re: Official: Klinsmann named head coach - press conference Monday in NYC

This doesn't give me the warm fuzzies:

From Grant Wahl's column.

quote:

---

Klinsmann's reputation in Germany these days is not good at all after he spent less than a season at Bayern Munich in 2008-09 before being fired by the club's powerful board. Several players said Klinsmann lost the locker room, and I'm told that he would have a hard time getting a job in Germany again.

---

I just hope he brings the German attitude of expecting to win. I could see him being a dick.

Blegh

quote:

---

Klinsmann can't be worse than Bradley

---

What if he doesn't finish first in WC qualifying?
Win a Gold Cup?
Win a World Cup group?
Make a Confed Cup final?
Beat a #1 ranked team?

If he doesn't do ALL of those things, he's "worse than Bradley."

I understand what you're saying, you're holding Klinsmann to Bradley's acheivements but the two are in different times even if the times are back to back. The times will be different to me because it seems that Mexico has a crop of new players that seems to be better than ours (so finishing first in Gold Cup, WC qualifying, and making a Confederations Cup will be harder), and were about to see many of our starters leave their starting roles due to age and new younger inexperienced players take their place (I think Klinsmann will handle them better than Bradley).

I just think the team play will be no worse than what it was under bradley, in fact I think it will be better. That's what I meant by my statement. Achievements don't factor into what I meant because the competition could be better than what Bradley had to deal with, and even though I think Klinnsmann will have the team playing better, I can't say for sure he will have them playing better than the competition (though I think he will actually) so the achievements will be harder to beat.

quote:

---

Be fair now. I understand you defending Bradley because his tenure was successful for the most part, but it's not like Klinsmann has to do all that to be as good as Bradley.

---

And that was my point.

I see nothing that says finishing first is qualifying is guaranteed. Certainly, winning a WC group isn't guaranteed. I'd say beating a #1 team in a non-friendly match isn't guaranteed.

It was a response to the poster who said "he can't be worse than Bradley."

The frick he can't.

Finishing second in qualifying, getting stuck in another group of death, and getting bounced out on our arse after the group stage in 2014, is 100% possible, and to claim otherwise is ignorance.

But maybe we'll play "pretty" on the way to doing it, like Portugal does.

There were many faults to Bradley's tenure, and quite a few games that I'd like to "have back", but I think a lot of people might be in for a surprise in the next year or so.

quote:

---

Finishing second in qualifying, getting stuck in another group of death, and getting bounced out on our arse after the group stage in 2014, is 100% possible, and to claim otherwise is ignorance.

---

Does finishing 1st in the qualifying group matter a lot to you? Serious question. Once we're in, I don't really care about the standing.

As far as the World Cup stage, getting eliminated in the group stage is very possible. I'm hoping it doesn't happen, but there's no reason to think advancing is guaranteed. I don't even think our group was that great this past coup. Certainly not as good as in 2006, and I'd argue 2002 was at least as strong. I don't remember enough about Yugoslavia and Iran in 1998 to say whether that group was stronger.

quote:

---

Yes, for no other reason than the gap between 2nd and 4th normally isn't that far. I don't want to have our World Cup fate be a home and home.

---

As I said before, I do want to qualify comfortably, I'm just not too concerned with the final standing.

For example, if we had lost to Costa Rica in the last game of qualifying for 2010, we wouldn't have won the group, but it doesn't mean we were closer to not qualifying.