Coaching and refereeing education, at all levels, IMO. Among other things, that ameliorates the culture deficit where it counts.
Mens soccer is the most competitive sport in the world. Everyone wants to get better and everyone has good players. Why does anyone think if we "just hire the right coach" or "blow up the fed" or whatever the other stupid sayings are, we'd all the sudden get into the top 5 or whatever people seem to think is expected?
What a crazy and obnoxious question. I am going to ignore it at first and will try to just give my thoughts on how I think about this. I grew up playing sports. To keep it simple, between games we did everything we could to prepare and gave everything we had to win on gameday. My observation is that succesful organizations that have sports teams do everything than can to help their team win. I believe the structure of soccer in this country is incredibly suboptimal to grow the game and develop players. Therefore, I look for ways to improve them. So I support "other stupid ideas" (aka restructure the game to improve our ability to grow the game and develop better players) which include "blow up the fed" (doesn't have to be blown up, but not sure it could be fixed in its current state) and "hire the best coach" (such an odd thing to argue against) along with many other things. Do you believe the structure of soccer in this country is ideal for growing the game and developing players? If so, why? If not, why do you always defend the status quo and mock people that believe there is a better way to do things in this country?
I'd say the other way, MLS, as it is structured today, will be the biggest hurdle to overcome to be a top team. The only thing MLS drives is their "business metrics".
If we are fine with our current level and our current level is very respectable we can continue with what we are doing. But if we want to reach the level where we can compete with France, Spain, etc we need to change what we are doing drastically. But the biggest issue is not just an American Soccer issue it is an American youth sports issue. In a place like France, players from all socioeconomic backgrounds can make it. Right now in the US that is not the case. Former working-class sports like basketball and baseball now being expensive are an issue but, it is not the same level of an issue since we have a huge built-in advantage in those sports and the fans of those sports do not live and die by international competitions the way American soccer fans do.
Its very competitive................but at the end of the day the powers are the powers. Who is in the Olympics final? France versus Spain Two nations that have won a World Cup Who was in the last World Cup final? Argentina versus France Two nations that have won a World Cup Who was in the last U20 World Cup final? Italy versus Uruguay Two nations that have won a World Cup Who was in the last U17 World Cup final? France versus Germany Two nations that have won a World Cup The talent level at the disposal of these nations is just higher than for the rest of the nations. And teams like France and Spain are muuuuuuuuuuuuuch deeper in talent than the rest. If we had our absolute best U23 Olympic team, we could give France a run for its money. But we never will. That's not possible. Just like that wasn't remotely close to France's best U23 team. it was a test of depth, and we're not there yet. So yes, coaching matters and the fed matters, but the talent is the talent.
Ummm...that's because it's a business. Like the Premier League. Like The Bundesliga. Like Serie A.......
Also, the two main reasons more countries have won trophies at youth levels are: 1) The major powerhouse countries tend to be missing more top players who weren't released from clubs, and 2) Youth teams are inconsistent as a general rule, even the best ones. Besides which, the U-17 and U-20 WCs are played twice as often as the senior one.
This is how idiotic and clueless US fans are. We are currently ranked 16th by FIFA. Japan is 18th, Morocco is 20th, Denmark 21, South Korea 23, Turkey 26th, Ecuador 27th, Poland 28th. You know, all really good things. But keep thinking 16th is mediocre. And we all know you all will come back with some, "But... but... but" delusional justifications for your ridiculous entitled (which is what they are) beliefs.
Oh. Well, that's a completely reasonable assertion to make that can be backed up with well-reasoned points and lots of objective evidence.
I do think the job of the next USMNT coach is different than Emma Hayes' job. She turned over the roster and got rid of a lot of the aging stalwarts. Alex Morgan, Becky Sauerbrunn, etc. Even players like Rose Lavelle were benched. Emma went young. [And can we all be honest for second? They beat Japan 1-0 in extra time in the quarterfinal, Germany 1-0 in extra time in the semifinal, and Brazil 1-0 in the final. All the while, their goalkeeper was standing on her head making key save after key save. The bounces went their way which is great. The luck went their way. Sometimes that's all that it takes because the margins are so small.] The job of the next USMNT coach isn't quite the same. There are few over-the-hill stars to replace. The same ruthlessness of selection will go a long way, as Tyler Adams pointed out. Its more about taking the existing USMNT pool and putting them in a better position to win. And it might be ugly. As it was ugly for most of the knockout round under Emma Hayes for the women.
Rose only sat in the final, and that was likely rotation. She's never been a particularly robust player in that sense. (That said, she is one of the more overrated USWNT players). It's interesting to see the reactions to Hayes and even what she focuses on and what fans focus on. Fans obsess with getting rid of the aging turnover, but she didn't do a ton different than Vladko in this sense. Rapinoe and others were already gone. Hayes didn't bring Morgan, but Morgan was only really playing because Mal Swanson was hurt. Julie Ertz retired. Crystal Dunn still played. Horan still played to the fanbase's misguided dismay. Naeher was still keeper despite calls for her to go. Lynn Williams was a key sub. In short, Hayes didn't really turn over the roster a ton. She brought Albert but not Lily Yohannes or some of the other youth. People are also raving about the offense, which, as you note, didn't do much at all. I do think she made a key change -- we went to an offense that can and will possess the ball but is still transition focused, while Vladko was a kick and run on guy. We didn't score out of possession at all -- this team has minimal creativity in the midfield and women's soccer is more transition based anyway. The biggest benefits to that tactical change, though, were in team self-belief and in the defense. The defense, just to rest and not allow a thousand counters back. The team belief -- it's clear that the team appreciates a game plan that is actually relevant to a talented team. Hayes herself focused on toughness and persistence and little else. The defense won this gold -- Naeher was fantastic (again, someone the a big part of the fanbase wanted out) and Girma might be the best player at her position in the world. I'd also note that she only rotated when she absolutely had to in an insanely tightly scheduled tourney. Rotation is overrated by a fanbase, and the criticism is way too results based for my comfort. Rotate and lose, and you didn't put your best team out there. Don't rotate and lose and it's because everyone was exhausted.
Well your guy Berhalter was able to fail in both approaches, but in results and performances. He overrotated during qualifying and those MLS lifers shit themselves like they always do. He then ran the team into the ground at the world cup.
This is how idiotic and stupid MLS fans are. They go on and on about the stability and "success" of MLS and we are struggling to keep up with where we were before the USMNT was infested with this disease.
Some interesting differences. They all have strong federations that don't allow them to what they want so they are part of a pyramid where their success helps of of football in their county. They are content with their size of the pie and they understand that growing the game benefits them. As opposed to MLS, who couldn't give a shit about the game and is intent on trying to increase their portion of the pie with no regard for the rest of the game in this country. All those leagues benefit their national teams while MLS is just an obstacle to overcome. It is strikingly odd that MLS fans seem to be a bigger fan of their monopolistic business model than soccer. To be fair, the soccer is pretty much crap.
They care about both but the women were easier to fix because the ship merely had to be course corrected a bit. The men on the other hand are still trying to cross the ocean with maybe one jet ski and a bunch of paddle boats.
I agree, but I'd change the analogy a bit. The men have had a mountain to climb to reach the top of the world's most competitive global athletic endeavor (and maybe the world's most competitive endeavor, period), and have made it part-way up the mountain, a significant way, in fact, but the steepest climb to the summit still lies ahead, and nothing is going to make that part any easier. The women began at the top of the mound, and once the mound grew into a small hill, they rolled down a little bit, but it was always a smaller and less steep climb.
Gtfo of here with that nonsense. They wasted so much time to hire a hack for the men's side twice while going out and getting the best coach in the world on the women. The men's focus was building a culture (that was an ultimate failure) while on the women's side it was about giving the team the best chance to compete. I know you MLS fans don't really understand and competition. Once that is taken away, it is no longer sport and just entertainment.
Wait until the rest of the world continues to progress and MLS gets its paws on the women's game. It isnt going to be pretty.