Klinsmann talking with U.S. Soccer

They had their success in 2002 because they pushed forward. Last go around Arena trotted out a 4-5-1, Klinsy would get the US to return to the attacking days when they were successful.

This deal can't get done soon enough.

 

1994 was a busy year. As soon as the Cup wrapped the fed sent the boys out to make cash from friendlies. 1998 and 2002 had long breaks...you are correct, but they played friendlies in November. 2006 could end with November friendlies, but seeing as we have no coach...I'm not optimistic.

 

The U.S. men are light years behind those teams you mentioned when it comes to international competition.
And GB-Hack, while soccer may not be a "high-scoring" sport, teams do need to score more than two goals in four combined games if they expect to win.
England scores plenty, France and the others do, too.
The U.S. when it comes down to A-team vs. A-team, can't keep up with other nations.
(Hey, I wish they could, believe me. But they can't. Not at this juncture. Maybe not in my lifetime.)

 

Engerland is one of the most overrated sides in the world (see home draw vs. Macedonia and a horrific 2-0 loss to Croatia ... one goal total in games home-and-away with Macedonia and at Croatia during Euro qualifying), particularly in their own country. The English fans' expectations make Yankee fans look complacent. They'll make it out of their group because it's rubbish, but not much farther.

 

Hed, do you really think anyone takes you seriously when you spout drivel like that? England has been awful recently in European qualifying, and that's coming from an Englishman. France lost to Scotland.

Are you so blind to see that the U.S. has enough talent to compete and play with anyone in the world right now? It may not have appeared to be the case at the World Cup, but to do so they need a coach who is going to allow them to play a more open, free style than Arena was allowing them to do at the end of his tenure.

Seriously, back to the kiddie pool. Or at least check some recent scores before you decide to type again.

 

I stand by what I said (read the above drivel).
If the U.S. were to have played England in the recent Cup, the U.S. would have been beaten.
Just like they were in all their matches there but the one tie.
Fuck a kiddie pool. I'll post any goddam thing I want to post.
Pompous fucks like yourself can take a swim if you want, but fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you think I'm gonna stop posting when I damn well please.
The U.S. sucks in men's soccer, compared to the heavyweights of the world.
Accept it.
Get better, for sure.
But accept it.

 

The US starting line-up is up to par with the rest of the world. It is the bench and depth that the US is short on.

However, England demonstrated that their depth isn't as deep as expected in the last World Cup when Peter Crouch was needed to play the full 90.

The US is raw but more athletic than any other nation. It is our strength. Klinsmann would take advantage of the speed and size advantages that we have over other teams.

 

Especially when they play the World Cup champs from Italy. Score of that game was ... 1-1? And the U.S. outplayed Italy if I remember. Had a goal disallowed ... with nine players on the field.

 

Hed, you prove your egomania and pig-hededness (haha) by quoting yourself.

You rant like a bad radio-talk caller, without any noticable knowledge of the facts. Did you even watch a game during the World Cup, or have you taken so many blows to the hed that they left what brain you had.

The U.S. media came down on Arena, and rightly so, because he had the talent to make a run despite arguably the toughest group in the competition. The expectations now are for success, as they should be. Arena's strategy against the Czech's and then against Ghana was terrible, and only improved against Italy when he allowed his players to attack.

 

I watched most all of the 64 games.
I same Trinidad and Tobago post a tie with Sweden early and then get promised barrels of rum by their government if they could beat England.
I saw Schevchencko lead Ukraine to the Elite 8
I saw France whip South Korea
I saw Poland fight Germany for 88 minutes to a 0-0 draw before being edged.
Same close result when Italy played Germany in the Final 4.
I saw the best match of the tourney when France topped Brazil at Frankfurt.
And I was in the British portion of the isle of Mallorca when Portugal got past Britain.
Me and about a 1,000 Brits all watched the match together.
Wayne Rooney blew his top.
And I saw the USA fail to generate any offense to speak of, throughout the tourney.
Talk about pompous, it's you and the rest of the little SportsJournalists.com soccer clique who,for one, can't allow anyone to post anything if they are not members of the "group" and two, can't stomach the fact that the U.S. hasn't made a decent, recent run at the big prize.
Arena's been a mediocre coach throughout his tenure with the U.S. men.
It's high time they made a change. Good for whoever pulled the trigger.
And fuck you, GB-Hack

 

Unlike Euro teams, we play exactly one tough tournament -- the World Cup -- so everything rises and falls on those couple of weeks. I love The Bruce, but as prepared as we were for Portugal in 2002, that is as bad as we looked against the Czechs, and he takes the blame. But I think that we eased through qualifying for the first time ever, and at the WC, we got our best players in the 23 and on the field. Also, with the exception of DMB, they played hard the whole time. I don't get that we played too defensively -- we lack attacking talent. Ghana did nothing against us -- they got a bad giveaway and a BS PK decision. Right now, we're in that range of teams which should look to qualify for the second round and I think that we would have -- if we had a normal group. A lot of that is due to The Bruce. Having said that, I agree that it was the right time for him to go.

I just wonder why Klinsmann is the answer. At this WC, he had a great team, a great infrastructure and a rabid home crowd. He'll have none of that with us.

 

It's not your opinions that are off-putting, it's that you're so thin-skinned when you're called on those opinions. You're free to post what you wish, but don't act so indignant when people call you off-base, or worse.

Arena mediocre? Compared to what? Steve Sampson's tactical genius? Bora Ball? Bob Gansler and his College All-Stars? Before Arena came around, points against Mexico were a bonus (remember Sampson's "Golden Point?"). Now they're expected. His defend-and-counter tactics weren't sexy by any means, but given the US's record when allowing the first goal, they were understandable.

One last point -- if by France "whipping" South Korea, you mean drawing 1-1, then I'd agree with you.