[washingtonismoney]

I admit that I only follow US soccer during the World Cup, so I'm not very well informed, but here's a question for those who are. Is it possible that this failure is necessary to convince people to make changes? I don't know what these changes are, I just know that the USMNT has been flirting with mediocrity for quite a while. I understand that soccer ranks far behind at least three or four sports for athletic boys in this country, but it's still inconceivable that a program with such of exceedingly large proportions financial backing in one of the largest countries in the world has failed to qualify for the World Cup (or either of the past two Olympics, albeit with a different group).

I mean, convincing people to make good changes is nice, so sure, if it happens, that's nice too. But the U.S. hasn't really been flirting with mediocrity for a while -- it had a nice upward trajectory through 2010. The team looked a bit stalled in 2011, leading to the firing of the coach, Bob Bradley, and the replacement with Jurgen Klinsmann, who was and is a bad coach. Nevertheless Klinsmann was able to ride an upward talent curve until things went bad; at which point he was fired. Arena, on the second go-around, had the problems noted above.

Now, there are obviously two things you can (sort of) control as a national team program. In the short term, who coaches your guys. In the long term, the changes you make affect talent in four or five years or whatever, right? It's too late to do much with 18 year olds, for example.

The problem here is that the U.S. currently has a talent hole between '90-'94 or so, what should be the prime of the team. But the talent born after '95 is exceptional, and getting better. (e.g., of the current under 17 team:

“The U-17 team, it’s not a secret that it’s one of the best American teams ever,” says Sebastian Dremmler, Bayern Munich’s head coach of international programs who oversees the German giant’s efforts in the U.S. “Of course, all European teams are looking with two eyes on the U.S. team to see what happens.”

https://www.theringer.com/2017/10/5/1642...w-carleton

Meanwhile the under 20 teams have finished in the quarterfinals for consecutive world cups for the first time in its history.)

So are there problems? Sure. But the stuff put in place a while ago is working. Certainly one can accelerate and deepen those policies to produce even better results. If done responsibly that's smart. But if you decide to put reform under the aegis of a glib, simplistic leader, that would be dumb and counterproductive. Don't do that. Despite the catastrophe the problems are a little more subtle than "everything sucks and everyone should be fired."

[washingtonismoney]

I admit that I only follow US soccer during the World Cup, so I'm not very well informed, but here's a question for those who are. Is it possible that this failure is necessary to convince people to make changes? I don't know what these changes are, I just know that the USMNT has been flirting with mediocrity for quite a while. I understand that soccer ranks far behind at least three or four sports for athletic boys in this country, but it's still inconceivable that a program with such of exceedingly large proportions financial backing in one of the largest countries in the world has failed to qualify for the World Cup (or either of the past two Olympics, albeit with a different group).

I mean, convincing people to make good changes is nice, so sure, if it happens, that's nice too. But the U.S. hasn't really been flirting with mediocrity for a while -- it had a nice upward trajectory through 2010. The team looked a bit stalled in 2011, leading to the firing of the coach, Bob Bradley, and the replacement with Jurgen Klinsmann, who was and is a bad coach. Nevertheless Klinsmann was able to ride an upward talent curve until things went bad; at which point he was fired. Arena, on the second go-around, had the problems noted above.

Now, there are obviously two things you can (sort of) control as a national team program. In the short term, who coaches your guys. In the long term, the changes you make affect talent in four or five years or whatever, right? It's too late to do much with 18 year olds, for example.

The problem here is that the U.S. currently has a talent hole between '90-'94 or so, what should be the prime of the team. But the talent born after '95 is exceptional, and getting better. (e.g., of the current under 17 team:

“The U-17 team, it’s not a secret that it’s one of the best American teams ever,” says Sebastian Dremmler, Bayern Munich’s head coach of international programs who oversees the German giant’s efforts in the U.S. “Of course, all European teams are looking with two eyes on the U.S. team to see what happens.”

https://www.theringer.com/2017/10/5/1642...w-carleton

Meanwhile the under 20 teams have finished in the quarterfinals for consecutive world cups for the first time in its history.)

So are there problems? Sure. But the stuff put in place a while ago is working. Certainly one can accelerate and deepen those policies to produce even better results. If done responsibly that's smart. But if you decide to put reform under the aegis of a glib, simplistic leader, that would be dumb and counterproductive. Don't do that. Despite the catastrophe the problems are a little more subtle than "everything sucks and everyone should be fired."