Yeah, because Trecker would advocate for a US born coach?! Trecker would be the first to state that all things US are inferior.
There's a link in an earlier thread, (two weeks old maybe?) to a BBC interview with Snowden. In the broadcast they interviewed an English guy as well, who argued the same point Bradley is making here. Basically he argued, the English team needed an English coach who appreciated the English approach and style. He felt Erickson's approach had been a mis-match with the English player. Many will say he's just a bad coach, but no one could fault Erickson's resume. Is the argument bunk for England as well? Do they need a foreign coach?
The argument is bunk. They don't "need" a foreign coach .......... they simply need the RIGHT coach, whether foreign or not. And that's all that most people here are saying. Remember, Bradley's premise is that we NEED an American coach. Most of us are just arguing that limiting yourself to only American coaches is a foolish idea. Plus, the list of experienced American coaches is much shorter than the list of English coaches, for the obvious reasons.
That seems fairly obvious, and I agree with that for any nation. The thrust, between the lines anyway a - dubious I acknowledge but for arguements sakes -, the thrust of it is that the odds are very against the right coach not being English no matter how internationally respected. So there's a possibility that these same people might concede that the best coach could be a yank?
Sure. Nowak. Nicol. Yallop. All good Amer....Opps... So. We are left with Bradley and Big Dave in Chicago on most people's list. Concede. Yes. Realisitic. No.
Viduka said that the FA should have hired Hiddink and he obviously had experience with both McLaren and Guus (among many other coaches). Prem and CCC have 44 teams, each of which arguably has a superior coach to anyone who's currently coaching in MLS, with a probable exception of Peter Nowak. Plus, there are a ton of the English team ex-coaches - from Graham to Reid to Hoddle to Curbishley to O'Leary to Hodgson to Keegan that are far more qualified than the Bob Bradleys and the Sigi Schmids.
Only one real question to ask: Come the Spring of 2010 and some of the key players from qualifying are playing poorly will you have the courage to sit them down and play the players that are on top of their game regardless of their experience? I think a good option would be to have one coach "MLS coach" take the team through qualifying and have another take the team to the WC.
Do you think that had Bradley clearly included those coaches because of their history with US players, that there would be lots of posts about how correct he is?
so, American soccer is more organized than ever, has a professional league, and has a much better idea of young talent than ever before... certainly a better situation for scouting and player selection than, say, 1994. In fact, day and night, wouldn't you say? Wait, didn't we have a foreign-born coach from 1991-94? How on earth did Bora ever manage to understand the American system? As we all know, it's impossible for someone who comes from outside of the system to comprehend the American approach to the world's game. Right Jeff?
Holy crap...did you people read the article? Did you even read the first post in this thread??? "The reality is, the coach of the U.S. national team needs to be American. And if not American-born, then at the very least American bred..." The point he is trying to make is that the coach of the team needs to understand the unique US situation, which is quite a bit different then most countries'. His suggestion is not saying the coach has to be American. Nowak, Sigi, Nicol, Yallop, Klinsman all have significant experience in the US, and understand the limitations and advantages of our system. Now, I'm not saying I agree with him (I think a good coach from abroad would learn to live with our system - it has a lot of good points as well as shortcomings), but to say he's trying to promote his brother for the job is a pretty weak argument. Lee
Yes we read it and the idea that only an American "bred" coach can take over this team is ludicrous and transparent code for "Nowak/Klinnsman/Nicol/Yallop isn't even "American" enough, and it needs to be my brother instead". Bob Bradley would be the leading American "bred" candidate, but obviously the other 4 I named are very acclimated with the US system and its players...if there's even any validity in that (which there isn't). In what way would a foreigner be unable to understand what American talent looks like? Seriously give me one example. US Coaches always say this, but no one ever has a specific example of what only an American will "get". Will the World Cup pool of players not be in MLS or Europe? Yeah that sounds so hard to scout and understand.
Why is it that you think Peter Nowak is superior to Bob Bradley as a coach? Because he is European? Because he played the game at the highest levels?
The starting pool will be Euro based. The rotational squad will probably be 50/50. With that in mind, a new US coach may have to play more friendlies in Europe without dragging the stars over the ocean rather than use an MLS based roster to play Cupcakes in the MLS offseason.
But that's the point for me. There IS NO American coach that is ready at the moment. If there were, we'd be discussing him, I'm sure. In another thread about this (or is it earlier in this one ........... eh, i'm too lazy to look), someone brought up Sigi Schmid when talking about Americans who are qualified for the job. My point then and now is that if people are using Sigi as a serious candidate in the discussion of American coaches(and yes, I know he has German roots), then it's almost proof-positive that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel in domestic candidates.
I think he's superior because of both his past as a player and his turnaround of a very poor DC team. Bradley's best years were with the Fire and they are falling into distant memories. He did poorly in New York and is doing OK with a very talented Chivas team. Also, as to a mention a few posts back about the guys like Bradley and Sarachan having a history with the US players...I'm not so sure that's a point in their favor. The team started coasting and played with little heart and urgency. I'm thinking an outisder to come in and crack the whip is warrented. Not, another one of the guys to try and keep everybody happy happy. A little shake up never hurt any old boys club.
So, a coach is judged only be his most recent performance? That's a fair, if simplistic viewpoint. Of course, I know you don't really believe that and are just being cute -- at least as you see it.
Yes, because since 1966 the English under English coaches has been a joke on the international scene, so they turned to Erikson for succes, because of his scientific approach of soccer. And to be honest, the only reason the English failed under his reign was because of stupid red cards collected by Beckham against Argentine and by Rooney against Portugal. But the xenophobic English trash press forgot that. So if you want to take an example by the English than I think you will have to wait a long time for succes.
I think the Beckham red card was in a prior reign. But you are absolutley correct that it is hard to judge Erickson given that the Rooney red card was a key factor in England's "failure."
I find it ironic that, after reading the first 15 posts, the discussion here is silly and screechy while the discussion of the same topic in General is worthwhile (by BS standards anyway.)