I thought Reyna was a magnificent little player. He seemed to do ok in England, but I think he was better than his stature of clubs suggests. I do think he would have at least been an excellent squad player at the very highest level of club football. I remember him at Rangers. There really wasn’t a heck of a lot of difference in quality between Reyna and Giovanni Van Bronckhurst. Van Bronckhurst went on to become a regular at Barcelona.
I asked this a while ago and never got a response, but it was also RIGHT when matches were beginning so no one probably gave a shit about my little question, but it’s slow now so Imma re-ask it:
How much does coaching help in soccer? I know it varies from sport to sport, but I know much less about soccer than the rest of them, and I’m just curious.
It seems to me like it is pretty important, but not paramount. Someone asked if the US was really that good, and my response would be “Yes, they have the talent, teamwork, and work ethic, but they seem really raw and could use some coaching”. But does coaching really help?
I’m not that much of a connoisseur to answer that question, sorry.
I know that we lost our key striker (Benteke) just a few weeks before the World Cup. Lukaku was the obvious alternative but his performance has been disappointing. That may explain why we struggled to win in all our group matches.
The coach has made some puzzling decisions, too. Deciding to do without Fellaini for the first hour of the match against Algeria for instance. Mirallas, a good and sometimes decisive winger, hasn’t played a lot either.
This is an all important question that will result in a million different opinions. I suppose coaching is always important to an extent. However, you can also be overly coached. So instead of youngsters enjoying the game they are coached out of any pleasure for the game. Instead of being coached on how to kick and control a football they are coached on positional play or offside tactics to the detriment of basic technique.
For professional teams successful football/soccer coaches are probably just as important as in other sports. Coaching a player on how to improve his ball skills is probably worthless at such an advanced age. However, a good coach can ensure his team plays with the correct tactics, play to their strengths, can motivate his players and so on. There are more than enough instances of soccer coaches making a difference throughout their careers to conclude their role is fairly important. There is a slight difference with coaches of national teams and club teams. National team coaches have to play with the cards they are dealt with i.e. players of that nationality. Club coaches can bring in players from anywhere. Club coaches therefore have a greater ability to change personnel. This is important in any sport.
Even if you loosen things up and make it, say, a “World 23”, the US still doesn’t have one of those players. Howard is in the discussion, I suppose, but Dempsey certainly isn’t at this point in his career. He might be Fulham’s best player of all time but Fulham is not exactly a leading light of English football.
I think we can all agree that the US doesn’t have the sort of player that can take an otherwise mediocre team and make them champions, which is what EinsteinsHund seems to have been saying. That’s exactly what Messi and CR7 are. And Suarez, from the admittedly small sample size we’ve had. And Pirlo.
I’ve heard a lot of Michael Bradley talk in the run-up to the tournament and frankly I have been unimpressed. He’s looked tremendously out of his depth at times. There are other players on the team that look like future stars - Fabian Johnson particularly stands out.
Of course, there’s Altidore, but he seems to have been a bit pants at Sunderland.
May I point out that I think its interesting that when asked if the US have every produced a ‘world-class’ player, you leave out Donovan, who is far closer to being ‘world-class’ than Dempsey.
Though, even Donovan is not up to ‘world-class’ standards, IMO. He’s a great player, but not one of the tops in the game.
Considering Donovan did not actually make the US team for this World Cup, it makes perfect sense to leave him out.
Right, that’s what I was going for. Take Germany’s winning side of the 1990 WC. All in all a solid squad, but somewhat technically restricted, but among them were some exceptional players like Lothar Matthäus, Rudi Völler or Jürgen Klinsmannsup[/sup] who did make a difference. Let’s wait for an American to become a key player for a team like Real, ManU or Bayern and the like, then we can talk.
Sup[/sup]I don’t want to imply they were as good as Messi or Ronaldo (though you could make a case for Matthäus, a different, but also exceptional player), but those are extreme examples who belong to the all time best.
First day without matches… I don’t know what I’ll do with my time.
I’m going to have to… [shudder]… work!
Apparently I’m supposed to be getting horrendously drunk.
It was responding to “The U.S. haven’t yet produced a world class player” - that is not limited to this World Cup.
I thought Klinsmann was the best striker* in the world in the late eighties/early nineties (given Marco Van Basten’s inability to stay healthy and Gary Lineker’s advancing age). I don’t think it’s unreasonable to argue he was a player of Messi’s calibre. Same goes for Matthaus. Voller is more of a debate.
Fair enough, though Donovan hasn’t had that much success as an international and most of his club achievements came in MLS.
*I consider Maradona more of an attacking midfielder than a striker, though I gather the “Number 10” is categorized differently depending on where you are.
Messi is miles better than Klinsmann. He’s the best attacking player since Maradona (or possibly ever) and only the two Ronaldos are even in the ballpark in the last 30 years. IMO, of course.
Donovan hasn’t had much international success? He has 57 goals in his career, tied for 16th all time. Also more than 50 assists. He’s basically been the best player in CONCACAF (which is a lower bar, admittedly) for a decade. He’s had a fine international career.
I’ll echo the Messi > Klinsmann. I mean Messi is starting (though slightly premature, IMO) to enter the conversation of the best players of all time.
Team success, not individual success. He’s won a Gold Cup, but that’s it, right?
The first US squad to reach a Quarterfinal of the World Cup since 1930? 
(He had individual success in that team success as well as he was voted FIFA’s Best Young Player Award of that World Cup)
Four Gold Cups.
He’s an American, what do you want from him? Pele wouldn’t win anything else on the US team.
Huh. I forgot he was on the 2002 WC team. Now: has he ever been among the top 10 players at his position? I don’t think so.
As for Messi, unless I misremember none of his Argentina sides have ever progressed beyond the WC quarterfinals. He’s probably already the greatest club player of all time, but I think it’s slightly ridiculous to call him the best player of all time without more international success. He seems to be stamping his name on this World Cup, so maybe he’ll justify the hype shortly.
Yes, I would include Donovan as world class. I was needlessly restricting myself to the current squad.
I think people here are using a ludicrously high bar for the word “world-class,” i.e. only the top 5 current players in the world, only one of the best ever starting XI, etc.
“World-class” to me means a player the media and top clubs around the world are going to uniformly notice (in a positive sense) and respect. Donovan and Dempsey have arguably earned that, and Howard has been one of the best keepers in the Premiere League, i.e. the top league in Europe. He is absolutely world-class, and he has been one of the top performers at this World Cup.