Growing concern in Camp Klinsmann; why some results matter
by Steve Davis on Nov 12, 2011 11:53 AM EST
Email
Print
Results don’t matter – well, until they do. Let me explain.
We keep hearing that results don’t matter when it comes to friendlies. U.S. manager Jurgen Klinsmann keeps saying it. He doesn’t give a German lick about results, he told us again last week.
Heck, I’ve written the same thing time and again. You simply can’t replicate the weight of World Cup qualifiers and such; pressure can change player and amend the way coaches approach matches. So applying too many lessons and assessments from friendlies is dicey business. And yet, putting too much stock in what happens in these friendlies is practically a constitutional right among soccer fans.
Klinsmann’s men lost yesterday, as you know. Yet another 1-0 loss, in fact, this time to Les Bleus in the Parisian suburb Saint-Denis.
Did anybody in a U.S. shirt deserve a passable grade yesterday at Stade de France? I thought both center backs had a good match, that one late hiccup notwithstanding. Jozy Altidore had his best day in some time in a U.S. shirt. The rest of the U.S. grades are here at SI.com. Discus!
A 1-0 loss on the road to a quality European team is no sin. Far from it.
But in the bigger context of what’s going on with Klinsmann’s national team, there’s some growing alarm. When you link Friday’s setback to Klinsmann’s other U.S. results, it’s hard not to see the evening differently.
Which is why results in friendlies do, indeed, sometimes matter. Not usually one result, per se, but strings of results. They matter en masse because they alter the way we see things, coloring context and perspective. They matter because pressure builds and may shift the way managers and programs pursue their targets in the bigger picture.
(For much more, keep reading ...)
The national team now has one lone win in Klinsmann’s first six matches. If that number makes you wince, this will cause you to double over in pain: just two goals scored in those matches. Thank heavens, I suppose, that Robbie Rogers and Brek Shea hooked up for a nifty little goal back in August against Mexico, and that Clint Dempsey danced around inside the Honduran penalty area until he could unleash the only other U.S. strike under Klinsmann.
Because that’s it. That’s the sum production of Klinsmann’s dynamic new way. A grand total of two goals.
So it wasn’t Friday’s small flop at Stade de France that matters. Not really. What matters more now is the 1-0 loss to Costa Rica in early September outside Los Angeles. What matters is the 1-0 loss to Belgium four days later. A tie that night in rainy Brussels would have been a better result.
What matters is a stinging 1-0 loss last month to Ecuador at Red Bull Arena. Ecuador isn’t a bad South American team. But haven’t we reached the point where the United States, playing at home with most of its full squad, needs to dig up a draw, at the very least, against a South American side that’s not named Argentina or Brazil?
Again, one result doesn’t matter. That loss to Ecuador, plucked from the herd and examined individually, doesn’t amount to much – even if the Americans were alarmingly impotent on the attack, in dire need of bothering the Ecuadorian goalkeeper with a few more quality chances. With better results bracketing that one night, we could dismiss it as the anomaly. But dumped into the big pot with a bunch of other inferior ingredients, what was supposed to be a pretty good soup is quickly devolving into something inedible.
Fans, players and supporters would feel so much better about things if they had just one really good result to hug on and love on. (No, a 1-0 squeaker at home over humble Honduras, Klinsmann’s only victory so far, isn’t enough to hang your hat on. Sorry.)
Then, yet another loss, this one to France, wouldn’t seem like such a damn downer. Then, the ongoing reliance of a central midfield with zero offensive punch (Kyle Beckerman and Maurice Edu) might be easier to stomach. The lack of anyone who can link in more efficient ways with Clint Dempsey would be easier to digest. It might be easier to see the long term benefit of playing Danny Williams out of position on the midfield flank. It would be easier to watch Michael Bradley languish, somewhat inexplicably, on the bench. (Where are all the ninnies now who always cried “nepotism” when it came to Bradley’s starting assignments handed out by his father, former coach Bob Bradley?)
It would be easier to beat back theories that this team, with the current personnel, is better suited for Bob Bradley’s reasonably effective, pragmatic doctrines that emphasized organized defending and scoring on set pieces and counters.
Even though they weren’t part of the problem last night, it would be easier to overlook Klinsmann’s continued interest in Michael Orozco Fiscal and Robbie Rogers – two players who have done zilch to justify the manager’s curious, ongoing attraction.
The United States needs a result Tuesday against Slovenia. A win would be nice, but a tie would suffice. At the very, very least, progress must be shown.
In some ways, this looks and sounds like Klinsmann’s early days in charge at Germany, where he overturned convention with gleeful abandon, pissing off the establishment along the way. In the end his ways and choices forDie Mannschaft were vindicated. Perhaps his methodology here will similarly pass muster, eventually.
But if Klinsmann isn’t careful the pressure will build to the point where be begins losing public and player trust – and then everything he’s trying to accomplish could become more difficult, more problematic.
Every so often, results do matter. Even in friendlies.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Friendlies
I enjoyed Ian Darke’s comments re: Friendlies. “No longer are friendlies considered friendlies. Each match has become an integral part of every teams success”.
David
Too nice a guy to be an effective manager?
Jurgen Klinsmann is a very nice guy who knows a lot about the game. But if you look at all sports (not just soccer) nice guys rarely make great coaches. The coaches who are most successful are the ones that the players both like and fear. Maybe the US National Team needs a manager who is a disciplinarian. Someone who will tell the players “if you don’t step up your game, you’re out.” Is Klinsmann saying that to any of these guys? I doubt it.
well that's part of his idea to encourage more creative/attacking play
he has been telling his attacking players it’s ok to be creative and take guys on and mess up and lose possession… he doesn’t want these guys to be afraid of losing their spot and avoid creative flair play
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Nov 14, 2011 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
A question and some contextual commentary
Is it possible that Klinsmann is focusing so much on skill and conditioning in these camps that game-planning and on-field cohesion is going by the wayside? Not having been in a USMNT camp, I can’t say that I know what goes on there, so it’s an honest question.
I ask it because I’ve been struck by how disjointed the team’s looked. For instance, Beckerman made several passes to empty spots last night—nobody was even close. That left me wondering whether the team hadn’t been sufficiently prepared, and maybe Beckerman thought someone was supposed to be there but his intended target thought something else was supposed to happen. Similarly, it seemed like Chandler made himself into a one-trick pony by trying to beat his defender down the line every single time he went forward, even though it became clear early on that he couldn’t do it. It just seemed a bit as if the players were trying to execute instructions without a sophisticated understanding of how to do it.
This has seemed particularly true in the early going of games. For instance, I thought the team looked less disciplined but more effective on offense in the second half last night. It led me to wonder whether the team started out trying, unsuccessfully, to implement a style of play/game-plan but then gradually gave up and resorted to more familiar effort. For instance, it seemed that Dempsey was pretty ineffective early in the game but eventually tried to put the team on his back in a less disciplined way that actually produced some results.
Hope this is not too long a post. But I was particularly looking forward to the discussion of the USMNT after last night’s dismal effort. I know growth takes time and can lead a team to look worse before it looks better…but I’m just not seeing the progress.
The quality of play only compounds the poor decisions in terms of personnel
When the US isn’t playing well, it’s one thing. When the US isn’t using the best players available – and we are certainly not doing that – it’s another. When those things happen at the same time, the alarm starts to go off.
The absence of Bradley is maddening, especially in the context of Klinsmann choosing a bunch of guys who all offer more or less the same thing in the two central midfield spots. I like Beckerman underneath the rest of the midfield; he has the passing range and vision to be the platform of a coherent, dynamic attack. I just don’t like playing him alongside Edu or Jones. With Beckerman paired with those two, we have an anchor midfielder and a forward destroyer that can’t contribute much to the attack. No wonder we can’t create chances (much less score goals).
To me, it seems brutally obvious that our best central midfielder of any type is Bradley. Soccer is not so complicated; over a long enough period of time, selecting lineups can be winnowed down to “pick your 10 best players and your best goalkeeper.” Bradley is one of our 10 best players, and he’s our best at a crucial position that has been there to be filled in every formation Klinsmann has used.
He’s not sitting the bench at his club, and he’s playing in one of the best leagues on earth. He gets forward to contribute some passing acumen (more than Edu or Jones), but more importantly can disrupt defensive schemes with his off-the-ball play. In the current context, Bradley should be automatic for Klinsmann.
And if it’s not Bradley, why not give Sacha Kljestan a call? I’m not the biggest Kljestan fan – he is often the first to disappear when games take on a rough edge, which is something I can’t stand – but the team as currently constructed creates nothing, and we’re not so thin that missing Donovan, Torres, and Holden should leave us utterly inept. Dempsey is Dempsey; Altidore is in the form of his life thus far. This team should be scoring goals, and it doesn’t because we don’t have our best players on the field in positions they can succeed in.
It’s far from my ideal USA 11, but for the Slovenia match I’d like to see the following:
(4132): Howard; Cherundolo, Onyewu/Goodson, Bocanegra, Chandler; Beckerman; F. Johnson, Bradley, Shea/Beasley; Dempsey, Altidore
It’s not a world-beating side, but I’ll bet my prized pair of red Adidas Formel 1s on them creating enough offense to not make me dread qualifying. If the US can’t create chances against a French team that looked to go forward, how are they going to break down Guatemala’s typical 550 bunker-and-cheap-foul strategy (side note: Guatemala is the worst national team to watch that I’ve ever seen. I’d rather watch a team that’s just incompetent, like San Marino, provided they have any ambition other than to play dirty and kill the game)?
Writer on SB Nation's DC United blog Black and Red United | @ChestRockwell14 | KEEP UNITED IN DC
I'm not saying Guatemala's team is iffy....
…But I did see three of them fake an injury from a foul during the pre-game National Anthem a couple of years ago….
I truly don't get the insistence on sitting MB
Unless Michael has somehow honked off Klinsi with having an attitude about his father’s firing, and I’ll admit, that can’t be an easy situation to deal with, even for a professional, there’s no reason Bradley shouldn’t be on the pitch.
Absolutely none. He’s superior in every aspect that matters to the position to every other option in the central midfield pool. Better in the tackle, better passing, better linking up when they go forward. He played well in the Mexico match, and since then, it’s like he doesn’t exist.
I understood it when he wasn’t getting club time. But he is now, and at a higher level than Beckerman or Edu could ever dream of playing at. It makes no sense at all. I can only assume it’s personal between the two.
The Massive Hole in the Middle
This article today on Fox Soccer nails a major — perhaps the major — problem accounting for USA’s anemic offense.
It’s easy to blame the forwards for failing to score. It’s unfair when the striker is all alone up top and the team lacks a creative attacking midfielder in the Ramos/Reyna mold. Even a world-class striker will struggle without good service from the midfield. No knock on Altidore, but he’s not world class.
I see the offensive problems as twofold: the lack of a designated (and creative) attacking MF and the lone-striker setup.
Even with excellent service, the lone striker will normally be marked by two defenders, whether he’s camped in the middle or running in either of the flanks. A team needs two attackers who mostly remain forward, where they prevent the defense from focusing on just one attacker. This doesn’t mean both at all times will be playing off a defender’s shoulder, looking for the killer through ball. The pair can take turns dropping upfield to show for balls or trending wide, which will cause the defense to shift in his direction — thus opening the opposite flank for a pass to the wide MF.
Klinsmann is not getting goals from his formation of one advanced striker and a withdrawn striker, who can be marked by a midfielder. He has nothing to lose by trying two men up top full time.
Now the middle. If he wasn’t sidelined — again — by injury, Stuart Holden might be filling this role with the aplomb he showed at Bolton. But who knows whether he ever will be able to return to his original dangerous form. And even were he in top form right now, would Klinsmann abandon his two holding-midfielder set up and let Holden — or anyone in an attacking midfield slot — think attack-first.
Klinsmann needs to break out of his bunker mentality. Two men up top of a true diamond midfield. Michael Bradley should be the holding MF. His first task is defending, going forward in an attack only when it is safe to do so.
Who plays at the top of the diamond? My nominee is Clint Dempsey. He’s close to doing this now. Anyone who watches Fulham closely knows that Clint does more than score goals against Premiership defenses. They know he consistently beats opponents on the dribble and finds teammates with his passes. He plays end to end and has the speed to break out of his own end and get quickly into a counterattack. He’s also two-footed, which is a priceless quality for a central MF.
Another Ramos? Another Reyna? Who knows? But the job is crying out to be filled and Dempsey should be given the opportunity — with a holding mid backing him up and two strikers (and the wide MFs and fullbacks) looking for his feeds.
In fairness to Klinsi
he has yet to have a game where both Donovan and Dempsey are available, and they are far and away the two closest things the USMNT has to playmakers. I think a USMNT with Donovan and Shea on the wings and Dempsey playing a sort of attacking mid/withdrawn striker role is a force to be reckoned with (ideally with Michael Bradley in the midfield mix as well—him riding the pine is a decision of Klinsmann’s I won’t defend). Stu Holden being perpetually injured doesn’t help, either, and Klinsmann also hasn’t done himself any favors in the midfield by not giving Robbie Rogers’ spot to a very deserving Sacha Kljestan, but saying the US midfield has been at full strength for Klinsmann isn’t entirely true, because the USMNT is a somewhat different team when both Donovan and Dempsey aren’t on the pitch.
So in any case, the fact that you crafted that entire spiel without mentioning Donovan even once is honestly a bit stunning.
I'm not too concerned. There's more going into his player selection than we realize.
Klinsmann’s primary responsibility isn’t to win games YET. The USA is finished with that phase of it’s development. Milutinuvic/Sampson/Arena/Bradley were all tactical coaches who could build teams that were greater than the sum of their parts.
With Klinsmann, we are now trying to build a US soccer system that has continuity, credibility and connections throughout the world. Coaches at all levels developing players with common same skill sets and philosophies. Players who go overseas with the endorsement of someone with international experience and cachet so that they actually contribute to their teams rather than languish on the bench. He will bring coaches back here who have these same qualities further deepening the American talent pool and knowledge base.
We won’t be producing a Ramos followed by a Reyna followed by a Donovan followed by a… We will have several players of their quality available at the same time!!
Captain, there are doubt''s...
Uh, I guess that is fair looking long term, but Klinsmann has also been hired to get the U.S. qualified for the WC and to get the most out of the players currently in the pool. The tactical decisions he has made so far have little to do with long term planning and more to do with preparing the current pool for qualification. There is no reason he cannot teach his style while putting the players he has in the best position for them to succeed short term. I doubt playing three holding midfielders at one time is part of his long term plan btw.
oops...fail!
this was in response to Match Day 5
by Karlito Vargas on Nov 14, 2011 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
We play in a very weak confederation.
Captain, there are doubt''s...
by Match Day 5 on Nov 15, 2011 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
