In response to my earlier post jeff_adams wrote: Hmmm......there's a post about Arena trying to help with Freddy Adu's citizenship. I would call that "long term preparation". Perhaps you would call that long term preparation now but that clearly was not the type of "distant future" preparation I was commenting on. That information actually goes more to the activities described as "near future" preparation, such as identifying individual players. The third level of preparation is defined by you in the first post as follows: As a coach of the USMNT I continue to think Bruce has little ability to actually standardize methods of preparation used by Youth Coaches across the nation. Clearly he has great indirect influence on this, youth coaches will seek to emulate his success. Establishing a "national coaching" system is probably best handled by a different arm of the organization. The advantages of such a system are obvious particularly when we consider the example of Ajax. The USA is of course much bigger so the scale of the task is too.
Re: Re: Bruce Arena's "Three phases of preperation" I'm not going to pretend to understand the youth development system that needs to be in place for preparation for the longest time horizons, but Ajax seems like a problematic role model. They have been out of serious contention for the Champions League for several seasons now, and their club development system certainly hasn't translated into national team success for the Dutch. What are the positives you see in their system that we could emulate?
The primary advantage is simply the existence of a consistent system. That allows the players to know what to expect as they advance through the system and equally important they will know what is expected of them. Coaches can identify potential more easily when they know what qualities are sought after in the later levels of development. I believe a relatively consistent system across age groups is it's own advantage. When you consider the question over the long term I think that the success Ajax has had developing players is a model for other clubs. Consider the run their reserve side made in last years Dutch cup, semifinals I think? Help, anyone else recall. It is my impression that the top clubs in Europe are littered with Ajax alumni. Perhaps their recent level of success is more attributable to their inability/unwillingness to resist selling their players to higher paying leagues. I am not alone in expecting a good performance from Ajax this year, their recent run in preseason friendlies certainly reflects well. They beat Man U and Barcelona last week. Just friendlies but it is better than losing. Clearly the Dutch National Team is cursed, but they do not appear to be untalented and of course other nations benefit from having players developed at Ajax, can't think of any examples right here in North America right now since I am at my JOB. Remember, I am a Feyenoord fan, I don't even like Ajax but to be honest I must respect their success. I am not unconcerned with becoming too tied to a system. I fear that without some different ideas we would miss out on the unexpected. Soccer in particular thrives on individual genius which can be squelched in a machine like system (he said from the bowels of a bureaucracy. Would Maradonna, Garrincha (sp?)or even Lalas have been identified to fit the system? I fear not. Moderation in all things.
Re: Re: Re: Get over it already! I have the tape as well, and every time I see it, I wonder how a guy as small as Donovan could knock over a defender of that size with so little force. I know that Donovan has been bulking up, but come on. Alright, when discussing Ajax's youth system, before you get into particulars, we would probably need youth teams connected to MLS clubs. I know DC United has an affiliation, but I can't think of any other. Oh yeah, and reserve teams would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. The one thing the US should take from the Ajax system is to make sure that younger players are trained to play any position, including goalkeeping. Ajax does this so that every player understands the demands of each position so they can employ "total football". The US should do this to make sure they don't have to convert forwards and midfielders into defenders like Sanneh or whateever the case may be. This versatility helps squad depth and allows the manager to play any formation as well. Look at O'Brien. He can hold in the center midfield, play on the flank, or at left back.
Re: Re: Get over it already! Every contact in basketball is not a foul. A foul is 'contact used to gain an advantage'. i think those are the exact words in the rulebook.
Re: Re: Re: Get over it already! No offense Martin oh great mindreader but I was calling for Mathis ever since I saw him in 2000(way before the Mexico friendly). [sarcasm]Martin is a great mindreader with the gift of being omnipotent[/sarcasm off]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over it already! Don't forget that Ajax has great coordination exercises and plyometrics training drills. Also, look at how 85-90%(if not 95%) of their players (or ex players) can use both of their feet without having to concentrate too much on using their off foot. I'm referring to players brought up in their youth system. Also notice how you will hardly ever see a bad first touch. One time I was watching an EPL game when Overmars(ex-Ajax) was playing right wing. Overmars has always been a left winger but in a pinch he was asked to fill in on the right side and there he was taking guys 1 v 1 and whipping in accurate crosses with his right foot. JOB can also strike the ball quite well with both feet and has filled in at right back for Ajax IIRC. Most of Ajax's downfall can be attributed to the Bosman ruling. Not qualifying for the WC basically came down to the coach's inability to put out a team instead of a bunch of individuals, and that's why they didn't qualify IMHO. They have players with top teams in La Liga, Serie A, and the EPL so talent is not the reason they didn't qualify.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over it already! Reading is fundamental. Because I am not a mindreader, I conceded that you may have called for Mathis. What I posted had nothing to do with Mathis or what was in your mind. I pointed out that it was a fact that in your posts prior to the Mexico game, you like almost everyone else on BigSoccer and SAG was notcalling for Wolff to start. I hope the explanation and highlighting help your comprehension problem.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over it already! I've been calling for Wolff to start ever since the Sydney 2000 Olympics and his showing against Mexico in those fall friendlies. I never much preferred McBride and that was very well documented before the bigsoccer crash, as was my preference for Wolff and Mathis.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over it already! You call what I write a load of crap and then you resort to the old 'you can't read or comprehend what you read' after you get hit with your own medicine. Typical Fischer the goddamn lawyer.
Talking about Ajax youth system..... Boy oh boy, I could bore the hell out of you on that topic. Let me pick out one little piece to illuminate. I watched the U-20s under Wolfgang Sunholtz prepare for the Championships last year. There was a serious flaw in their ability to play the ball out of the back. Long ball after long ball flew over the midfield and allowed our opponents to win the headers and possess the midfield (anyone else watch the Toulon Tournament and know what I'm talking about?). This was not the same way that the U-23 team played, this was not the same way that our senior NATs played, this was the way that Sunholtz wanted to play. It was obvious because the U-20s did that same thing in qualifying and at the Championship itself. If players are not trained on how to "show" for the ball, distribute and make intelligent passes, then how can we expect them to do that at the next level? We're not talking about a U-12 team here.... If we're going to go to a "target man" offense, then we need to do that throughout the ranks. We have to understand where the "second" balls are going to be landing and we need everyone on the same tactical page. If we pass it out of the back at one level, then "hoof and chase" at the next, we're just asking for confused players. Ajax has a method for everything, be it drills, fitness, diet, formation, you name it. The U-14s do it exactly the same way that the professional team does it. Even if the youth teams struggle getting results, they don't "mold their own path". This is not to say that they don't allow "individuality". Ajax players have as much flair (if not more) than anyone else. But when they pull on the team jersey, they know exactly what the coach will expect them to do. Their teammates know where they will be and what they will do. This ability for all Ajax teams to play consistently makes for likely success. Young players are easy it "integrate" into the first team because they are very comfortable inside the system. They can make an impact right away......
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over it already! You may have generally called for Wolff to start since Sydney. What I do remember is that by the time of the first Mexico qualifier (as I recall Wolff had been mostly injured since the Sydney games), not one poster called for Wolff to start that game, with Razov and Donovan much hotter at the time. You were not an exception as I clearly recall. And, frankly, I think "crap" is a good word to describe someone who takes credit for a brilliant move that he never thought of at the time. Using Wolff in that game was one of Arena's best moves and should not be diluted by BS displays of hindsight. I always thought you were somewhat deficient in your ability to understand what was going on in the field, but I never before had reason to question your ethics, or more accurately, lack thereof.
Fischer, Wanderer - You guys are way past the point of "need to go to PM land" discussion. Feel free to continue who said what and when in a private area. Thanks.
Re: the other 3 phases We lost because Bruce Arena forgot a OLD RULE OF THUMB " If ain't broke do not fix it " If we have a line up that whoop PORTUGAL, WHY CHANGE ?
Dark Knight -- does being rude come with your moderator badge? I would prefer to be referred to in a more polite manner. It is a very legitimate issue whether Arena's use of Wolff in the first Mexico qualifier was indication of good coaching or bad coaching. Central to that point is my argument that it was an unexpected move. Or we not allowed to discuss the coaching acumen of Bruce Arena as analysis of the USMNT?
How the heck was what I said rude? Feel free to discuss Bruce Arena, do NOT feel free to personally attack another poster. Re-read what you last said to Wanderer and then try to lighten up.
Dark Knight: I don't know how old you are, but I stopped calling people solely by their last name when I was in high school. Since I am not in high school, or even close, referring to me in that manner is not polite. As a moderator, obviously, you can ignore my request and be impolite. As for your moderating rule, please help me to understand. Let's say that I post that Bruce Arena was brilliant because he did the unexpected by using Wolff against Mexico and then another poster responds that he would have done that too, when I know for a fact that he was advocating something different at that time. I am not allowed to challenge what I KNOW to be a LIE? Anyway, the only personal attack in my posts is implying that he is ethically challenged, which I think is a very restrained way of saying someone lies. Referring to a post is crap is not a personal attack as it attacks the message not the messenger. Discussing someone's ability to process what he sees on the field is also a legitimate way of differentiating between opinions.
I apologize if I insulted you by not typing your full name - I only did it because I'm a lazy typist, similar to the way people refer to me as dk or whatever. If I had said MF, would that have been ok? BTW, people call me by my last name all the time - not saying you're wrong, just saying it never occurred to me that it was rude. Sure, challenge a poster if they make a claim you think is not true. But carrying on a debate about what a poster did or didn't say that ends in your questioning whether another poster lacks ethics is going too far, imo. Does your point really depend so heavily on whether or not Wanderer advocated the use of Wolff or not?
sorry, I'm going to jump in here because, well, I can. DK was not rude at all. And as far as calling you by your last name - He just called you by the second part of your BigSoccer name. For some reason you decided to to use your real name. I've been out of high school for 10 years now, and I still call a lot of people by their last name. It has nothing to do with any sort of maturity level. If anything your persistent badgering and asking of people to be polite to you tells us more about your maturity level than anything else said here. Especially when all he said to start it off, was take it somewhere else. Sorry DK (and PS don't call me 'Flan')
Fine. My opinion is that Arena's use of Wolff against Mexico is something that makes him stand out above BigSoccer posters who mostly excel in bitching and hindsight. For me, what made this move so brilliant that the soccer brains (I am referring to BS) all were arguing over whether Mathis, McBride, Razov, Donovan or Moore should play against Mexico. Wolff, at least in my memory, was very much an afterthought. The critical point in my argument is that only Arena thought that Wolff should be a top option in this game. Yes, I probably should have stopped short of the ethics comment, but I was particualarily annoyed by the fact that I remember Wanderer talking during this game and he ignored Wolff just like everybody else -- that and the fact that he had already made two crude, though of course irrelevant, personal attacks against me. OK I will stop wasting everyone else's time with this.
I don't know if he had more bad than good luck. Then again, who does know, or who possibly could? I know that Arena did a great job of playing the hand he was dealt, a couple of aces and admittedly, a couple of deuces. Getting this group of players to the quarters was a significant accomplishment, and I applaud him for that. You know as well as anyone the about face I've made by even making that comment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get over it already! Wolff was not injured during that time according to my memory. He had reconstructive knee surgery about a year and 1/3 prior to that, but he was completely healthy from that last fall friendly against Mexico to the qualifier in February. You can believe that, but you have no way to prove it and neither can I since the crash. Of course I've never advocated one or two players to get all the starts just that it should be tried. I never wanted Mathis at attacking mid either, and of course Bruce went and put him there. Anyways, back on topic. The Australia friendly last time('98) produced like 6-8 players that made the final 23 IIRC. I suspect that Bruce has already evaluated most of the current player pool and has a decent idea about which players will make it to 2006(barring injury). A few of those 6-8 players were not quite ready to be on the national team at that time, so since 8*3=24(almost the size of the WC squad), perhaps The Bruce breaks his selection criteria down into those three areas also. Or he could have just gotten lucky, but somehow I doubt it
You know, it really is too bad that two posters whose opinion regarding soccer I respect, and two posters whose opinions have made this board worth visiting for well over three years, are tit for tatting like this. Martin and Wanderer, if I understand the arguments correctly, they are laid out something like this: Wanderer - Bruce Arena, in the past, has errored on the side of being too conservative towards bringing and playing young players on the MNT. Martin - Bruce Arena's track record of developing players into the MNT shows that he is doing things at the right pace and the right time. Instead of taking one of the two sides, I'll make the argument that the truth might lie somewhere in the middle. Wanderer might have a point because I too have wondered how long it would have taken to see Wolff get his chance had McBride not been hurt against Mexico, and the same goes for Mathis. Whether or not we were arguing for their inclusion beforehand seems irrelevant to me. The question is still valid, does Bruce ride horses that aren't running well too long? Agoos is a good example that might indeed be the case. Watching Mastroeni excel in the World Cup forces the question of whether or not he would have ever been given the chance if Armas hadn't been hurt. Martin has a point that Arena on many instances has done an excellent job of integrating players at an appropriate pace. The play of Donovan and Beasley are good examples of players who blossomed given the timing of Arena's development. In these instances, Bruce realized that Landon and DaMarcus beat out the competition and won their spots on the field. Had they been forced into the spotlight and failed early, they might well have not had the confidence to succeed on the big stage. In my mind, no coach is perfect. Arena himself will critique the job he did as a coach and look at areas where he can improve. He will also look at what he did well and try to continue to maintain those practices to lead the US to success, whatever that might be, in the next World Cup. In this topic, I believe there is certainly middle ground to be found. If Arena finds it, I think we'll have an even better coached team in 2006.
Skip - thanks for pointing this out. You made me think of some things I hadn't thought of before. I look at the Chicago Bulls of the NBA and can draw many parallels to your point. During the "regular" season, aside from their best year, there seemed to always be the question looming of whether or not they would get things together in time to make a run for another championship. For a variety of reasons including injuries, team chemistry, and even apathy, the Bulls often lulled in the middle of the year. Phil Jackson, one of the best coaches of any sport in the world, did what good coaches do. More importantly, he did NOT do what bad coaches do. He never panicked. He rode out the storm and prepared his team for the only important part of the year - the playoffs. For whatever reason, and I am not sure what it is or how it is done, he had his teams ready for the playoffs, where they were simply dominating. Arena has done the same thing for Virginia, DCU, and now the MNT. As a fellow coach, I have to wonder - how the hell do you do that? It can't be an easy formula, or a lot more coaches would be leading a lot more dynasties. Another parallel to draw is Joe Torre of the NY Yankees. Even though he has the biggest payroll in sports, the Yankees limp into the playoffs almost every year. But, everyone knows that once they get there, they are going to win. Contrast that with the Atlanta Braves. Every year, Bobby Cox leads his team to great regular seasons, gets them to the playoffs, where they choke. What is Joe Torre doing that Bobby Cox is not? What is Phil Jackson doing that every other NBA coach hasn't figured out? What is Bruce Arena doing that other coaches are not? I think I'm going to have to really think about this. It is fascinating to me, and once again, thanks Ursula for pointing this trend out. If I find anything, I'll post it here. If anyone else has any insight, I'd love to hear it...
O.k., o.k., this is a little iffy here, but when I brought up the forum page and was perusing the subject titles, I read this one and thought it said "Bruce Arena's 'Three phases of penetration." Just thought that was worth sharing.