Sampson wants to Coach Costa Rica

Best news I've heard for the US National Team since Bruce decided to stay on as coach.

Sampson is a good person and very knowledgeable and I'd want the best for him personally.

However not everyone who is nice and knows soccer/football makes a great coach. There are a long list of fabulous captains or assistant coaches that dont produce as the head honcho and for my money, Sampson is not someone I'd hire to manage my team.

 

I'm no Sampsonite, but he did a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better job during qualifying that Bruce.

 

Bruce had tougher opposition.

 

Bruce had much better players.

I don't see how anyone, even the Bruce lovers, could argue that Bruce did better in WCQ.

Sampson coaching Costa Rica (yeah, I'll believe it when I see it) is not good news for us. I'm not saying it's the worst news either, but definitely not something we should celebrate.

 

You must have missed the World Cup finals.

 

What an ignorant thing to say in my opinion.
They BOTH qualified the US for the WC didn't they?

Who the f cares how they got there...they just did.

I need a drink...

 

Sampson already is working for Costa Rican federation to identify kids living in the US that might be able to play for CR, so I wouldn't be too surprised. But at the same time how weird would it be to see the USofA actually get another country to hire an American to coach its SOCCER team?

 

It is really simple. Both achieved equally in that they qualified with one round to spare.

That leaves the question of who had the tougher job. In favor of Sampson, Bruce Arena did have better players, though this advantage is limited by the incredible level of injuries that Arena had. However, Bruce Arena's opponents were much tougher. Mexico as the 2nd best non-US team was much better than Jamaica in 98 as was the next team Honduras. Therefore, because the better competition outweighs the player advantage IMHO, Arena did a better job. It's really simple and not that hard to follow.

As for your sill implication that Sampson did a better overall job than Arena and is deserving of the chance to coach CR, like everyone said, the World Cup finals have some importance in assessing the ability of a national team coach.

 

I agree. The only thing worse than losing to a rival, would be losing to a rival coached by Sampson or any other reject US coach.

 

I am not too worried about this rivalry. What is he going to use against a 1-8-1?

 

Concacaf was awful this time around, I think. Honduras surprised, but c'mon, Sammy had it much tougher.

Ask Costa Ricans which was their best team ever, and I bet they wouldn't say '90 or 2002. I bet they'd say 1998, and that's what made their failure so stinging.

 

I can write a great letter of reference for the job if he needs one. I would be lying through my teeth, but I would promote him as much as possible to get him this job. Costa Rica, you need Steve Sampson!!!

And as far as performance as US coach, who cares about qualifying? As long as they qualify, that is. Who performed better in the World Cup? That is what matters. Sampson couldn't even get it done against Iran, for Pete's sake.

 

Slightly qualified

No one has fought off the revisionist Sampson haters more than me, but how can you complain about The Bruce. He got us qualified. It doesn't matter what you do in qualifying, so long as you qualify. Brasil was 4th in the qualifying group.

There are only two standards by which you can describe the qualification process: pass or fail. Both Arena and Sampson were successful in that regard. There aren't degrees of qualifying anymore than you can be slightly pregnant.

I wish Sampson the best at Costa Rica so long as it doesn't harm the US.

 

from Guimaraes to Sampson, that is a backward step for costa rica

 

One thing that Sampson has going for him is that he is fluent in spanish.

With all the blame that Sampson gets, I'm not quite sure that Arena could've done much better in the 98 WC. Afterall, there were personality conflicts on the team that hurt the performance of the entire team. I don't think that any coach could've managed the very strong personalities of Harkes, Lalas, Wynalda, etc in 98. We've all heard the rumors of the things that were wrong with that team.

Anyway, I think Sampson could serve the Costa Rican federation well. He speaks Spanish, is familar with CONCACAF, is familiar with the best team in the region, and as mentioned before has gotten results in qualifying.

 

I've always thought that Sampson gets alot more flack for being a bad coach when it wasn't totally his fault, just screwed up at a bad time. It's seems ridiculous that he would be heading to one of our rivals to coach. Has he fell out of favor with US/MLS to the point that it's not possible for him to coach an MLS side?

 

Let me restate... I don't think Sampson is a bad coach, he is very good with the Xs and Os of the game and he'd be a good person for a team that has a minimal talent pool that he can teach the game.

My problem with his coaching tenure with the national team is that he didn't do a good job with personel and personality conflicts. In other words, he built a team that "could" play together but they weren't friends by the time the World Cup rolled around. Is that all his fault... of course not, but the best coaches know how to handle things off the field and can keep things together for 4 years.

 

Agreed, but I'm not sure that with even the best people manager in the world that team could've been saved.

 

This is good...

Maybe we can get more respect now. I knew one of the main steps was getting American coaches abroad....and it looks like it'll happen more sooner then later.

 

You opinion is, like many here at Bigsoccer, utterly and completely devoid of logic. If we are supposed to be happy that Sampson is coaching Costa Rica, then it is worth noting that Sampson has a very good track record in qualifying. I hope you can now connect the dots.

 

We don't need to care how Sampson does over a short tournament or if he cracks again (I don't think he did really, but I'm sure you do). We need to worry about how well he does over a long qualifying process. He has proven to be superb. Therefore, it is NOT good news if he gets hired.

 

I can never forgive Sampson for playing Wegerle. That's the unpardonable sin as far as I'm concerned. However, a lot of the criticisms of Sampson are bogus. He took a good look at Harkes. Lalas, etc. and realized that those guys couldn't get us very far. I would have stuck with them and hoped for a respectable performance. He took a bunch of huge gambles and lost big time. The personality conflict stuff is nothing more than a symptom of defeat. Had we won, the old guys wouldn't have said a word. In other words, it's utter nonsense to suggest it caused any problems. It was a result of losing, not a cause.

You all really forget how random some of these things are. A few little bounces here and there and we could have made the second round. Just like if Portugal doesn't miss the 2.4 trillion shots that Korea gave them in the last 20 minutes, including one empty net, we would have gone down as chokers. Spend a second and think about this. Had one of the roughly 2.4 trillion shots that Portugal took including an empty net miss gone in, we would be chokers. Arena would be a loser.

 

I hadn't even thought of that. You know, if there were two USA coaches in the World Cup, that would be a mighty step forward. Good point.