Source: Klinsmann, Gulati discuss U.S. coaching job - ESPN
Another one of those "sources" claiming such.
Another one of those "sources" claiming such.
Klinsmann for USA job?
- Thread starter MrMarcello
- Start date
- Status
Thats that then.
This thread made me chuckle a bit
ugh
he's done well but i think we needed to move on from him.
he's done well but i think we needed to move on from him.
4 more disappointing years. I'm guessing Klinsmann said no as long as they weren't going to give him control. US Soccer is limited by jackasses in charge.
We made it to the knockout rounds by winning one game and should have beaten Ghana. All of this we did despite of Bob Bradley, not because of him.
We made it to the knockout rounds by winning one game and should have beaten Ghana. All of this we did despite of Bob Bradley, not because of him.
The best contribution Bob Bradley has made to US Soccer is Michael.
from wiki
As long as those power hungry assholes are in charge, we will never have a good coach.
I know that the idea of getting Bradley out is reason alone to rejoice in many of the USA fans' eyes, but is Klinsmann really the right man for the job anyway? Many claimed that Joachim Low was the brains behind the operation at the WC with Klinsmann just acting as a motivational figurehead of some sorts, and Low's success since then with the national team would imply there's some truth to those claims. Seems very similar to the Maradona-Bilardo setup with Argentina as well, it just wasn't quite as successful.
Besides his success with the national team the only other job he's had he failed with at Bayern.
Besides his success with the national team the only other job he's had he failed with at Bayern.
For a young footballing nation like the US, a manager with a proven pedigree like Klinsmann would do wonders for the MNT. He'd get them focused and instill new tactics and philosophy IMO. And as you pointed out Brwnd, he'd hire a solid coaching staff to assist with said tactics and other nuances of the game.
Any manager with a proven international background is the right choice. Well, to a certain extent. I'd take CQ as well. Both CQ and Klinsmann have extensive knowledge of the US program from youth up to the MNT. Klinsmann would also have been the right choice in terms of youth development and restructuring.
Just seems the USSF is hellbent on running it their way without interference or input. I think Sunil and company see a name like Klinsmann as a potential power struggle and challenge to their autonomy.
Any manager with a proven international background is the right choice. Well, to a certain extent. I'd take CQ as well. Both CQ and Klinsmann have extensive knowledge of the US program from youth up to the MNT. Klinsmann would also have been the right choice in terms of youth development and restructuring.
Just seems the USSF is hellbent on running it their way without interference or input. I think Sunil and company see a name like Klinsmann as a potential power struggle and challenge to their autonomy.
That is nothing like what brwned said, Klinsmann has failed as a manager and was made to look good in 2006 by Joachim Low as far as anyone can see, who is unlikely to leave the German national side to be Klinsmann's number two in the US is he?
Martin O'Neill would be nice if he hadn't just had a nasty break-up with an American.Because Joachim Low is the only viable number two in the world.
No, but it was him who made Klinsmann look good as it appears, so who else will take a role as a number two for the US and have as much of an impact as he did?Because Joachim Low is the only viable number two in the world.
I'm sure someone like Klinsmann could find that number two. Do you not think this?
Do you honestly think Bradley is the better choice? I highly doubt Klinsmann or any manager worth a damn starts Ricardo Clark against Ghana. Or fails to make in-half changes against Brazil (see 2009 FIFA CC final, second half).
Sixteen years of American coaching (by 2014). Eight of those with a guy who came from a lacrosse background. Fantastic decision making by USSF.
Do you honestly think Bradley is the better choice? I highly doubt Klinsmann or any manager worth a damn starts Ricardo Clark against Ghana. Or fails to make in-half changes against Brazil (see 2009 FIFA CC final, second half).
Sixteen years of American coaching (by 2014). Eight of those with a guy who came from a lacrosse background. Fantastic decision making by USSF.
I don't actually have much knowledge on why the hatred of Bradley, as far as I can see he has done a very solid job with the US and think sacking him for the sake of it is ridiculous, it's just that when a name like Klinsmann is being thrown at his job (also may I add that Jurgen failed to get that number two at Bayern Munich, whom many will consider to be a better job than at the US national team) I find it incredibly ridiculous.
His player selection and tactical nous has consistently let the side down. He can get the team up for the games that truly matter but often drives the supporters absolutely mental the other 85% of the time.
To be fair, I'd not looked at it his way. If Klinsmann was to bring in a knowledgeable no.2 to come along with him then it could be a big step up from Bradley, I was just looking at it from the point of view that Klinsmann alone has shown to have failings but it's highly likely that he'll have a list of backroom staff who he trusts to cover his failings for his next job wherever it may be - he did make a lot of changes to the backroom staff at Bayern as soon as he came in.
Maradona for all his limitations did do reasonably well with Argentina, and presumably Bilardo had a big hand in that, so they've both shown that as long as you have the right men surrounding you just being a strong motivator and man manager can take you a long way.
I sometimes get the feeling there's unfairly high expectations for USA though, and that while Bradley might have tactical limitations that's true of a lot of the players too, so even a tactical mastermind would struggle to get them playing tactically sophisticated football because they've not had that level of training or experienced that side of the game enough. That's only based on glimpses though.
Jesus Christ. Bradley's a fecking tactical retard and belongs no where near a national team and that includes the San Marino national team. If you don't have any knowledge of him, then I recommend not commenting on how "solid" of a job he's done.
Feel sorry for the US. Bradley is a horrible, horrible manager. The guy can't choose players to save his life and new talent should be careful, he's played the same players (Clark, Bornstein, etc) over overseas young talent the whole time he's been managing.
He sadly has his favorites and it costs him. Horribly disappointed with this, shows no ambition what so ever from the USSF. This is a time in the US where you need to bring in a big name manager, when US "soccer" is on the verge of hitting the mainstream, not regress with a boring manager who cares very little for youth.
Piss poor.
He sadly has his favorites and it costs him. Horribly disappointed with this, shows no ambition what so ever from the USSF. This is a time in the US where you need to bring in a big name manager, when US "soccer" is on the verge of hitting the mainstream, not regress with a boring manager who cares very little for youth.
Piss poor.
If you want to email Gulati, here's his email: skg21@columbia.edu
He usually responds. After the Confederations Cup, he actually shot me an email two months after I told him to fire Bradley. I told him exactly what would happen in the WC. I was right.
He's a moron.
He usually responds. After the Confederations Cup, he actually shot me an email two months after I told him to fire Bradley. I told him exactly what would happen in the WC. I was right.
He's a moron.
Nearly everything that the US has done since Bradley took over has been accomplished by the thinnest of margins. Even topping Concacaf ended up being close after starting out dominantly.
In the Confed Cup, we progressed on goals scored after scoring 3 against Egypt. Then, somehow he managed to get the tactics right for once and beat Spain and play a decent half against Brazil. The second half of the final was a joke. He didn't do anything to prevent Brazil from taking control of the game.
In the World Cup, we won the group with a grand total of 1 win. Sure, we got hosed by the ref against Slovenia, but we should not have been down 2-0 at half. In that game, he started a striker who had scored a total of 1 goal in the MLS prior to the World Cup and none for the national team. He also refused to start Maurice Edu who ended up being one of our better players in the World Cup. After the two subs at half, the US managed to claw back a 2-2 draw that would have been over had Slovenia finished in the first half. Then, we get the game against Algeria when the US won its only game of the tournament on a last second goal to progress and top the group.
Then the Ghana game. Instead of keeping Edu in the midfield, Bradley replaces him with Ricardo Clark(one of his favorites) who fell asleep for England's goal in the opening match. As usual, Clark failed to pay attention at any point in the first half and allowed Ghana to score through a terrible mistake. Why did he replace the effective midfield that helped to dominate against Algeria, albeit without much end product? I have no clue. All he had to do was leave in Edu and Feilhaber rather than putting Clark and Findley back in. I suppose he thought they needed rotating, a la FSW. We had 1 decent striker in the squad, and he should have gone for a 4-5-1.
I'm not saying we would have won the game against Ghana, but we surely wouldn't have given up the early goal that we did in every other game except Algeria(when Edu started and Clark/Torres didn't). Despite his shuffling around of other midfielders, his son would never have been considered to be left out. Admittedly, he didn't deserve to be left out, but throughout his tenure he's played Michael when he should try out other players.
Given the group we had and the draw in the knock-out rounds, we should have made it at least to the last 8 against Uruguay with 3 victories. Instead, we went home with 1 despite having a cakewalk. Now we'll have to deal with his ineptitude for 4 more years and his favoritism towards awful players like Bornstein. People in Honduras like Bornstein more than American fans.
In the Confed Cup, we progressed on goals scored after scoring 3 against Egypt. Then, somehow he managed to get the tactics right for once and beat Spain and play a decent half against Brazil. The second half of the final was a joke. He didn't do anything to prevent Brazil from taking control of the game.
In the World Cup, we won the group with a grand total of 1 win. Sure, we got hosed by the ref against Slovenia, but we should not have been down 2-0 at half. In that game, he started a striker who had scored a total of 1 goal in the MLS prior to the World Cup and none for the national team. He also refused to start Maurice Edu who ended up being one of our better players in the World Cup. After the two subs at half, the US managed to claw back a 2-2 draw that would have been over had Slovenia finished in the first half. Then, we get the game against Algeria when the US won its only game of the tournament on a last second goal to progress and top the group.
Then the Ghana game. Instead of keeping Edu in the midfield, Bradley replaces him with Ricardo Clark(one of his favorites) who fell asleep for England's goal in the opening match. As usual, Clark failed to pay attention at any point in the first half and allowed Ghana to score through a terrible mistake. Why did he replace the effective midfield that helped to dominate against Algeria, albeit without much end product? I have no clue. All he had to do was leave in Edu and Feilhaber rather than putting Clark and Findley back in. I suppose he thought they needed rotating, a la FSW. We had 1 decent striker in the squad, and he should have gone for a 4-5-1.
I'm not saying we would have won the game against Ghana, but we surely wouldn't have given up the early goal that we did in every other game except Algeria(when Edu started and Clark/Torres didn't). Despite his shuffling around of other midfielders, his son would never have been considered to be left out. Admittedly, he didn't deserve to be left out, but throughout his tenure he's played Michael when he should try out other players.
Given the group we had and the draw in the knock-out rounds, we should have made it at least to the last 8 against Uruguay with 3 victories. Instead, we went home with 1 despite having a cakewalk. Now we'll have to deal with his ineptitude for 4 more years and his favoritism towards awful players like Bornstein. People in Honduras like Bornstein more than American fans.
Spot on
So getting to the confederations cup final and getting past the group stages at the world cup isn't solid when in charge of a nation that quite frankly isn't very good at the game?
I'm convinced the USSF doesn't want to get better. Bradley is Arena part 2 in my opinion. Tactically inept when it matters.
I have to agree with you on this.
Who has he overlooked in Europe? I guess I can think of Bedoya in regards to the fact that maybe Bradley should have brought him in earlier to the USMNT but he just came out of nowhere.
His favorites playing over more deserving players is what I am scared about in the next cycle. I am sure he will bring in Jones for the next games but I don't think he will call in any other players to get in the mix.
Bradley's lineup cost us the game against Ghana. He switched it 30 minutes in, and we looked a lot better, but the damage had already been done. Yes, it was 1-1 for a while, but then in extra time Ghana scored. He completely bottled it that game.
That definitely was a horrible move on his part. I was convinced that he would lose his job over that but apparently not.
I am worried about our defense for the next cycle with Cherundolo, Boca, and Demerit getting older.
I'm not a fan of Bedoya to be honest but the likes of: Mikkel Diskerud, Eric Lichaj, and Mike Grella (I've been impressed with him for Leeds nervous
as a few youths abroad that I've noted. Connor Doyle is another who the US would do well to cap tie in October.But then you have the likes of Feilhaber, Torres, and Castillo who are constantly looked over/benched in place of Clark and Kljestan. Same, I suppose, you can argue Findley over Gomez.
The US has talent across the world, emerging and established. There are even a few MLS players the US would do well to introduce like Brek Shea and Tim Ream.
But will Bob play them to develop them or only when he has injuries to his favorites (i.e. in the case of Davies)? Computer says no.
As I said, if you aren't familiar with his coaching or how those things were achieved, you should not comment on the subject.
This is a big part of why I dislike him. In the friendly against Brazil, who did he play? Essentially our first team. He should have called up younger players or others who haven't gotten a chance yet, instead of just calling up 1 or 2 new players. We don't have anything to play for for 4 years unless we take the Gold Cup seriously so we can get in the Confed Cup again. It'd be a good time to get to know what players we have and how good they are. Maybe if he called up some of the dual-citizens they'd play for the US instead of another country instead of repeatedly calling up the same players.I'm not a fan of Bedoya to be honest but the likes of: Mikkel Diskerud, Eric Lichaj, and Mike Grella (I've been impressed with him for Leeds nervous
But then you have the likes of Feilhaber, Torres, and Castillo who are constantly looked over/benched in place of Clark and Kljestan. Same, I suppose, you can argue Findley over Gomez.
The US has talent across the world, emerging and established. There are even a few MLS players the US would do well to introduce like Brek Shea and Tim Ream.
But will Bob play them to develop them or only when he has injuries to his favorites (i.e. in the case of Davies)? Computer says no.
Do you agree or not that those were two very good accomplishment despite America not being very good at the game?
Not really. Were we supposed to lose to the mighty nations of Slovenia and Algeria? No, we weren't. Having Italy lose by 3 goals and Egypt collapse and give up 3 in the final game, which led to advancing with one win in the Confed Cup was pure luck.
If you had read this thread, you would have seen Sir Matt's post and you wouldn't be commenting. But you are, and from an acknowledged position of complete ignorance.
Tell me how many US games you've watched. Until you've watched 10% of the ones I and Sir Matt have, you have absolutely no place in this thread.
I have discussed this elsewhere with sir matt fwiw and have disscussed Bradley on several occasions, I may not watch much of your games but I know that America aren't as good as is being made out, would Maurice Edu get a game for Ghana? Even with essien out the answer is no.
Also if replacing him is the aim at least choose a half decent manager who is proven.
Also if replacing him is the aim at least choose a half decent manager who is proven.
Interesting choice of player to highlight. You're talking about the guy who didn't get a start against Ghana, probably costing us the game.
Nice work.
You are totally lacking in knowledge on the subject. Feel free to stop.
That's exactly why I chose him, he has been mentioned as his not playing cost the game wereas he wouldn't get into the opposition team...
It's more that Clark was chosen to play over him. Clark is a significantly worse player than Edu. Besides, just because a player couldn't get into the opposing side doesn't mean that he is not a key player for his team. Muller wouldn't get into the Spanish side, but had he played, Germany would have been better when they played against Spain. They might have even won the game.
Well, then explain John O'Shea. It's a ridiculously stupid argument. A team is a sum of its parts working together. A team of poorer quality players can beat a team of higher quality players any day if coached properly.
There is a major difference in the argument you proposed, O'Shea is a backup player who would get a role in any side as just that, whereas Edu is a similar player to the younger and better Annan who was his opposite number.
But that's to do with the systems played, if Del Bosque had one with a similar tactical style to te Germans then Müller would get into the side.
- Status