An opinion piece on the upcoming coach for the USMNT.... http://www.ussoccerplayers.com/latest_soccer_news/524677.html ..."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. ...." Interesting....IMO it begs the question, how "American bred" is Klinnsman (sp?) for example? That is if we were to indeed buy the premise of the necessity of the coach being American or American bred.....in order for the coach and team to succeed BTW: is there a reason i cannot start this thread in the N&A section?
Claim favortism if you like, but I agree with him in principle. Although perhaps not "american" but "domestic"
Well i dont know what he means by '' american bred '' but klinsmann has been here in America for a while and knows the american way of life and the american style in soccer. So maybe he is '' american bred ''
That can't be right. We know two things. That would 1) make Klinsmann a legitimate candidate in the author's eyes, and 2) that would mean Klinsmann is standing in the way of the author's brother. Given that evidence, we know which side of the line Bradley believes Klinsmann stands on. Has anybody seriously mentioned any other foreigners' names other than Klinsmann and/or Nowak? We all know who he's talking about.
Great conspiracy theories. Maybe Bradley just wants an MLS coach in charge. Nowak has to be given some consideration. Maybe Sigi? He has coached the youth teams. Don't hire Rongen!!!
There's absolutely NO basis or valid reason for only wanting an *American* coach. This is total fabrication and a dumbing down of the sport in our country. Jeff's idea? Select an American coach because a foreign coach will think the job is beneath him. Also, a *foreigner* will not want to win as much as a domestic coach. Pure BS. Any coach would love to be the one that *transformed* this soccer-lite country into a world power. How would THAT look on their resume?!?! There is nothing *unique* in this country about selecting a team. Just because it is a different landscape doesn't mean that the judgement about what makes a good player is any more difficult. Is a circle a different shape if you put it in a square room vs. a round room??? The premise that a *foreign* coach would not be diligent in his identification of and evaluation of players because of the different layers of the system here is totally false. In whatever league the player plays, his skills can be evaluated the same way. You need only to evaluate the various leagues in relative strength terms to have an index with which to weight a player's quality. If you decide to invite a player from one of the lower divisions, then an invitation into camp will either expose him, or maybe even get him a promotion to MLS. Either way, you don't have to sink or swim with a player just because you invite him to camp. Sure Jeff, give your brother support, but don't think we're all foolish enough to fall for your flawed reasoning at face value. I admire your loyalty, but you lose credibility by arguing invalid points based on your heart ... not your head. By the way ... Bradley's done a fine job at Chivas USA, but my bet is if USSF hires a head coach from MLS, it's going to be Nowak ... and deservedly so.
Why am I stupid enough to keep discussing this morons articles? *sigh* I'll just say this ............. I'm more than tired of hearing how unique the American job is, as if Americans are another class of human beings or something. Guys who play sports generally want to win, regardless of the sport and regardless of the country. Guys who coach sports generally want to win, regardless of the sport and regardless of the country. Is coaching American players any more unique than coaching some of the African teams who have almost no facilities and have difficulties paying their players? This nonsense from Bradley is really starting to get old. Pick the best guy for the job. Most people are just arguing that they don't believe that there is a specific American who is good enough for the job at this very moment. Who in the hell mentioned Sigi a couple of posts ago? The fact that he is even in the discussion as a potential American coach is nearly proof-positive that we should be EXPANDING our thinking, rather than the very opposite.
This crap about needing an American coach for player selection is idiotic. You look at the guys playing in the domestic league (MLS) and you keep tabs on your guys playing abroad. Ya know, like international coaches in every single other country in the world does it. Those that do well get a shot and the coach picks who he thinks is best. A good coach can pick out who can play and who can't realitively quickly. The notion that you need to have some decade long contact with watching American players in particular is absurd. And, as to the rest of the US setup...forget college soccer, doesn't matter for a national team coach. Forget USL or whatever other minor league crap you wanna mention...doesn't matter for the national coach. His team will be made up of guys either in MLS or in Euro leagues. That's it. Knowing about anything else is useless knowledge. Yeah...guy's not looking too objective. Nice to see someone sticking up for their bro and all, but c'mon...had Bill done better in New York instead of tanking and now having a better than average but nowhere near spectacular time with Chivas, maybe he'd be in the pictue. But, after leaving Chicago, who's coach on the field seems the more successful top guy now, his career's been nothign to shout about.
His parents own a bakery ( http://www.klinsmann.us/bakery.htm) in Stuttgart, so clearly they only make German bread. BTW, add my sentiments to what nobody, onefineesq and Ghost said. N&A is still in a "approval by mods" mode.
It's like you're saying Trey and Matt steal from other comedy sources and aren't really that original. That's crazy talk. On topic,I'm most concerned,and I said this in N&A,that this bilge is on the player's website.Sounds like team 3 and out thinks they should decide on the next coach.
Carlos Queiroz's name has popped up - as it always has. He was the one that did the never released report on youth development. He was also the one that was going to coach the US in France if Sampson had gotten the boot. I don't think it's that cut and dried, but of course my earlier reply was a reference that the fact that he had a point to make, but the fact that his brother would be at or near the top of the list of American candidates made it real awkward for him to write. He probably should've just recused himself from the topic.
i thought a report was released on ...... wait, maybe it was a report on US Soccer and how to improve its effectiveness, how to maneuver better within its bureaucracy..... IIRC, someone here gave a PDF link to the lenghty report.... Let me guess that the suggestions there have yet to be followed.... for much the same reasons that this report on youth development has been on the shelf for a while (how long?)
As a disclaimer, my position is that being familiar with US soccer (which would include Klinsmann, Nowak, and Nicol) is a big, big advantage over someone like Hiddink or Pekerman. But it's not a must, it's not such an advantage that Gulati should discount any foreign coach. But Cap'n, to me, I don't see the distinction you're making. It's different but not unique...I don't get it. Part of it, sure, judgment is judgment. But a coach here is gonna have to deal with foreign club coaches who have a varying degree of respect for CONCACAF. I hate to bring it up again, but remember why JOB missed the Azteca match in July, 2001. That's a team selection issue where Hiddink might freak out...not to mention the question of which Euros to rest and which to call in for the Gold Cup. A non-US familiar coach is less likely to get something positive out of MLS' long offseason. A non-US familiar coach might get upset at some of the, um, un-intense regular season matches in MLS and dismiss MLSers. A non-US familiar coach may not know how to understand the psychology of kids whose parents pushed them hard as hell since age 10...to get a college scholarship. Or he may not deal well guys with 2-3 years of college, which will really change a player. I could go on, but I think I hit "tedious" two examples ago, so I'll stop. So maybe you could explain to me more fully what strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
Yes. By definition of "unique." You can name several African (and other) nations with dicey finances. You can't name another nation whose domestic league is single entity and has massive parity. You can't name another nation where players are developed primarily in a "pay to play" system, in which winning is emphasized, even at young ages, over development. You can't name another nation where so many youngsters are motivated by their parents to be good enough to get a scholarship to a Duke or a UNC or a Notre Dame. Or that has so many pool players with 2-3 years of college. And I think the US is the best country in the world, by a mile, among all nations in which soccer isn't close to being among the top 3 team sports.
Bradley's position sounds very familiar - we discussed it not very long ago: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8934745&postcount=1 He was wrong then, and he's still wrong. Familiarity with US soccer, MLS, college ball, etc. would be helpful, but it's certainly not a requirement. Not to pile on, but I still think that Jeff Bradley's signature line should disclose his potential conflict of interest when subjects like this are discussed. Not every reader will know/assume the immediate family relationship among the soccer Bradleys - Bradley is not that uncommon a last name.
I'll take a stab at how the US can be different but not unique... It's different because you are dealing with a different league, MLS. Coaches from Europe may not want to see players released far the longer travel time, not to mention the large number of friendlies the US typically plays and the longer than average training camps we have become used to. But, its not drastically unique in that coaches always have to fight with clubs over player availability...and sometimes they lose and often they compromise. On the MLS side, they pretty much give the national coach whatever he wants...at least they have so far. And, the short season makes the MLS guys easily accessible for long training camps if a coach has any doubt about their ability just from watching MLS games. So...sure, all teams are different, but there's nothing unique about that.