OT: Bob Bradley fired from USMNT

[SLUBALLS]

Haven't heard any updates on assistants, but Claudio Reyna's name has been floated around some.

No clue about Sorber, but just based on the nature of coaching changes, I would imagine that Sorber is gone.

If I understand correctly, Reyna is intimately involved with trying to redo how we develop talent on a youth level. Yanking him from that project would be premature at best.

[moytoy12]

If I understand correctly, Reyna is intimately involved with trying to redo how we develop talent on a youth level. Yanking him from that project would be premature at best.

Or it could be complementary with what Klinsman has in mind.

[Tonka]

Don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am not in favor of handing out trophies.

We are talking grade school ages up to high school. I don't believe in any trophies for those ages. That's different than handing everyone a trophy. I don't believe in keeping score at the younger ages.

I do believe in small sided games where every kid gets plentiful opportunity to develop on the ball skill through reps and creativity.

There's nothing more silly to me than seeing 20 little kids chase a ball because their parents are too interested in keeping score and having a winner and loser. There is plenty of time for that. Kids need to like/love the game first.

It's like tennis for example. Little kids playing on a big court with big racket never hitting the ball doesn't work for most. However small side games where kids use smaller lite rackets and learn basic skills, familiarity with the court, and learn to love being out there. There's plenty of time to fight and compete using the skills you learned.

Well said.

[courtside]

Well, the charisma level of head coach of U.S. Soccer just went up ten fold. I thought Bradley did a solid job of achieving and at times overachieving the talent with which he had to work. I do not think he gets enough recognition for that. He did a solid job.

Klinsmann couldn't be more different. Who will be his Jogi Low? Sigi schmid? Schmid is very good tactically similar to Low but he is not as likeable. I do anticipate some sort of informal adviser role from Schmid at the least. I know some were hoping for a Marcelo style splash instead of Klinsmann.

Klinsmann is a relentless charismatic promoter full of optimism and a wealth of experience at the highest levels. But he'll need disciplined tactical minded help. I expect a hybrid style of several cultures. Klinsmann understands the U.S. And where it has and hasn't fit. Who he brings with him will matter a great deal. ...a combo of Low and Schmid styles and personalities would be a well balanced approach. Klinsmann won't be dull in any way.

I do agree with the notion that this will be more of a positive for Michael Bradley than a negative.

[moytoy12]

Well, the charisma level of head coach of U.S. Soccer just went up ten fold. I thought Bradley did a solid job of achieving and at times overachieving the talent with which he had to work. I do not think he gets enough recognition for that. He did a solid job.

Klinsmann couldn't be more different. Who will be his Jogi Low? Sigi schmid? Schmid is very good tactically similar to Low but he is not as likeable. I do anticipate some sort of informal adviser role from Schmid at the least. I know some were hoping for a Marcelo style splash instead of Klinsmann.

Klinsmann is a relentless charismatic promoter full of optimism and a wealth of experience at the highest levels. But he'll need disciplined tactical minded help. I expect a hybrid style of several cultures. Klinsmann understands the U.S. And where it has and hasn't fit. Who he brings with him will matter a great deal. ...a combo of Low and Schmid styles and personalities would be a well balanced approach. Klinsmann won't be dull in any way.

I do agree with the notion that this will be more of a positive for Michael Bradley than a negative.

Good post. Do you think Sigi would take an asst or an advisory role? I just get the sense that Sigi wouldn't take any role other than the head coaching position.

I agree, Klinsman will need a very good 2nd in command. It will be interesting to hear how he fills out his coaching staff. During the Rapids game, Fox Soccer just mentioned Bierhoff and McBride as two interesting possibilities on the coaching staff (they were just throwing names out, nothing serious). I could see McBride in some secondary assistant role.

Finally, I agree that this should be good for M. Bradley. I think he can focus on competing and forget all the nepotism b.s. Also, I hope this means we'll see some combos without MBradley (Jones/Holden in a 4-4-2?)

[courtside]

Klinsmann is not afraid to add American Assistants as he has done so in the past with Nick Theslof and Martin Vasquez. And, he is definitely not afraid of change and trying something or someone new...nor is too ego based to not accept strong tactical assistants. Sigi? Klinsmann would have to be comfortable with a vocal, and at times, volatile tactical assistant as he certainly isn't low key and Sigi would get to do what he wants but he wouldn't have the title of HC...and he's have to keep some of his commentary in check. They are not however the same personality. So it's possible.

Previously he's been mostly concerned with playing a fast, direct, attacking style...off the ground in the back and wide on the wings. However, he'd adjust to fit the talent at the time.

I think he can change some things in a positive way from a ground up level...and if anything that will be one of his contributions. He'll bring positive, high energy, flexibility. Questions loom for tactical assistants, longevity(is he willing to grind long term with his plan) ...he'll have to answer if he can be more than a surface level guy with lots of good positive ideas but not sticking with focused long term depth to bring to fruition. He isn't brash or unfeeling. Will he get outmuscled by politics?

[kwyjibo]

Klinsmann is not afraid to add American Assistants as he has done so in the past with Nick Theslof and Martin Vasquez. And, he is definitely not afraid of change and trying something or someone new...nor is too ego based to not accept strong tactical assistants. Sigi? Klinsmann would have to be comfortable with a vocal, and at times, volatile tactical assistant as he certainly isn't low key and Sigi would get to do what he wants but he wouldn't have the title of HC...and he's have to keep some of his commentary in check. They are not however the same personality. So it's possible.

Previously he's been mostly concerned with playing a fast, direct, attacking style...off the ground in the back and wide on the wings. However, he'd adjust to fit the talent at the time.

I think he can change some things in a positive way from a ground up level...and if anything that will be one of his contributions. He'll bring positive, high energy, flexibility. Questions loom for tactical assistants, longevity(is he willing to grind long term with his plan) ...he'll have to answer if he can be more than a surface level guy with lots of good positive ideas but not sticking with focused long term depth to bring to fruition. He isn't brash or unfeeling. Will he get outmuscled by politics?

I think you did a really good job talking about Klinsmann's strengths. He definitely needs a good tactician. I have no idea who that will be and I know Klinsmann would be open to it (it is just I am not too convinced he will make a good selection wholly on his own).

In your description of his "fast, direct, attacking" style you also bring up his greatest weakness (that and his loyalty to the overmatched Theslof and Vasquez). He took a FC Bayern club that had a solid (but aging) backline and turned them into a weakness. I personally watched a few of those games and thought his 3-5-2 was a complete farce.

I am thinking he is suited to international management in that he does not need a lot team interaction. He will work hard and is a Phil Jackson style motivator.

[i just realized Raphael Honigstein says it better than I do at: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/raphael_honigstein/07/30/klinsmann/ . Klinsmann is a great project manager but he needs the right doers].

[courtside]

I think you did a really good job talking about Klinsmann's strengths. He definitely needs a good tactician. I have no idea who that will be and I know Klinsmann would be open to it (it is just I am not too convinced he will make a good selection wholly on his own).

In your description of his "fast, direct, attacking" style you also bring up his greatest weakness (that and his loyalty to the overmatched Theslof and Vasquez). He took a FC Bayern club that had a solid (but aging) backline and turned them into a weakness. I personally watched a few of those games and thought his 3-5-2 was a complete farce.

I am thinking he is suited to international management in that he does not need a lot team interaction. He will work hard and is a Phil Jackson style motivator.

[i just realized Raphael Honigstein says it better than I do at: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/raphael_honigstein/07/30/klinsmann/ . Klinsmann is a great project manager but he needs the right doers].

I think we can agree on the end game but perhaps not on how we both got there. Let me elaborate a little and then move on.

I think it's important for me to distinguish what I'm saying perhaps just a little bit more and use examples. Imo Phil Jackson's approach is very different and very far apart from Klinsmann.

Phil Jackson is rigid and stubborn, devoted to the triangle. He has knee jerk negative reactions often times to criticism. Klinsmann is Mr. Positive, especially in the face of adversity. Klinsmann isn't devoted to any one way, he's very open to change. Phil is an introverted quiet guy. Klinsmann is a talker. Phil is the philosopher, zen master, abstract type. Kliinsmann is an idea man, keeps it simple. Phil gives out books to players. Klinsmann doesn't have time for books. Phil is a deep thinker, albeit in touch with his feeling. Klinsmann is much more of a feeler. Both are non-judgemental perceivers.

Phil gets players to fit his system. Juergen will change his system if need be to fit his players. Phil has an inside out approach. Juergen has an outside in approach.

Phil was devoted to the triangle and zen philosophy...non-traditional. However, Phil rarely deviated from this approach. Klinsmann is also non-traditional in his approach but he goes about it a much different way. Klinsmann is a classic great top of the game ex player who is trying lift everyone else up to the level of play in which he played. He knows how but at times has trouble getting others there because he doesn't fully develop and fully stick with some of his good ideas. Klinsmann is read and react spontaneous. Phil is a planner.

I think what throws some people off about Phil Jackson is he is non-traditional in his approach. However, he is rigid in his approach. Phil knows how to motivate but he does it his way. Klinsmann will motivate in whatever way that works for that player or team. It will change all the time.

Klinsmann is a doer, a promoter, an idea guy. Phil is believes in his abstract system of doing things.

Phil Jackson imo is much closer to Rick Majerus than Klinsmann. They are not the same in approach but much closer together in approach imo.

[kwyjibo]

I think we can agree on the end game but perhaps not on how we both got there. Let me elaborate a little and then move on.

I think it's important for me to distinguish what I'm saying perhaps just a little bit more and use examples. Imo Phil Jackson's approach is very different and very far apart from Klinsmann.

I said he was a Phil Jackson style motivator (I do not claim to be much of Phil Jackson expert but he does get a lot out of people who in other circumstances would be a bit spoiled) as Klinsmann did do that with the German national team. He was terrible with FC Bayern though and that was the whole point of my post and his "positiveness" was a part of the problem. He did not recognize the problems he created and when he "corrected" them (his switch in formations) he made things worse. He did flounder tactically with a very expensive and talented team (even though I never heard there was much motivational issues). His "openness" is generally a positive but it is a weakness at times as he is (was?) a magnet for California quackery (there is no way that a statue is going to help your "energy").

Hopefully, he is able to bring the strengths of the German academy system to parts of the U. S. system (I am not expert at what is not working with U. S. academies now but things need to be done). As Honigstein says, Klinsmann has strengths that may suit a national team set-up but as you note he needs some talented tactical and training people around him (and it may be difficult to find those people).

Also, I liked a lot of the comments in this thread about youth development. It actually gives me hope that so many here see the wisdom in trying to develop the athletic potential of kids (and have fun). My daughter is only 3 so I have a few years myself (and anticipate coaching at some point), but I do have nephews who have gone through years of travel teams, select teams and the Olympic program. My oldest nephew is going to be starting his junior year (at a nationally ranked H.S. program) but when I talked to him he seems burned out at 14 (the 12 year old is definitely burned out and sick of soccer). I think he exemplifies what its like to go through development from 4 to 14 without really being focused on continuous improvement. He played a lot as a youngster and that has given him a lot of ability but it I cannot say he is ever going to excel (and all that playing may be a hindrance from learning "new things"). I cannot say specifically what the problem is and they all seem to make a lot of friends playing but something is not right. He probably will play in college and be decent but I do not know what level right now (his H. S. is actually changing as the better players may not even be playing for the school any more and focused completely on club development year round--but are they developing?). I do see them play when I visit (not too often).

[courtside]

I said he was a Phil Jackson style motivator (I do not claim to be much of Phil Jackson expert but he does get a lot out of people who in other circumstances would be a bit spoiled) as Klinsmann did do that with the German national team. He was terrible with FC Bayern though and that was the whole point of my post and his "positiveness" was a part of the problem. He did not recognize the problems he created and when he "corrected" them (his switch in formations) he made things worse. He did flounder tactically with a very expensive and talented team (even though I never heard there was much motivational issues). His "openness" is generally a positive but it is a weakness at times as he is (was?) a magnet for California quackery (there is no way that a statue is going to help your "energy").

Hopefully, he is able to bring the strengths of the German academy system to parts of the U. S. system (I am not expert at what is not working with U. S. academies now but things need to be done). As Honigstein says, Klinsmann has strengths that may suit a national team set-up but as you note he needs some talented tactical and training people around him (and it may be difficult to find those people).

Also, I liked a lot of the comments in this thread about youth development. It actually gives me hope that so many here see the wisdom in trying to develop the athletic potential of kids (and have fun). My daughter is only 3 so I have a few years myself (and anticipate coaching at some point), but I do have nephews who have gone through years of travel teams, select teams and the Olympic program. My oldest nephew is going to be starting his junior year (at a nationally ranked H.S. program) but when I talked to him he seems burned out at 14 (the 12 year old is definitely burned out and sick of soccer). I think he exemplifies what its like to go through development from 4 to 14 without really being focused on continuous improvement. He played a lot as a youngster and that has given him a lot of ability but it I cannot say he is ever going to excel (and all that playing may be a hindrance from learning "new things"). I cannot say specifically what the problem is and they all seem to make a lot of friends playing but something is not right. He probably will play in college and be decent but I do not know what level right now (his H. S. is actually changing as the better players may not even be playing for the school any more and focused completely on club development year round--but are they developing?). I do see them play when I visit (not too often).

All coaches motivate or try to motivate. Jackson and Klinsmann go about it in a very different manner. Majerus motivates. One of his approaches is the carrot and the stick approach. Klinsmann motivates in the sense that he treats all people and situations as new, "In the moment." Jackson uses his beliefs to relate to and motivate players. He has an ability to be sympathetic and empathetic to all types of people...but how he motivates them is bringing them into his world. Klinsmann relates to players on their terms, not his terms. That's different.

It is of no surprise to me that Klinsmann has already expressed public interest in adding Claudio Reyna to his staff. It's exactly Klinsmann-esque to do so...pragmatic, new, what would work right now approach, not afraid of change, but a positive, realistic approach...etc...(going back to the past is not Klinsmann's approach...planning for down the road is not his approach either...he is right now, today. He'll get his opportunity to see what he can do up to, through, and including, the 2014 World Cup.

[SLUBALLS]

Also, I liked a lot of the comments in this thread about youth development. It actually gives me hope that so many here see the wisdom in trying to develop the athletic potential of kids (and have fun). My daughter is only 3 so I have a few years myself (and anticipate coaching at some point), but I do have nephews who have gone through years of travel teams, select teams and the Olympic program. My oldest nephew is going to be starting his junior year (at a nationally ranked H.S. program) but when I talked to him he seems burned out at 14 (the 12 year old is definitely burned out and sick of soccer). I think he exemplifies what its like to go through development from 4 to 14 without really being focused on continuous improvement. He played a lot as a youngster and that has given him a lot of ability but it I cannot say he is ever going to excel (and all that playing may be a hindrance from learning "new things"). I cannot say specifically what the problem is and they all seem to make a lot of friends playing but something is not right. He probably will play in college and be decent but I do not know what level right now (his H. S. is actually changing as the better players may not even be playing for the school any more and focused completely on club development year round--but are they developing?). I do see them play when I visit (not too often).

I coach a club U13 boys team and have since they were U8. Until this year, I told the parents that soccer needed to come first in the fall but conflicts with basketball, baseball, and lacrosse were ok in the winter/spring. No reason to pigeon hole the kids into one sport. However, I also told them that at U13 we would ask for the boys to make a higher commitment to soccer by putting it first over other sports; not to say they can't play other sports but we wanted boys who felt soccer was going to be their sport for high school. Surprisingly, I had 15 of 16 boys come back this year when I expected some of them to drop. Last year we won the B division for our age and were destined to be put up in the A division. When I looked at the teams in the A division, it was obvious we would be playing teams clearly better than us (we had lost to all of them 3 or 4 nothing consistently). I chose to keep the boys down in the B division where we would be competitive and able to continue to develop. No reason to play A level soccer just for the sake of it and burn the kids out, demotivate them, and watch them walk away from the game early.

[courtside]

I coach a club U13 boys team and have since they were U8. Until this year, I told the parents that soccer needed to come first in the fall but conflicts with basketball, baseball, and lacrosse were ok in the winter/spring. No reason to pigeon hole the kids into one sport. However, I also told them that at U13 we would ask for the boys to make a higher commitment to soccer by putting it first over other sports; not to say they can't play other sports but we wanted boys who felt soccer was going to be their sport for high school. Surprisingly, I had 15 of 16 boys come back this year when I expected some of them to drop. Last year we won the B division for our age and were destined to be put up in the A division. When I looked at the teams in the A division, it was obvious we would be playing teams clearly better than us (we had lost to all of them 3 or 4 nothing consistently). I chose to keep the boys down in the B division where we would be competitive and able to continue to develop. No reason to play A level soccer just for the sake of it and burn the kids out, demotivate them, and watch them walk away from the game early.

Short answer for me: There will always be more than one way to achieve the same goal(s). And, the best advice I can give someone is to seek out mentors early that you like and that make the kid/player etc...feel the most comfortable.

Longer answer...I personally believe in exposing kids to as much as possible at younger ages....doing so in moderation with balance etc...Some kids will choose to focus on one or a few things, and other kids prefer a wider variety. That's all based on an individual kid's personality. And, the range in that is wide. What works for one may or may not work for another and another and another...etc...The key is enjoying the process, enjoying what they are doing, enjoying whom they are doing it with and whom they are doing it for...(coaches, not parents) As a kid gets older, he/she will be better able to handle the challenges and adversity if a positive experience all around occurs at the younger levels.

As for the specific example above from kwyibo...Is the kid having fun playing the game? That is question #1. If the answer is no, why is it no? What is going on in that kid's life in soccer and away from soccer? The next question I have is what is wrong the possible outcome you mentioned kwyibo? My answer is nothing is wrong with that. Hypothetically play along here...You might say that the kid has more potentional or ability etc..and I'd say so what not every kid with ability needs to do something unless they enjoy it. It's the kid's deal. Maybe the kid is going through some short term issues and really loves it and will take it to another level....and maybe the kid isn't interested anymore or never was or who knows and goes another route...the bottom line is there is nothing wrong with any of the results or choices. The key is the kid has to make the choices for himself and no one else. As I've said before, hypothetical situation, my kid....Hi son, did you have fun at your game? Yes dad. Did you try your best? Yes dad. Were you a good teammate? Yes dad. ....that's all I need to know. No scores, no stats etc...and I let my kid share or tell me whatever he wants to share about it or nothing at all. It's always about the kid.

To the issue of priorities and sports....it's really not that difficult. I believe in a simple approach. If you sign up for something, and commit to it, you do it for that season or time period etc...and if you are no longer interested after that you do something else. If a kid has a two sport conflict during same season, as a coach, I'd do my best to accomodate, but too often coaches are my way or the highway or all or none. I don't believe in that. I do believe that if you miss time, you make up for that. That may be more work in practice, that may mean more bench time until more time is earned, etc...but who am I to deny a kid the opportunity to try to combine multiple interests...as long as they are putting for the effort and being responsible etc...

Will Bruin is a good top of head example. He played hoops in high school too. And, it was understood that if he played hoops, everything else in that season comes second, including very high profile club soccer events. On several occasions he missed those soccer situations for basketball. On some other occasions he was able to do both without conflict.

[courtside]

Klinsmann is not afraid to add American Assistants as he has done so in the past with Nick Theslof and Martin Vasquez. And, he is definitely not afraid of change and trying something or someone new...nor is too ego based to not accept strong tactical assistants. Sigi? Klinsmann would have to be comfortable with a vocal, and at times, volatile tactical assistant as he certainly isn't low key and Sigi would get to do what he wants but he wouldn't have the title of HC...and he's have to keep some of his commentary in check. They are not however the same personality. So it's possible.

Previously he's been mostly concerned with playing a fast, direct, attacking style...off the ground in the back and wide on the wings. However, he'd adjust to fit the talent at the time.

I think he can change some things in a positive way from a ground up level...and if anything that will be one of his contributions. He'll bring positive, high energy, flexibility. Questions loom for tactical assistants, longevity(is he willing to grind long term with his plan) ...he'll have to answer if he can be more than a surface level guy with lots of good positive ideas but not sticking with focused long term depth to bring to fruition. He isn't brash or unfeeling. Will he get outmuscled by politics?

Martin Vasquez was named #1 assistant to Klinsmann. Full time position. He'll bring an aggressive attacking philosophy and players' coach personality.