Comments for SportsMyriad More sports than are dreamed of in your philosophy Tue, 08 Apr 2014 05:40:06 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on Tom Sermanni and women’s soccer evolution by Joshua (the name of my cat not me) Tue, 08 Apr 2014 05:40:06 +0000 “After the 2007 World Cup debacle left wounds that haven’t healed to this day,”

Man, if that ain’t the truth. Just mention “2007″, in WoSo forum or comments board and you [actually I] get RANA. [I don't think it takes much imagination to figure out what RANA is an acronym for.]

Tom Semanni could laugh all the way to the bank for the next two and a half years if the story in the LA Times is correct: “Sermanni’s contract, which pays him around $200,000 a year, runs through the end of 2016.” Not a bad deal after getting canned.

Getting “dismissed” as USWNT head coach is no big deal, IMHO. Just time to move on. Tom getting “dismissed” is just one more episode in the long soap opera, errr, saga of the USWNT. Someone should write a book on the story of the USWNT since 1999. I’d buy it and read it.

Comment on Tom Sermanni and women’s soccer evolution by guest1 Mon, 07 Apr 2014 20:01:16 +0000 Thoughtful piece. My view: this was a culture clash. He was too laid back, too patient, almost too composed, in the view of some players, and, eventually, for Sunil. The guy took all of 2013 just to look at players and evaluate. He was just not urgent or hard driving enough. Other soccer cultures could perhaps deal with this. But not the American women’s national team culture. Also, all this talk from Tom about a rotating starting XI, even during the WC tournament, that really made certain players and Sunil nervous. It’s just too radical to handle. That is not how this team has ever functioned in any major tournament.

The crazy thing — there HAS been a clear evolution in style of play. I’m not saying they were playing amazing attacking, possession soccer yet. But they were on that path. Nobody can doubt that this team was undergoing a different approach. And that’s what is upsetting to me: there was no trust that in the end, the team would get to a really great place. There was no faith that the changes would bear fruit in the end. And they performed well against Japan, even if it didn’t result in a win. That’s amazing, because he only started really coaching the team, tactically, in late 2013!!!! Only a few months of really implementing his style, and he’s canned. That to me says emotions and personalities were involved.

Comment on Tom Sermanni and women’s soccer evolution by Rachel Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:20:55 +0000 I think your theory about the timing of the decision sounds right. I also think it may have something to do with the fact that most the players came fresh from their respective NWSL team pre-season camps. Maybe a lot of the “power players” felt they were getting better, more effective training sessions at a club level? Maybe they felt the USWNT practice sessions were just not cutting it. Tom seems like such a classy guy but perhaps he was too laid-back and didn’t push the team hard enough?

Comment on Tom Sermanni and women’s soccer evolution by Diane Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:24:10 +0000 Power brokers only look in the mirror to stroke their own egos. No hope for that.

Sick and tired of lip service and very different levels of tolerance. If Klinsmann coached the women’s team and got same results, would he still be here? Probably not. It’s not the coach, imo, it’s the lack of conviction in USSF to do what’s good for the game going forward. They can’t just say change is what they want, they have to support it.

Comment on Why I don’t engage in most promotion/relegation discussions by Beau Dure Thu, 03 Apr 2014 18:01:46 +0000 I guess I don’t see the complexities, and perhaps I’m missing the point. Is the point that clubs aren’t supposed to make money? I could see that, but …

A. I don’t how we soccer fans can *demand* owners that lose money on the teams, nor do I think we have enough people to have fan-owned teams. (The EPL, so often held up as the paragon of “open systems,” depends on stockholders or rich people drawn by the prospect of getting richer.)

B. MLS owners have indeed lost a ton of money just to get a league off the ground — one that didn’t have enough teams to even consider pro/rel.

So can you tell me what I’m missing?

Comment on Why I don’t engage in most promotion/relegation discussions by Jacques Pelham Thu, 03 Apr 2014 17:03:52 +0000 Beau, your comments re Kephern are complete sophistry. You claim to be “just the messenger when it comes to economic realities” and then proceed to make up a reality that seems to suit your point of view. To whit, it sure didn’t take for you long to twist Keph’s original tweet (“they honestly think $ is the reason for clubs to exist, that’s their first problem.”) into “soccer isn’t about money.” Keph’s comment is directed towards profit motivation, not revenue generation or wage spending (the topic of the Soccernomics article). The distinction and interaction between those three factors are important in understanding the incentives and economic realities in a pro/rel system vs. MLS system. Keph’s tweet and subsequent comments speak to those complexities yet you gloss right over all of that so you can make a cheap point to try and make Keph look naive.

So, why do I find Keph’s expertise and pro/rel argument more compelling than yours at this point? It’s not about authority, it’s about credibility and it starts with not cherry picking info or distorting reality (even little things like a tweet made by someone who disagrees with you) in order to serve a narrative.