Mr. Trecker:

I read your article analyzing Bruce Arena's shortcomings. I think you, as did most fans, are over-reacting.

Here is what I saw:

1. A team with mediocre attacking ability. Why were truly exciting, quick and attacking players such as Adu left off the roster?

My guess is that Arena, as happens to many coaches, became too conservative. Rather than take a chance on adding some young, internationally inexperienced players to the roster, he chose not to risk and rest on the nucleus of players from the last World Cup, counting on their experience. This decision was incorrect:

--Reyna was playing hurt and not fully rehabiliated
--Donovan was in a slump, not having scored in 17 international games
--Beasley was mentally off (was this due to off-field problems?)
--McBride was either injured or off his game, and was not fresh enough to make long runs or run off the ball. He was more effective as a defender than attacker.


2. This points to shortcoming in Arena's coaching--but also is a strength: he committs to certain players and then sticks with them, through bad and good games. His is too subjective, but also loyal to those he likes.

3. Arena has a tendency to ignore the team dynamic and focus on motivating individual competitiveness. This works to a certain point, then tends to harm team cohesiveness.

How do I know? I played for Bruce at U.Va for 1 year, 1979-80.

Overall he is a good coach, and probably should have offered to spend more time analyzing successful coaches and team strategies, to take his own game to the next level. Soccer requires continual adjustment and review, at this level, and a constant search for improvement.

Some time off would have given Arena the clarity and the ability to do this--not firing him.

Stuart Turille