Is Jurgen Klinsmann Really the Savior of U.S. Soccer?
IMS welcomes Mike Ponicki to the staff. Mike will be checking in periodically with opinion pieces which is something fairly new to IMS but long overdue.
The opinions in this column are Mike Ponicki’s and not necessarily those of IMSoccer News. Please feel free to comment on Mike’s editorials and let us know what you think. Brian Quarstad - Editor/Owner IMSoccer News.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When Bob Bradley’s US National Team lost 4-0 in a June 4 friendly against Spain, a side they’d managed to somehow dispatch in the 2009 edition of the Confederation’s Cup, Bradley’s group didn’t exactly look up to the task, physically or tactically. This perception was in large part because the team didn’t just lose– it was obliterated, with Spanish players running through, around, and behind American defenders like the defensemen were cones on the training ground.
To pundits, it didn’t matter that the match was a friendly, or that Bradley was mostly just experimenting with a side full of untested “talent” from MLS — the loss was a painful reminder that the country’s national side is no match for a squad with Spain’s quality.
Twenty one days later, the US National Team fell to arch-rivals Mexico, blowing a two-goal lead while conceding four unanswered goals in the process, en route to losing a second consecutive Gold Cup final to said arch-rivals.
The United States Soccer Federation, despite all of Bradley’s previous accomplishments with the team, the fact that the Federation had extended his contract by four years just ten months prior, and the truth that the United States’ meager player talent levels had more to do with factors other than Bob Bradley’s ability to coach the senior team, suddenly decided that the only way for the US National Team to move forward was to replace him.
Predictably, the replacement came in the form of Jurgen Klinsmann– yes, the same Klinsmann that the Federation was courting when it unceremoniously dumped Bruce Arena back in 2006. The same Klinsmann with a legendary goal scoring record as a player, but with a far less than legendary management career.
All of the parties involved certainly said the right things immediately after the change was made. United States Soccer Federation President Sunil Gulati described Klinsmann as the man with the “experience and knowledge to advance the program,” while Klinsmann proclaimed that he would immediately go into “information gathering mode” in order to make the right decisions.
But for all of the apparent good will, intentions, and hoopla abound, the question has to be asked: what good does it do to replace the senior team manager when the program is being undermined by so many systemic problems that have nothing to do with the senior team? Put another way, is the appointment of Klinsmann going to all of a sudden cause a hatful of wonderful, tactically-astute American players to magically materialize out of thin air?
Klinsmann and the Federation are quickly going to realize that whether they’ve got Bruce Arena, Bob Bradley, Jurgen Klinsmann, Barack Obama, or Ronald McDonald in charge of the team, they still have the same pool of players from which to draw.
Klinsmann himself even acknowledged as much when he said that the team would need “ten Landon Donovans” to even think of reaching such a lofty goal as winning a World Cup final.
The truth is, there is only so far you can take that pool of players. Like, to the finals of a Confederations Cup, or to consecutive Gold Cup championship matches. Or, if you’re really on form, maybe that set of players could top a group in a World Cup finals.
Wait… didn’t Bob Bradley accomplish all of those things while in charge of the team? Then why replace him?
The real problem with the United States’ National Team has absolutely nothing to do with Bob Bradley, or the senior team at all for that matter. The issue is that the United States has never produced, and is not producing, players of the quality needed to challenge on the world stage.
For every Giovani dos Santos or Andrés Guardado that Mexico produces, the United States produces a middling MLS product, like Robbie Rogers. And the United States has never produced a Javier “Chicharito” Hernández– the type of player with a totally world-class pedigree and level of quality. Even the recently-vaunted Juan Agudelo is really nothing more than a typical youth team player in a European club setup.
To become a top footballing nation, or even one as consistently solid as Mexico, the United States Soccer Federation needs to start producing its own Javier Hernández-type players. Jurgen Klinsmann seems to understand the United States’ plight; his proclamations that the United States has their “football pyramid” upside-down and that the country needs to get its low-income children playing football in the streets are interesting ways of articulating the situation. Then why didn’t Sunil Gulati hire Klinsmann to help Claudio Reyna oversee the country’s youth development, and simply keep the successful and under-contract Bob Bradley around to manage the senior team?
Or maybe, just maybe the dismissal of Bob Bradley had nothing to do at all with the team’s future on the field prospects, and more to do with the June update of the FIFA World Rankings, which saw the United States fall to a pedestrian thirtieth? That thirtieth ranking, the reasoning may have been, would be enough to scare off sponsors, right at a time when the Federation was trying to pay off debt following its expensive World Cup bid. In that case, Klinsmann was chosen not because of his management pedigree, but rather because he was the kind of glamorous celebrity coach that sponsors would look upon favorably. And if that is true, then the Federation is playing a dangerous game indeed, possibly mortgaging the future for the present.
As we saw from Klinsmann’s poor loss to a mediocre, under-strength Costa Rica on Friday, CONCACAF is perhaps more competitive than at any time in its entire history. Qualification for the 2014 World Cup Finals is not a given, and if Klinsmann’s new tactical approach struggles to gain traction in the nine months before the United States’ qualification schedule begins, the Federation will rue the day it played dice with its program by replacing its captain for political reasons, while also failing to patch the holes beneath deck that were sinking the ship.
Comments are closed.
To the headline: of course he’s not. Anyone who expected him to be was fooling themselves. And I doubt that his hiring will have any sort of detrimental affect whatsoever on the development system here in the US. If anything, having someone who is as creative as he is dedicated to tactical soccer will be of benefit to the system. Bradley may have been under contract, but he wasn’t the best long-term option.
Interesting theory as to the sponsors. It’s certainly a high-profile hiring, but I am still concerned that it will backfire if Klinsmann doesn’t actually do very well as coach, which I have no real confidence he will manage. He’s stated his coaching is based on time studying with Bruce Arena (who is, admittedly a pretty good coach) but the only real success he had was when Low was behind him with Germany, and Low has done just fine post-Klinsmann thank you. While at Bayern with Vazquez he was unceremoniously dumped for under performing, and Vasquez didn’t exactly set the world ablaze at Chivas USA. Toronto is still a shambles (although of course their problems ran very deep before Klinsmann arrived.) I can only hope that working guys like Dooley, Ramos and Reyna into the system will work well enough for one of them to step into the breach when/if he leaves. Or that the Fed can get a good quick-fix artist (Hiddink, Scolari, etc.) to come in if needed.
Overall, I see this as a big gamble by the federation because even if his appointment can keep sponsors in the short term, if he doesn’t succeed they’ll be even more reluctant to stay, and we’ll have blown a lot of money on getting a foreign version of Brob Aredly.
Fantastic first article! I agree on many points. The title says it all. They took a bigger risk than what anybody in the media has really mentioned. Probably, the U.S. makes the World Cup without too much doubt, but I don’t see any results too much better than what we achieved in the last couple of them. A coach is limited to the amount of influence and this is an important point. In all sports, it is true the coach is limited, but in Soccer, it’s more than others, because his main focus is tactics. In basketball, there is matchups to counter because of the flow of subs. Yes, the coach counters in Soccer, but with less subs, only so much. Coach is overrated. Players play.
He provides new fuel to a program that has languished as merely competent.
A change was required. I believe it was a good change, but only time will tell.
I support the move. I like what I have seen so far with the talent he has to work with.
Klinsmann adds panache to a program that very few other could have. There are intangibles that he brings that did not exist before in the US. Will he be the savior? Maybe yes, Maybe No. He will in my opinion, bring positive steps forward to a program that has been treading water far too long.
What I like about Klinsi is he delcared the grim reality of US soccer system: that the pyramid is inverted. Hopefully Gulati will pay extremely serious attention to the development of the grassroot soccer, including Division 2 soccer.
Klinsmann’s hiring will only matter if it changes the mindset of youth players and coaches. Are we going to continue to play rigid systems that rule the players or are we going to develop a philosophy of play that give players a platform to express themselves? This article assumes that the decision to replace Bradley was results driven. That has been the mindset in American soccer for many years. American Youth coaches from U9 up routinely take players out of their natural positions to get a result. They bench players who make mistakes even when they are trying stuff to see if it will work.
Klinsmann has done three things that I hope will become systematic throughout US Soccer culture. He wants players to express themselves. He wants players to play in their natural position. He wants to let young players develop until they are grown up responsible professionals ready for the rigors of International play. If hiring Klinsmann accomplishes those three things, it will have been a bargain at any price.
While I understand and even somewhat agree with your point Catamount, this statement is worrisome. “American Youth coaches from U9 up routinely take players out of their natural positions to get a result.”
I don’t think a U9 player should have a “natural position”. It would be impossible to know what his/her natural position was at that age and even up to U-12. At that point, perhaps you start grooming but even there it’s young. To your point there can’t be a “natural position” for that age player.
Wow! This was such a well written article and I am so excited that you have decided to include some opinion pieces on your site. It’s so much fun to read anything that will spur discussion. I have always been on the side that says we need to wait and see with Klinsmann. I think that it has always been understated the amount of influence the MNT coach can wield on youth player development, and that is going to take some time before we see Klinsmann’s influence. Regardless of what you think about Bradley, I think Klinsmann is going to have more experience regarding what it takes to properly develop our younger players as he was raised in an environment that truly focused on developing players at a young age. BQ, I understand your counter argument to Catamounts statement, but I agree with the point he was trying to make. And that is, that we constantly do whatever it takes to win in this country at the sacrifice of development. When I coach, I will always support the player who is willing to take chances in order figure out what works and what doesn’t. Many coaches stifle this thinking by immediately subbing out a player that makes a mistake. Yes, I obviously agree that no kid should have a “set” position at the age of nine, and if I’m being completely honest, at the age of 12. I didn’t “pick” my full time position until I was 16 and it worked out just fine for me. Kids change so rapidly, that a players mentality is very likely to change, even after the age of 16. If we truly want to develop players, then they should have familiarity at all positions. That being said, it is true that, in many cases, we are willing to forgoe development in order to get the W.
In Bradley’s tenur, I don’t believe that he was able to show progress in development. Like Arenas, he found his favorites, and stuck with them hell or high water. i.e. – Bornstein. We didn’t see a lot of new blood come up into the system, and that can only be explained by the assumption that new talent wasn’t being sought out. I am excited for the Klinsmann era, but it is in the development of our youth that he has the opportunity to make his biggest statement. Otherwise, he is just another “coach.” And coaches don’t win games… players do.
Sponsorship aside, I believe Bradley’s number 1 problem was loyalty to a certain group of players, regardless of how well or not well those players were playing. There are many great young American players playing across US and Europe that were not getting a chance to play at the international level. I don’t mind the US losing friendlies if new players get a shot. That’s the idea. Don’t worry if we fail at the friendly level, let Klinsman experiment. He can then start working some of the young players into National team trainings and events to get our starting 11 and bench ready for WC qualifying.
Who says that US Soccer needs “saving” anyway??? Like you said, the talent pool is the talent pool. I think Klinsmann has injected some excitement and energy into the program and I am sure will eventually lead to some tactical changes that hopefully will help the program.
A consistent top 10 ranked squad is not too much to expect as the sport is still in growing mode in the USA. Klinsmann was NOT brought here to win a World Cup in Brazil (2014) or even 2018. Could a run to the semifinals happen that soon? Sure, but it is not expected from Klinsmann or anyone else.
Just WOW! I’ve seen a few critical articles about Klinsmann. Some from knowing football pundits and writers biting their tongue on his hiring, but this article almost sums up my thoughts perfectly. THANK YOU!
When the cloud/fog finally clears on this we will all look at Klinsmann’s resume (NO previous coaching experience of merit at any level in the US and “relatively” little elsewhere) and go for Gulati’s head. Not only is he woefully unqualified, but it’s an insult to Bradley, Arena and other American coaches who should be leading the USMNT.
Um, I am really curious as to why Bradley or Arena should be leading the USMNT. Both had 5 years or more to make their impact, and neither succeeded. Did they have their successes? Of course. But that doesn’t mean they were the best options moving forward. Now, I’m not annointing Klinsmann the savior by any means, but I really don’t think that either of our prior two coaches did anything to merit a ton of support. There are many coaches out there who, given 5 or more years on the job, could have shown some success here or there. We are looking for long term development, and when Bruce and Bob each took huge steps back after their slight successes, they pretty much showed that change was needed. We don’t need coaches who can maintain the status quo, we need someone who can make positive change moving forward. Is Klinsmann the answer? I have no idea and only time will tell. But I can say with much confidence that neither Bruce nor Bob would have been that answer. But it does crack me up when people want to bash Klinsmann before even giving him a chance. The number one talent that a coach can possess is the ability to properly identify talent. I think that Klinsmann will do a better job of this than either of our prior two coaches. I mean, come on, Bornstein? Really? Beasley? Really? I could go on and on. Something had to change.
Football pyramid: It’s just not the low income kids we need playing in the streets.
I live in SW MPLS. The other day I saw eight kids playing soccer in the street. I recognized a few from our local club. It is a rare site to see kids (even adults) play anything pickup on there own besides b-ball.
Maybe it is starting to change, just a bit, as US players become household names, and kids think : “That could be me.”
The article doesn’t really address anything. The USSF cannot produce Javier Hernandez. Only pros can produce pros. That’s the way it works everywhere else.
You want Javier Hernandez? Then MLS has to start playing young American players millions of dollars. More money equals more kids choosing soccer at a young age like they do around the world. You want MLS to start paying players millions of dollars? Then start going and watching the games. Watching Man Utd half way around the world isn’t helping. The American fan is one of the biggest culprits in America’s soccer failures. Yet they escape criticism. MLS will be on NBC next year. Good viewership could see a lot of money flow into the league.
But all hope is not lost. The pay for play academics have becoming irrelevant. And college soccer is dead. Robbie Rodgers is not even a good MLS player. Typical college player with a low ceiling. More and more of the better young MLS players are avoiding college and coming through the academy ranks. In only a few short years, the academics are producing a good amount of talent. Even Juan Agudelo who you dismiss, but is easily the most talented FW this country has ever produced.
You want a better US National Team?
#1. Support MLS. Better MLS means better academies. Better academies means better players. Simple, eh?
Mexico, man for man, has always been a better team and soccer nation. Yet since 2000 the US has a winning record of 67% against them. That alone speaks volumes about Bradley and Arena’s success with a team in a nation that only in recent years has begun to try and take the sport seriously. We have a long way to go to be sure.
I have no idea what was said in the locker rooms at half time against Mexico, or the other times when the US has managed to beat teams that were better on paper. But Bradley/Arena were able to often inspire and get the most out of what was available to them, even giving us a few great moments that few teams at our modest level ever achieve. With “national” teams I think it has much to do with having the experience to relate and knowing the players’ psyche in that context. Time will tell if we’ve taken that (and them) for granted.
TTorgue: I don’t think it’s time to argue whether American coach should lead USMNT or not. The issue here is to find the best available candidate to lead the team. Bora was not an American but he delivered. As long as the candidate understands US Soccer, then nationality shouldn’t be an issue.