"When you listen to fools ... the mob rules." -- Ronnie James Dio.
As a would-be history buff, the French so-called 'Reign of Terror' is fairly fascinating. My modern mind can't comprehend how the peasant rabble would get so excited a guillotine be-headings. Maybe it's just because I have a weak stomach for that sort of gore.
Anyways, the Inter-nets is all abuzz with its own Jacobin movement in terms of the United States national team and the removal of coach Bob Bradley light of the 2009 Confederations Cup.
Admittedly, I'm no Robespierre, though I've been on record as against the Bradley hiring from the get-go. My reasons at the time -- it was an uninspired hire in light of the way the Bruce Arena era ended. Bradley was a competent coach, but his Princetonian, academia style wasn't going to help nudge the U.S. program forward. He wasn't going to hurt the team, but he wasn't going to help it advance either.
On top of that, he uninspiring demeanor in interviews and on the sideline makes for an easily infuriating target.
For whatever the reason, I fear that the growing Internet rancor won't force Sunil Gulati or the USSF's hand. It may do the reverse as they show resolve in not wanting to wilt to the pressure. They could even go on their high horse and dismiss all the criticism of Bradley as Internet ranting, anyway.
So, what if in a fantasy world, Bradley was dismissed?
It's not exactly a pretty picture either.
Let's explore it.
To me, there's about three different types of successful national team coaches around the globe.
1. The Figurehead/Strongman. You know the type I'm talking about, usually sporting a sweet 'buffo' style mustache and a lot of chest hair. Think of Fatih Terim with Turkey or even Egypt's Hassan Shehata. Big Phil Scolari probably falls in this category too.
These are guys that inspire their teams, mostly through fear and machismo. At the same time, these coaches bear the bulk of the pressure on their squad themselves, taking that weight off the players.
For this type of coach to be successful, they probably need a good support staff.
2. The former legend. Plenty of countries have gone down this route. Grab a great ex-player, put him in a track suit ... or tailored suit and turn him loose hoping he can catch lightning in a bottle as a player and a coach, too.
Brasil's Dunga and Jurgen Klinsmann at Germany are two recent examples. Same with Marco Van Basten with Holland at last year's Euros.
This only works if you have stars from the past to draw on that the current players will respect, ruling out most U.S. would-be candidates.
3. The tactical mastermind. This is probably the most common variety of national team coach. Unlike a club, you're not game-planning week-to-week, so you have a lot more time to stew and marinate on ideas. Your biggest question here is team selection.
The best example of this coach is obviously Guus Hiddink.
This type of coach can coax strong performances from lesser players, by devising positive game plans to best utilize the players at his disposal.
Success with this type of coach seems quite varied since there are plenty of self-styled geniuses throughout the world.
Saying all this, if the USSF gives Bradley his walking papers, where the are they going to turn?
It's doubtful too many coaches across the globe are salivating to take over the U.S. team. Even with the resources at America's disposal, not to mention plenty of Nike gear, coaching the U.S. isn't all that attractive. It's not like the USSF will break the bank to overwhelm a coach to come here either. (If they did can Bradley, they'd better have an agreement for a replacement immediately.)
For one, as U.S. coach you have to deal with your presumed 'best' players spread out all over the world, coupled with the elephant in the room that is MLS. This is a bigger issue that you might think. It's not like the coach of the U.S. can pull a Fabio Capello and watch half his first XI when Manchester United and Cheslea play a league match.
There's also the disinterested America public, which could be a blessing and a curse since there's not a lot of external pressure on the team. This could appeal to a certain type of coach, who might be draw to the Quixiote appeal of breaking the sport through in America.
Sadly, there aren't too many qualified coaches out there that even have the slightest familiarity of the current U.S. players, anyway. This might be a good thing, perhaps, going forward to 2010 because maybe the U.S. needs the proverbial 'new set of eyes' to look at the team.
One glaring issue that this sort of questioning leads to, is the MLS scenario. For years the league has recycled its coaches, with a couple former players (Jason Kreis, Preki) adding what counts for fresh blood. It's not like the U.S. could dip into its waters to find somebody better than Bradley. The only possible candidates would be Sigi Schmid or Dominic Kinnear.
The bigger problem, where -- if ever -- are any bright young soccer minds going to come from in the U.S., bring some sense of dynamism with them? This extend even down to the grassroots level, where youth coaching in America remains spotty and stagnant.
Some more questions -- has there ever been an American born tactical whiz? Who is going to teach and instill the mentality of U.S. players at a young age that will eventually bear fruit at the senior level?
As many issues as I've had with Bradley going back to 2007, he basically holds onto the job by default. If it were up to me, he'd be out the door even if it meant scrambling to find a replacement. Still, right now the alternatives seem pretty grim, too.
Still, why not make another run at Klinsmann. It's a gamble, sure, but at least it wouldn't be more of the same.
As a would-be history buff, the French so-called 'Reign of Terror' is fairly fascinating. My modern mind can't comprehend how the peasant rabble would get so excited a guillotine be-headings. Maybe it's just because I have a weak stomach for that sort of gore.
Anyways, the Inter-nets is all abuzz with its own Jacobin movement in terms of the United States national team and the removal of coach Bob Bradley light of the 2009 Confederations Cup.
Admittedly, I'm no Robespierre, though I've been on record as against the Bradley hiring from the get-go. My reasons at the time -- it was an uninspired hire in light of the way the Bruce Arena era ended. Bradley was a competent coach, but his Princetonian, academia style wasn't going to help nudge the U.S. program forward. He wasn't going to hurt the team, but he wasn't going to help it advance either.
On top of that, he uninspiring demeanor in interviews and on the sideline makes for an easily infuriating target.
For whatever the reason, I fear that the growing Internet rancor won't force Sunil Gulati or the USSF's hand. It may do the reverse as they show resolve in not wanting to wilt to the pressure. They could even go on their high horse and dismiss all the criticism of Bradley as Internet ranting, anyway.
So, what if in a fantasy world, Bradley was dismissed?
It's not exactly a pretty picture either.
Let's explore it.
To me, there's about three different types of successful national team coaches around the globe.
1. The Figurehead/Strongman. You know the type I'm talking about, usually sporting a sweet 'buffo' style mustache and a lot of chest hair. Think of Fatih Terim with Turkey or even Egypt's Hassan Shehata. Big Phil Scolari probably falls in this category too.
These are guys that inspire their teams, mostly through fear and machismo. At the same time, these coaches bear the bulk of the pressure on their squad themselves, taking that weight off the players.
For this type of coach to be successful, they probably need a good support staff.
2. The former legend. Plenty of countries have gone down this route. Grab a great ex-player, put him in a track suit ... or tailored suit and turn him loose hoping he can catch lightning in a bottle as a player and a coach, too.
Brasil's Dunga and Jurgen Klinsmann at Germany are two recent examples. Same with Marco Van Basten with Holland at last year's Euros.
This only works if you have stars from the past to draw on that the current players will respect, ruling out most U.S. would-be candidates.
3. The tactical mastermind. This is probably the most common variety of national team coach. Unlike a club, you're not game-planning week-to-week, so you have a lot more time to stew and marinate on ideas. Your biggest question here is team selection.
The best example of this coach is obviously Guus Hiddink.
This type of coach can coax strong performances from lesser players, by devising positive game plans to best utilize the players at his disposal.
Success with this type of coach seems quite varied since there are plenty of self-styled geniuses throughout the world.
Saying all this, if the USSF gives Bradley his walking papers, where the are they going to turn?
It's doubtful too many coaches across the globe are salivating to take over the U.S. team. Even with the resources at America's disposal, not to mention plenty of Nike gear, coaching the U.S. isn't all that attractive. It's not like the USSF will break the bank to overwhelm a coach to come here either. (If they did can Bradley, they'd better have an agreement for a replacement immediately.)
For one, as U.S. coach you have to deal with your presumed 'best' players spread out all over the world, coupled with the elephant in the room that is MLS. This is a bigger issue that you might think. It's not like the coach of the U.S. can pull a Fabio Capello and watch half his first XI when Manchester United and Cheslea play a league match.
There's also the disinterested America public, which could be a blessing and a curse since there's not a lot of external pressure on the team. This could appeal to a certain type of coach, who might be draw to the Quixiote appeal of breaking the sport through in America.
Sadly, there aren't too many qualified coaches out there that even have the slightest familiarity of the current U.S. players, anyway. This might be a good thing, perhaps, going forward to 2010 because maybe the U.S. needs the proverbial 'new set of eyes' to look at the team.
One glaring issue that this sort of questioning leads to, is the MLS scenario. For years the league has recycled its coaches, with a couple former players (Jason Kreis, Preki) adding what counts for fresh blood. It's not like the U.S. could dip into its waters to find somebody better than Bradley. The only possible candidates would be Sigi Schmid or Dominic Kinnear.
The bigger problem, where -- if ever -- are any bright young soccer minds going to come from in the U.S., bring some sense of dynamism with them? This extend even down to the grassroots level, where youth coaching in America remains spotty and stagnant.
Some more questions -- has there ever been an American born tactical whiz? Who is going to teach and instill the mentality of U.S. players at a young age that will eventually bear fruit at the senior level?
As many issues as I've had with Bradley going back to 2007, he basically holds onto the job by default. If it were up to me, he'd be out the door even if it meant scrambling to find a replacement. Still, right now the alternatives seem pretty grim, too.
Still, why not make another run at Klinsmann. It's a gamble, sure, but at least it wouldn't be more of the same.
Labels: bob bradley, Soccer, sunil gulati, USMNT, ussf
Peter Nowak would be a great choice even though he just signed to be the 1st Philly coach.
My dream guy would be Hiddink, and that probably would have been possible in the past, after all, he managed what I think are our two closest analogues in S. Korea and Australia. Post-Chelsea and Russia in Euro08, he's probably too high-profile for us to get. Still, I think we really need to get someone like him or Bora who can impose a system and get the most out of middling talent. Ideally we'd let someone like that take over and remake the whole program from top to bottom(that's what Klinsmann wanted, right?), but that's unlikely with USSF.
If we can't get a big international tactician, I think Sigi might be the best shot for this cycle.
Hiddink is the obvious choice but it will never happen. He's perfect for the limited talented available. He's also shown that he can actually make Beasley look like a good player.
What about Steve Nicol? I think he could handle the job and he has the playing pedigree. It would be tough for the players not to respect a guy that has won the European Cup as well as playing in a World Cup for Scotland.
He seems to have a pretty good tactical mind based on the different formations that he has used with the Revs. He clearly knows how to get the most out of limited squads since the Krafts routinely dump the best players for cash. He also knows how to make Dempsey play like he cares. I don't think he'd have a problem with Adu or Torres because he's been quite comfortable trotting out young players at many positions for the Revs (Parkhurst in central defense, Dempsey as attacking mid, Nyassi recently). He can't win the MLS Cup but it's not like the US is going to be making the World Cup final any time soon.
I reckon you guys should look for someone that has been around the block a few times. One of those older guys that have experience, but can't (or don't want to) deal with the day to day stuff at a club.
Like England did with Capello, or Ireland with Trapattoni.
Wow, so how do we like our crow? I couldn't catch the game due to Father's Day festivities, but the result is hard to argue with. I can't believe we're through. Totally lucky, but still.