On the World Cup Debacle '98
World Cup Debacle '98
By Brian Farenell
(c) 23 Aug 1998
In June of 1998, the United States sent what was widely regarded as its
best team ever to the World Cup finals. The realistic goal (not to be confused with the phrase "realistic expectation") was to make it to the 2nd round. However, the US left France battered, humiliated, divided and in 32nd place
out of 32. Coach Steve Sampson took a heavy share of flack from the media, many fans and some players. But to what degree was the debacle his fault and to what extent were other factors involved.
Expectations
First, one must talk about expectations. While most were figuring out the permutations necessary for the US to make the 2nd round, some in the soccer community acted as though making the 2nd round was a given. A few even naively talked of the quarterfinals, perhaps forgetting that the overwhelming likelihood that we would have met the Netherlands (widely regarded as one of the top half dozen or so teams in the world) in the 2nd round. While excitement was understandable, some fans' exuberance caused them to overestimate the progress the US had made. To a certain extent, this was caused by a couple of good results the US had in the run up to France '98 as well as some wins they had recorded since World Cup '94.
Most notably, in February '98, the Americans upset Brazil by 1-0 in the semifinals of the continental tournament, the CONCACAF Gold Cup. That win meant the US had defeated just about every major Western Hempisphere power since WC94: Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay (I believe) and then Brazil. Admittedly, Brazil fielded a number of 2nd choice players, but their 2nd choice team is still better than most 1st teams. The other big result was a 3-0 win over Austria in Vienna, a scoreline somewhat inflated by two late goals (and let's face it, Austria is at least a 2nd tier European side). These two big wins perhaps raised expectations a little too high. Still lacking was consistency, particularly in scoring. After both of these big wins, the US was whitewashed (0-1 vs Mexico and 0-0 vs FYR Macedonia, both at home). Furthermore, the Austria win created the impression that the 3-6-1 formation, which produced the hat trick in Vienna, was the way to go. The formation proved ineffectual the rest of the way. Everyone kept hoping the formation would produce the magic of Vienna and wasn't scraped until after an uninspiring 2-0 loss to Germany in the first World Cup match.
Regardless, one could reasonably have hoped to make the 2nd round, yet the US not only didn't advance, but lost all three games... scoring but a single goal. How could this have happened?
Captains-for-life and other "leaders"
Part of the blame certainly lies on the shoulders of head coach Steve Sampson (and assistant Clive Charles). In the warmup matches, Sampson sidelined a number of veterans who had been ineffective. The most notable of these players was captain John Harkes. He had been very uninspiring for a long time at his midfield position and when Sampson wanted to move him to outside back, Harkes rebelled. He was captain-for-life. He should've been the playmaker of the team. And now this Sampson wanted to relegate him to the backwoods of defender. Sampson did this, I suspect, out of respect for his captain; Sampson probably realized that if he just discarded his captain, the other players wouldn't take it well. So he gave him another option. Harkes apparently did not accept this move. Sampson had no choice but to dismiss him. If the coach and the captain he appoints are at war with each other, what happens?
Harkes was not among the 22 players taken to France. While he was the only notable long-time foot soldier who didn't make the team, a number who did make the team saw their roles diminish substantially or completely. Alexi Lalas was a casuality of the 3-6-1 (and his poor form) as was Marcelo Balboa. Jeff Agoos was bumped out in favor of newly naturalized American David Régis. Eric Wynalda played some but a groin injury suffered in a league match hampered him. Wynalda was the US' all-time leading scorer and Balboa is all-time caps leader. Lalas and Agoos had been on the team since the early 1990s.
While I can not really disagree with any of these decisions individually, the collective effect was to send a team that, while talented, was very young and inexperienced internationally. There was a mental toughness, a hardness, missing that simply needs to be learned by playing in pressure situations. The US did not have that hardness.
The long knives
But the far more damaging effect was in how those players, and a few others, reacted to the coach's decision... and the timing of those reactions. Midfielder Tab Ramos was the most outspoken in his criticism of Sampson. Lalas, Wynalda and Agoos also ripped their coach. Player-coach disputes are as old as soccer itself. What made this situation was the timing of the public attacks: before the US had completed its participation in France '98.
Ramos publically took Sampson to task about player selection after the first match (a 0-2 loss to Germany). He, Lalas and Agoos also ripped into Sampson after the second match (a 1-2 loss to Iran). These attacks were inexcusable in their timing. Yes, I disagree with much of what they said and certainly the tone of the attacks, but I could accept that. But to pubically tear apart your coach IN THE MIDDLE of a major tournament like the World Cup is reprehensible.
Furthermore, it showed a complete lack of respect not only for Sampson (who obviously they wanted nothing more to do with) but also for every single one of their teammates who still had a job to do: a final match against Yugoslavia. While this match might not have made a difference in advancing, it was still a World Cup match and a final chance to leave France with a little dignity. The trio's attacks were an affront to their teammates and sabotaged their efforts. Their act was inexcusable and unprofessional. It was even more stunning that Tab Ramos was leading the charge at that time. I'd always had the highest amount of respect for Ramos. I'd always considered him a class act. For him, of all people, to show such unprofessionalism boggled my mind. Professionals would've waited until AFTER the Yugoslavia match (a 0-1 loss) to say what they had to say. This revealed what was really one of our biggest weaknesses: our so-called leaders were acting in such an unprofessional manner.
In the midst of such unprofessionalism, I must hasten to thank Marcelo Balboa for not participating in this, despite him barely playing. Thank you, Marcelo, for showing class.
Despite this unprofessional behavior, Sampson said he was going to fine the players but did not. When star Colombia striker Faustino Asprilla criticized his coach in the middle of the Cup, he got sent home. Sampson should've booted Ramos' sorry butt and those of his co-conspirators back across the Atlantic before the Yugo match. But he didn't.
The value of experience?
Harkes' dismissal and Agoos' and Lalas' benching were surprising; not unjustified, but surprising. These players had become accustomed to playing, regardless of their form. They thought that a spot on the national team was their birthright, even if they played like utter crap. Why? Because throughout much of the 1990s, this was true. But in the last few years, the national team has obtained some depth. A number of young players had been developed and become international material. The old guard felt they were owed a spot and complacency set in. Wynalda said maybe it was too much to expect an inexperienced coach to understand the value of experience.
So when the coach said, "Hey wait a second, you're going to have to earn your spot." They were shocked. They'd earned it in the early 1990s and thought it was a position for life. I have news for you guys, being a national team defender or even captain is more like being a Congressman than the Pope: you have to get re-elected every so often. Sampson's failure to sanction the unprofessionals only served to further that perception. Of course by then, it was too late anyways. Sampson's position had become untenable.
He's responsible for El Nino too
Even more galling is the critics failure to acknowledge the role of the players in the disaster. I will concede that Sampson shares some of the blame, but the players do too. Let's be something vaguely resembling fair. One can argue about how the blame should be apportioned, but certainly no reasonable person can say all the fault belongs to one party or another. Yet, Mr. Tab Ramos said exactly that. He said he had "no problem" in totally blaming the coaches for the debacle. This stupefying statement speaks for itself.
The most glaring failure of France '98 was the US' total inability to put the ball in the net, despite the billion or so chances that were created. The chances were created, but were not finished. That's why I'm inclined to blame the players more (particularly the forwards and attacking midfielders) and the coaches less. The coaches can't win the game, they can only develop a strategy and choose players that give their team the best chance to win. The formations and player selection resulted in a great many chances; should one crucify the coach because his players couldn't capitalize on them? Especially when nearly all of the goal scorers played!
Some argued that if Sampson was going to dump the old guard, he should have done so before qualifying started rather than right before the World Cup finals. That way, the new players would've become battle-tested, to a certain degree, by qualification. Perhaps this is true. Yet would this have mattered in terms of public perception? A failure is a failure. Some in the American soccer community criticized him for staying so long with the old guard, that his system was stagnant and lacking in dynamism. When he chose to revitalize the team, he was slammed for disregarding experience. I believe the choices Sampson made were sound, but perhaps the timing was not. I guess this poor timing might have been one thing he shared with Tab Ramos.
Americans need not apply
Regardless, Sampson has resigned and the Federation (USSF) is seeking his successor. Outgoing USSF president Alan Rothenberg and others have stated that a foreign coach should be hired. During the good times, Sampson was lauded as an example of how an American coach could succeed. "You need an American coach to understand the American player," it was said. Now, suddenly, it is no longer so. Only experienced international coaches need apply. But how does one gain experience? Steve Sampson was an assistant under Bora Milutinovic (his predecessor and reportedly and candidate to be his successor as well). This is not experience? By saying that head coach experience is the be all and end all, one is condemning the national team to never have an American coach. I don't expect to many Americans to be coaching other national teams.
And if the USSF insists on only considering foreign candidates, what the message? It's saying that the Federation is incapable of developing its own coaches. If it's incapable of developing its own coaches, does that not call into question its entire developmental system? If it's incapable of developing its own coaches, then is it capable of developing players as well? It's a pretty stark self-indictment.
Click here to return to my Writings' page
Click here to return to my page on the
history of the US national team
Page updated: 11 Sept '98, 2355 EDT
Email: saabrian@capital.net
