Risky choice to keep Klinsmann for four more years

Photo credit: US Soccer

When we heard that Klinsmann would remain as coach of the US Men's National Soccer team for another four years and would also become a technical director, many of us questioned this decision's wisdom. Two World Cup cycles with the same manager almost never pans out.

This is true for many teams around the world, but even more so for Team USA. While the first cycles for coaches like Bruce Arena and Bob Bradley were hugely successful internationally, their style became stale and the rest of the world caught up with their strategies.

Bruce Arena may have gotten the US to the quarterfinals in 2002, but 2006 saw them score one goal and manage a unlikely tie against eventual World Cup winners Italy. Lacking Chris Armas, a clear attacking role, an aging Claudio Reyna and an under-used Landon Donovan resulted in a forgettable tournament.

The same goes for Bob Bradley. After a stellar Confederations Cup in 2009 and a great group phase in South Africa 2010, his miss-use of Ricardo Clark and reliance on Johnathan Bornstein gave Ghana the upper hand. And that was really the end for the coach. A year later the lack of depth in his team during the Concacaf Gold Cup contributed to a clear defeat to Mexico in the final. 

US Soccer made the right decision in replacing Brdaley with Klinsmann in 2011. The former German star's tactics and depth building were slow to kick in but eventually paid dividends in 2013 with important victories abroad, a Gold Cup win with a largely-experimental squad and record-breaking points and number one qualification in the Hexagonal tournament of World Cup qualifying.

But USA is in certain peril with their World Cup draw. Germany, Portugal and Ghana are all extremely talented and with a greater number of technically superior players like Mesut Ozil, Cristiano Ronaldo and Kevin Prince Boateng. It will take a little luck and playing the games of their lives to get through this group.

And what if there's another three-and-out in Brazil 2014? And a loss at the Gold Cup and no Confederations Cup again? Might we have jumped the gun already? Complacency? Lack of inventiveness for US Soccer directors?

There might be some positives, of course, with Klinsmann as a technical director. Player development from a young age is key for future tournaments. The involvement of MLS is another step forward. Finally, exploiting the German connection and adding Bundesliga players to the pool remains advantageous now and in the future.

As fans, we hope the best for him and that the decision to keep him another four years turns out to be a good one. Examples are available when it comes to second cycle coaches for other countries: Hernan Gomez and Luis Suarez for Ecuador, Sven Goran Erikson for England and Raymond Domenech for France. Need we say more?

End of the affair: Bradley fired as US coach

Photo credit: AP

Bob Bradley was fired as coach of the US national soccer team today. When the referee called full time at the 2011 Concacaf Gold Cup with the Mexico team up 4-2 on the United States, some of us out there thought his days were numbered. But nothing happened. Days passed and international friendlies were announced (versus Mexico on the 10th), Copa America started and the US ladies made it to the final.

But today was different. A day after the thrashing of the MLS All-Stars at the hands of Manchester United, a symphony of news flashes gave us word that US Soccer had severed ties with Bob Bradley. But why not sooner? Time for searching and hiring a new man for the job? And yes, it seems they have Bradley's successor already with a "further announcement" on Friday.

Let's reflect a bit on today's events. What were the pros and cons of Bob Bradley? To start, his record was 43-25-13, winning a Gold Cup title, finishing in second place at the Confederations Cup and in the final 16 at the World Cup after winning the group over England. Also to his credit: the blossoming of Donovan and Dempsey, solidification of Michael Bradley, Onyewu, Howard and Bocanegra, and the addition of game-changers like Altidore, Agudelo, Jermaine Jones, Bedoya and Timmy Chandler. All in all, quite the resume.

Conversely, the national team has become quite stale after the World Cup and a 5-4-4 record this year. There is no inventiveness on the pitch and his tactics have been eviscerated by opposing squads. Do credit Mexico on their win, however. Their "golden generation" has come to life and, somehow, a run at the World Cup semifinals in 2014 isn't out of the question.

But back to Bradley. In reality, second term coaches (1 term being a world cup cycle) never quite do well in their reprisal as managers of national teams. A national soccer team is a completely different animal from club competition in soccer and, for that matter, other sports. There are only limited times in which you have your players each year and individuals that are central to the national team may not be playing at all for their club sides. Just the length of time alone does away with continuity. There's no "rebuilding season" or even "relegation battle." Other examples abound: Bruce Arena (2003-2006, early exit from 2006), Marcelo Lippi (Italian champions in 2006, eliminated in group stage in 2010), Sven Goran Erickson (English team became stale and lost flair in 2006).

So it's a new beginning for US Soccer. Who will be our coach? Juergen Klinsmann? Guus Hiddink? Sigi Schmid? Jason Kreis? Carlo Ancelotti? Marcelo Lippi? Claudio Reyna? All good candidates but my preference is a foreign coach right now. Someone that understands the larger scale of things. Jason Kreis is food for thought but I'd like him to have a few more titles and seasons with Real Salt Lake. Right now is too soon for the international arena. Collegiate experience, such as Arena had as a coach in college soccer, can only take us so far since a vast majority of our players are now in world-renowned teams and leagues. Arena and Bradley took this style of coaching to its very limit and with pleasant results. But a new line of thinking is needed.

So, we bid you adieu, Coach Bradley. You made us proud and made us believe. You brought us exhilaration, consolation and fantasy. We thank you for your hard work and we know you'll succeed wherever you go. No hard feelings either. Sometimes you just have to say "time's up."

Bradley Returns

If the title sounds like a cheap sequel or, perhaps, a masterful reintroduction of a superhero, then Bob Bradley's rehiring by US Soccer fits right in. Yes, it's true that Bradley led Team USA to a 38-20-8 record which included a first place finish in their group at this summer's World Cup in South Africa and second place in 2009's Confederations Cup. But is it worth the risk to continue with the same tactics that allowed for porous defense at the World Cup?

Just like in 2006, a name that emerged as a possibility for head coach was former Germany international and head coach Juergen Klinsmann. And just like it happened in 2006, nothing ever came from rumored "meetings" he had with US Soccer. Would he have been a better option?

It may not all be Bradley's fault when it comes to glaring errors in the USA lineup. Jozy is more of a number 11 than a number 9 (i.e. Davies), so goals from the forwards are hard to come by. The porous defense is likely a combination of factors: recovering Onyewu, aging Bocanegra and DeMerrit, struggling Ricardo Clark. But clearly, Bradley's scheme has also failed to yield positive consequences in this part of the field (i.e. early goals by opposing teams).

Finally, there is the complacency that comes along with retaining a coach for a second world cup cycle. Other teams may adapt to Bradley's style and choice of players. The team itself may be in need of new ideas to motivate them to evolve into a stronger unit. Sven-Goran Eriksson did nothing different for England in 2006 than he did in 2002. Same result: exit in the quarterfinals. Bruce Arena had few breakthrough ideas in 2006 and it turned into a disaster. Is the USA doomed to a 3-and-out in 2014? Not yet. Let's give Bradley some credit.

Bob Bradley is a masterful tactician when it comes to big opponents: England, Brazil, Spain. Better game management is required to defeat the likes of Ghana, Mexico, Czech Republic and even Slovenia. This is where World Cups are successful. Winning the key matches and standing up to legendary teams. If Bradley can muster up new tactics and introduce a better defense, then yes, he should retain his job. Can it be done? Only time will tell, and we hope this decision by US Soccer will not develop into another 4-year flop. Cheers, Bob. Good luck. We are behind you as our Team USA coach.

Concacaf rewind: more Mexican trouble?

Mexico 2 - Trinidad & Tobago 1. Meantime it was 1-0 for Honduras in favor of El Salvador. So is 2-1 for Mexico really that bad? Did the team play so horribly? Long answer is "no" with a "but" and the short answer is "yes" with an "if." The Chicago Fire midfielder/forward Cuahutemoc Blanco did his duty and was easily the best player on the Mexican side. Guardado committed a few errors but was still strong going forward and creating chances. The Castillo-Franco tandem up top was great at the start of the first half. The first goal by Mexico was in the first minute of play with a nice give-and-go between Castillo and Franco. Throughout the game Mexico created plenty of chances but luck was not on their side. It could easily have been 6-1 or higher if it wasn't for the Trinitarian 'keeper. The back line looked shaky at times, yes, but they also went forward and created chances.

It wasn't an incendiary match for "el Tri," yes. But they got the 3 points they needed. I'm also being realistic that the only way to succeed in Concacaf is to win all your home games and take points from teams when away. That's true of any competition in world football. So far Mexico have none of those points. I propose this scale for points earned/lost abroad with home wins being null:
Costa Rica 4
USA 1
Honduras 0
Mexico 0
El Salvador -4
T&T -4

I also don't think the Mexican FA is as much to blame as the press itself. Look at what happens when teams win at home. USA beats Honduras after coming from behind 2-1 and its called "courageous" and "a step in the right direction. El Salvador beats Mexico and they are "heroes" and "historic." Ecuador beats Argentina and it's a "justified win" because they wanted the game more. Now you have Mexico win at home and looking "deplorable," "uninspired," etc. The players were upset with these comments. They put their heart and soul on the field. I could see that. No one wants to "not win." That's ridiculous. And what about the "Futbol Picante" crew on ESPN Deportes calling Lavolpe's team as "much better" than the current squad when this particular group was supposed to be the "golden generation" after winning an U-17 tournament against Brazil by 3-0. We should know that when the youngsters play all bets are off. Sanchez and Eriksson were not given enough time and were ousted prematurely as many a coach in the Americas. Now you have "el Vasco" Aguirre and you lose abroad. Same difference.

The same thing happened with Argentina after going down to Ecuador. The press was furious and looking to decapitate players' and managers' heads. We know Ecuador is a much better team these days, even if they are on the outside looking in at the potentially "qualified" teams in South America. The team has been to two successive world cups. So, with that said, I ask the press to stand down. Reflect. Accept the consequences that these days world football isn't as "black and white" as it used to be. Support your local squad when they achieve a win or good result. 3 points puts Mexico back in the hunt. They will almost certainly beat the US and any other team at the Azteca... and they, along with Argentina will qualify for the world cup.

What's happened to Mexico?

Let's face it. Few teams around the world have as many fans as the Mexican national team. That is a fact. And I'm talking real, true Mexican-born fans, not the bandwagon fans that Brazil, Argentina and France get along the way to the World Cup. And yet it seems that the Mexican team, all Mexican national teams in fact, are in a constant state of negative flux.

Why is this? The players? The coaches? The team owners? The federation? My take: all and none. All because they have repeatedly failed at achieving important goals like qualifying for the Confederations Cup, the Olympics and the U-20 tournament. Hugo Sanchez was sacked and now Eriksson has been sacked. I'm not an expert in these matters but I've heard and read enough about the squabbling delegates of the Mexican soccer Federation that stalled various plans and included their own pet projects into the system. That last one is Vergara, owner of one of the most financially successful teams on the planet--Chivas de Guadalajara. He insisted on bringing a European name to the coaching vacancy left by Sanchez. He failed at getting Scolari and settled for Eriksson.

Did Vergara's pet project and gamble work? Yes and no. The team played differently and added a few names to the fold--Vuoso, Augusto, etc. Interestingly, some of these players were not Mexican-born. Eriksson also gave a lot of opportunities to youngsters like dos Santos, Martinez and Vela. A welcome sight if sometimes an unnecessary gamble.

Still, Eriksson failed at what he was brought to do. Win tournaments and win every Concacaf game. Let's rewind to last fall for a moment. Mexico was pooled against Canada, Honduras and Jamaica in the second round's group of death. Admittedly, all those teams deserved a spot in the Hexagonal. So when Mexico left the Azteca after getting all 9 points at home and gathered only 1 from a tie in Canada, heads started to shake. Was this so bad? A loss in Kingston, Jamaica. The Reggae Boyz are very good at home against most oponents. Why couldn't Mexico lose? Then there was a tie in Canada. The relative "minnows" of the group still have players with considerable abilities--de Guzman, DeRosario, Onstad are just a few. And finally, a loss in Honduras. 1-0. Was is so bad that they lost against the probable number 3 team in the conference?

Friendlies against Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile and Sweden were 2 losses and 2 wins on American soil. All of those games included reserves on the roster due to the fact that they were played outside of FIFA dates. Then comes the Hexagonal. An opening match against the US in Columbus and a loss they should have seen coming. The US held their own and made the home soil count. Mexico did the same against Costa Rica last Saturday. It injected "confidence" into the team and coach. Really? Then why the 3-1 loss to Honduras in San Pedro Sula? Because Honduras really is that good. That's my take. Maybe a 2-1 was more deserving for Mexico but that's football.

So who's really to blame here? Eriksson had only a limited amount of time to get used to Mexico, the style of play and other idiosyncrasies of the Azteca game. Mexico was given a tough schedule in the preliminary round and also to start the Hexagonal. If they had started at home vs USA then a visit to El Salvador and at home against T&T things would be different. It was foolish to let him go at this point. Aguirre (in-coming coach and the coach that lost to USA in the 2002 World Cup) may do only what was expected to happen anyway... qualify for South Africa. Can he inject more spirit into the team? Sure. Can he do the same for the fans? Why not. And the federation? They sure hope so. Aguirre is their "savior" and if he doesn't pan out it will be difficult to truly nail down what could be wrong with Mexican play. Too many players abroad that don't care about the national side? Sure, we've all heard that before.

Mexico has quite a few dollars invested commercially in terms of the national team. This is why Sanchez was ousted. Never mind the awesome play the team displayed in the Copa America 2007. Sanchez didn't need to be the u-23 coach. Bradley sure wasn't for the US. That job went to Peter Nowak. Maybe Mexico should have considered that and Sanchez could have had more time with the nats to make things smoother. Then again, Vergara, Martinez and other FMF owners had considerable input in the matter. Is that where the fault lies? The caprice of one or two team owners? I hope not.

Hex Mex: The Mexican Resurgence

This is the first part of a multi-post series detailing what is sure to be a match worthy of world class soccer: US vs Mexico at Columbus, Ohio next Wednesday at 7PM (ESPN2HD) for world cup 2010 qualification. For those not familiar with the qualifiers this is the first game in a home and away tournament with 6 countries vying for the 3 1/2 spots to South Africa next year. Each team plays 10 games in total. The group, besides Mexico and US, includes Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, El Salvador, and Honduras.

Sven Goran Eriksson divulged his list for next week's match yesterday:
GOALKEEPERS (3): Oswaldo Sánchez (Santos), Guillermo Ochoa (America), José de Jesus Corona (Tecos). DEFENDERS (7): Juan Carlos Valenzuela (America), Julio Cesar Dominguez (Cruz Azul), Carlos Salcido (PSV Eindhoven), Ricardo Osorio (Stuttgart), Rafael Márquez (Barcelona), Aaron Galindo (Guadalajara), Leobardo Lopez (Pachuca). MIDFIELDERS (6): Fausto Pinto (Cruz Azul), Pavel Pardo (America), Leandro Augusto (Pumas), Luis Perez (Monterrey), Israel Martinez (San Luis), Antonio Naelson (Toluca). FORWARDS (8): Alberto Medina (Guadalajara), Cesar Villaluz (Cruz Azul), Giovani Dos Santos (Tottenham), Matias Vuoso (Santos), Carlos Ochoa (Guadalajara), Nery Castillo (Shakhtar Donetsk), Guillermo Franco (Villarreal), Omar Bravo (Deportivo La Coruña)

Mexico is never a weak side, no matter how many Guardados or Velas are injured or suspended. Superclasicos like US-MEX always are tossups. Also, a word of caution to the overconfident... This is a Mexican side in dire need of a good result. To them a win is a must, a tie is acceptable and a loss is a catastrophe. Jaime Gallardo and XM Deportivo company have seen "el Vasco" Aguirre's dismission from Atletico Madrid as a precursor to replacing Eriksson were he to fail in Columbus. This is ridiculous to me. There are 9 other matches and of all 10 winning in the US should be, in theory, the toughest.

A new crew of players is also at hand, including Vuoso, Naleson, plus some that have not been called up recently (Castillo, Franco). Some players, like Castillo, have not seen regular play in their European teams but this is also the case with US players like Pearce, Adu and Altidore. Some players to watch for are Castillo, "el venado" Medina, Omar Bravo and Matias Vuoso. Marquez, Osorio, Salcido and Galindo are a fortress in the back. Villaluz is a potential headache, as is Pardo (the savior of Mexico these days).
This is my homage to Mexico, always a disciplined, historical team with diehard fans that will make up a large portion of Crew stadium next week. Good luck, fellas, and may you have a good game.

The Rise of CONCACAF

Originally I was going to call this entry "What happened to Mexico?" but I would be selling short the upswing in play by Central America and the Caribbean. Indeed, the so-called group of death that included Mexico, Honduras, Jamaica and Canada proved to be just that. Up until the last minute of yesterday's matches there was a chance that either Jamaica, Honduras or even mighty Mexico might be left out of the final round of World Cup Qualifying. I put an emphasis on "final round" because it highlights the fact that that team would not even make the top 6 of the Hexagonal. The group ended with Honduras on top with 12 points, followed by Mexico with 10 and Jamaica with 10. Mexico went through with its higher goal differential but just the thought that the top team in Concacaf could have been left out was enough for the media to jump on the story and question the Sven Goran Eriksson, the technical staff, the players, and even Mexican soccer in general. My take? Mexico is not to blame. They have more than capable players in elite leagues around Europe even though some of its younger players aren't seeing time on the pitch (Vela, Dos Santos). There is a reason why this group was called the group of death. It's difficult enough to win in Honduras of late, period. Jamaica rarely gives points away at "the Office" (national stadium) and they have a good team as well. This group came down to who took the most points and goals from Canada and how much the top three scored on each other. Jamaica and Mexico came away from Canada with 1 point each while Honduras managed all 3. Ultimately, Mexico's 3-0 rout of Jamaica on Aztec soil was their ticket to the Hexagonal. So put Mexico against Guatemala or El Salvador and their place in the finals would have been assured as it was for Costa Rica and the US.
I think that we need to be more creative in the way we speak about our national teams and how they are the cream of the crop compared to so-called "minnows" of the Concacaf conference. Clearly, Honduras, Jamaica, T&T and Canada are all worthy foes. It will not be an easy run in the Hexagonal for any team and at this point all teams are expendable. Costa Rica's position is a toss-up since they have not played against more demanding foes so we can't be sure what their position will be in the next round. Expect a few surprises and maybe a major upset. Bring on the Hexagonal.

The next Mexican national team coach

Much has been said and speculated about the choice for Mexico's national team after pentapichichi Hugo Sanchez sank the team out of the Olympics and lost the CONCACAF Gold Cup and a spot in the FIFA Confederations Cup to be held in South Africa next year as a preamble to the World Cup. I'm not usually one to comment on Mexico futbol since my team(s) are fierce rivals of the Azteca side but because this could have significant implications for the US national team as well as CONCACAF in general, I thought I would address it as well. From what I've heard through various means (radio, TV, internet), some of the names that have been worked with include expensive and outright formidable coaches such as Portugal's Scolari, Atletico Madrid (and former Mexico coach) "el Vasco" Aguirre, former Argentine (and current Toluca coach) Jose Pekerman, Jose Mourinho, and just recently former English national team coach Sven Goran Eriksson. Why is this important? Well, right now the team is being coached by interim coach Jesus "el chucho" Ramirez and many in the media as well as players argue that he should keep the job. Ramirez was also the coach for the youth Mexican side U-17 that won that tournament as well as the Olympic side prior to Sanchez taking over (unfortunately). Arguably, he's the best man for the job. As I hinted in previous postings on this blog I think the best idea is to allow coaches to develop with the younger teams and move up the system to be eventual head coaches of the national teams. The recent performance of these coaches is reflected on their impressive records: Domenech took France to the 2006 final, Bradley has done great for the United States, Pekerman also performed great with Argentina, and so far Ecuador's Sixto Vizuete has done a better job than his predecessor. One of the more outspoken Mexican team owners, Jorge Vergara, has been continually adamant about having high profile, high price coaches such as those stated above. Lately, Eriksson has received a lot of press and the pros and cons have been tossed back and forth. Most outspoken of all is Jaime Gallardo of XM Satellite Radio's Futbol de Primera and Tricolor Deportivo shows. He insists that Chucho Ramirez should be left alone because of the multiple problems Eriksson would have trying to understand the Mexican style, players, league, and the language (!). I have to say I agree with his position. Let's rewind from an American perspective... Back in time after the 2006 failure (I, the same as many other fans out there, was hoping to see a lot more from the American side), Bruce Arena was discontinued as head coach, and rightly so. His cycle had ended and his style had shown its age and lost flair and element of surprise. Sunil Gulati, head of USSF, let too much time pass between the World Cup and a decision on a new head coach. He was hoping to land Germany's former coach Jurgen Kilnsman but that fell through when US Soccer demanded to have several aspects of the team (technical staff) be continued without Klinsman's consent, i.e. he would have little input in terms of staff and certain other logistics.
Enter Bob Bradley... Right after the Klinsman talks failed (and even though it had been termed a done deal by the media), an "interim" position was given to Bradley. He proved to be more than just an interim by winning crucial matches and the CONCACAF Gold Cup title and a return to the FIFA Confederations Cup. So far he has continued to perform really well including impressive wins away in European soil against Euro 2008 teams Switzerland (1-0) and a classic football Poland team (3-0!). Such was also the case with Ecuador's Sixto Vizuete, who took up the reins after Luis Fernando Suarez quit after losing 3 World Cup Qualifiers in a row. Vizuete won an impressive game against Peru by the score of 5-1, beat Haiti in a friendly match with an undermanned side and lost, just yesterday, against France by 0-2 in a game that was missing 50-60% of their starters against a fully loaded French side with the likes of Malouda, Thuram, and Anelka on the field.
So as for Ramirez and Mexico's team.... Let the Chucho stay. I'd be more worried about Mexico with him in charge than any other coach. Pekerman could also be a great addition for the team. Being turned down by the likes of Scolari and Mourinho and even "El Vazco" Aguirre should let the FMF know what their options truly are. Still, it would be interesting to have the Mexican side be coached by Eriksson. A toss-up for sure, but maybe a hint of things to come. Maybe once Bradley's cycle ends the USA could follow up on its promise of bringing a renowned coach to America.