This article was published in September 2005.

What motivated you to become a coach, and who were your biggest influences on you as a developing coach?
When I was in high school I played on many teams and had some success. I played many different sports and soccer was not one of them. Because of my success in sports I wanted to become a coach, so I went the University of Massachusetts. There I was a PE major and played soccer, ice hockey and lacrosse. In those days athletes played more than one sport. We all hoped to become high school coaches, so the more sports we played, the better so we could coach a variety of sports. During my senior year the athletics director of Middlebury College came to campus to interview candidates for a soccer and lacrosse postion. I interviewed with him on a Friday. I could not remember where he was from. On Monday I asked my coaches and when they told me I immediately called him to say that I was very interested. It just so happened that we had a lacrosse game later that spring at Middlebury. I went up early and interviewed in his office beofre the game. During the game, I committed a cardinal sin in all sports when I turned to pass the ball back to the goalkeeper and scored for Middlebury. I thought that play would cost me the job, but I did learn an important lesson that I carried with me my whole career -- don't pass the ball back at the goal. I got the job and moved to Vermont.

During your tenure as a coach, what did you try to emphasize in training sessions? Or how did you organize the training sessions and did that changed over the years?
Well, I was lucky enough to go to Poland on a government program when I was at Middlebury. That helped with building a foundation for my soccer teaching and coaching later. I also read as many books as possible. I used my experience as a soccer player but drew heavily on my experiences in other sports. For example, there are some similarities between basketball and soccer. As I became more experienced as a coach it was obvious the four areas I had to focus on were technical training, tactical training, psychology and physical fitness. So I tried to focus on the areaa that the team required at the time.

We emphasized fitness a great deal. I believe fitness can separate players and teams. In terms of the psychological side, we developed a program that set boundaries, whether they are 10 years old or a professional. A team must work, play and be comfortable within those boundaries. As my career contunued, I attended clinics and conventions and talked to many other coaches of many sports to get some ideas. I copied from many coaches. I remember the 1966 World Cup, and Germany was ahead and had the ball late in the game. England stole the ball and tied the score. I remembered that North Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith had a "four corners" offense to stall late in the game when his team was in the lead, so we tried to do the same thing. I created a tactic with which we would take the ball into our offensive corners and play "keep away." We wanted to force the opponents to go 120 yards if they wanted to score. So Iearned tactics by watching many other people.

How would you describe your style as a coach?
I would like to think that I played a possession style when we had the ball. We tried to build from the back and play through the midfield as we attacked. We also tried to attack on the flanks. Remember, the players are better now, but that is how we tried to play. Defensively I believed in high pressure and man-to-man play. We wanted to restict the time and space of the opponents. Once we lost the ball in the attacking third of the field we would mark up immediately. We were thinking that if we won the ball we had a shorter distance to the goal. When we played international players I felt we could not afford to give them time and space because they were so good on the ball. 

Do you have certain coaching principles that you refuse to compromise?
Yes. I was a firm believer in how our players loked and conducted themselves. From a philosophical standpoint, I wanted to work hard for the program and the players and for the sport. In 1958 the college game was the highest level in this country. I felt that the players had to present themselves in the proper manner. I felt that coaching was my job and that I had to conduct my business in a proper manner. I wore a suit to games, I put the clipboard in my briefcase and went to my office (the field). I expected my players to polish their shoes before evey game, keep their socks up, their shirts tucked in, keep their hair trimmed, have no facial hair whatsoever. I never compromised these types of things. And I always expected the players to be on time. I left players home because they were late for the bus. We were organized and first class at all times. I felt these things were important to prepare a young man for life after college. College years were the best years of their lives -- it was a time to grow, it was a time to find out where they were going. I always asked the players "How do you want to be perceived? Let's not forget hard work. You had to work hard to be on my team. Hard work can make up for a lot of inadequacies. It can overcome poor technique and tactical understanding.

When you had a problem with a player, how did you handle it?
To tell you the truth, I handled them all kinds of ways. One way is to try to get the player aside and talk to him privately. Tell him what he did right and wrong. At MIddlebury we had a team meeting and then individual meetings before, during and after the season. We also met individually with the players in the off-season. This allowed me to talk about philosophy, the style, the systems, what they did off the field, etc. This helped the players know what was expected of them. If I felt that the assistant coach should handle it, I would tell him to talk to the player. If I thought the captains should be involved, I involved them. If the issue was fitness or injury, I would include them in the discussion. I tried to include the people who were directly affected by the problem.

I was not against complimenting a player on the field or even correcting him for doing something wrong over and over. I did not allow the players to yell at each other or yell at me. The players were friends. My job was to make sure that they all got on well together. There were times when I was frustrated and I would embarrass a player on the field. That was not routine, but it did happen. Later on I would pull the player aside and explain why I did that. And there were times when I threw a player off the field because he simply refused to do what I wanted him to do. I have had players with great potential who were very inconsistent. I could not stand that. I wanted every player, every day to go out and give maximum effort. It was my job to monitor the effort. I expected them to work hard. That is what got me most upset. Technique and intelligence vary from player to player, but all players can work hard. Every player must have individual discipline and the coaches must provide team discipline.

If you think team chemistry is important, what did you do on your teams to foster team chemistry?
I believe in team chemistry. It is great if you can get the team to work together on a year-round basis. It is great if you can get the team to go on a preseason trip so they can be friends with each other. If they are friends they are less likely to criticize each other. I did not put the players in one dorm because I did not want the players to lose out by not meeting other students. But I did try to get the players living close to each other in the same cluster. When we traveled I would get the flight chart and I would assign the seats for the players. I would change the seating for each flight so the players would not always sit next to the same guy. When we stayed in hotels I would rotate roommates. For example, I would pair up a senior with a freshman or a confident player with one who was shaky. We changed that on every trip I kept the charts for four years so that players never roomed with the same guy twice. I wanted to prevent cliques from developing. I wanted all players to get to know each other. By doing this we created a togetherness that is helpful on the field. We even changed work groups so the players would practice with different players. I changed these groups every day. I also rotated positions during practice. I would have forward play in the back. This is a problem even today. Players play only one position. I coach my grandson's U-10 team and the players on that team have only played one position and don't want to change positions -- ever! But every time we went on the field we expected to win. We never had a problem with morale on the teams.

What are the main qualities that you look for in a young player?
I think technical ability is very important. Without technical skill the player will be limited in what he can do. But technical skill is influenced by the specialization of soccer in this country. Some of the young kids play more than one sport. They may not have the technical skill of a kid who plays only soccer, but you can tell if a young player is an athlete. Is he fast? Is he quick? You can't teach these things. The second thing I look for is aggressiveness. Does he want to win the ball? Does he have the confidence to try to win the ball? Number three is thinking ability on the field. Some young players have great instincts for the game, others just cannot get it.

If you could mandate two or three things that all youth coaches must teach young players, what would they be?
This is a hard question because it depends on the coaching. Early in my career most of the coaches were Americans and their approach to the game was different than that of the international coach. This caused a bit of conflict in regard to rules, etc. Coaching has changed. There are more coaches, they get paid for everything, they have a soccer background and this has changed soccer. Overall, I wish all the coaches would work on the fundamentals of the game more. I see youth players today who have no idea about how to play the game. They are not given options to make good decisions. This, combined with the kids' not watching soccer, has prevented an understanding of the fundamentals. In addition, the kids don't walk to the park and play today. They rely on coaches. Who knows if the coach is good or bad?

What concerns you the most about U.S. soccer today?
The changes have been tremendous. Soccer has improved tremendously. Everything is better today. I think the biggest issue is the split between the US Soccer Federation and the rest of soccer. This split has ongoing for many years. I remember when the first US Soccer schools began. The federation reached out to all. But the leadership US Soccer) is doing a tremendous disservice to the sport. They refuse to meet with all other soccer organizations to discuss the future of soccer in this country. Where can we merge? How can we help each other? US Soccer leaders are power hungry and are afraid to give up power. It is not the ethnic people; it is the American leaders of U.S. Soccer. As a result we are going in too many directions.

What tactical trends have you seen in the collegiate game?
Title IX has hurt the growth of men's soccer at UConn and other schools. Women's soccer is flourishing. That is good for women's teams but has hurt men's teams. That has affected the tactical aspects of college soccer. In fact, it has made the men's teams better. The teams are smaller and that has increased the quality of the men's game. The pool of players has increased, so the depth is much better. The players are just better today. Americans today are playing almost as well as the foreign player. The influx of the foreign player and coach has changed the style of the American game. The tactical influences today are much more international. The game is moving toward the "Dutch style" in which the players move in response to the ball. The emphasis is moving from a defined structure to a free flowing style.

Where do you think U.S. Soccer is going in the future?
Bruce Arena has done a great job. The fact that we have a pro league also is very posiitve. I can remember Paul Gardner and some of the critics hammering our college players because during the Olympics or Pan Am Games we would lose and they would say we were not playing elnough games or the coaching was awful. But the main goal at the college level is to prepare to make a living, not to play a sport. So the professional league and the leagues underneath it will help the quality of play. We are seeing some of these players going abroad, which makes the players better. As a country we continue to be respectable and win some games. I think we need to expand our pro league a little bit. We have huge numbers of players at all levels playing the game. There are leagues all over the country. Eventually these people will become fans. If the pros would reach out to the community, they would help create more fans. Soccer people would want to become a part of the pro organization. There is still a lot of work to do to make the professional leagues a real public interest.