This is why he would have been more effective as a technical director than a coach. But ego would have gotten in the way and he would need a coach that he trusts.
it would only be reverse nepotism if Bradley was coach and he was biased against Michael. This now has nothing to do with nepotism.
So a coach wanting his team to play a certain style is a crap approach to running a program. That seems to be a sentiment shared by many fans on this forum. Personally, I disagree. I'm not a Klinsmann fan yet. I wasn't happy when Bob was let go and I wasn't happy when Klinsmann was hired. I'm warming to the idea that maybe we can move forward with Klinsmann at the helm, but I'm not sold. I think that playing your best players and finding a system that best suits those players is a valid approach. But so is implementing a system and using the players who best fit that system. Many many teams across many different sports, including football, around the world do things this way. It can work. It is valid. In fact, I see it as a maturation of our national team to be headed in this direction. Do we have enough players of a decent enough standard to make this a valid approach? I think we probably do. This approach is definitely more risky or ill-advised when the talent pool is thin. To be sure, you can't start a crap player just because he is a tried-and-true 'fit' with the system when you've got a MUCH more talented player sitting on the bench. But I don't see the Bradley vs. Edu/Beckerman situation as being this extreme. I'd much rather see MB than Edu or Beckerman. MB brings much more to the table, but Beckerman has done a decent job recently. I can understand why he has played instead of MB, and I can appreciate Klinsmann's comments in the interview. Do I think the team would be better off with MB in the center of midfield? Absolutely. I hope it happens. It's up to MB to show the manager that he can do what is expected/desired. Just how thin the pool is, now that's a good topic. It seems to me there are several options at most of the major position areas except forward/striker -- outside back (perhaps thinner than most areas but not totally bare), center back, defensive center MF, attacking center MF, wing MF. I don't follow the USMNT threads as much as some of you folks, which may explain why I've not heard anyone mention this: the style and tactics the team has shown under Klinsmann have been totally different than how Klinsmann *says* he wants the team to play. Am I totally off base in thinking he is constantly telling everyone how he wants the players to be free to express themselves, attack, attack, attack? And yet we see a single-striker formation, lack of bodies in the attack, lack of good scoring chances for the most part. I'm all for tightening things up defensively, as I think it has been one of the major things preventing our national team from being more competitive and rubbing elbows with higher-caliber teams. But to tie this long ramble back loosely to the thread topic, I'm not at all convinced that the improved team defending is due primarily to Michael Bradley not playing as much.
I must say I am becoming more and more impressed by how devious and clever JK is. Starting Michael on the right against Slovenia and letting him take corners and free kicks is the final proof of reverse-nepotism. He is setting the kid up for failure. A clear case of pandering to the fanbase. Meanwhile, he protects Jermaine Jones' reputation by keeping him on the bench. Fortunately, I and others will be able to see through these tricks. The reverse-nepotism has never been clearer. Can't fool me.
I agree. Unfortunately, Klinsmann's period without Michael Bradley proved rather disappointing so he had to return to him. Next issue - putting Jones where Beckerman is at against Italy (assuming nothing big changes in the next 3.5 months of course). And only keep Bradley (or Williams) on the right if it's a diamond midfield or a flat 3 CMs, not in a 4-2-3-1 like the previous 3 matches.
The Williams as fullback option/depth is always one I liked. Good to see JK put him there at the end. It's to bad about Beckerman. He's a player I've always liked, and there is a lot about him to like IMO, but speed of play is speed of play. Think he will be a very good option against CCAF teams.
I stopped reading right here. Because until today, Klinsmann's roster selections, lineups, subs and tactics were the exact opposite of the "style" he said he wanted to play. And while I'm not foolish enough to take credit, it really isn't surprising that the formation and player selection that actually created goal scoring chances for the first time under Klinsmann is about 90% the same as what was suggested by myself and others for the last three months. If me, a lowly BigSoccer poster, was able to figure it out before Klinsmann ever coached his first game, why did it take him 6 games to figure it out? And how do we know that he won't just revert back to his old self eventually?
Pretty much. Nice to see him use Edu in a manner where he can be effective and actually put him in a position to succeed also. Bringing him in quicker would have been nice. Setting up players to fail isn't experimenting or smart.
That's the best part of it all ( I stopped reading after his first line also...are our cycles synching up?), the fact that BS knew this stuff, and it wasn't nitpicking or hard to see. I said this game was huge for the team and JK. The blind faithers whisked it away as "no big deal". My a**. Even the reporters hinted at it. You can't just keep taking hits and showing no progress. No way. At least he went with a team that could possibly win. He showed that he didn't have to have Loew and Ballack plead to him to change his tactics this time. Progress for JK.
For brevity and insight, a hard post to top. Although I thought he did fine defensively in this match.
Well, that's a little disappointing, because I thought I made some decent points and raised one or two interesting topics in that long post. Perhaps it's all been covered many times before. It's not for me to tell you how to spend your free time, but I wish you had read the whole post! And, you missed this part at the end, where I pretty much agree with what you said:
Sorry. You just jumped in at a point where a handful of posters, who have been making the points you made for the last few months, are having a little fun with the "preseason brigade". Come June they will be known as the "magic light switch fandango". Participate away.
I just read your post, but if you apologized I guess I should to ... ... aw shucks. How many more posts before we see him attempt to find a different solution at CB?
I read the entire thread before posting and actually thought my take was different than most....someone who 1. respects JK's stated philosophy for how he wants to build/assemble his team but 2. isn't sold on JK as our national team coach. Most people seem 100% for or against the total JK package. There is plenty of criticism about specific personnel decisions, but i haven't seen much discussion on the overall approach, I.e. play a style vs. play your best players.
It is if the players you have available (or, at the very least, the players you put on the field) are not capable of playing that style at a sufficiently high level---in this case, I would say that "a sufficiently high level" means qualifying for the World Cup from CONCACAF, preferably without going through the playoff with New Zealand, and then not completely embarrassing ourselves in Brazil. Most of the angst leading up to the most recent game arose out of doubt that the U.S. under JK appeared on their way to finding that level.
Think of it this way. If I coach a middle school basketball team, and I say how I want to play a fast paced above the rim style of play, but my tallest player if 4'8", then that is a crap way to approach running a program. If I'm a contractor, and I say I only want to build awe inspiring mansions, but all I own is a hammer, a tape measurer and three rusty nails, that is a crap way to approach building a house. The sytle of play a coach wants to run has to at least come moderately close to the tools available, otherwise it is a crap way to approach running a program.
Landon Donovan's Uncle? Its not MB since they don't play anything remotely close to the same position.
It depends upon the formation, he has a better skillset for the 4-4-2 than Shea, if Shea recovers from his long season, he might be better in the 4-5-1. Certainly, it is hard to tell from one game. Johnson appeared impressive, today.
Yeah, I agree it is probably not Mike. I'm just having some fun because I was so impressed by him. I felt the same way as Chandler's first start: "Well, he's a starter, where will he be playing?"