There is no harder job in football than being the coach of a foreign national team (just ask Sven Goran Eriksson). The entire population instantly second guesses your every move. Win and you’re a hero, lose, and you become an overnight muppet, burned in effigy in town squares across the land. http://www.foxsportsworld.com/world/soccer/s021031_nick.htm
That was a really nice article. It's good to see Sampson finally giving MLS the props it deserved. In that past he's been quoted as saying he believes MLS hurts the national team. As the world cup proved he couldn't have been more wrong. I wish him the best of luck, except when he plays the US.
From the article “The most critical difference between the two sides can be put down to finishing. In ’98 with a little more luck those shots that rattled the woodwork against Iran would’ve gone in and that could’ve made it a totally different match. If you look for instance in the victory against Portugal, everything flew in and we had some luck, like (Landon) Donovan's cross/shot deflecting off Fernando Couto for goal number two." Interesting recollection. I don't remember us looking good at any game in 98. Although luck is needed in any game that was not the difference between 98 and 02.
hehe no kidding. I'd the the most "critical" difference was the quality of the squad. Besides Reyna, who did hte 98 squad have that was even close to being as good as Donovon, Beasley, O'Brien, Mathis, Mastroeni, etc....? Chad "I suck big time" Deering, and Mike "I can't defend a goal post" Burns actually started.
Sampson said, and I think if you asked him now he'd say the same thing, that MLS hurt the team in '98, not tht it 'hurts' in the general sense. And he has a point. The players we had on that team had been around since before MLS, and many of them had been playing in Europe, up to their level of competence (meaning that the competition ws alays as good as they were). All their careers, they had been playing in order to contribute. When they came here, they were expected to dominate, which they by and large failed to do. This left Sampson with two bad choices: 1) Tke the established players who had not been playing up to expectations in club play, or 2) start really depending on some 'younger guard' players (like Eddie Lewis or Chris Armas) who, by the time they had really established themselves in league play, were awful late in the game to get themselves into that position (Arena hd the advantage of being able to try some of these guys at the bottom of the WC cycle, when there was little risk). He usually chose the latter. This is not to offer a carte blanche excuse for Sampson, who injected Regis into the lineup at a pretty late stage being perhaps overly impressed by his Bundeliga credentials, but Sampson has to take the two mutually exclusive critiques that he both did and did not shake up the lineup enough, and the newness of the league put Sampson into that position. If MLS had been even one year older, there'd have been some more clarity. I don't think most people when they are critiquing coaches are fully honest with themselves. It's worse on a foreign coach, which is why I wish Sampson luck. He'll need it.
"Finally, many of the Hispanic kids who were not getting noticed due to reasons such as economics and location are now they are getting the recognition they deserve, because these are some of the most talented players we have". I allways liked Steve-O
Part II of that interview can now be found at: http://www.foxsportsworld.com/world/soccer/s021104_nick.htm
Thanks for the link, good article. "I’ll have a chance to win them over shortly as we’ll begin qualification for the next Gold Cup and friendlies have been tentatively scheduled against Argentina and River Plate" It seems like the rumored matches in the US against Argentina and the US have now been changed to Costa Rica versus Argentina and River Plate.
I partially agree with you, but not completely. We were definately playing much better soccer this time around, but I do agree that we didn't look all that bad against Iran--Sampson is right, we hit woodwork quite a few times in that match, and that would have changed things. We might have had more confidence in the game against Yugoslavia, who deserved to beat us, but didn't look unbeatable to me. With more confidence in and around the box, we very well might have beat them as well. 1998 was bad, but I still believe that the quality of play was not the COMPLETE disaster that, in retrospect, we remember it as being.
I am sure Sampson and his psychology will lead Costa Rica into the dumps just like he did with the US national team.
Of course, 2002 was better, but the '98 squad may have gotten a bad rap, probably as much for their actions off the field as on. Fact is, they dominated most of the Iran game and only lost to a counterattack after missing quite a few good chances. Even some Iranians I know easily admitted they were outplayed and lucky on the day. Then, the team played a very close game against a strong Yugoslavia. They only got dominated by Germany, and how many teams don't get knocked down by the Germans. A fairer result against Iran and a goal on one of several solid chances against Yugoslavia and the team has the same 1-1-1 record as 2002. Better finishing could have changed the whole thing from a fiasco to a triumph. Still, it should be pointed out that almost any team, especially one that qualifies for the cup, creates at least a chance or two in most all games. So, maybe the idea that it's "only finishing" is unfair. I mean if your team can't finish, your team can't score goals. If your team can't score goals, your team pretty well sucks.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that we were only a few lucky chances away from a 98 WC showing that was as good as the 02 performance. All you have to do is look at how the teams came out their first game. Arguably, the 02 Nats faced the bigger challenge, coming out against a team that was a tournament favorite. The US just didn't create a few chances: there were at least a half dozen in the first 30 minutes alone (Donovan and Stewart each coming close). The whole attitude of the team was different. Against Germany in 98 the Nats looked completely tentative, afraid. They could barely get the ball into the German half. Wynalda, who started at forward, barely touched the ball. By contrast, Beasley and Donovan were both running the Portuguese ragged and McBride was firing head missles. The Iran game, true, was different. Claudio hit the cross bar. That goes in, it's a different game. But that team also gave up relatively early goals to both the Germans and the Yugos: while the 02 nats built leads against the Portuguese, the Koreans and the Mexicans. There is absolutely no comparison.
NASL Fan, my comparison: 98: Germany 02: Portugal. Both top-level teams. Clearly, the 02 team was much better here. No discussion needed. 98: Iran 02: Korea. Both lower-level teams. In the run of play, the 98 team looked much better. However, the 02 team got the result in tougher circumstances against the host team. 98: Yugoslavia 02: Poland. Second Euro teams. The 98 team had a much harder task here, as the Yugos were much better than the 02 Poles. The 98 team had a MUCH better showing here than the 02 team. Not really all that different on balance. Yes, the results were hugely different. But I'd say that our play against Iran was better than or equal to our play against Korea, and our play against Yugoslavia was much better than our play against Poland. I'm not saying the 98 team was better... just that I agree that there's a lot of luck involved, and things could have gone completely differently for both teams with a couple of bounces either way.
In general, I agree: Reyna's shot goes in against Iran instead of hitting the post, we win that game and go out with a 1-2 record. But Iran 98 does not compare to Korea 02. Korea was the host nation, playing in stadiums filled with the most frenzied home fans the WC has since in quite a long time, and were WC semi finalists to boot. Plus, the Koreans were undefeated in the WC up to the semi finals: the Iranians lost their two other games. By the same argument, if Reyna's lob against Germany in the quarters this year goes it, or we get the non-call on the handball by Friggs, and we're just a penalty shootout away from in the WC semis, and maybe even the WC Final, since the Koreans were absolutely exhausted in the Semi v. Germany. On the other hand, the biggest luck we had in 02 was in a game the Nats didn't even play in: the Korea-Portugal game. The last five, 10 minutes, the Portuguese came with inches of scoring a couple of times, and putting us out in the first round.
In 98 Yugo game, it is a 50-50 game. In 02 Poland game, we control the whole game and even though we gave up three goals, but we did create enough chance even win that game. Consider both Mathis' over the bar shot and hit the post shot.
Yugo game The '98 team was already eliminated before the Yugo game. The US players that played against Yugo were under very little pressure compared to those that played against Poland. Poland played loose and used a younger lineup and they built a quick two goal lead. We have a goal called back on a phantom foul that would have tied the game. The '02 team played poorly, but the games are totally different. One game is the biggest game of the tournament up to that point and the other is simply play it out and get on a plane. Still, the '98 USA team had nothing to lose against Yugo and yet we still gave up the early goal. Yugo allowed us to play with the ball and dared us to get the goal back, but we couldn't break them down or finish. The '98 played from behind in every game because our offense didn't create enough quality chances and/or the team didn't finish anything.
I think we can agree that in retrospect, South Korea at home in 2002 was a much tougher opponent than Iran in France in 1998. I also agree with the previous posts asserting that 1998 Yugoslavia was tougher than 2002 Poland. But I also agree with the previous post that said that if your team can't finish, it can't score goals, and if you can't score goals, you can't win. In the context of one or two games, you might simply be unlucky. But the 1998 team had problems scoring goals in all their warmup games in addition to the tournament itself, and most of those games were against less than stellar opponents. Not only were they shut out by Germany and Yugoslavia in the WC, but they only scored 1 against Iran despite numerous chances. In prior games, they were shut out by Scotland and FYR Macedonia, and even in a home game against Kuwait they could only manage two goals. So in that respect, it wasn't just luck. Even assuming for the purposes of argument that the 2002 team was not significantly better than the 1998 team in the group round, just more fortunate, the 2002 team still must be considered the superior team because of the fine performances they put on in their two elimination round games. In fact the loss against Germany was possibly the best overall game the U.S. played even though they failed to score a goal. But back to Sampson. I hate to pile on because Sampson-bashing is so fashionable and I feel Sampson took more than his share of the blame for 1998, but I couldn't help but smile when he said, "I'm a far more experienced coach since '98...." Really, Steve? How many coaching jobs have you had since then?
I am just as sure that Sampson has learned from the past, and has benefitted from the past four years -- getting back to the basics of youth soccer and player development. He also has good connections south of the border, where he still commands respect for the US performance in Copa '95 and in the qualifying matches for '98. It will be just as tough for us in Saprissa, and tougher when we face CR here in the States. Plus, he is the architect of the US turn-around vs. Mexico, the start of our playing against them with confidence and winning -- although credit must also go to Bora, who was the skipper when we beat Mexico in a friendly just a week before WC'94. If he gets the job, then names Wanchope Captain for Life, we'll know it's the same, ole' Steve.
This is the real Steve Sampson... In a FIFA press conference one month before the Paris Group F match with Germany in 1998... "This is the best US team that we've ever had. We've certainly got the right mixture of experience and creativity. In June, we'll represent the USA not just in name alone but with our own style of play." No matter what this man ever says, he's a failure at managing a team, and his tactics are absolute rubbish for playing at an international level. Costa Rica just took two HUGE steps back.