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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.