Bruce Arena's "Three phases of preperation"

BallStateMiddie · Aug 10, 2002

Sorry about that last one. Here's what I really have to say:

As to whether or not Arena sticks with tepid players too long or not, remember that one thing that is very valuable to any player at any level is confidence. One way of instilling confidence in your players is letting them know that even if they have a bad streak, their coach is not going to give up on them. It would've been easy for Arena to bench Agoos after the first game in Korea, but if he had, maybe somebody like Reyna or even Sanneh would've been nervous, thinking gee, I better not screw up this game because look what happened to Jeff. That could easily have changed the whole Cup for the U.S. IMHO, Arena made the right move by keeping him in, not necessarily for Agoos' sake, but for the sake of team chemistry.

Bluecat82 · Aug 10, 2002

Originally posted by Nutmeg

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...
Click to expand...

Jumping in here...

I may be oversimplifing things a bit, but it may be a matter of focus and priorities...

Torre's goal seems to be to win the World Series every year...while Cox seems to be all about division titles...

If all you're doing is trying to get to the World Cup, then taking the stance "whatever happens after that is gravy", then that's probably all you'll ever do...which may explain things about a lot of other teams...

...and also puts Project 2010 in a new light, IMO...

ursula · Aug 10, 2002

Originally posted by Nutmeg

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...
Click to expand...

Well I'll be interested in what you come up with as I'm scratching my head here too. Like you I've gone outside the soccer coaching ranks to see parallels to what Arena does/has done. Like you I think of Phil Jackson first. Compare him to the sorry mess that Bob Whitsitt stirs up with our home team every winter. (Folks: Nutmeg and I live in Portland.) I think that without a doubt the TrailBlazers have more talent 1-15 on their roster than the Lakers and they probably had more than the Bulls did usually too. The Blazers have all these wonderfully athletic guys- strong, fast, skilled, mean. But for all their versatility they all do variations on the same thing. The Lakers meanwhile have guys like Brian Shaw, who got waived by the Blazers several years ago and who every year provides important contributions to the Lakers title runs. Obviously Phil knows that just having the best athletetes alone doesn't get the job done.

Damn. have to go to work. I'll get back to this. But one thing else I have to say is:

Martin Fisher and Wanderer! What Nutmeg said is right.

whip · Aug 12, 2002

Poland /USA???

I have no idea why Bruce did not use the same line up he use against PORTUGAL, I heard something about BEASLEY BEEN HURT, but here in TEXAS there is a rule of thumb "IF AIN'T BROKE DO NOT FIX IT" if that line up WHOOP PORTUGAL THAT LINE UP BEAT ANYBODY.

flanoverseas · Aug 12, 2002

I don't know why Bruce ever changed his lineup either. He should have run the same 11 players for all five games. He beat Portugal with those guys, and then he went and changed the lineup!?! Reyna didn't really help us, and we could've scored without Mathis against SK.

Martin Fischer · Aug 12, 2002

Originally posted by Nutmeg
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:

...

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.

...

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.
Click to expand...

Nutmeg, I appreciate your attempt to bring rationality to my ... disagreement with Wanderer. But since it also got me a condescending lecture from Urusula, I need to point out that you are making my argument overly grandiose.

I don't think Arena is perfect, by any means. I, like apparently Wanderer, were calling for Mathis to play a bigger role for the Nats by the time of the first Mexico qualifier, for example. But argument was solely limited to Wanderer's criticism for not starting Wolff at forward in that same Mexico game. I recall very clearly that Wolff was not a hot striker there and, when McBride went out, Arena turning to Wolff instead of Donovan or Razov caught everyone by surprise. I don't mind legitimate criticism of Arena, but Wanderer's bs hindsight claim to omnipotence bothers me.

That's really all it is, though I agree with your more grandiose meanderings on the topic.