Why does Steve Sampson get no credit?

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by Delsocfan, Nov 20, 2004.

  1. Delsocfan

    Delsocfan New Member

    Oct 23, 2004
    Wilmington, DE
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've noticed that 6 years after Steve Sampson was fired as coach of the national team, that he is still being bashed every time '98 cup or now Costa Rica's qualifying is mentioned. Although he deserves criticism for these performances, and I am glald Bruce Arena is head coach and not him, Sampson should get some credit for the rise of the USMNT during his tenure.

    Here are some of the unprecedented accomplishments that took place:

    1. USA gets 4th place of '95 Copa America. I think this is one of the most forgotten performances for the US men(It might have had a bigger impact on me than others because I was living abroad and able to watch on free TV - whereas it was PPV here)
    This performace included a win vs Chile, a 3-0 Win agains Argentina and beating Mexico in PK's in the quarterfilnals

    2. USA beats Brazil 1-0 in '98 Gold Cup semifinal

    3. USA qualifies for first world cup fin '98or first time in almost 50 years without any outside help(in '90 Mexico was suspended and '94 was automatic)

    4. USA wins US cup (i think it was '94 ) Included was 4-0 win against Mexico, a win against Nigeria and holding off Colombia for a 0-0 tie to win the cup.

    1994-98 was an important time for the USMNT that I hope doesn't get forgotten.
     
  2. jmeissen0

    jmeissen0 New Member

    Mar 31, 2001
    page 1078
    i don't have the worst opinion of him... especially when compared to most on here


    but i'll give the simplest explanation of the standard opinion



    the world cup is the biggest stage... any stage, any sport




    upon reaching it... he pissed off the leaders of his team, dropped the captain (for life :D), acted like he knew everything, devised a perfect formation, and got dead last at the cup


    thus the anger
     
  3. MightyMouse

    MightyMouse BigSoccer Supporter

    Jun 19, 2003
    Island paradise east of the mainland
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Because you don't take out a player, that many think would have made a difference at that point in time, out of the USA lineup just days before the World Cup and disrupt team chemistry. John Harkes may have pissed off Sampson but the guy WAS at the top of his game and contributed heavily to the US squad. He was CAPTAIN of the US team and Sampson, after Harke's service and sacrifice for the team, took him out as an example when all he really did was cause an imbalance of the team.

    Because he made too many big decisions just a few months before the World Cup that many thought were detrimental to the poor showing for the US. Everything from the formations, attitude, players etc. he chose contributed to the poor showing. In my mind his axing of Harkes was brutal and it ticked me off even though I am not a huge Harkes fan. I think Harkes had the size and winning attitude to have made a small difference in games against opponents such as Iran. Blah, forget it I am rambling, its pretty obvious I don't like Sampson.
     
  4. Delsocfan

    Delsocfan New Member

    Oct 23, 2004
    Wilmington, DE
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A USMNT head coach tradition that has been proudly continued
     
  5. jmeissen0

    jmeissen0 New Member

    Mar 31, 2001
    page 1078
    yeah... but arena has better credentials to back it up


    no one cares about the confed cup, no one cares about the gold cup


    it's all world cup (and to that, i will say that sampson was the first to really qualify us... mexico kicked out in '90, automatic in '94)
     
  6. Paul. A

    Paul. A Member

    Mar 16, 1999
    Wales, UK
    There were 11 players on the field and most of them played badly during the 98 WC. I'm glad that we have Arena instead, but I don't like blaming the coach for everything. In my mind it finally comes down to the players because they are the ones on the field.
     
  7. Bruce S

    Bruce S Member+

    Sep 10, 1999
    he was a terrible coach.He inherited a good team from Bora-Wynalda,Ramos,Balboa,etc.He basically played Bora's team and had what success he had with Bora's team.He develped almost no players in his 3 years as head coach- and when he tried to bring in new players , he totally **********ed it all up. THAT is why I give him absolutely no credit.Zero.
    Every time he hear people crapping on Bruce, I wonder if they were around during Sampson's time.
     
  8. Delsocfan

    Delsocfan New Member

    Oct 23, 2004
    Wilmington, DE
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    While I don't know if he personally developed players, I would't say that he gave players a chance that we hadn't seen much of previously. Keller and Friedel stand out. It would have been easy to keep a popular Meola in goal. McBride and Pope are a couple more I can think of. And of course Regis(Just kidding, I won't even defend that!)
     
  9. numerista

    numerista New Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    Sampson doesn't deserve credit for squat. Accomplishments 1 & 4 came while he was still the interim coach and had limited authority over Bora's old team. Accomplishment 3 is mostly spin; we had boatloads more talent than the Jamaica team that also qualified for WC98. That leaves Accomplishment 2: a fluke win that was followed by three straight losses.

    I'm sure he's a delightful guy, but he is a lousy national team coach. Ask Costa Rica.
     
  10. Bruce S

    Bruce S Member+

    Sep 10, 1999
    Meola had temporarily retired, and Friedel had been his back-up in 94.sampson totally misused McBride as a lone forward when the best part of his game is his passing. Pope had been Arena's U-23 player in 1996 and was obviously the best defender we had ever had. Sorry I can't give Sampson much credit for any of this
     
  11. sch2383

    sch2383 New Member

    Feb 14, 2003
    Northern Virginia
    Why is Sampson so disliked? 3-6-1 explains it all.
     
  12. SABuffalo786

    SABuffalo786 New Member

    May 18, 2002
    Buffalo, New York
    He was a good qualifying coach, I'll give him that at least.


    I don't know what happened in CR, though.
     
  13. purojogo

    purojogo Member

    Sep 23, 2001
    US/Peru home
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually , i think Steve had player from MLS who were not as well developed/adapted to the new league that was MLS in 98, than Arena did.... For that matter, it was France 98 which started the 32 team World Cup right? So it is far more important looking for results when only the top two in each group go on.... Sure he blew it (the 32nd finish can't be overlooked) but he gets waaaay too trashed......
     
  14. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    A disaster on the field, but on the newstand of the imagination, sheer brilliance.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. whip

    whip Member

    Aug 5, 2000
    HOUSTON TEXAS
    If you are aware of soccer culture, you have to be aware that a coach is only good while he is winning, his past performance are totally irrelevant the only thing that matter is the present.. or just ask Leo Benhaker and all his resume, legends and acomplishment could not spare him for being .....FIRE....AS SIMPLE AS IT GET......CAPISH....
     
  16. pething101

    pething101 Member

    Jul 31, 2001
    Smyrna, Ga
    Club:
    West Ham United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think this bears repeating.
     
  17. Bruce S

    Bruce S Member+

    Sep 10, 1999
    when you go 0-0-3 it does not matter how the groups are structured.You sucked and you are out.Let's make no more excuses.0-0-3 is unacceptable, and Sampson has done nothing since to show he is anything but a terrible coach.
     
  18. dna77054

    dna77054 Member+

    Jun 28, 2003
    houston
    So if in 06 we get a group of Brazil, Holland, and say Czeck Republic (entirely possible) and we go 0-0-3, should the Bruce be fired?

    And while I personally liked Sampson and thought he did a good job with team, taking them from Boring Bora ball to a dynamic attacking team, with not nearly the available talent that is at Arena's disposal, I do agree that after the 0-0-3 it was time for a change.
     
  19. diablodelsol

    diablodelsol Member+

    Jan 10, 2001
    North Ridgeville, OH
    ****************


    Costa Rica and Mexico were paired in a home and home to qualify for the hex. When Mexico was suspended, Costa Rica got a free pass to the hex. It was going to be either Mexico or CR, not both. We didn't get any outside help on that one.
     
  20. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    No, of course not, I've said all along, and I hope most fans would agree, that success in '06 depends on 1.) qualifying 2.) Health 3.) the Draw in December of '05, a year from next month and any additional luck we can or can't swing.

    Drawing that group, which is possible but unlikely (considering that Holland may very well land one of the 8 seeds, along with Brazil considering their play in Euro '04), would almost certainly mean no better than 1 or 2 points, perhaps some miraculous good fortune might give us 3 points.

    The key to remember, again, is how disastrous his preparations were in the spring of '98 from creating disunity, to reinforcing the disunity by having the team isolated, to then using crazy tactics he'd never put in to play before with any kind of consistency (from what I remember. Additionally his losses weren't to Holland, Brazil, and Czech Republic, arguably three of the best six or seven squads in the world these days, his losses were to a middling German side, Iran, and an embarrasing, "can we go home yet," non-appearance against Yugoslavia. That's an absolutely putrid performance made worse by the fact that the team didn't even show up against Germany or Yugoslavia. The less said about the game against Iran, the better.
     
  21. Delsocfan

    Delsocfan New Member

    Oct 23, 2004
    Wilmington, DE
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's interesting I didn't know that one. So the two best teams in the federation at the time played each other in a home and home to see who would play against 5 weaker teams in the hex.... :confused: and we thought this years CONCACAF qualifying set up was bad.
     
  22. Delsocfan

    Delsocfan New Member

    Oct 23, 2004
    Wilmington, DE
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As I stated previously I think that criticism of Sampson for the teams performance in the 98 cup is valid. I think however, that everyone is forgetting what the USMNT performances were like prior to Sampson, even under Bora(who had a losing record with the team, Sampson was the first US coach to post a winning record). For example as recently as in 1993 the team looked terrible in Copa America, coming away with only one point as they blew a 3-0 lead against Venezuela (by far the worst team in South America). Also, in the same year losing 4-0 to Mexico in the Gold Cup final(This was horrible performance and I remember being relieved that it was only a 4 goal loss and not a single person was surprised by the result.)

    Then within two years and with basically the same players the tables were turned and we beat Argentina in South America and we seemed to be beating Mexico regularly. By the time Arena took over the US had gained respect in the soccer world and no one would ever again predict 4-0 losses to Mexico.
     
  23. The Lieutenant

    Dec 29, 1999
    Lupburg, Bayern
    3-6-1
    0-2
    1-2
    0-1

    "That's all I have to say about that"
     
  24. numerista

    numerista New Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    If you're talking about wins against (a severely understrength) Argentina or Mexico, then you're talking about a team that only had a caretaker coach. Once Sampson was named head coach, he faced Mexico six times without a single victory.
     
  25. Delsocfan

    Delsocfan New Member

    Oct 23, 2004
    Wilmington, DE
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Did his title at the time really matter, he was the coach in charge on the sidelines at the time. Argentina did rest their best players as the assumed they would win easily(at the time they had no reason to believe otherwise), but they were still Argentina. I'm not sure if you were refering to Mexico being severely understrength as well, I could be wrong but I just don't recall this. I was living in Mexico City at the time and I remember everyone took this game quite seriously and were really shocked and upset with the result.
     

Share This Page