I think BS has the wrong idea about the 3 summer friendlies

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by mrliioadin, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. RedBullFootball

    Apr 7, 2008
    He just seems very content with the status quo.

    The Nats need fans like that too I suppose.
     
  2. flash1316

    flash1316 Member

    Nov 27, 2003
    Raleigh, NC
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here's my problem: It's been two years since WC 06, almost exactly. BB took charge in what September of 06 and was then handicapped for the next 6 months because he had no support from his bosses and his job was essentially at stake. That's the USSF's fault not BB's for hiring a coach they didn't want. Who hires someone they don't want? And then wait for them to fail? That's bush league idiocy and is a flaw that extends throughout the entire program. Fortunatley for US Soccer people are still willing to support the team after all that.

    2 years later is this team any better than the one that caused us all so much anger in the summer of 06? I'll answer that, no its not. The 06 team had a lot more overall talent as well as near world class players at critical positions (read. Reyna, McBride, JOB no discussion). This team lacks those talents and lacks quality coaching. We should have hired a great coach from the beginning we settled for mediocrity from a mediocre in house system. Don't act like BB is some kind of American coaching phenom who just needs time to grow at this level. THere were better coaching options in MLS. And I still have no justification to call for his head? Really?

    That brings me to England. We started one veteran player who's been getting caps since 2001 and has rarely amounted to anything internationally. He's got like 4 good plays in his resume for the US. And the best of them were 2 World Cups ago. Since then he hasn't done anything -- he's like Trezeguet if Trez never played for Juventus and spent the majority of his career playing in second tier leagues where he rarely scored ever. We need that experience in our NT why again? Since January 2006 we've had the oppourtunity to prepare our squad for the future TWO whole years before World Cup qualifying. TWO YEARS. And we've done virtually nothing. You insist on winning the Gold Cup so we can play in the Confederations Cup and get top class comp, fine. I've got no problems with going with veterans and holdovers that early in the cycle in what's deemed such an important tounament. Which btw featured very few veterans and holdovers, Benny Feilhaber had a starring role. Every other match since then till now a month before qualifying starts should have been dedicated to blooding ALL OF OUR YOUNG TALENT AND TECHNICALLY SKILLED PLAYERS who had no caps so by the time qualifying finally started they would have gone through their baptism of fire and be relatively battle hardened for the must-win games we have coming up against Barbados. And that's not sarcasm. Adu, Altidore, Edu, Bradley (the only one who has), Rogers, Spector, Cooper, Parkhurst, Christman, Alvarez, Mapp, McCarthy, Klejstan, White, Smith, Subotic and whatever else young or technically talented players we have residing in MLS or Europe or anywhere else in the world are more technically and tactically prepared for intl class games than Josh Wolff, Frankie Hedjuk, and Mastro. That is a fact. Also a fact the WC is a young man's game so maybe we should've been preparing that entire list of names I just mentioned above to play in the World CUp and qualifying by allowing them to make all their mistakes and grow in a series of absolutely meaningless games we've played over the last year and a half.

    Then we would have a concrete list of the young guys who can handle the pressure and make the right decisions and those who can't and should be dropped. Other than those 6 goals EJ had to start his Nats career he's never shown that he can handle the pressure. But he keeps getting capped no matter what. So does Wolff who I can't even say handles pressure well, he's like playing a man down to me and belongs nowhere near the team except in case of extreme emergency. I have a serious question what's the difference between Josh Wolff and Alecko Eskandarian? Serious question. I see absolutely no difference except that Esky has a predator's nose for goal and is younger. So based on that logic he should've been picking up all of Wolff's caps over the past 2 years. Note: Not saying Esky should be starting against Spain, but am saying if we can use Wolff we can use Esky no doubt. Neither are the standard I'm looking for though. Neither is Drew Moor.

    We had a 2 year grace period before qualifying started and we should've used it almost exculsively on young talent and locks for qualifying. Instead we got Michael Bradley. Last three games have seen the emergence of Adu, Altidore, and Edu. We should've been doing the emerging process for the last 2 years. It's almost an embarassment. So nobody knows how Adu will handle Saprissa because we never got the chance to see how he could handle South Africa or Poland or England at Wembley. So how are we suppossed to know how he'll handle Saprissa. And how is it important at all to know how Josh Wolff will handle Saprissa. He's not even suppossed to be an option.


    All we've done is waste everybodies time and now it's going to be an even longer wait before we get actual up-and coming talent on the field because now we MUST qualify a by no means guaranteed process for which we have almost no quality backups to replace our starters in critical game situations. ---------Because???????

    Wait there's more. So not only do we have a mediocre coach, mediocre organization, mediocre (for the most part, capped and dependable talent) but we also have demonstrated that we can barely play the game against a 2nd to top quality team (which England is) when missing our best player. Complete waste of everybody's time. I'm not looking for us to win these games, but play the game the right way. We could play the game the right way and lose 3-0 to England on set pieces, but if we had our way in posession and some scoring chances I'd be more than happy. Especially if we looked better than them, but just couldn't put the ball in the back of the net. That's how real soccer programs judge themselves, not by the standards of the amateur setup that is US soccer. We know we're going to qualify for South Africa and everything else is just peachy. It's not. When we play we look terrible. We play terrible soccer. Terrible soccer. And for that matter so does England theyre just better at it than us. I want to see some kind of a dedication to playing the beautiful game, or at least just keeping the ball on the ground and playing into space. We can't even do that correctly.

    And according to the thread starter I'm suppossed to be satisfied. I think you've got the wrong idea about the summer friendlies. I expect us to be able to play any team and impose our will as best we can. Not lie over and take a beating. Agaisnt Brasil we refused to take the beatng we said we're gonna play our best game too and your're going to have to score 3 goals to win. That's what I expect. Especially when a coach has had this team for 2 years.

    A better coach would be able to do more. Pure and simple. And like sidefootsitter said BB is a slightly above average at best MLS coach. We didn't go get the soccer equivalent of Joe Gibbs, we got the third assistant speacial teams coach instead. That's the problem.
     
  3. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    In fairness to BB, I'm confident it wasn't the original plan -- Wolff only started when Landon pulled out. (Please at least let that be true, as I can't believe that EJ was Landon's replacement).

    It's a fair argument that Jozy should have been out there, but there are other reasons for him not to relating to his league and other games he'll have to miss later. And, had we known that it was going to be Wolff, I would have preferred talking McBride out of retirement to play the role of the "experienced" forward, which he presumably would have done for a game at Wembley, but again this wasn't planned, so you wouldn't have approached McBride to be on the bench just in case Landon got injured. Which leaves Adu. And while I can't wait to see more of him and thought he showed more reason for "hope" in the late minutes than many others, it is certainly not unreasonable to think that the English style might not be the best place for him to get run out and prefer him style-wise versus Spain and Argentina. I don't agree with it personally - I believe that Adu is a must if Landon isn't there as no one else appears willing to step up - but in answer to your question, playing Wolff served to avoid Adu getting injured and to work him into these major games a little more slowly....

    Of course, we'll never be in BB's head, so we won't know if it was always the plan for Adu to start against Spain or if he's been influenced by posters and/or by Wolff's performance, but it does lend some credence to this theory. And, in further fairness to BB, it is 3 games, not just 1, so I'm prepared to watch all three (however painful it may be) before reaching any real conclusions.

    That's the best I've got on this :)
     
  4. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    I do think there is something to this. A lot of this is about attitude. Part of what was so enjoyable about the 2002 run was that Landon and Damarcus and JOB and others really did show up and say we don't care what you think or what you've read, we're here and we're bringing it to you. Since then, we've manhandled most of our concacaf competition because we're superior to them technically and tactically, but we have seemed much more timid. That was particularly the case, I thought, in this England game. I don't know if Landon and Damarcus (I mentioned them because I always felt it emanated from them) have lost some of that attitude, or if we've gotten more cautious as expectations have risen, but it really showed in the England game, I thought.

    Whether or not they can make it at this level or not remains to be shown, but I think the new younger guys (Adu, Jozy, Edu, etc.) seem to have this attitude, and I'd much rather see us go down flailing, especially in friendlies, than play it cautiously.....
     
  5. Marko72

    Marko72 Member+

    Aug 30, 2005
    New York
    I think people are misreading my opinions, frankly. And when the hell did I ever even HINT that Bob is any kind of coaching phenom? As to capping the youth, he's done a lot of that. A lot. Perhaps not as much as many would like, but in 2008, while still giving some caps to some of the young players (a trend which I'm sure will conservatively continue), he's spent some time solidifying what seems to be his early-round qualification squad. I'd pick someone else over Josh Wolff but the overall idea makes sense. Many of the guys you'd mentioned have been tried here-and-there, and/or appear to be on track to be integrated after the Olympics. In the case of some, it's quite debatable whether or not they should seriously be considered at all at this time.

    And if I remember correctly, Bob was hired on just in time for 2007's Camp Cupcake. As an interim coach, until the friendly win against Mexico, IIRC, when the interim label was dropped.
     
  6. Marko72

    Marko72 Member+

    Aug 30, 2005
    New York
    I agree, and agreed more every minute that Wolff was on the field that Adu was needed to inject a little dynamism into the attack in Landon's stead, but I think you got what seems to have been Bob's idea, given that Adu is in today's starting line-up instead of Wolff. My guess is that was his plan, to play Wolff as Landon's replacement against England, and then let Adu play vs Spain and possibly Argentina. Either that, or he figured out real quick that his Wolff idea wasn't his best. But I think option A is more likely.
     
  7. Non-dairy Creamer

    Feb 28, 2007
    and it' s being wasted on an inept coach who has no clue whatsoever what he's doing. None whatsoever. what a waste...

    if anything, these rediculous preformances will make it harder in the future to get quality friendly matchups.
     
  8. Pkauffma

    Pkauffma Member

    Feb 23, 2007
    HI
    Clint Dempsey is garbage. For the following reasons:

    He has the weakest shot of anyone on the squad

    He has terribly slow footwork

    His only highlights are getting knocked over because he's so slow on the ball

    Because you play for Fulham means nothing as far as I can tell. So does scoring 6 goals.
     
  9. FirstStar

    FirstStar Hustlin' for the USA

    Fulham Football Club
    Feb 1, 2005
    Time's Arrow
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've posted this before, but this thread's gotten too whiney to go back and read it all the way through, so here goes again:

    Why was playing Wolff in England total crappy coaching? Well, what did it accomplish? There's some possible marginal value of seeing him play and how he might, one day, help us kill off a qualifier in Guatamela when 14 other US players are injured, but the truth is we all already know everything we need to know about Josh.

    Clearly, it was Bob's plan to play Landon- he's said as much. Well, Landon got hurt. If Bob were really trying to prepare us for 2010, he'd look at it this way: "Landon's hurt, that sucks. Still, what would I do in June 2010 if Landon were to blow out an ACL in a May 2010 MLS match? Wow- I'd need someone else to step in a provide a real offensive spark and help me control the ball. Who's going to do that for me? I should take this chance to try someone out in that role."

    So, either Bob's too stupid to realize this. Or he did realize it and his answer was to play Josh Wolff. Or, as I think is true, he's just playing now to keep his job and has no concerns at all about 2010 and he thought JW would handle the pressure of Wembley better and give him a better chance at a result.

    What was to be gained by the conservative play of putting Wolff out there? Nothing except the possibility that Bob looks better in the short term. Playing Freddy (or putting Clint up in second striker role or even rotating Bradley or Edu up higher to control the offense) would have been a risky move, but since he (and the others) have a real future with the Nats, it's the kind of risk you are supposed to take in "meaningless" friendlies. The fact that Bob wasted one of the three best sides we are going to play all year (possibly in a two-year span) by running Josh "I ain't in the 2010 picture" Wolff out there is grounds for removal in my book. It's clear evidence of a pattern of short-sightedness that will kill the US in the future.

    We are not good enough to dictate our empty-bucket to the world. We are going to have to take some risks and have them pay off for us to get through to the second round in 2010.
     
  10. russ

    russ Member+

    Feb 26, 1999
    Canton,NY
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Damn you for making me shit my pants.:eek:

    I mean,what if he really thinks of Wolff as a contributor?
     
  11. luvdagame

    luvdagame Member+

    Jul 6, 2000
    i realize most people like the simple black and white world that indicates this to be the obvious question. to me it is absolutely not the question bob should be asking himself. the question is much more complicated, informed and tortuous - like the real world we live in. bob should not be worrying about june 2010 right now. he should be worrying about june 2008. (injuries and bad luck always make qualifying a pain). so the question bob should be asking himself is: "with landon injured, and with altidore injured and in the middle of negotiating a trade, and with the olympic players soon to be dragged from their teams, who do i have that i can use short term in concacaf, that can help me with this hopefully temporary problem?"

    now your answer and mine may be adu! adu! but to me, the coach can equally opt to say let me keep adu as a sub in this very physical england game, and use him more in the very technical spain game. that's a better way to blood him for success. i'll do vice versa with josh since he is the stronger less technical player.

    if we move that midfield higher and they can't keep the ball because they simply lack the skill of the opponent, it opens our big slow back line to even more pressure, and we get sliced and diced for a 4-0 trouncing. this board will go up in flames!!
     

Share This Page