The Four Year Review: America's Quest for the Cup continues...
​
Coaching News!
 
11-21-16
Coach Jurgen Klinsmann was shown the door. It was a huge announcement, considering years of criticism, and bad results, notably including the poor outlook from Klinsmann going into World Cup 2014 as he said the team likely didn’t stand a chance to win the whole thing*, the dismal 2015 Gold Cup, highly questionable lineup choices, and the recent losses in the Hexagonal of the Road to Russia World Cup qualification matches.
 
11-22-16
Immediately, the very next day, Bruce Arena was hired as the new coach. With Klinsmann out, Bruce was back. Long live the Bruce! Bruuuce! Oh wait, that's Springsteen. There was ambiguity as to whether or not Bruce Arena was the best choice. Some were on board. Others were skeptical, thinking more of the same wasn't a good idea. As head coach of Virginia University, Arena won four NCAA national championships in a row, two consecutive MLS championships with DC United and two consecutive MLS championships with the LA Galaxy. He was a winner. No one could argue against that. Arena also had the experience of coaching the US men’s team in the 2002 and 2006 World Cups. Under his guidance, the team did well with a quarter final appearance in the 2002 World Cup in which they lost to Germany, yet they failed to reach the second round in 2006. Bruce had arrived at just the right time in the late 1990s**, in that he inherited players with MLS experience.
   Prior to 1995, the MLS did not exist. Most the players had the disadvantage of coming right out of college, competing with opponents that were raised in some kind of professional system. When the MLS was established it gave US players an opportunity to gain experience and confidence with a legitimate domestic league. This played to the advantage of Arena as he took over the team, guiding the US to a new level of confidence.
   One detraction from Arena’s record was that he won within the US system. In other words, most US teams - be it college or professional - have played the same style. Therefore, one of the teams will come out on top. With good recruiting, along with strong leadership skills, Arena managed to make his teams better than the rest. The problem was, when he left US shores and played teams abroad, the US style of play was often dragging behind the rest of the world. So, was Bruce an outdated coach with outdated ideas? He had previously been given eight long years as the US coach. Was it really time to bring him back? Was this really a good decision? That was yet to be seen as he took over the helm  of the USMNT for the second time.
   There were other interesting options for coach, including Caleb Porter, who had done well with the University of Akron and the Portland Timbers, leading them both to championships. Why not Anson Dorrance? He had previously coached the USWNT, along with the men’s North Carolina Tarheels, and, notoriously, the outstanding women’s North Carolina Tarheels. Peter Vermes was an option, as coach of Sporting KC.
   The US Soccer president, Sunil Gulati was behind the decision, confident Arena would get the US back on track and into the next World Cup.
   It was definitely a good change. However, Klinsmann had good moments...Phil had good moments on the Jack Benny Show. Screech had good moments on Saved by the Bell. Though Klinsmann was not a member of Saved by the Bell, at times it seemed as though his decisions were influenced by Zach and Slater. All-in-all Klinsmann is an experienced soccer-mind, who led the team through some good memories, including but not limited to big wins over Holland and Germany, on the road. Yet, during his run, just as Philipp Lahm had questioned his approach with Germany in 2006, there was lingering doubt in the direction he was taking the team. It seemed unfortunate that far too many people had placed too much faith in his coaching ability, based on his accomplishments as a player, winning the European Cup and World Cup. Despite his good times with the USMNT, there was much to be desired. Klinsmann's constant lineup choices - which were painstakingly questionable at best - were ruining the potential of the team. While Chile and Mexico - the USMNT's somewhat equal partners on the overall scale of quality - were fielding exciting offensive talent, the US was regressing to teams of yore. Large, slow defensive-types were playing far too often as the team was relying on only a few creative players for all the offense. It was a system of play that was out of balance.
   As to whether or not Arena was the right choice, it would be easy to say "Give him a chance." He already had eight years of a chance. And now it's back to that? Taylor Twellman and others were okay with the move. And they have every right to be; in the short term, it does make sense, considering the quick turnaround needed, which is the experience Arena can bring to the table. Despite Arena's proven track record, there was discontent. Unnamed sources I spoke with were very upset with the decision, essentially calling it an insane step backward in time, accusing the whole system of being replete with hypocrisy, full of guys that know what they're talking about, however, the substance of what they're talking about is the wrong approach altogether. While so many programs and teams are on the right page, the decision-makers of US Soccer are reading off of some archaic scroll of papyrus which is based on a lecture from leaders of the American Soccer League back in the 1950s.
   So, was Arena the right choice? Player choice and lineup decisions will be a key factor. And time will only tell. At this point, there isn't much of it, as the Road to Russia gets closer each day.  


* Which may or may not have been true, but it wasn’t a wise message to send to the team.
** Bruce Arena first coached the USMNT from 1998-2006.

The Four Year Review: America's Quest for the Cup

The Four Year Review: America's Quest for the Cup continues with a review of the first two games of the Hexagonal* for the USMNT, who are attempting to qualify for the prestigious World Cup in Russia. First, they must escape from CONCACAF, which is proving difficult. Story is viewable online, at Cardinal Publishers Group.

*There are six teams remaining and only three will advance. 

Starting out the Hexagonal, on the Road to Russia, the US lost its first game, with a chance to make up for it very soon in Costa Rica. It's not over for the US. They have all the potential to win big, and come out on top in CONCACAF. Before it's all said and done, it would seem likely to see the United States in Russia, in two years. One game isn't the end. The players are there. There's major talent. It needs to come together in just the right way.
   Klinsmann is an excellent soccer mind. He might not put out the best lineup, each and every time, but he has in the past. He's oscillated from chemistry to chemistry between different guys, in different positions. When he gets it right, it's very, very good. The guys look like they can conquer the world. When he gets it wrong, it's pretty much off target. But the group of guys try their best, and athletically pull out a close game.
​   But Klinsmann knows the game. The team has something. It's a matter of him putting the right chemistry together. 

List to Improve the USMNT: 

5. Remember that we have very good players
4. Stop saying you're stunned when the USMNT loses a big game
3. Ask why our center Mids aren't playing center D
​2. Make the players dance at clubs. Whoever can't conquer the two-step is off the team 
​1. Bench any player who can't juggle 100 times, with his feet; thighs don't count defenders

Formations really really really don't matter as much as some people are making them matter. Obviously a 1-1-8 is a bad idea. That's not the point. Formations have a place. However, it's all about two things: (1) Who are the players? (2) How the players play in those formations. 

At this particular moment in time, the US men's team is not putting as many offensive-minded players on the field. All the players are athletic studs. There's no questioning that. It's the lack of offensive-minded, possession-oriented players. Call it coaching. Call it culture. It's just not there...At this juncture. 

Solution
This lineup is based on chemistry between players that has been lacking on offense, players who can possess the ball with style, offensive-minded talent, skillful talent which can accomplish the mainstream expectations of possession, while providing something interesting on the side; with a firm defensive line of advanced ball handlers who can guide possession for ninety minutes, and, more importantly, who can join the attack as "Queens on the chess board." A salient component to the American game which has been nil and void for too long.*
Coaching needs to take a risk, and field this lineup, as a fixed lineup through good or bad: 
       
      Wood         Adu 
              Nguyen   
   Nagbe  Torres  Pulisic 
Shea   Bradley  Ream  Yedlin
               Guzan

Time for a coaching change? 
Head Coach: 
Anson Dorrance
Defensive Coordinator: 
John Trask 

*This is for "right now." Mind you, similar issues have held the team back in the past. Cameron, a good central defender with skill, as well as Besler, could easily be interchangeable with Ream. (Ream is the best for the position, considering the boat US soccer has missed for years: Central defenders must have advanced skill in possession, with the ability to join the attack, ala Beckenbauer.) Furthermore, the same could be said concerning Bradley as a central defender. As a central midfielder, Bradley has been the "Brett Favre" starter for over nine years now. Times change. Things need to change. 

Vote "Yes" to Prop "MLS Expansion." 
   It might not be the best league around, or even in the Northern Hemisphere, but it's better than what we had before, which was nothing. So you have a choice: MLS, or nothing. 
   You're probably thinking: What has the MLS done for me? And the answer is twofold, depending on your soccer-politico leanings. Possibly, the MLS has given you everything you've ever wanted from a pro sports franchise; a stable league, a team to support, rivalries with other teams, local bars that espouse your team along with the overall cause of American soccer within the grander scheme of things in the arena of world soccer. Or, possibly the MLS has given you very little, if anything at all; they haven't made you any extra money, in fact you're probably paying them money. The ticket, drinks, food, jerseys.
   To those who like the MLS, good news: The league's expanding! More of what you like. To those who feel robbed, sorry, but the league's expanding! So is soccer. Get on board. Get used to it. And yes, the US men's team is going to win the World Cup, someday. Not necessarily in Russia, but possibly the venue after that...or the next one. Regardless, it will happen. It depends on many factors, one of which being the MLS continuing to thrive, however painstakingly difficult it is for some Americans to stomach. But for others, it's just great. 
   Either way, to the MLS cynics out there, you might be thinking: They bring in all this old talent from overseas. Guys who are entrenched in the system. Why don't they produce more homegrown talent? Without the older guys from overseas, there might not be a league. By voting "Yes" to Prop "MLS Expansion" you're not only getting overseas talent, which may or may not be on their last leg, you're also getting a mix of American talent, with great players from places like Paraguay, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada, Guatemala, Zambia and other interesting geographical locations you often don't hear from in the EPL or Serie A. This is part of the beauty of the MLS; you get talent from under-tapped resources. So don't listen to people like Ballon d'Or recipient Ruud Gullit, who walked away from a MLS coaching job under a cloud of laughter. He's a big know it all. A big Dutch soccer bully* who claims to know more than you do about passing, and possession, and quality of play, and talent, and dribbling, and shooting, and goalkeeping, and the offsides trap which he would probably claim is outdated and unnecessary on the field of play in the modern game, but whatever. Aside from the aforementioned litany of things that make up the actual game, what does he know? And forget about the fact that he won a European Cup as captain of Holland, or his other championship runs with AC Milan. Forget about all that. In fact, forget that he's likely a genius of the game, a soccer Buddha. Put that aside for now. By voting "Yes" to Prop "MLS Expansion" you're telling guys like him that someday, very soon, any number of MLS teams are going to threaten the ranks of AC Milan and Chelsea, organizations Gullit played for.      
   And yes, someday, those teams might be wondering how they can import players from the US to enhance their leagues, if only for a few years.
   Remember: Without the MLS you have nothing. Technically you had the American Soccer League, which yielded powerful championship dynasties like the "Kearney Scots" of New Jersey from the 1930s and 40s; the "Philadelphia Americans" and "Nationals" from the 40s and 50s, the "Uhrik Truckers" (formerly the Philadelphia Americans); and the "Ukrainian Nationals" from the 60s (also from Philadelphia). Without the MLS you have that. Or nothing. "Yes" to Prop "MLS Expansion." 


*In the nicest regard.

People have asked me which candidate I prefer: Clinton or Trump? Not going to say. I think both sides - including the candidates and their supporters - should be respected in a conversation on moving forward in a positive direction. That's part of the problem with the country. Too many people can't talk with the other side. There's an unnecessary divide.
   The same goes in the world of American soccer. There are different areas of thought. There's a lot of disagreement. There's a divide on how to move forward - how to get the USMNT a World Cup title. What is the right way? And so on. To that, I simply say: I'm glad you feel the way you do. So we agree my way is the best way. 

ENGLAND'S STRUGGLE WITH STYLE 
Possession And Style
How England Is Held Back By It
 
The future of English soccer is dependent on examining the root cause of the phenomena that came from Spain’s attention to possession play from 2006 to 2013 (give or take), and, how the absence of their lead creative players – Iniesta and Xavi – will impact the style and success of their play. This is a great lesson for England to learn from, noting how Spain dominated the possession game for such a long stretch, and why it was such a success, giving them the 2008 European Cup, the 2010 World Cup and the 2012 European Cup. The English approach to soccer for years has been direct and to possess the ball with purpose on the field, which dismisses possession for possession’s sake and the creative play that can emerge as a result.
   The fluidity seen in Germany’s approach to passing – from 2010 to 2016, give or take – can only be explained through their understanding of finding the right moment to make a pass. Mesut Özil is a good example of this; he tended to float around the field as his passing choices seem to float in a rhythmic way as well. Thomas Müller also provided a brilliant understanding of finding the right moment for a certain pass. It’s similar to what Platini had said of passing in the 1980s. As he put it, (paraphrasing) “When you pass to someone you want the pass to continue the move.” Essentially, he was saying there is a right moment to make a pass, according to a rhythm, which, as I see it, can be similar to music. Some songs are bad, some are good. It’s an opinion. No one can be “right” in music. Yet, there is a universal appraisal for certain songs from people like Mozart, The Beatles or The Beach Boys. So why is that? Why is it in the world of music where there’s no right or wrong there seems to be a right and wrong? It is what it is, as they say. But the underlining fact is that when you see something good, or hear something good, you’re caught with a feeling that whatever it is, it’s right. The same can be said for Germany’s approach to passing the ball. This is nothing new.
   It could be said that the same German and English teams from 1990 are playing the same German and English teams from 2016; the same fundamentals have dissipated forward in time. In the semi final of the 1990 World Cup the story was the same. Germany was completely dominating England with overwhelming possession-oriented passing, led by Thomas Hessler and Lothar Matthäus. The same passing dominance was occurring in 2016, just with different German players. Sure, we could argue that it’s a slightly different style, yet, at the same time, they were dominating passing, yet again. The same can be said for England. Back in 1990, they had good passing, but met their match against the superior Germans. In today’s game, the English have good passing, and they probably will in the future, but they fall short in the presence of superior passing teams. The Germans continue to strive forward while the English are stuck in a backward cycle. And so it continues.

As Trump and Hillary are squaring off in the last week of the Presidential campaign, basketball is beginning which means one thing: More questionable camera shots, bringing down the game that would otherwise be something to look forward to. This trend of cameramen being too big for their britches began sometime around the late 90s and early 2000s when the technology of cameras advanced significantly. Cameramen could zoom in and out with greater ease, as the focus would remain the same. With that came the ability for "camera artists" to show off new skills, abruptly moving the camera, following the ball, zooming in and out, their version of the crossover dribble or a 360 dunk. It was and is very difficult to watch. In my day - when RUN DMC was cool, and LL Cool J wore funny looking warmups designed by some solo clothing design artist in Brooklyn, a time when Bryan Adams was cool, when Bill Cosby's only vice was wearing extravagant sweaters - cameramen weren't considered artists. There weren't digital cameras. They did their job with film cameras. They wore knee pads. They drank coffee all day, two steps away from Chris Farley's character, "In a van down by the river." Now, they're artists. Back in the day, they kept the shot on the game, so we, the viewing public, could appreciate the actually play, the actual shot, and so on...and not some crazy portrayal of "let's follow the ball as it goes into the hoop." The problem with camera artists going to town on technology is simple: It kills everything that was once good in sports. People watch for the appreciation of the game, the finer details and then move on with their lives. Hopefully. Otherwise, they might end up writing an article like this. When Lebron takes...let's start with Lebron, he's slightly popular and relatable...when Lebron takes a shot, the camera goes from a wide shot of Lebron shooting, to zooming in on the ball, then following the ball in mid air, panning with the ball into the basket and then - yet again - abruptly zooming out, while panning to Lebron as he jogs away, while zooming in on Lebron jogging away, then zooming out again. All in about three seconds. Three seconds of headache. Pass the Advil. Can we stop with the high octane camera movements? The real appreciation of a game is having a still wide shot of a player's shot, which provides the viewers the full trajectory of the shot in context with the players around him, the spacing on the court and this together gives a clearer view of the actual shot. The viewers see whether there's arc, not so much arc, the distance it was shot from and so on. The same goes for a player dunking. Zooming in on the moment of the dunk, with "great camera skill" does nothing for the viewers other than increase the profits at Advil, Tylenol and Excedrin. Stop zooming in like some MTV show made popular in the 90s. "Oh snap, 'let's get dizzy' camera work - it's the new thing! Tom Green's gonna paint your house!"*
   The other place this technique serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever is in golf. Tiger Woods hits a shot and instead of keeping a wide shot to give the viewers depth perception of the actual arc and trajectory of the ball in comparison with its surroundings, the camera artist zooms in and follows the tiny ball in the air with a  close up. What the viewers see is the actual ball suspended in the air. What a mess.
   Solution: An option within the channel-changer for classical wide shot camera angles and another option for the wilder stuff. 
   

​


*Tom Green painted his parent's house at three in the morning. Possibly, his one funny moment, ever. I think he was on a ladder. They woke up, looked out the window and said, "Tom, what the hell are you doing?" "I'm painting the house! I'm painting the house!"