Adu (by the numbers)

Fredua is Asante for "failure".

 

You had me at Stoichkov. Why do I smile so widely whenever I hear his name? I miss watching Cletus play too, but pre-MLS Hristo's one of my all-time faves.

First off, let me explicitly say what I should have said in that last post: much of what I wrote was not w/ *you* in mind. (Not that you thought it was.) That one thing you said made me think of what *others* often say, and I had something to say in reaction to that.

I agree, btw, that things don't happen in a vacuum and that team chemistry is helped when teammates feel like callups and playing time are 'earned' (players typically don't like it when managers play favorites and aren't fair, right?).

For me (and related to your last point), Freddy not playing creates obvious issues related to potential fitness and form. Thus, the most *I'd* have done is *not* put him in my starting 11, *not* put him in my 18, *not* even call him into typical camps, but yes, do call him into Camp Cupcake. And then simply...see. Is he trying? Is he impacting play in a good way? Give him a half in an exhibition. Did he create a spark?

For me, chemistry wouldn't be hurt because he *has*, imho, earned *that* (a look see at a Camp Cupcake), given the fact he contributed to the last three goals our USMNT scored in a meaningful tournament. Here's what SI said about his last match:

To me, actual play in a USMNT jersey warrants a look-see, a half in a meaningless friendly, to see if you might add something we lack.

How you play in a USMNT jersey simply trumps how you play (if you play) in your club jersey. Wondo scores a ton of goals and is the most important guy on his team, but does squat in a USMNT jersey. If another guy doesn't star, but helps our USMNT score goals (whatever his name is), I take him over Wondo. I'm merely saying let *that* be our top criteria, direct evidence of whether you tend to help our USMNT team, rather than correlates and predictors of whether you might help. Note: not our *only* criteria, just our top criteria, whether you add something when you play in a USMNT shirt.

(The natural problem by now, of course, is that his last USMNT minutes were a while back. Like milk, maybe they expire. Thus, Camp Cupcake. Personally, I'd have given him a game or two earlier than that, before this milk expired, but it's too late for that...)

 

I can't help myself.

 

In other words, you are the Freddy Adu of this thread? All contempt is to an extent self-contempt.

I asked this a long time ago, is there room in our football philosophy to play a great tournament player like Freddy even though he is a sub-par professional?

The fact is some professionals are bloody awful for country. Kleftchin comes to mind. The guy simply does not know how to play under pressure. Good club career. There are many examples the world over.

At any rate, I said my part: I would pay money to watch Freddy play and I can't say that about any other USMNT player right now other than Clintus Maximus.

 

And one other thing before I leave this thread arm-in-arm with I'm a Puppy, The philly union coach is a blithering idiot. He mistakenly found his way out of Jr.High gym teacher / freshman history class and into MLS. And people wonder why MLS is so freaken unwatchable.

Peter Nowak is many things, but he is no candy ass. If he can coach Freddy, then anyone can. To this day probably the best 45min of MLS i have watched was Peter's DC United match against Real Madrid. That team was smoking. I still dont understand why he pulled Freddy, but there you go.

 

Because to many international coaches, recent club form is more important than past international form.

 

Come on man, what about 'The General' at Roma?

And coming from someone who has watched every minute of every game that Freddy Adu has played for the Union I feel like my two cents on the subject are of some value to those who may not have had the pleasure of havingndone the same. His inability to become anything more than a mediocre talent in MLS is due to his physical and mental limitations. He lacks speed, he lacks size, he lacks strength and he has mediocre soccer IQ. Everyone knows that he is highly technical, that is undeniable. But if you are in the camp of 'Give Freddy a chance on the National Team!', I ask you this - How many Philadelphia Union games have you watched? If you watch highlight reels, believe me it is VERY deceiving. I should also mention that I was ELATED when we first signed him, even made the awful impulsive mistake of buying his jersey. When he wasn't producing, I kept trying to rationalize it by making excuses for him, trying to hold onto the hope that it was just a matter of time before he settled in. The Union gave him his chance, he simply blew it. They even gave him another chance to play this season at a salary probably more fitting to a player of his abilities and he would have none of it. If I were him, I would take the money and run too and just hope that some other team gets fooled by the highlight videos. I hate to admit that they fooled me too.

 

I watched every Union game this year. He had some unbelievable games (NY, Toronto, Houston) and he had some terrible games. Most of his games he was merely okay to pretty good. In my opinion, when played on the wing, you need speed. Obviously this isn't his ideal position but he played 95% of his games on the right or left wings. Two, size and strength really don't matter for Freddy's position. Is Messi too small or weak? - obviously not. In my opinion there are three problems. One is the expectation of the fans. Once they see a game like the NY Red Bulls game, they think he should do that in every game. If he did this he would have won the MLS MVP. But no, Freddy merely makes the right play and keeps possession the majority of the time, while having one spectacular moment a game that leads to a 1 v. 1 where they guy inevitably misses. Another problem is Freddy doesn't always make the normal correct soccer play in attacking situations - this leads to him making the spectacular play sometimes or failing and losing the ball other times. This frustrated his teammates and there was a point in the year where they just stopped passing him the ball because they knew they wouldn't get it back. Third, when his teammates miss the 1 v. 1s or wide open shots, Freddy mopes. He gets pissed and mopes. This is not a good attitude and should be fixed. In my opinion, however, if his teammates actually converted some chances he would gain more confidence and be more active, leading to more great games. That's the difference between a decent season and a great season.

Now, for the National Team, his teammates have great movement and he plays really well with them because they are good players. They elevate his game. They complement each other. When your playing with Pajoy, Danny Cruz, Keyon Daniel, and Jac Mac - I would be frustrated too. And this is what frustrates me about Union fans. They think Michael Farfan had a good year. Much better than Freddy's. Farfan is active - that I agree with - but he doesn't really do anything positive with the ball. He doesn't unlock defenses the way Freddy does. IMO Farfan is best suited as an 8, not a 10. Farfan created 5 goals this year - the same amount as Freddy. Freddy also had tons of chances not converted because of his crappy teammates. I don't recall Farfan having that many chances missed - it was probably a few but not as much as Freddy. And Freddy was PLAYING OUT OF POSITION the whole year - yet you guys think Farfan is great and Freddy sucks.

 

It's baffling to me why some people don't believe Freddy should be given at least a chance. I'm not a fanboy, but I've seen his unique skills and what he has done against some fairly good teams in a US shirt. It is important to actually compare him to players in our pool, rather than simply proving he is not Iniesta. So what attacking player has looked great in a US shirt recently? Dempsey. And....Gomez? It's a short list. It's not like we have a bunch of world class players that are cementing their spots with excellent play.

 

Actually, I've responded to all of these arguments at length. I've answered every argument that you have put forward. If you want to see those arguments, go back and sift through the "out of position" thread that was recently closed. You (in particular) tend to just ignore my arguments and call me a troll, so I've stopped trying to answer you.

The bottom line is that you are calculating stats from an extremely small sample that you have hand-picked. You also are conflating actual matches and minutes played in a way that best skews the argument in your favor. You also draw conclusions from this tiny sample that are completely unsupportable with the data you present.

My argument is, and always has been, that Adu's numbers with the USMNT team are good, but not great, and that, as such, an argument can be made to call him in. However, his production is not SO much better than his alternatives as to make it a no-brainer.

BTW... this thread does nothing to demonstrate anything about Freddy's defensive liabilities. Without more extensive analysis of the game situations and tactical deployments of his playing time would be required. Goals against is not a great measure of this.

 

This. It's funny because Freddy supporters keep asking Freddy haters who else we should bring up to provide an attacking spark, and the Freddy haters don't directly respond to the question.

 

Oh, and the Union were 8-7-3 (.533 winning %) when Freddy played 45 min. or more and 3-10-3 (.3 winning %) when he played less than 45 min. Is that a coincidence? I think not.

 

Ghosting - I posted this in the other thread and asked you to respond twice and you never did..

Because the goal isn't to reward players who play well at their clubs and who don't go out and party and try really hard. The goal is to win games, qualify for the world cup, and win the world cup. I think we're better with Freddy than without. It would be incredibly frustrating to watch us limp our way through qualifying and crash out of the world cup in the group stage because we have no creativity and our coach thinks that it's better to have 10 athletic runners out there, than 9 athletic runners and one creative attacker. And don't tell me, "we'll start giving up goals like crazy because Freddy is so bad at defense." BS. Porter thought Freddy was aggressive enough on defense to start him and give him the captaincy during U23 qualifying. The Union this year had the 3rd best goals allowed in the MLS last year before they stopped playing Freddy - and subsequently unraveled allowing 8 goals in their last 3 games. Oh yeah, and the Union were 8-7-3 (.533 winning %) when Freddy played 45 min. or more and 3-10-3 (.3 winning %) when he played less than 45 min. Is that a coincidence? I think not.

All I'm saying is that over his career he's created 6 goals for the USMNT in ≈ 7 meaningful games and was clearly our best player in the last 2 games he played for us. It would be a shame to not see him at least get a chance. One callup. One substitute appearance in a friendly. If he doesn't perform than never call him up again. It's that simple. The fact is that every time he's gotten a chance for the USMNT, he's succeeded - at a higher rate than guys like Zusi (1 assist in 4.5 meaningful games), Brad Evans, Brad Davis, Bedoya, Wondo, Gatt, Corona, Agudelo, Torres (who isn't an attacking mid, I understand, but Klinsy plays him here - w/ 11 games and 0 goals or assists in the JK era) and Shea (1 assist in roughly 9 total games - and everyone thinks he's the missing piece of our attack). Do they deserve to be called up based on their performance with the national team? Riddle me that.

Who do you think should be called up to the USMNT over Freddy? And IMO 9 games at the USMNT level is a pretty big sample size if you ask me. If it was like 3 games, then yeah I see your point, but 9 games is a pretty decent sized sample size.

 

This is gonna be my last post for a while because of midterms:

The best comparison of Freddy Adu is Jamal Crawford. Crawford played out of position as a point guard last year in Portland and was terrible. He had his worst season by a mile. The Trail Blazers fans hate him. But when played in position (like his this year and every year besides last year) he's a 6th man of the year candidate. I'm a Clippers fan and I love him. Yes, he takes bad shots, doesn't pass the ball enough, and has terrible games sometimes. But he makes up for it by making spectacular shots and having superb games. Jamal is a 1 vs. 1 player. In basketball, coaches get pissed and teams start to lose when they only go 1 vs. 1 and stop passing and moving the ball around. But not with Jamal. The Clippers have one play for their 2nd unit: give the ball to Jamal and get out of the way. Yet, Jamal is the third best player on a great team and the leading 6th man of the year candidate.

Whenever Freddy plays out of position, fans hate him, and he doesn't do the best. Whenever he plays in position, he's succeeded. He makes spectacular plays but also fails sometimes when trying to do the spectacular. He has fantastic games and he has some terrible games. Freddy needs the ball in an attacking position to be able to do the things he does best. And he needs to have the full support his coach that if he tries something and fails, then its okay, as long as he's the spectacular plays more often than not.

All I'm saying is non-Freddy supporters think that this is a black and white issue, when it definitely isn't. Once Jamal was put in the position to succeed he did great. And once Freddy is put in a position to succeed he'll prove a lot of you guys wrong. I only hope he finds a coach that realizes this within the next couple weeks (Chelis?) because it's this season or bust if he wants to make the WC 2014 roster.

 

I'm going to go ahead and predict what Ghost's answer will be, to save him the trouble. (He can correct me if I'm wrong.)

He'll have plenty of points he can make, but the obvious one here is the 9 managers in 9 years factoid. Can every one of these managers have been wrong about Freddy and his position? It's more likely that *you* are mistaken than that every one of these managers - who've seen him up close in training and in games on a daily basis, and have all the incentive in the world to do what's best for their team, in order to not get fired - is mistaken.

----------------------

There are obvious comebacks too. If even players as amazing as El Pibe, Riquelme, etc. had to wait until the second half of their 20s before finding a manager that would finally trust them to play in their natural roles - roles similar to Freddy's natural position in that a disproportionate degree of the team's offense is in the hands of a single player that pulls the strings and has the ball funneled through him on nearly every possession - (and this was in a day and age when having a player in this role was more common that today), is it any wonder that mere Freddy Adu hasn't found anyone to trust him yet?

Their earlier managers were either wrong about them - wow, were they wrong - or it just takes a while for players to mature to the point where managers are right to trust them in roles like this, where all your eggs are in the basket of a single, young and previously unproven players (this is a lot to ask!). Either way, though, as much as many will hate to hear this - it'll be like nails on a chalkboard - past evidence w/ similar players suggests that it may actually still be too soon to judge.

Heck, I'm not sure *I'd* give him a real run of games, if I was managing in a league at MLS level or higher; I'd prefer that someone else risk *their* neck, on *their* dime first (unless, for whatever reason, I either felt the need to roll the dice, or had him as a backup for a similar player and gave him games due to injury or for rotation reasons).

One pro manager actually has given Freddy a run in his natural role. In Turkey (which is why I wanted him to stay and try to get Rize promoted; he'd earned trust there and would then likely get a shot in the Super Lig). But like his youth MNT play, we don't know if that will generalize to games against higher caliber competition.

Still, his track record is pretty clear: played in his preferred role, he seems to shine, while when played out of it, he's consistently inconsistent. Can he consistently shine in his preferred role against adults in good leagues, rather than in spurts as an adult or regularly against lesser or younger competition? Is Chelis right?

Who knows. Nobody knows. Not Ghosting, not me, not JK, not any manager w/o the balls to try it out to see if it works, nobody. We won't know unless someone tries. (Even then we won't know *for sure*, e.g., if he does well, that doesn't mean he can keep it up year after year, especially if he changes teams or leagues; and if he doesn't do well, heck, Landon failed three times in Germany, Torres was amazing for Liverpool but isn't for Chelsea, etc. But either way, it will be important evidence to consider and incorporate.)

Me, I've always subscribed to this "play him in the role he's actually always looked consistently good in, and he just might look good again...won't know until you try". I've recently also been warming up towards the other big theory: it's not so much position, he's just too inconsistent...and even played in his preferred role, well, he'd just be inconsistent there too. The thing about this take, if true, is that it might not be true for our MNT. A player w/o the mental and emotional fortitude to do what it takes to shine all year long, game in and game out, *might* be able to shine in short bursts where he gets up for games, gets an extra adrenaline surge, and plays w/ teammates that he's more suited to play with, i.e., you *can* be a good *tournament* player w/o being able to sustain it at the club level.

The only thing I'm fairly sure about is that folks won't stop debating his worth until the evidence is so strong on one side or the other that nobody on the side that's been shown to probably be wrong can credibly keep arguing what they used to argue. The best they'll be able to do then is say things like, "he changed (for better or worse), my argument was valid at the time", or "you misinterpreted what I was saying, I was *actually* saying...". Or, as some will do, "I was wrong". If we can argue year after year about whether the best field player our country has ever produced (Landon, imho) is up to snuff, and not stop until after his second Everton stint, well, we can argue over mere Freddy Adu too, even if he's actually good too. (The question will be how we could argue over him for so long if we someday all agree that he simply wasn't that good...)

 

I hope Adu's 10th professional season will be the charm.

 

^^ Again, I believe this is interesting, but it largely ignores what I believe should be the main idea. Freddy is one of, if not the best, creative options we have. Who cares if he jumps around clubs and is inconsistent? If he does better than our other options and adds something to the team while in a US shirt, his club career shouldn't matter.

 

I defer to the Philadelphia Union fans.

However, I do disagree on the salary issue. My view was similar when Adu and Aris were squabbling in the summer of 2010 - why should he throw away his contract?

 

Pithy. And compelling.

 

I watched every Union game. He was clearly worth starting, even with the flaws - many of which I agree w/ - that were pointed out. You can also easily and credibly argue that he was the best attacking player the Union had, again, warts and all. He clearly had some of the best showings of anyone in MLS... The problem is that he only had 2 or 3 of them, while tending to disappear in other games. In other words, the problem was simple: consistency.

And whether he should accept a wage cut or not - I don't think anyone thinks he was worth his wages - they clearly do play a role in teams' evaluations. (Btw, I'm not saying you said otherwise. Though I clicked "quote", I'm actually just posting in general.) I could easily argue that Marfan and even Torres (who was inexplicably played close to no minutes) were as good if not better than Freddy, or at the very least, are not that far off. But for a *fraction* of Freddy's wages. Teams don't like to keep players around when far, far cheaper alternatives are available who might be just as good. Up to $800k a year for two more years? Really? That's a lot of money for the Union to pay. And if some of the higher end reports of what Aris paid are true too, well, it was too much there too. (Good enough to be a clear and regular starter in Greece? Yes. Worth his wages? Um, no.)

Still, the main point many make - after openly and readily conceding that he's been disappointing relative to his name and wages and expectations as a club player - is that he *can* shine in short bursts for the U.S. He has in the past. A guy like Josh Gatt runs as fast as he can by a couple defenders and then straight into the third, for a half in a meaningless friendly against a crappy Canada side that got destroyed just a short while earlier...and folks *clamor* for him. (And it's not due to his club play. Brad Davis plays well for his club; so does Wondo. If Gatt laid an egg, nobody would call for him. Either way, they judge him based on what they saw in a USMNT shirt...while also considering one of the big things we lack: any sort of spark of danger on offense.) Well, Freddy's track record in a USMNT shirt is clearly stronger, yet many act like you're crazy if you think he can cut it in this context...

 

This times 10

 

As I said before, I have answered all of these questions multiple times in the previous thread. I did not respond THE LAST TIME you asked it because it seems silly to keep saying the same thing over and over again when no one is listening. However. I will go through it one last time, and you can get back to your studying, and I can go play my guitar and chill.

1) Performances against youth squads don't mean anything at the adult level. This has been rehashed a million times. I specifically cited Marvel Wynn in the last thread.
2) Freddy Played terrible team defense with the Union this year. He was better than he used to be, but he pressured at the wrong times and switched off way too often. This may not have necessarily lead to goals against, but it threw off the balance of the entire team as other guys had to cover for him. This is why Freddy hardly ever played a full match (combined with his fitness) and why he got sat down at the end of the season (combined with off-the field problems).
3) In addition, he did not score enough goals and create enough assists to compensate for these weaknesses. You may not agree with this, but his coaches obviously do.
4) Your won/loss stats by themselves, taken out of context aren't particularly meaningful. You would have to adjust them for strength of opposition and a whole host of other factors in order to make any sort of valid argument.

What you've done here is completely invalid from a statistical point of view. You have taken 17 matches, in which he played small portions of most, and lumped them together to call it 7 meaningful games. In addition, you cannot compare your stat of Freddy creating 6 goals to the stats of other players, because your adding in a secondary assist there. In order for that stat to be comparable, you need to go back and find all of the secondary assists for those other players. You claim that he was "clearly the best player in his last 2" which is purely subjective, and only proves your opinion. He has not succeeded every time he's gotten a chance with the USMNT. That is hyperbole. I posted the full stats in two previous threads that demonstrate that, and from which I suspect you cherry-picked the data that aligned with your biases. (https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...haber-torres-etc.1982175/page-4#post-27210698)

Ironically, I initially posted those stats because you accused me of only cherry-picking data that supported my argument. This is one of the reasons why I have refrained from engaging in further conversation with you.

Once again, you are misusing statistics. Freddy has played in 17 matches, but a very small number of minutes for that number of matches. He creates a problem for his manager because he cannot be counted on to play an entire match. I would not have a huge problem with him being brought in to be a late-game offensive sub under dire conditions. However, I also don't have a problem with him being left off the team based on his uneven performance and lack of dependability. I would take Shea, Evans, Davis, or Zusi over him in a heartbeat. Why? Because (as many have said in this thread) in order for Freddy to be effective, he really needs to play as a true #10 with no real defensive responsibilities. Under most circumstances, we don't have the luxury of playing a guy in that position (most national teams don't). If you look at players like Brad Evans, Duece, Donovan, Zusi, Shea, even Sacha... they can all be played in multiple positions and be counted on to execute a game-plan.

As I said before, all of your cherry-picked statistics don't demonstrate that Freddy is SO much more effective than these other guys that a coach should automatically overlook his weaknesses to get him on the pitch. If that were the case, his numbers should at least be in the range of Donovan or Duece (both of whom bring a well-rounded, highly disciplined approach to their play in addition to their creativity).

People want to compare players like Carlos Valderrama to Freddy. El Pibe had 114 assists in 175 matches in MLS (.65 per match). Freddy has 21 in 133 (.16 per match). If Freddy were producing at El Pibe levels either on the Nats or in MLS, THEN your argument that we can completely ignore his shortcomings would hold water.

PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THIS PROVES FREDDY SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT INTO CAMP!!!! I am just arguing that there is a clear and compelling case to be made against bringing him in, whether you agree with it or not.

 

Thanks for responding. At least you use stats to argue rather than a lot of posters. I do agree that there is a compelling case to not bring him in, but I'm arguing that there is an even more compelling case to at least give him a chance at a camp. Here are my counterarguments:

1) I never once mentioned how he did at the youth level.

2) We obviously agree to disagree here, but I thought Freddy hustled a lot more and didn't see him "switch off too much". I thought he was average to slightly below average at defending this year. Regardless, his "terrible team defense" didn't give up many goals - as I said the Union were 3rd in the league in goals allowed before their last 3 games (which Freddy didn't play) where they gave up 8. Also, in an earlier Adu thread, you mentioned you only saw a few Union games this year, so I don't know really know how you can make this statement. Your sample size is too small.

3) We agree to disagree on this too. Obviously there were some missed chances as we've already rehashed. Say out of the 15 "big chances" 43% of them were converted (the league rate) - thats 5 goals and 6 assists - so not elite numbers - but when you only start 20 games and come off the bench in 4, then those numbers are pretty decent. And I know you'll say that big chances are subjective (which they are) but I went back and verified all of them using MLS Live. (I have too much time on my hands) (all of them were 1 vs. 1's with the keeper or wide open nets)

4) Well, Freddy beat LA (won the MLS Cup), Houston (finished 2nd), and SKC (first in east). I don't really see how this is taken out of context but whatever. I also find it amusing that Freddy scored twice against Houston in a 3-1 victory in his last appearance for the Union yet they are getting rid of him.

5) He started 8 games and played 9 in terms of minutes - again I don't really see how this is invalid. A minute is a minute is a minute. It doesn't matter which minute it is in the game.

6) Okay I'll use 5 goals created, instead of the 6 (I only used the 6th because it was probably the most beautiful ball I've ever seen and clearly was a big part of that goal) - this I definitely agree with you though

7) The fact that he was clearly the best player in the last two games he played is subjective but I think most people would agree - do you not agree?

8)He obviously hasn't succeed EVERY he's gotten a chance - but not even has Donovan or Dempsey has. He has succeeded at a pretty high rate though

9) So you would take guys that have worse track records than Freddy at the USMNT level (Shea, Evans, Davis, and Zusi) because "they can all be played in multiple positions and be counted on to execute a game-plan." - even though they don't produce goals. Doesn't make much sense to me.

10) So you think Freddy should produce as much as Donovan or Dempsey in order for a coach to overlook his weaknesses? Thats a tall order considering they are probably the two best US players of all-time. It's a lot to ask for. But even though I'm using a small sample size, Freddy's creation rate is only slightly less than Dempsey's and Donavon's is probably the highest in the history of US Soccer. I really don't think his weaknesses are so big that he needs to perform so well offensively that he's equal to Dempsey and Donovan. He just needs to perform better than the next best attacking guys - the Shea's and Zusi's of the world. Again, he's not competing w/ Dempsey and Donovan, he's competing with the other guys.

11) I've never compared Valderrama to Adu. I'm way too young to have seen him play. But even so, Freddy has played in a MUCH better MLS than Valderrama did. You can't compare how Valderrama did in the MLS to how Adu is doing because the league was really crappy back then.