It's a good point. You had Donovan and Dempsey at the prime of their careers. Bradley wasn't as good as he is today, but still good. I still think that the back line then was not better than today, even with names like Spector, DeMerit, and Onyewu. Bocanegra was on the downslide by that point. And we were forced to use lesser players like Ricardo Clark and Sasha Kljestan.
But...that WAS the team that beat Spain 2-0 in the Confed Cup, at the height of Spanish dominance, so the point is still valid...
Peaks and ceilings and stuff - interesting to me. I found this - not sure if it's accurate, I think the 2014 numbers for Klinsmann aren't accurate up to date, I read earlier today that he is 37-11-11 as coach, but I'm too lazy to look for that source again, this one is fine for my point - assuming the numbers are at least close to reality. There are clear trends here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_men's_national_soccer_team_managers
First thing to glare at me, is that from 1916-1976, there was no single coach for the USA national team that went more than 10 games as head coach. Others around here I'm sure are better versed, but my gut tells me, that similar to oval football, round football success is closely related to consistency in direction and leadership. Not surprising in the least that there was no world cup for USA soccer all that time.
Next thing that jumps to me, is that since we've started having head coaches that have lasted for any significant amount of time, we have been qualified for the World Cup tournament in every 4 year period since 1990. Seven times.
That tells me, that the USA can produce rosters that are capable of competiting at the World Cup level, as long as they have a leadership in place that has a plan and sticks with it. I've thought all along that the USA should ahve no difficulty really with producing athletes that can compete, even with the diversity in sport and skill level problems. The sheer numbers are enough, among the millions of potential athletes, to be able to get 23 players that can compete.
Elsewhere Jimmy S was lamenting our foreign players. It seems to me, that Klinsmann has just come in with a very specific recruiting plan, to get a competitive team now, to build on for the future. that involves targeting US citizenship players that have grown up playing the game overseas, primarily in european countries. makes sense, since that's where he's from. Bob Diaco seems to have a pretty good plan of targeting and specific player profile, to recruit in a region of the world where he is familiar with the game. Nothing surprising there. My guess is that if we had an African-American coach, or a South American coach, that coach might very well follow the same kind of plan. I know literally nothing about the prior the coaches, and what they did to build and develop rosters, but it makes sense that there would be a peak in performance around 2009-2010.
At that point in time, the USA had played approximately 210 games under only 2 coaches, had won approximately 105 games to 55 losses and competed in consecutive world cups for several years under those two coaches. Arena and Bradley - by contrast from 1916 until Dan's favorite Bora - the USA apparently has played approximately the same number of games with about 30 different coaches.
Consistency alone, in coaching seems to be enough to make the USA competitive enough in building a roster that can qualify for the World Cup. I bet there are other countries around the world, that don't have the same ability. It's sheer numbers of population in the USA I think.
The question I have, is if these numbers are accuarte, it seems that scheduling games is something weird happening. Why are there so many more games scheduled under Arena and Bradly and now with Klinsmann as compared to teh past? Who sets up the national team schedule? Seems to me, that with more opportunity to play, which means more time to practice, means more time to recruit and evaluate players, and makes a team better.
Anyhoo, its certainly argueable that USA soccer is at the highest point now it's ever been, or if it did peak before. Perhaps it did hit a peak before, I don't know. I do know that the farthest the team has advanced in the WC was in 2002 right? 2014 seems argueably more difficult of a tournament based on matchups, but that's all subjective. It would seem that the best the USA has done to date internationally was 12 years ago.
The clear thing I see, is that with 7 consecutive world cups now, the expectations to be there at the world cup, should be starting to get ingrained - like UCONN in basketball tournament.
It's got to become a thing about advancing and winning now, that's where things need to shift - and I think it's pretty clear that under Klinsmann's direction, the expectations to not just be there, but advance have been established. You even got Whaler talking about the team failed to meet his expectations, after getting past the group stage and facing that Belgium team.
had the USA beat Belgium and advanced, that level of expectation change, to have been there in the first place and advancing, would not be affected.
What remains now, is what happens with the program moving forward, toward the next tournament. Qualifying - and getting out of the group stage, isn't, and shouldn't be good enough anymore. I don't see how that can happen if they are only playing 5-7 games a year which seems to be the case up through the early 1990s. Which brings me back around again, to scheduling? Under Arena and Bradley, we seem to have been playing 16-17 games a year on average. If the USA team is playing regularly every few weeks, and is on TV and being pushed by ESPN, with a leader like Klinsmann, I can see the thing exploding - but they got to playing and winning and have the media coverage.