That's not really true. Arena got lots of stick for the three straight qualifying losses in 2001 (two on the road, sandwiched around the one at RFK to Honduras). If you were around then - as I'm sure some of you were - you remember how that went. I do have the famous "Fire Bruce" thread saved somewhere (it's from around that time period, or most of it is), but I can't find it at the moment. I haven't looked at it in a while, but my sense is that the level of angst is very similar, even if it's got a much broader base today and is focused on different topics.
I think the opening salvo on the xenophobia/ethnocentrism front was launched by Klinsmann. Around 2012/2013, he began to characterize problems with American soccer development as intrinsic problems with American culture. By 2014, he was doubling down on that kind of rhetoric and even calling out guys like Kobe Bryant as being symptomatic of a "problem" with sports in the US. That kind of language, coupled with his selection of the duals, I think, is what triggered people, especially because the general feeling in 2011 even among people who were excited about Klinsmnn coming on-board was not that we needed a maverick outsider to save us from ourselves and our weaksauce sports culture.
As promised, come back with us now to the first week of September, 2001. This was a word doc that I made into a pdf, and the formatting is wonky in places, so it won't read as cleanly as a thread might. But not a lot survived the Great Crash of 2002, so this has a bit of Dead Sea Scroll vibe to it. In case 51 pages of this stuff isn't your bag, some of my favorite insight: "It's Steve Sampson all over again... As someone else pointed out.. atleast Sampson never was embarrassed at home, and he had FAR less talent available.. “ “Bruce's insistance to play these Euro trash dogs like Kirovski, Cherundolo, Sanneh, Regis, JMM and his "boys" like Agoos, Llamosa, etc.. is just making me sick and is an exact replica of the kind of B.S. Sampson was pulling back in his years.. “ “Bruce doesn't believe in MLS.. He has proven it time and time again with his selections. “ “0-0-3 in World Cup 2002, 32nd place.. Congratulations Bruce.. “ “GIVE SOME QUALITY PLAYERS A CHANCE YOU SACK OF DIRT!! “ “Bruce is phony and a fraud. He brings college tactics in international level and plays his college pets. If soccer is mainstream he wouldn't have a job right now.” “THe defence was crap and our attacking, once again, was crap. If it hasn't been for Stewart we'd have looked really bad. Our front line doesn't take it to the defence enough. Our defence is PAINFULLY slow. If we take this same defence to the WC we are in for a short WC again. “ “Why does Manny Lagos continue to be ignored?? He's been performing game in and game out, scoring and creating goals for his club team... Sure, he finally gets called up.. years after he first have should have been given a chance by Bruce.. “ “What USSF should do is to host a mendatory press conference right after the match so soccer journalist can iterrogate Bruce. That is what every country does except US. That way a lot of nonsense can be stopped.” “Sorry... I think we were weak all over the field. Tactically we looked so much like an amateur team out there! We were beaten at every aspect of this game. Preparation, tactics, creativity, coaching. And when Honduras was running all over us with their breakaways, did we even once try to slow down the game? No. Unfortunately, we're not that intelligent. And neither is our coaching staff... “ “We have the players (not neccessarily the ones that Arena has selected) -- we desperately need a top-level coach to step in there and put some order and structure in for this team to start playing good ball. IMO that should happen at the end of this qualifying phase -- and before WC2002. “ “I hate to say it, but 4 years from now, we'll be talking about the horrible days of Bruce's reign with the same bile that we produce when talking about Sampson's days!! “ “How can he not play Lagos in 433. The best wing forward in the league. “ “What's Kenn and others don't understand in comparing (Arena) to Sampson is that he really is Sampson, and Bora. They all share three extremely unfortunate attributes. “ “Bottom line is this: If it were my decision, I would have fired Arena a long time ago, revoked his coaching license, or reduced it to a "D" level license. But luckily for Bruce and for all you Arena apologists, it isn't my choice. “ “Arena was never the man for the job.. Who is DC united in WORLD FUTBOL??? who is Arena in WORLD FUTBOL??? the answer to both is nobody “ “I have been saying to fire that clown for a while now but no one listens until now” “No, IMO the TEAM is NOT better (even when healthy) than it was in 1998. Not even close! Some of our players are better at an earlier age than some of the veterans, but we currently have players that have minimal skill (Sanneh, Cobi). And our basic fundamental TEAM skills are mediocre to poor. SO ... as a TEAM, nope ... as the team stands now, we haven't gotten better in the past 8 years, and with Arena, I don't see it happening either... “ Some of the best (or worst) stuff is from people who (probably, I can't swear to it, because I don't frequent this part of the community) don't post much, if at all, anymore, at least under the names they did at the time. But some of them were...well, they were ********ing morons, quite frankly. Arena most certainly did take flack prior to 2006. I would imagine had there been as robust an internet then as now, Walt Chyzowich's lineup selection would have been the subject of much consternation as well.
So, what you're saying is, fans are fans? When we're doing well, our coach is great. When we fail, our coach is garbage, right?
Well, if you promise free-flowing, proactive, attacking soccer, and after four years deliver a team that is outshot 50 to 20 in its Gold Cup group, and only manages fourth place playing disconnected, indecisive, boring soccer, of course you're going to have a lot of people mad at you.
This was the beginning of the internet/message board age. Since the number of participants was so small, any "stick" Bruce got at that time pales in comparison to Double B and Klinsi. Sampson got it a lot worse too even before message boards, esp around the WC in France.
Sums it up quite well. Plus add the "fans" that never liked the choice to begin with or supported the fired guy who are laying in the weeds to jump when the first sign of struggling occurs. Then the fans of the new coach will jump in to defend him, and off we go!
That is not the point. As I said, the kids may or may not develop but at that level they are playing the type of football that Klinsmann wants to implement at the senior level if he can develop or otherwise acquire the players to do so. Right now we don't have those players at the senior level but we do at the current U-20 level. Hence we are playing that style there.
I think I actually said that. The level of spittle was similar, though now there are exponentially more people spitting it.
I guess I am saying I don't think the level was similar. Maybe with the few people that were on here in those days, but certainly not in the USSoccer "world" as a whole Sampson, BB and now Klinsmann got and are getting a lot more than Bruce ever did until his disaster in 2006. He still had plenty of supporters when he was fired.
I'm saying most fans are ********ing morons. We all have varying levels of emotional investment in these things. But too many jagovs couch their feelings of "I am upset because 11 guys I never met ruined my day because I can't separate sports from truly important things" as "Listen here, I am an expert in soccer and I am telling you that I am better at this from my couch than people who do it for a living, so pay heed." It's why allegedly "News & Analysis" discussions - especially here - have traditionally gotten bogged down. It's difficult to have rational discussions with people who think Manny Lagos was some kind of inspired talent. And some people would love to have rational discussions about the game. But they can't. Because idiots ******** up the works and then hide behind "passion" or "fans will be fans." Just admit you wrap too much of your life up in the fortunes of people who you don't know. If that's "being a fan," then ******** that nonsense. You are in for a lot of shitty days if that's what drives your moods.
We are saying the same thing in different ways. I am saying there are far more people now doing the caterwauling. But the caterwauling sounded similar - if, obviously, not as collectively loud. And Bruce - just like any coach - will have supporters when they are fired, detractors when they are hired, and both in the middle. But I am telling you as someone who was here in 2001 - which you were not - that Bruce was taking quite a bit during that qualifying campaign. OBVIOUSLY there are more people now, it's fourteen years later.
Jeez, I forgot about that. I think most of the diehards expected Bob to be fired after the Confederations. That tournament was crazy. After the first two group matches, we were 0-0-2 having been outscored 6-1 by Italy and Brazil. Coming into that Egypt match, we looked done for. They had taken Brazil to the limit (4-3 loss on a 90th minute PK) and beaten Italy. And Italy had a respectable 3 points with a +1 goal differential. Still unbelievable that not only did we score the incredibly improbable 3-0 win, but Brazil blasted Italy by the same score to allow us to advance on goals scored. Before the Egypt game, there was a ton of talk of Bob being fired, and I remember that interview with Michael amidst lots of talk about Bradley being a lame duck coach and about to lose his job. Instead they pull off the desperation win (seriously desperation, it was Dempsey's 71st minute goal that sealed it, then both us and Brazil held on), follow that up with the stunning Spain upset, and darn near beat Brazil to take the title. We went from Bob being 90 minutes from losing his job to the biggest win in USMNT history and Bradley being hailed a genius (the management against Spain was truly inspired stuff, let them dominate possession everywhere but inside the box). Man...I still remember Onyewu's scorpion clearance in that game. Truly one of the most incredible defensive plays I've ever seen in the sport. Yeah...Bob inspired a lot of vitriol, and it was at its peak before that Egypt game. Still amazing that he managed to not only keep his job, but hold on to it another two years considering how many wanted his neck in a noose.
Great stuff ... I think it's worth adding a little context to those discussions. They came after a couple of truly dreadful US performances during a wave of injuries. By the next US game, Reyna and O'Brien were healthy, and the team looked vastly different. (Funny how star players make coaches look good.) Getting back to coaches and vitriol, one difference I perceive between then and now is the tone of the media coverage. Perhaps because it was small in numbers, most of the US soccer press in 2001 tended to be measured in its criticisms. During Klinsmann's tenure, we've had people like Grant Wahl relentlessly throwing out anti-coach spin on everything. He has become as tiresome as Jamie Trecker but harder to ignore.
Klinsmann is tactless and not at all a loveable person, but his comments on "problems" in american sports culture really shouldn't be a reason for wanting him fired, unless one suffers from complexes in the first place. Klinsmann is just not a great coach. However, I'm positive that many real great coaches (Mourinho, not Pep cause he's always a suck up, Ferguson, Van Gaal, Hidding etc etc) could also remark on what they perceive as problems with us soccer or american sports culture or whatever. Just like it happens in other countries, where free speaking coaches throw punches in all directions. The hilarious thing to observe for me as an outsider, is how sensitive the reactions to those things coming from Klinsmann have been. In any case, going down the road of limiting "foreign influence" due to pride is certainly not a winning recipe. History has shown over and over how adopting avant garde tactics/philosophies from other countries have been almost a necessary requirement for clubs and national teams to become front runners.
Klinsmann isn't going to develop anyone. That's not a criticism of him in particular, just a fact of the situation. Player development happens with clubs. He just needs to choose a system that fits the players at his disposal, and then actually choose the right players for a tournament. He has two chances on that front and failed both times.
"Here" was a fraction of what it is now. And there were few similar spots at that time. So, no BA got very little in comparison to BB and JK. Even Sampson was blasted by the media in ways Bruce wasn't even after 2006. The TYPE of complaint is pretty much the same with every coach, though, so we agree there. However, Klinsmann's crit has a Nativist touch you didn't see with anyone other than Bora. Both Sampson and BA were leading the charge for an "American" coach back then. I would say of the 4 coaches since Bora, Bruce got the least stick of anyone.
Well, I wasn't following the MNT during the Bora and Sampson eras. Really didn't hook into the MNT until 2004 -- I got into the WNT first. Even now I don't know enough (having not played the game or grown up on it) to comment intelligently about coaching styles the way others do. But these are my observations 1a. Bob Bradley tried to keep a pretty constant starting XI and bench when he could in WCQ, Gold Cup, and Confederations Cup. Guys broke into the lineup via others getting hurt or out of form. But Landon, Deuce, Keller, Howard, Gooch, Boca, Cherondolo, DMB were pretty much constants 2a. BB teams depended on great goaltending, good defense, and counterattacking against highly rated nations. Against equal or lesser opposition, the style seemed to be to be in better condition and seize moments based on better athleticism -- either on set pieces or later in games. 3a. I don't think it was the 4 - 2 loss to Mexico at the 2011 Gold cup that sealed BB fate. I think that Sunil and the powers that be realized that we had gone as far as we could with an American coach raise in American soccer. The time was now to spend the money to get a BNC -- Big Name Coach Enter JK 1b. JK keeps on experimenting until the last whistle. He doesn't want anyone to feel secure, so that they will be motivated to keep working at the highest rate What I've seen from the last two world cups is that younger sides play faster -- and that's what JK wants from his team. So he keeps trying new formations, new players, new combinations. The lack of continuity just begs vitriol to come forward. And the playing of people out of there club positions or "natural" positions... that's just begging for angry fan responses 2b. Under JK, if you watch the USMNT, you have no idea who is going to start, what formation, or style of play. Regardless of what the upper limit of playing a counterattacking, athletic set piece style that we saw under BB, there was a certain comfort to the fans of the MNT on knowing who and how they were playing. But this allows our opposition to plan against us if they know the tendencies. This may confuse the opposition, but it sure as hell seems to be confusing our players. Again, their is a greater amount of Vitriol possible currently. 3b. If the USA wins the playoff game October 9th against Mexico, then JK & MNT have 3 to 5 games in Russia in 2017 at Confederations cup --- and this 4th place Gold Cup result will be largely forgotten. But if we lose the game -- and the trip to Russia -- that's going to count against JK but will not get him fired. At least not now. Whatever he does, his next objective is to qualify for World Cup 2018. Regardless of the result, the USSF now has the money and resources to get the next BNC if they are not happy with JK --- the next MNT coach isn't coming from the college ranks. Those days are over. BNC = Big Time Vitriol 4. About JK bringing in Germans, Mexicans, Icelanders etc to the MNT and people complaining about them -- Total red herring folks. We have been, are now, and will be a nation of immigrants. Our soccer team -- why shouldn't that be any different?? The issue should be best players available, regardless where their mom and pop came from. This non issue is noise in the total of vitriol. 5. Finally, it's a free country (while it lasts) and bithcing and moaning is anyone's prerogative. But it's been my experience that Constant complaining will sap your life force. Complaining about the players on or not on the USMNT takes away from life's bigger issues. Save your vitriol for what really counts in the long run
I can see your point. Brooks was in the US system, but he did attend a few DFB YNT camps. Can't remember if he played a game or not. Maybe Klinsmann's presence helped tip the scales in our favor. I also didn't consider the fact that AJ had Earnie Stewart and Jozy in his ear when he transferred to AZ. As you mentioned, the reports out of Germany (Lahm's book a prime example) were a harbinger for what we saw at the Gold Cup. We looked like world-beaters against Germany, but we never saw that lineup again. Why? That 30-pass sequence too much awesome to unleash against CONCACAF? I think we are lucky to get a cupcake draw for the first WCQ round. If we ever miss a World Cup, most likely it'll be this round that trips us up. Then for the hex, we can call upon the might of Brian Straus to galvanize the team.
I agree with this. While the Hex seems tougher, the Hex qualifier has less margin for error. When you have 10 games, you know you can drop one or two and have plenty of time to make it up. In that last Hex qualifier, we looked really rocky through the first three games and were in third place in the group. We won our last three and qualified, but had the result reversed in any of those it would have come down to goal differential. One bad half and we would have been on the brink of missing both the Hex and the World Cup, and we were level going into half against Jamaica (55th minute Gomez winner on a brilliant free kick) and Antigua & Barbuda (90th minute last gasp winner from Eddie Johnson) and also trailed Guatemala early (Ruiz scored 5 minutes into the match).
Klinsmann is condescending, yes, but Arena was vastly more so. As for Bradley, his demeanor as national team coach was ridiculously bland and uncommunicative, which hurt the US team's profile - at Stabaek, he has opened up more and been more likable as a result. By international standards, Klinsmann's salary wasn't exorbitant. It was a fraction of what countries like Russia, Italy, England, and Japan were paying for their coaches, and those teams didn't over-achieve in Brazil the way the US did. Jamaica was a one-off bad result where the team played reasonably well but fell prey to a couple of flukish goals. And while you can fairly argue that the team played badly in earlier games, it's a distortion to focus on only the results and performances that were bad without acknowledging either good results or performances. In any case, the vitriol long preceded the 2015 Gold Cup, so it isn't much of an explanation.
While Jamaica was a flukish result, let's not forget that it's a flukish result (losing on home soil to a Caribbean team) that hasn't happened since 1969. Yes, crap happens, but this particular crap didn't happen to Bradley or Arena or Sampson or Bora or Gansler or...well, you get the point. So while we did outplay Jamaica (especially in the second) everyone else in the past found ways to win that game, not lose it. And I don't think it's a distortion to focus on those poor earlier performances. I was talking to another long-time AO member after the Honduras match. I told him that we looked like crap and we needed to play better to have any hope in the tournament. His response was "three points is three points." While I conceded that fact, simply earning the points didn't yield a satisfactory result. After Haiti, the same thing happened. I talked to him about how we had won our group despite being outplayed twice by lesser opposition on home soil, he said "three points is three points." While that was again true, we coasted to results despite playing poorly. And that ultimately cost us the tournament. We won the group with poor play in three consecutive matches. At no point did we have to "turn it on" in those games. We coasted by Cuba and when we were suddenly in a position where we did need to turn it on, we couldn't do it. Jamaica's keeper was outmatched yet we couldn't apply enough pressure to break him for the second goal. So even if the result was flukish, the foundation for failure had been laid in the group stage when we played subpar football and managed to get results regardless. Did the Jamaica game feature good play? Sure. I'd argue it was the best we played in the Gold Cup. But it still ended up in our worst such result in 46 years and all the good play in that game didn't mask the poor play throughout the competition, especially when the only time we did show up we lost.
True, this was a bad result, but I don't think it was any worse than the home losses to Panama and Paraguay's B-team that we suffered in the first half of 2011. Why should it matter that those weren't Caribbean teams? I'd say not just in the second half - moments before the first goal was scored, Friedel was commenting on how well the US was playing. I agree that those performances are fair game. What I objected to was changing horses in mid-stream. Whatever criteria we use, they should be the same for the Jamaica game as for the others. Sometimes you apply enough pressure, but the goal still doesn't come. For my money, Johannsson's miss was a much easier chance than Wondo's against Belgium.
Those are friendlies, though. Friendlies are for experimenting. Each cycle we only have about 28 games that matter in total, if we make both Gold Cup finals. Since I see the friendlies as just a preparation to experiment, blood new players, and see how the overall play is going (the latter the most important), but the 28 games as the important ones (more if we make the Confeds), a loss in a game that matters is much more important than any loss in a friendly. Beyond that, losing to Paraguay's B-team is not terrible. They're a NT with a solid reputation, and a pedigree as ancient as ours. We have created some good chances, but still few by comparison to what we used to create against these teams. Overall, the quality of play in recent friendlies has been quite good, while the main team playing this Gold Cup was terrible, not one of the games we played we showed good soccer. Maybe it's time to renew the squad and give a chance to the guys who shone in Europe. Our old warriors at times seem a bit too pleased with what they've already accomplished (qualifying first in the region, surviving a tough group in Brazil --not much actually). Maybe it's time for Wood, Shea, Morales, Yedlin, Williams, Morris to start. I may be one of the few who is ok taking the risk of pushing the young CB pair (JAB-Alvarado) at the risk of giving up a couple of goals. Still, that does not excuse the terrible midfield job & the rather impotent attack seen in the GC. I'm not sure it's just a blip in the radar. So, our veteran players may really need to get relieved of their functions ASAP, and that could provide Klinsmann a new wind. On the other hand, it's entirely possible the new guys are even worse, and they only looked good because, well, those were just friendlies. But I'd give them a try in the qualifiers. I don't want to believe our whole pool sucks, and is not going to help believing Klinsmann does, because he's here to stay.