Bradley right choice
Posted May 16th, 2007 by Ron
The U.S. National Soccer Team opted to remove the interim tag from coach Bob Bradley.
And it was the correct call, George Vecsey of the New York Times agrees.
The winningest coach in Major League Soccer history demonstrated a solid resolve in his first four games as interim coach.
This will give him the opportunity to grow with the team as its prepares for World Cup 2010 in South Africa … or the United States.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Isn't "Major League" and "Soccer" a contradiction in terms? I'm really not sure that being the winningest manager in Akron Aeros history necessarily qualifies that person to manage and lead the New York Yankees to the World Series.
With that being said, I think it's fantastic that Bob Bradley is finally getting this golden opportunity. First it was the Knicks, then it was politics, and now this. What a charmed life he's led.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I like that they stayed with an American, so long as one is qualified, and Bradley is as qualified as Bruce Arena was 8 years ago.
Only an American coach understands American athletes. The psychology of coaching is completely different elsewhere around the world.
I hope Bradley does well. I think he will.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Only an American coach understands American athletes? The psychology of coaching is completely different elsewhere and around the world? What does any of that even mean???
May 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Watching soccer worldwide, the coaching profession is completely different between here and overseas. It's hard to explain, but here goes.
Juergen Klinsmann shocked Germany by bringing in "American" philosophies in training and motivation. All of these things were completely foreign to the reluctant Germans, who are more precise with training methods (for one World Cup, they even measured the number of steps it took for their players to walk onto and off of the practice field to their quarters).
Weird, I know.
Also, coaches in overseas leagues generally don't talk to their players much. Players are expected to "figure out" where they stand with the team, and improve on it.
American players need communication. They need to be motivated and coddled more, and given their precious playing time. That's just the way it is here. In Europe or South America, players must pay their dues on reserve teams or the bench until they earn playing time (something Landon Donovan was unwilling to do with Bayer Leverkusen). Kind of like when Wally Pipp lost his job to Lou Gehrig because he wasn't feeling well, then never got it back.
These are just some of the comparisons and contrasts between American and Euro-South American coach-player relationships.
It's just completely different.
A foreign coach likely would take a similar approach, which the U.S. players would be completely unaccustomed to.
May 19th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
The record speaks for itself, and Americans stink compared to the rest of the world at their football. Perhaps a change in philosophy is in order. Perhaps when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
With respect to coaching, to lump all athletes together as intrinsically or extrinsically motivated is foolhardy. As is to say that Europeans act one way, Americans act one way, South Americans act one way. And because of that, Americans can't coach them, and they can't coach Americans. Silly. Who's coaching Manu Ginobili and Anderson Varejao right now? Julio Iglesias?
May 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
"The record speaks for itself, and Americans stink compared to the rest of the world at their football. Perhaps a change in philosophy is in order. Perhaps when in Rome, do as the Romans do."
Sunil Gulati nearly did just that - do as the Romans do. Word is he was enthralled with any number of foreign coaches (Gerard Houllier, Jose Pekerman, Carlos Queiroz).
Yes, I was definitely speaking in generalizations to make a point of different cultures (to your second response/question). Of course those cultures can cross, with either a player or coach. Bora Milutinovic (Serbian) coached the USA leading up to the 1994 World Cup. Gulati very possibly could have taken his chances with a foreign coach.
But my opinion is, it had a very good chance of failing. One of the major reasons is Landon Donovan, who is considered a leader on this team for his skills and now his experience. He went to Germany twice to play for Bayer Leverkusen, and did not like the cold, hard German methods (nor the climate, for that matter). He did not wish to sit the bench, work his way up, for the chance to succeed in a major league such as the Bundesliga, thus making his game better. He's happy wallowing in MLS against inferior defenders, and with coaches who will cater to him.
Also, Klinsmann's example is a good one. Germans criticized his "American style" when he was hired for their national team, but he ended up taking a young German team to the semifinals last summer, and they wanted him back. Now, German teams are copying his training methods.
In Germany, players are expected to live, eat and breathe soccer. Klinsmann had the audacity to give his players vacations. He was criticized, but it all turned out well.
"Only an American coach understands American athletes? The psychology of coaching is completely different elsewhere and around the world? What does any of that even mean???"
I'm just pointing out general differences. I'm not sure the U.S. soccer team is ready for a foreign coach right now, especially with someone such as Donovan such a key player on the team right now.