I am stunned that people are actually making Wynalda and Sampson the bad guys here. Are people really this dense? Harkes put Sampson in a situation where he was screwed no matter what decision he made. In case people don't remember, the US had a pretty impressive cycle before all this came out. This included victories over Argentina and Brazil. This is Harkes' fault and nobody else's. If he wanted to do the dirty so bad, I'm sure he had several other options to pursue. Your past will catch up to you eventually--this situation is no different.
Sampson wasn't a "bad guy" but he did mishandled the situation from a "professional management" perspective. He made it worse.
I think the REAL bad guy is sampson, he should have mediated, and let them solve it on the field. Evaulated how they played together after this, and went from there. LIke they say, leave EVERYYTHING outside the soccer field.
Clueless dude! Why it is a BIG story in England; read here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...astating-effect-Englands-World-Cup-hopes.html
The bad guy 12 years ago and still today is Harkes no doubt. Just because Harkes is a bad guy doesn't mean Wynalda isn't a jack ass.
How was Wynalda a jackass in this situation. It's his life. Why should you be the one to decide whether it is appropriate for him to acknowledge publicly this Harkes' incidence now?
Sigh. I swear to God, the brainlessness that permeates this place can drive me nuts. I explained -- in great detail -- what I meant by "forced." No, it doesn't mean a gun was to Wynalda's head. It means the Terry situation stuck him in a tricky position. As I've already explained a gazillion times, it FORCED him to make a choice: Either play make-believe and sit there squirming self-consciously while potentially eroding viewers' trust; or just be upfront about it and discuss something embarrassing and painful. I'm not being pollyannish about this. I'm just being realistic. You're acting as if Wynalda cleverly spotted some sneaky opportunity. I mean, really -- he "saw the similarities between himself and Bridge"??? Are you serious? He didn't have to "see" the similarities. His personal experience was a glaring, inescapable elephant in the room. That's the whole point. You're hung up on this little book thing -- a book that isn't even written or on a publishing schedule, and which was merely a passing, throwaway comment in the middle of a larger conversation. I don't have some interest in defending Eric Wynalda. I just find it bizarre that somebody could watch this exchange and see "self promotion" above all else.
The Chicago Tribune, not the biggest soccer promoting newspaper, had the Harkes Wynalda story on the back page of the sports section, with this picture of Harkes (the whole picture, which includes Wynalda, is in the on-line edition)
I'll bet Spartak Moscow's coach from 1965 would have handled it perfectly and led the 1998 team to the quarterfinals, at least.
Striker, if you read through the thread you'd know my reasoning. Anytime a parent throws another parent under the bus within ear shot, or fully knowing the kids can and will hear it, it's pretty classless. Harkes has kids too. They're all innocent victims in this mess. That's why Wynalda is a jack ass. tambo, Until I see the post, or news article equating this situation to Terry's situation prior to Wynalda's revelation last Monday night, I just don't accept there was the elephant in the room. As I said before, I've followed the USMNT adamantly since the mid-80s when I was old enough to know what was going on, and I never heard a thing about this until Monday night / Tues morning. I now realize several posters are saying they heard this rumor before, and a few of my buddies state they've heard it before as well. But had Wynalda done the show, addressed the situation with Terry, and not mention his situation, would Sampson have talked? Doubtful? Would there be pages of threads on here about this like there are now? Doubtful. I just don't accept your premise that he'd look weak, stupid, or disingenuous had he not mentioned his situation We can agree to disagree, it's cool. I get it, you think he had no choice, I think he did and he made the wrong one. We also can agree to disagree without using a crutch in our argument like you can and should do better.
There's an interview with Wynalda on Thursday's Five Live Daily (you can get it on itunes). He said Sampson based the decision on his morals and that he though Capello wouldn't do that, but rather base it on what's best for England. He also said that players not knowing what was going on was a detriment to the team - he said going into the locker room and everyone wondering what does this guy know, how much does that guy know, etc... was a big distraction. He didn't flat out say it (although I didn't finish the interview yet), but my impression was he felt Sampson could've handled things better.
Here's the link to the BBC interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/8499510.stm
Couple things: 1 - Capello's situation is a bit different. Wynalda was a better player for the Nats than Harkes was at that point in their careers, in addition to Harkes other me-first behavior stuff going on. What would Capello have done if it was Wayne Bridge who ********ed John Terrys wife, and not the other way around? No way in hell he'd keep Bridge on the team. I'm of the mind that Sampson was at least partially considering the team in his decision. 2 - As far as Wynalda blaming Sampson for keeping the players in the dark; using Samspon's discretion in keeping HIS secret as the reason behind the team chemistry issues is absurd to me when Wynalda himself could have corrected that at any point had he wanted to.
For me the fact that Terry had an affair with Bridge's ex is the big difference. I almost wrote something similar to what you're suggesting in your second point. That is, Wynalda could've enlightened his teamates. But, Wynalda was embarrassed and maybe at the same time he didn't want to contradict his coach. Whatever, I don't blame Wynalda for anything. I can see where Sampson may have not done everything right, but I think he probably did what he felt was right, so I don't blame him for that (3-6-1 is another story). Harkes should get the brunt of the blame in this situation.
I hadn't been inhaling this story as much as many others have, so it was only in the last day or two that I came across the fact that it was Bridge's Ex, not his current girlfriend. When I read that, I thought... not too cool, but is Bridge's piss scent still on the girl? Yes, they have a kid together, but if she was so important to him, why weren't they still together? I don't think that it's as huge of a deal as the Harkes/ Wynalda situation. Not by a long shot.
Has this been confirmed? I thought there was some confusion over when this all happened and what the status of their relationship was at that time.
I think the problem was that it was bridge's ex wife (and possibly his baby momma but im not sure about that), now THAT sucks! LOL