The moderators have been discussing the descent--to what I hope is its nadir--of the Klinsmann coaching thread and decided that we need another re-start. I will quote @dark knight 's post in the most recent thread to give you the idea of how we will try to make this one work: To this, I will add that we will be limiting people's access to this thread (and, perhaps, the entire forum) far more quickly than we have done in the past.
Damn. I went grocery shopping and I come back and the other thread is gone. I didn't even get to say goodbye to it this morning. Let this be a lesson to all that thread life is precious.
Quote: "So what I've learned from this interminable portion of this thread: There is a perceived lack of quality in this crop of USMNT (not sure I buy into this, I like the overall talent in this group). Some would like our coach to look at this group and spend time in camp working on tactics and finding the right shape for it to be successful, rotating a lot of new players in. This group isn't worried about fitness, we've always succeeded on fitness and athleticism, and is concerned with overtraining causing problems (like losing three starters in the WC and leaving our best player at home). Others seem content to have our coach run our players into the ground in a meaningless January camp to set expectations, publicly question the professionalism of some players who already know what's required and play them 180 minutes, give a lot of minutes to other veteran players, some in positions they are not suited for and where we arguably have depth. This is because there is a belief that our best path to success is to "want it more" than the rest of the world (which makes me laugh because I remember being in the stands in K'slautern for USA v Italy and I've never seen a team that wanted something more than those guys, except maybe the '02 USA v Germany in the quarters). I tried to state both sides impartially...I failed. Overall I think this whole argument about fitness is doing exactly what JK wants, obscuring the much deeper and more fundamental problems he has (many of his own creation). I was originally very happy for JK come in as the coach, although I was concerned that what made him successful with the German NT was not what was needed here. Now I'm not so happy, but I can vent over on the other JK thread for that. http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...ost-wc-edition.2010797/page-129#post-31828434" Rep for what you started out to do. As I understand it, this is how Portugal's defense should have looked near the end of our game at the world cup, with the guy on the left being the goalie.
People want an aggressive and entertaining style of play, jk asks the us players for a better fitness level to achieve this. Backlash. Rolls out a 3-5-2 to test out a new formation. Backlash. He experiments with some new players in a smart way, that is to say not starting 6 new players and expect them to succeed. Backlash. It seems that many people want everything immediately and perfect and quality without taking into consideration the challenges involved.
Our teams have always been fit (until JK showed up). He is correcting a problem that doesn't need correcting. Who? No one. No one has complained about the experiment beyond using Jones in the 3. Because in his 'smart experiment' he is losing to exactly those teams. Teams that are starting 6 or 7 new guys. They are beating a pretty good representation of our 1st/2nd team plus some experiments. So whats the problem? Fitness? Nope, just some progress or a vision or a plan. [Deleted by moderator.]
Good to know. I would never want to blame the benches in Europe where our players were plying their trade of not developing them.
A lot of the most recent discussion had centered around Klinsmann's comments regarding the professionalism and fitness of the United States team in the recent 3-2 loss to Chile, where the United States, again, gave up second half goals to their opponent. http://www.americansoccernow.com/articles/klinsmann-blames-player-fitness-for-loss-to-chile “It’s difficult for me now to get them out of vacation. Some of them played their last game in October. In October!” he said. “I want to help them get back into shape, get back into rhythm, but, oh, by the way, we’re going to play [two friendlies]. So some learned over time and prepared themselves really well, and some don’t have that knowledge yet." “They don’t have that ‘Oh, okay, at the beginning of December, go to Athletes’ Performance in Phoenix and get myself fit.’ That culture we don’t have yet. What the other sports are doing really well, they use their preparation for preseason, four to six weeks prior to going into preseason with their NBA team, NFL team of whatever, they go to these fitness institutes and they get themselves fit.” Certainly, a case could be made that the United States, and especially Brek Shea and D'Andre Yedlin appeared gassed late in the match. The United States suffers by comparison to the European model in terms of ongoing professionalism, this is true. Part of Brek Shea's concern while playing in England were his lack of professionalism as opposed to his lack of ability. The same is regularly said for that USA pariah, Freddy Adu, who is not currently a member of the USA team. It's great that a consummate professional and outstanding player like Klinsmann is the coach and attempting to change the soccer culture here. Unfortunately, here is where the concerns show up: 1. Regularly, Klinsmann chooses to address the USMNT players "professionalism" concerns through the media, as opposed to privately or withing the team context. And the case could be made that this is appropriate in order to increase awareness. 2. The United States has long enjoyed an outstanding reputation as one of the more "fit" teams in the world. Why has this apparently changed now that Jurgen is the coach? 3. Klinsmann was "called out" in Philip Lahm's book as a fitness specialist who was not familiar enough with tactics to be successful at Bayern Munich. Why isn't he looking at himself, in terms of tactical awareness, in these, particularly regular, come from behind losses? 4. Klinsmann appears to have become an expert at diverting the attention from the coaching shortcomings in these games, rather instead commenting upon the United States players. Should the fans be expecting more, at this point from his coaching? http://worldsoccertalk.com/2015/01/...urgen-klinsmanns-golden-plan-coming-together/ 5. Is fitness really the concern or is it more technical (easy to make this case) or tactical (coaching)? 6. Why did Jurgen choose to start Brek Shea and D'Andre Yedlin, if they perhaps, did not fit his "professionalism" model? 7. Why are we still experimenting with formations and players being played out of position in these matches? Shouldn't the coach have a more clear idea of what is going on with his pool and the best way to utilize them? 8. Wouldn't fans ordinarily expect a professional coaching staff to be able to get a team ready fitness wise in the 17 day window leading up to the Chile match? 9. Sporting Kansas City's head coach, Peter Vermes expressed his displeasure with Klinsman's remarks following the post match comments. http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mls/sporting-kc/article10080509.html Vermes further expressed the need for resting players, and he used Graham Zusi’s stress fracture in his foot as evidence for it. The injury is a product of overuse, the likely effect of Zusi playing in the World Cup, then rejoining Sporting KC without a break. The stress fracture cost Zusi a spot on the national-team roster in January, and he still hasn’t fully rejoined Sporting KC’s training camp, though he says he’s close. Vermes offered Zusi and Besler the option to take two weeks off following the World Cup last summer — citing his personal experience after the 1990 World Cup, when he felt a physical and mental break was required. That experience led to his refutation of Klinsmann’s assessment. “Totally disagree with the comment,” Vermes said. “I have a lot of respect for Jurgen. Obviously he was a great player, and he’s done tremendous things as a coach, as well. But that doesn’t mean every time someone opens their mouth, they’re right. And I completely disagree.” 10. So here is the crux of the discussion. Is Klinsmann too quick to call out his own players for the difficult run of form since the World Cup? Is there some self awareness he might be missing on his own involvement? Is he looking in the wrong areas for improvement from the United States side?
It would help debate greatly if people quit framing the debate in terms of "MLS vs Europe" and instead framed the debate on a player-for-player basis, generally a debate of "X MLS club vs. various lesser European leagues and/or the bench and/or the reserve squad."
At what point is a complaint not "wanting it immediately". He is in his 4th year. The WC team was summarized by pros as a team lacking in players in the front line who can possess and create chances. So, first thing new cycle, he brings in an NASL player and a 3rd division striker - Ibarra and Wood - and the Gold Cup is upon us with no wide forwards/mids in sight because he doesn't want MLS players. He is forced to bring Zardes in and we see IMMEDIATE results. B.t.w., there was not a backlash to the 352.
I think this might be an example of the type of post that runs the train off the track. You're not analyzing JK the coach, you're analyzing those who disagree with Jurgen. Yes, I'm aware of the irony in my post. As to your general point...JK has a pair of rather contradictory roles. On the one hand, he's the head coach, and so his job is to figure out the best style and tactics to suit his top 5-6 players, and then patch the best fits into the first XI, the players that match the style. On the other hand, he's the TD, whose job it is to create and define a US style for the future, sort of like what happened (kinda sorta by accident) with Barca's academy and the great Spanish teams from 2008 through 2012. Part of the criticism I have of Jurgen is that it's not clear to me how he's synthesizing those two roles. You mention the 3-5-2...I'm guessing that's just a tactic he wants his players to have some familiarity with so he has an extra arrow in his quiver. But the way the Panama matched played out, from player selection to post-match comments, it sounds like he all but decided that morning to try a 3-5-2. Without enough preparation, it's the kind of experiment a 3rd grader does when he gets a magnifying glass and decides he wants to see how long it takes different plants in the yard to burn. Or he wants to see what happens when he drops various things off a roof. An experiment is a test of a hypothesis. It's not "let's see what happens next!"
@koolvid It was pulled off the post-game thread from the Costa Rica game. The amount of histrionic complaining from the Tico fans was epic. I've kept it because the bright colors allow me to pick out my own posts quickly.
Or please try "player-for-skill" terms. I'm so tired of calling players in because Pep says he is a rising star without asking ourselves if we need his skills. We are on our 6th right back at the moment because that is how many Yanks play the position in Europe. This is nuts. The best way of learning the " player-for-skill" lesson is to go to the Fab Johnson thread in YA and see the problems a great athlete can have fitting in and making a difference. ASN 100 top player was Fabian Johnson recently while his club supporters say he was the major fail of newcomers. We have reached the point, imo, where we can leave behind the philosophy of "A plays in such and such league so JK must call him up" and adopt a philosophy of "what are we lacking and where do we find it and develop it"?
Fabian Johnson could prove to be a better long-term options in midfield than defense. I am as optimistic about Yedlin as anyone, but he has hardly locked down the position. Chandler is another option, but his commitment and consistency are both questionable. Cameron is both getting older and does not regularly play right back. I have no idea how good Gotz is. He could be a total bust. If he has the potential of being a quality player and does no more than force competition in the player pool, I would hope any coach would bring him in.
It would help the debate even more if people stopped framing MLS vs Europe as MLS vs England, as if Europe is only only an island across the waters off the Northern coast of France. But in general, as to Sam's point, it is a valid question to ask whether or not a top 15-20 NT should have most of its players playing at a 2nd division level, as MLS is a comparable/lower level to the Championship/2Bund/Segunda as well as the general style of play and whether that lends to the development of creative players which are needed to play a more "proactive" and attack minded style Jurgen wants and is expected to produce. The best way to produce international level players it to have players playing at the highest tempo possible on a daily/weekly basis. That's not 2nd division levels. Frankly, it seems a decent segment of fans prefer zeroing in on this Jurgen comment or that Jurgen comment instead of focusing in on development shortcomings, namely poor tactical acumen and technical skill which is a byproduct of your local academy and MLS team. We can debate that we should be able to go toe to toe with a Portugal or Ghana or Belgium or a number of talent/UCL stacked sides, but when the top 22/23 yr olds Jurgen can call in are of the Zardes/Trapp/Kitchen level or names like Bruin/Wenger/Bunbury are being thrown around, there's quite a disconnect in terms of expectations vs the talent we have on hand coming through the ranks. Jurgen's tactics and callups are hardly what is holding this program back from taking the next step, not when the argument is Robbie Rogers vs Greg Garza or calling in Ibarra/Wood vs Will Bruin or that Teal Bunbury wasn't called and that that level of player should have an effect at the international level. Fab isn't called in because he plays in the Bund, he's called in because he's a top 5 player in our pool, whether or not he's having a tough transition at Gladbach. And when looking at our player pool, if you're a player having success at a level few can reach such as the Bund, you're going to get called. At the same time, some should really stop attempting to argue that level of league does not matter in a callup, then protest against Ibarra getting called in because he's in the NASL. You can't dismiss level of play when it's MLS vs better leagues but turn around an apply it when it's MLS vs NASL. Either level of league matters or it doesn't. It's generally odd that guys like Trapp/Kitchen are heavily campaigned for but a guy like Danny Williams playing very well in the Championship is not, almost ignored.
Arguing about whether or not a player should be called in based on the league that he plays in is a structurally flawed argument. Basically what is being argued is that League A is better than League B. Therefore there is a normal distribution of player skill in League A with a higher mean value than the normal distribution of player skill in League B. Finally, if you assume that the first two statements are correct (which is far from a done deal... especially when talking about second tier leagues in European countries), then the assertion in the argument is that player X in league A is therefore better than player Y in league B. That is a fallacious argument. As a matter of fact, it is such a commonly committed fallacy that it has it's own Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy So I agree with this:
New Cycle deserves a new thread. Systems used in new cycle (only starting positions/roles): 4-1-4-1 vs. Czech Republic (Sep. 2014): Mix as DM, Gyau and Green on the wings. Bedoya and Corona in charge of distribution (CMs). Solid defensive display with Fabian and Chandler in swapped positions (RB & LB respectively). 4-4-2 vs. Ecuador (Oct. 2014): Mix and Bedoya in the motor. Yedlin and Gyau wide. Both revealing good talent. Chandler on the right, surprisingly more static than on the left. Donovan as playmaker/SS. Solid first half. 4-4D-2 vs. Honduras (Oct. 2014): Back to diamond, not as narrow as before the WC. Mix as DM, Bradley as AM experiment. Total lack of creativity. Got outplayed by Honduras at home. Dempsey & Jozy disappeared. Yedlin did well in 30'. 4-1-3-2 vs. Colombia (Nov. 2014): A mod on diamond, with Bedoya & Fabian wide, successfully stopping Colombian wing play. Solid defensive show without Bradley. Jones plays CB, tries to come out with ball. Beckerman god at covering central defense when that happens. 4-4D-2 vs. Ireland (Nov. 2014): Attacking-minded formation, a 4-3-3 in first half. Bedoya and Morales deployed wide, tended to crowd middle. Wings left open for Irish attacks. Cameron at CB. Diskerud as creator (CAM). Jozy captain. Controlled possession, awful finishing. 3-5-2 vs. Chile (Jan. 2015): Shea and Yedlin wide, good display. Bradley protecting back three. Mix & Dempsey in charge of creation. Both moved more to left, so most chances created on that side. Yedlin isolated at times, big hole behind him. 4-2-3-1 vs. Panama (Feb. 2015): Back to most used system last cycle. Bradley and Mix as motor. Ibarra and Zardes wide. With Yedlin and Shea as fullbacks, formation at times looked like 2-4-4. Most attacking we have used. Bradley more attacking of two CMs, left Mix as DM often. Most attacks on the right (Bradley-Zardes).
You do not think the coach should be experimenting? What experiments do you think are acceptable at this point in the cycle?
This is not an either/or situation. Further, you might note that some such fans (myself, quite often) look to break down what Klinsmann has actually DONE (for good and ill, and there's been plenty of both), and not what he's said. In Klinsmann's case, that's doubly important, because what he says has had little connection to what he's done, unless we're talking about the effect on the players and, debatably, team morale. Our development shortcomings are definitely not new. We've always fallen short of the elite (or, one could argue, even the "pretty good") nations on that score since the sport first came to these shores. And yet, other coaches, including Jürgen himself until rather recently, have been able to get our national team to perform better than we've been performing since the World Cup. The "why" is a big debatable issue.
Thanks and I can understand how this particular thought might raise the inquiry. Yes, at this stage in the cycle, certainly the coach should be experimenting. Unfortunately, he does so many experiments, it is difficult to get a handle on which ones might be working and the ones that need to be eliminated. Since he has taken over, the United States has played out of nearly every conceivable formation . . .4-4-2, 4-1-2-1-2, 4-1-3-2, 4-1-2-3, 4-2-1-3, and 4-2-3-1. Against Chile, we began in another new one, the 3-5-2, which was intriguing, given our player pool. At half time, he decided to give up looking at it and went back into a 4-4-2. Now was the 3-5-2 the problem or our inexperience playing out of it, or Jermaine Jones uncertainty at center back or not having a second striker? It's hard to tell, when at half time we switch formations. So, more exactly, Jurgen does so many experiments and such a variety, it's really hard to get a handle on things. He's tinkering with too many variables, I believe, to effectively discern which ones may or may not be effective.
I quoted the portion that I generally agree with, jond. I do in fact believe that there are quite a few people who believe our talent level is higher than it is. On that, you and I can claim common ground. The problem I have is with the removal of almost any responsibility of our coach. Is Jurgen causing a great team to be mediocre? No. He is not. After the draw that we received in the WC, did I think in advance that getting out of the group would be a good achievement with our talent level and that of the rest of our group? Yes, I did. Do I still feel that way after the fact? Yes, I do. But even thinking that our talent is not what others may think (certainly not our prime age talent) does not mean that Jurgen consistently conducts the program in the best manner possible (training-wise, tactically, and off the field man management). And that's HIS responsibility. Those 2 positions are not mutually exclusive.
This is a pattern with Klinsmann. I do not know if he intentionally ignores results during the "down" season, whether he likes the drama, or whether he has a long-term vision and whacky way of implementing it. I really do not know. What I do know is that this is his third cycle as an international coach, and each time he takes the team through a cycle: 1. Lot of experiments, high drama, poor results. (2011- early 2012) 2. Some experiments pan out, others do not, mediocre results. (2012-early 2013) 3. Stabilization, fewer experiments, better results. (2013 - World Cup) FWIW, he is not the only coach to use this pattern. I have often wondered if Bruce Arena (even Dom Kinnear) gave a rip about early MLS season results. They almost blow off the early part of the season as part of getting their team to peak at the end. It certainly makes a fan nervous at this point in the cycle, though.