be options among the internationals, as I'd prefer a coach with an international track record of quality.

 

2006 was group of death's little brother. While not as bad as Netherlands/Argentina/Serbia and Montenegro/Ivory Coast, Italy/Ghana/Czech Republic/USA was unbelievably bad. World Cup winner/Cup of Nations contender and flagship African Side and Euro 2004 semifinalist (and generally regarded as the best team at Euro '04) was horrific. To make matters worse, the Czech's were decimated by injuries as the cup wore on, but not for our game when they had a healthy Koller and more options in general.

I always viewed '06 as a group of death.

 

Peckerman or Hiddink.

 

Following up on my list of potential American coach rankings - the result that Houston got tonight and the attitude that they showed are absolutely horrendous. Kinnear should be nowhere near the national team job.

 

It's stuff like this which reinforces my desire to have him around for another run:

"Klinsmann said he already has a training plan in place for those national team players whose season ends in November. He said he would work with the team players who see action in the MLS to plan offseason loans and a January national team training camp in both Brazil and Southern California. ..."Our priorities are set so that the first one is if you get a chance to go on loan to Europe, do it," Klinsmann told USSoccer.com. "It is very crucial for us that the players understand that everything they do now today has an influence on Brazil 2014 next summer. They can't take it easy....Whoever won’t be on loan in January or February overseas is going to be part of our mandatory January camp," Klinsmann said in the interview. "We expect everybody comes in. We’ll try to bring in some younger players (and) have a look at them as well, because we want to get a roster together of 20-23 guys that is highly motivated and inspired to go into the World Cup year. It will be exciting. Our plan is to break it down into two periods: one in LA and one in Sao Paulo. They will get a first taste of Brazil in January."

link: http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1...-wants-us-players-impact-mls-playoffs?cc=5901

The article begins with Klinsmann making it known that Nats players involved in the playoffs have to have a clear impact in their games. They can't just be their for the playoff party. Underneath that argument, I imagine, is Klinsmann's belief that if you aren't playing in Europe, you better be dominating domestically. I don't disagree w/that argument although game plans can get in the way of that thinking.

My fav part, however is the quoted portion. I love how hard Klinsmann is working to get everyone as fit, as battle tested, and as prepared as humanly possible. In '98 I remember watching a special about the quiet, obscure town our team called home for France, and beyond that, there was little of note other than the crazy formation idea that came out of the arsekicking we gave Austria shortly before the tourney. Move forward 15 years in time and not only is Klinsmann scouting Brazil a year in advance, he's also getting players to train in Brazil during winter break to get familiar with what the region is like, and he's demanding that players challenge themselves, rather than vacation, during their respective breaks.

There's always the possibility that players could be overtired from all this work, but I tend to doubt it. We don't have many players engaged in the major tournaments that tend to exhaust players like Messi, etc, who end up logging serious minutes for club (league games, domestic cup games, champions league/Europa games) and country.

For now I'm for Klinsmann because I like what I've seen, especially in terms of handling adversity (erratic first year '11-'12, minor back room dust up/crankiness in early '13), and in terms of generating results (great hex, gold cup win, great friendly wins, only 2 bad hex performances, at Honduras and at Costa Rica), and I love how he's scheduled the best of the best as our friendly schedule, and repeatedly made us travel for the games, rather than host, whenever possible and that he's worked so hard to use his personal contacts to assist players in getting loans to both boost their careers and help prep them for the rigors of playing the worlds best next june.

I also think that the argument against a 2nd term based on historical results is a bit of small sample size scenario being broadcast as a much more broad statistical history than it really is, and in regards to our own, we only have one quality example to our name, and who was complaining about Arena during any point of the late '02-'06 cycle before the wheels fell off? Hell, Wahl published a paen to the greatness of Arena just a week or two before our opener against the Czech's. I'd rather judge Arena based on the overall performance of the squad during the second term, and it was largely excellent. The problems developed late when Johnson went down and we had no pairing to speak of with McBride w/Donovan being groomed to replace Reyna as the conductor of the attack. All our quality forward options had either gotten hurt or flamed out at that point which is why our attack was so bloody anemic. Johnson was lined up to be the stud speed/athlete pairing with the McBride target man after having played so well at the U-20's in '03, and begun a star turn in '04-'05 until he went down with a knee injury and came back a shadow of his former self. Meanwhile Mathis, the stud of '01-'02, had fatted up, gone all Kanye West, and was fighting with coaches, and in general becoming a nuisance, Twellman couldn't quite cut it, Ching was a pale imitation of McBride, Casey and Cooper weren't the answer, and then to compound the injury, depth, and talent problems we got the group of death part deux, in Euro '04 semi-finalist Czech Republic (when they were relatively healthy, they lost two starters, including key offensive cog Koller, who killed us, late in the game against us, and were not the same in their final two group games), World Cup '06 winner Italy, and African powerhouse Ghana.

I always felt Arena did a good to great job for the majority of both cycles and while his ego got out of control late, and his choices for friendlies: loss @ home vs Morocco, victory at home over Venezuela and Latvia w/a scrimmage victory over Angola in Germany in June, and (and b.s. justifications of said pathetic choices) in the run up were horrible, and he became a bit too one track in terms of the players he wanted (just too inflexible), he was a great coach. Looking back we now know we've gotten our heads kicked in in one match of group play in every single world cup going back to '9o, whether it was Czechoslovakia back then, Romania making us look stupid even if the score was close in '94, getting rolled in an opener against Germany in '98, getting pounded by Poland in '02, and then getting squashed by the Czech's in '06 and in the first half against Slovenia in '10 (if not the game). The Czech game turned on all those factors coalescing, probably a bad game plan by his assistance, and then a turning point goal that wasn't when Reyna's equalizer hit the post with a chance that would have changed the complexion of the game (much like the waived off goal of Donovan's against Poland). Following that disaster you would have expected the US to pack it in and humiliate themselves against Italy like they had against Iran eight years earlier but instead they turned in one of their greatest performances ever in drawing Italy despite being down a man with a game plan that Arena and not his assistants, had put together. The Ghana game then turned on an all world, career ending disaster play by Reyna that also ended his career with the team and that cost us a chance to win when combined with the phantom, absurd PK call right after Dempsey had equalized late in the half. We'd also hit the post in the 2nd half against Ghana.

I just don't view Arena's second term as a disaster, he had a great run, and then ran into twin problems late before the cup, injuries and drops in form to his best forwards, and horrendously bad luck in the draw and in group play. It's worth remembering that both we, and those Czech's had disappointing cups, and that Czech team was easily one of the best 8-10 teams heading into that tourney. They had bad luck just like us, losing 4 key starters to injuries in the run up to, and during the cup. Also worth mentioning is the fact that Arena again began dominating the MLS after New York idiotically fired him in '07 leading the galaxy to several consecutive outstanding seasons from '09-present after they had appeared completely shipwrecked following the Beckham signing. His performance with LA xcombined with his track record in D.C. and w/the US Nats really does reinforce the argument that his second term was largely successful until injuries and a ton of bad luck cost the team in Germany.

I have no problem with Klinsmann earning the right to a second term, especially if we can't get a Peckerman or a Hiddink or someone of that caliber, with great soccer at the '14 tourney. If the team plays well, even in defeat, or if they do well and play well, then he and his group have earned it, and so far I've been impressed, and that's considering the fact that he wasn't my first choice in '06 or '10 or '11 (Peckerman), and he had his struggles.

He gets a "yes" from me contingent on quality play in the tourney (results may go one way or the other, I want to see genuine quality play).

 

Normally I don't read the entirety of posts that are that long. I'm glad I did there. Spot ****ing on.

 

I wouldn't be as keen on Hiddink at this point as some might. He hasn't exactly been sterling in his last few jobs.

 

Completely agree. He couldn't even get Turkey to the Euros, and they looked quite good at that time.

 

Hiring Hiddink is like freaking out before final exams and texting a sketchy dealer for your Adderall fix. It might help you cram for the test, but you're just as likely to end up with a useless pack of Claritin instead - and you won't really have learned much from the experience.