I tend to prefer the best coach available, which frankly in the world of soccer is highly unlikely to be an American at this point in time. Just the way it is with many countries having much deeper pools of coaching talent with a lot more experience at higher levels. The idea an American would be the best available is kind of silly on the face of things. However, I do think there is a legit argument to be made that just as we need our players to grow and improve and that they need opportunities to do so, our coaches need to also get opportunities to grow and develop and if your own country won't give you that chance, who will? I only don't subscribe to this because I think club coaching has traditionally been where coaches learn and grow and then they come to national team later, so I don't really see the national team as the best vehicle for it. The reason teams only win the World Cup with domestic coaches is because the countries with large and high level player pools that win world cups are the same countries that have deep pools of coaches. It's no special magic of couching your own country that makes the difference.
There is also a difference in who's the best coach available and who's the best coach for this team. Club coaches get to pick their players while coaches for countries have to make do with the pool available. Earnie and Gregg have set the US up for a long term play with a similar style at all levels to make integration easier from age group to age group. So any coach who is ok with this style would be fine but someone who has to completely revamp everything would set us back. There should still be a lot of coaches that already play similarly and I agree that next cycle an American coach is not the slam dunk it was this time while setting everything. In fact I'd go so far as to say it may be the best shot the US will have at a title with the talent being the right age next cycle and hosting. Making the coaching hire a once in a lifetime hire. Pick someone who gives the best chance of winning it all. Period.
Yeah, this is the reason for the stat. That said, I suspect that there's 2 good reasons for a domestic coach and one not so good reason that the USSF will think about. The not so good reason first: there's a pride/patriotism that will want an American coach. This isn't a bad reason, but it isn't a reason that necessarily gets the best coach. Getting an American culturally does likely help with culture building and motivation. Our players are culturally American, for the most part, and having someone who understands them, has shared experiences, etc, is more likely to connect. This doesn't make it impossible, but MLS has recently gone through a series of coaches who were tactically good but could not build a motivated squad. Would another culture have handled McKennie the same? Hernan Losada's insane fitness regime ran off Paul Arriola from DC United -- and while you may say "oh, it's just Arriola" -- this is the dude with the best endurance in the US program, probably. And he was sick of it! Commitment to the program. There's no doubt in my mind a big part of the reason for the Chicago requirement and the hiring of Berhalter is that they didn't want a national team coach who flew in for camps, lived remotely, and didn't connect with the larger program. Berhalter is working with the youth coaches, he's connecting across the program. There's value in that. Again, there are foreign coaches who will do that, but a lot go into national team coaching to frankly take a bunch of time off. Many won't want to take input from Earnie and McBride. Many won't want to work with the U15 coach or have a joint USMNT / U23 camp. USSF will likely want someone all in. Given that the USMNT job has more recruiting and motivational elements than tactical in respect to a club job, I do wonder if these elements aren't getting undersold here when people say the "best coach." I also wonder how many of these club coaches would function well in a national team setting. Limited practices, static player pool. Many club coaches don't try to evolve their tactics as much or motivate players or help improve so much as replace what they need, especially many of the coaches targeted as best. For example, Pep is a great coach, but I wonder if a) he could adapt to having almost no time with players b) he could adapt to a much less talented player pool. I know, I know, it's Pep. But this is also a dude who has bought and disposed of without barely playing more $ worth of players in like 5 years than most teams have ever in their entire history. He's only coaches Barca, Bayern and Man City! I think someone like Klopp would fit far better in a national team, but still, there's an adjustment.
I think it’s also just hard to project who the foreign candidates would be. Whereas we all know who the top American candidates are.
I feel like living in Chicago isn't a huge ask for a foreign coach who is going to have to move to the US either way. Sure they may prefer LA or NYC, but Chicago is still a major US city and a very nice place to live. I feel like having to report to Stewart probably isn't a huge deal. He was the sporting director at two clubs in the Netherlands and the Dutch national team was talking about trying to bring him in for a similar role. I feel like those credentials are enough that having to report to him wouldn't be a problem for most foreign coaches. It's certainly an improvement from having to report to Sunil Gulati.
Guardiola and Klopp are not even available for their own NTs much less England. NTs are the domain of decent coaches because the true elite do not touch them. So then, if you can only get a decent coach what do you look for among the mass of okayness bordering on mediocrity? You look for someone passionate and committed to the team. Southgate for instance has reached a WC semi and a Euro final. England has gotten better results with him than Capello or Erickson. The current issues for England are more an issue with him being there for more than 6 years. Staleness has set in. They need a change to a new up and comer.
Yeah, club and international jobs are very different at this point. I remember reading an interview with Pirlo after his firing from Juventus, and he was talking about he might not have been able to play at today's top clubs. Not because of athletic limitations, but because the top managers want their team's play to be more and more structured to fulfill the manager's vision--players in certain positions have to make certain runs at certain times, make certain passes at certain times, etc.--and Pirlo was more of freelancing creator who pushed the game and his team's shape in the direction he wanted. The relevant point here is that top managers like Pep seem to be putting more and more time into drilling specific movement and passing patterns into their club teams, which requires lots and lots of training, and that just isn't possible with national teams. And managers swap out players to fill specific roles instead of adapting their systems to the players available. So, next spring if Pep said, "I've proven everything I can at the club. To show that I'm the best coach ever, I'm taking over the USMNT and will win the WC with them in 2026," I'd obviously be excited, but I'd also be a bit worried that the whole project would crash and burn.
I think we way overestimate the cultural stuff. I don't think Americans are as homogenous as often assumed in these kinds of conversations and I don't think people from other places are either. Fit makes a difference, sure. But assuming all Americans fit and outsiders can't understand doesn't ring particularly true to me. We will have American players who don't work well with some American coaches, not so well with others. Some American players will work better with particular guys from elsewhere, more dependent on the individuals involved than some universal American-ness. I think he point about commitment is more relevant and I agree lots of successful coaches won't think they should be taking input from Stewart and McBride but I'm not sure they are exactly wrong if they have much better track records and successes to lean on. I mean, those guys are doing a fine job and all, not saying they're not. But, lots of countries have dozens of guys who have done more and been more successful if you take away the lens of thinking they bring some sort of American magic that is somehow transferred to only American players.
I agree this is true but honestly I kinda hate it. I much preferred the days when the biggest stars were the players and people weren't spending more time worshipping coaches.
When the coach is an ex NT player then culture becomes more relevant. That is quite literally why we have the triumvirate of Stewart, McBride and Berhalter. Getting back to the culture of the 2002 and 2010 teams was the primary focus.
Did anyone else see the tweet last week of a Mexican fan offering some big differences between Mexican and US players and how and why they do and don't progress? He only did the reasons why the US have an advantage and said he may do the opposite later. One reason was that Americans generally all move on to something after high school. College, military, new job etc and that made it easy for soccer players to move to Europe because their friends were all moving on somewhere but Mexicans generally stay at home in their parents house for years after school and their friends are still nearby too. Just one example. I've also heard many stories about coaches liking American player's attitudes - I will admit they could be blowing smoke as many coaches do in interviews.
Things go in cycles. Some club or coach will do the opposite because there will be talented players that don't fit that other teams don't want and they will be built around and be success. A reason that I've always felt Belichick was successful was he would change his systems all the time based on drafting and picking up free agents. If everyone was doing the new in style thing he found more value in players that didn't fit so he changed again and again. Of course it didn't hurt he had Brady as the one constant.
Yet, Donovan was one of our greatest players ever and moved back home to play his soccer because he was homesick. All I'm saying is these theories paint everybody with a very broad brush that isn't actually true across the board in reality.
Generally, I like the rule of alternating domestic-foreign-domestic every 4 year cycle but being home in 2026 tells me we should scrap the rule. The reason for adopting the rule is that we should learn how foreign prejudice works against us then learn how American prejudice works against us in the next cycle. The reason for scrapping the rule is that we will be at home in 2026. I always make really good rules and then break them and regret it later.
To be fair both Kiopp and Guardiola have said they want their next jobs to be national team jobs. I feel like there's a good chance Klopp eventually follows Flick as Germany's next coach. Guardiola is a bit tricker as his views on Catalan independence may or may not keep him from ever being the Spain coach. He's said in the past for instance that he wants to coach Brazil for instance. I think both will probably leave their respective clubs in the next 2-3 years or so.
Given my choice of the two, I'd much, much rather take Klopp, but I don't believe that he'll be an option for us.
I think Klopp only really wants to do Germany, wheras I think Pep has said he wants to coach in the US at some point, whether it's with the national team or in MLS. Of course Pep also seems very comfortable at Man City and has already been there much longer than he's been anywhere else.
We'll have to disagree on this. I think there's foreign coaches who would be fine, and some American coaches who would screw up. But on average, I do think some cultures wouldn't mix as well. I don't expect people to agree with me on this, but I actually think a coherent, team level commitment to a common plan is vital. At whatever level it is -- USSF's strategy or a coach's tactical plan -- the actual plan is important. But what's more important is that everyone involved is executing that plan. A crappy plan that a group executes well together is far better than a brilliant plan that not everyone is committed to doing. But again, there are foreign coaches who would do this. But an American coach is more likely to put the work in.
My personal "fix" for American football is to get rid of calls from the bench and force a no-huddle where the players call everything. The game would be so much better. One of the reasons I've gravitated more to soccer is more of the control in the players' hands.
In general, I think our soccer players have a deserved reputation for having a high work rate, a strong work ethic and being coachable. That may change with success.
The failure of 2018 is forever embedded in my mind. It was a disaster from top to bottom. The biggest problem was the failure to integrate younger players into the national team, the failure to develop high-level young players to play on the national team, and the entitled culture of the national team after 2014. Missing the Olympics in 2012 and 2016 [and 2020 (2021)] has got to also be a major factor. The management and selection for the Trinidad & Tobago away game are two of the most epic fk-ups of all time. Learn from these terrible mistakes!
I agree that it should not be a big deal to "report" to Stewart and no one should expect they don't have to do so, that's just inevitable. But, if Stewart wants to dictate the formation or style of play, I would see that as something that many top coaches would take issue with. No coach should have an issue having a boss they have to keep updated and be evaluated by and they are all very used to working under someone who can tell them to take a hike if they're not performing. But I think would expect to actually be allowed to coach because it's hard to be responsible for decisions you are not allowed to make.
Looks like Pep is also a vibes guy Pep Guardiola talks up "good vibes" brought to Manchester City by new signings - Sports Mole "The first impressions of Julian, Kalvin, Erling, and Stefan were really good – they seem like good people. Having good vibes in the locker room is more important than tactics."