After Berhalter, I do NOT think the ussf will follow that with another MLS coach no matter how good that coach is. The image would be bad for the team and the sport. This is the US of A, the richest country in the world.
There are lots of rich American people. The country itself has gone broke in order to make those people rich.
While I know the relative talent levels are different, let today and the last two weeks forever put to rest the idea that coaching makes little to no difference in the fortunes of a soccer team. Emma Hayes made all the right adjustments in the gold medal game today. US Soccer has to get this hire right, and the right hire will make a big difference.
When you are among a handful of the most-talented, deepest squads in the world, the head coach and resulting fine-margin decisions are absolutely critical for success. I'd be surprised if there was any "serious" poster here who has ever disagreed with this notion. Unfortunately that does not apply in any way, shape, or form to the US men's player pool.
100% disagree, and there have been a number of posters who have basically said “the coach doesn’t matter.” Let’s see what happens if the men’s team actually gets a coach who can get the team playing at or above the sum of its parts like Hayes has done with the women. It won’t be a World Cup, but it will be better than what we’ve seen the last five years.
No one has said anything as blankly as that. I mean maybe a troll or two? But as I said, no one serious. The impact a coach can have for a top tier international side is a completely different topic than what they can do for a more middling side because of the nature of the competition -- the coach's tweaks in a final or a gold medal match might WIN that match for you... but the players are going to be the ones, overwhelmingly, that get you there in the first place.
Of course, coaching would matter in the instance of the US Men. Not getting grouped in the World Cup was within the capabilities of the US Men's pool. Not getting wiped out by the Dutch in '22 was also within the capabilities of the US Men's pool. No one claimed a different coach would have resulted in the US Men actually winning a major tournament. But improvement was certainly possible.
I think it’s not that the coach doesn’t matter but it’s the coach can only have so much of an impact relative to the overall talent level of the team. No coach is going to make us the favorites in a round of 16 match versus the Netherlands for instance.
And no one said "coaching doesn't matter" either. It's much more nuanced than that. Literally nobody. People can count on upsets and surprises all they want... but unless I must have missed the huge outpouring of support for Bob Bradley's tactical nous and brilliant man management after the US beat Spain in the confed cup, I think we should probably be able to agree that even those fun exciting upsets are about much more than the coach being "the right guy" and making the right specific calls to directly influence the result. US could have done better against Netherlands, this is true. Hell, it was true with Gregg at the helm too! They could have been better, they were better earlier in the same cup. But mostly, in terms of a top-10 vs a top-25-30 matchup, those surprises are gonna be able the players. On one side or the other.
I disagree. If USA had lost this game everyone would be saying she ran them to the ground. She made better player selections than her predecessor which matters a lot - but she also had Swanson and a different, better Rodman. Coaching matters and she did a good job - but I’m not convinced she needed to play so much of the team all those minutes. Like other champions she benefitted from some luck too. Basically she took the Southgate approach and it worked because we are stronger against the field than England.
They pulled it out but they definitely looked exhausted today. The Olympics is also a particularly brutal tournament with the small roster size and the number of games you have to play in a short period of time.
To the victor go the spoils - win gold and you can write your own narrative about great coaching. A bunch of 1-0 games is some small margins.
Hayes didn't rotate much. She also didn't try to press or possess much, either. That was the trick: the coaching thing.
That’s tournament football. Small sample size, luck, and randomness leading to results that is all anyone cares about.
Show me the coach that does it with a 25-30 ranked team, I'd say sign him up, sign her up... hell, sign IT up. What's Pennywise doing? Is he inextricably married to a possession-oriented 4-3-3?
We'll have a new coach in. We'll see. The US certainly aren't a 30th ranked talent pool in the world.
If Macario and Shaw were healthy enough, I think you would have seen more rotation in midfield. I was surprised she didn’t rotate some for the Australia match, that would have been the opportunity to sit Girma, maybe the fullbacks and start Williams for one of the front three. She made the difficult personnel decisions well though. She dropped Morgan which was needed, and sat Rose in the Final which was the right call for the match. Tactically, having Crystal Dunn do some midfield work in possession from left back was smart. Don’t get press-baited, keep it structured, let your weapons counter at speed, and trust your athleticism in defensive transition. And she ushered in a positive, confident culture by empowering personalities. Competent coaching makes a huge difference.
Not joining this debate. Just noting that Swanson has become a very complete attacking player. And she is FAST.
The coach matters, but unless we get somehow better CBs, GK and striker, the difference between a good local coach and the top coaches in Europe will be tiny.