Come At me Brough: Brad Guzan at Middlesbrough

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

So Tim won the job. That's what he said.

I've heard the transfer fee is closer to £1.5M, or about $3M. I wouldn't put it past Ives to screw that one up.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

The Beeb has Guzan going for a fee "believed to be about £2m."

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

But that's not what I said and I didn't say that to just to disagree.

Barthez did screw up early that year ... not that Tim didn't start off well.

Possible, but that's only a 25% drop off the Jan sale and he was eligible for a free transfer.

That was the old reported price.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

found this blurb on the aston villa website:

Brad Can match Fredel, Howard[/B]

O'Neill said: "It would be great if he could come in because I see some potential in him, and I think he has got more than that.

"He is following in a line of American goalkeepers who have come over here and done fantastically well."

"Brad Friedel, in particular, has been brilliant for the last seven or eight years. You have to say that Tim Howard has done exceptionally well, and I had the privilege of signing Kasey Keller from Millwall at Leicester City who did exceptionally well for us.

"So those goalkeepers have proved a point and from the conversations I have had with him, Brad has exactly the same ambition and hopefully has exactly the same mentality."

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/guzans-move-to-villa-may-be-closer/

....

Guzan’s advisers and Aston Villa officials believe there are three factors that will weigh in his favor when Guzan appears before a Home Office panel:

• Guzan has played in four of the United States’ last five games, including the second half of a 2-0 loss to England at Wembley Stadium, and started both of the team’sWorld Cup qualifiers against Barbados.

• Aston Villa has decided not to retain Scott Carson, the English goalkeeper who had been on loan from Liverpool. {Pretty odd reasoning here}

• The deal came excruciatingly close to getting done in January. ... In the end, the six-person tribunal was deadlocked at 3-3, according to a person involved with the U.S. men’s national team who is close to Guzan.

“We’re confident and hopefully it will go through it,’’ Guzan said. “Nobody knows the final answer until it happens.’’

If the work permit is rejected again, Guzan could be headed to Spain instead, according to the individual in U.S. Soccer. Villarreal, which recently paid $10 million for the Red Bulls’ Jozy Altidore, is interested in Guzan, as is another unidentified club.

The interest from the Spanish clubs was one reason why Guzan played the second half of a friendly against Spain at the end of May, just before the Spaniards began their run to the European Championship title.

Guzan’s preferred destination, however, is England.

....

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

I'm sorry, but what?

I think it's not a terribly well kept secret that USMNT decisions are occasionally made with an eye towards promoting players for various contracts in Europe, but this is real fuel to the fire of Bradley's unusual player selection: Michael Bradley, Josh Wolff, Carlos Bocanegra, etc.

Not that I have anything against Guzan -- I think he's an odds-on favorite to be a US mainstay -- but how much USMNT decision-making is made to promote certain players for certain jobs?

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

it really does... the USSF are a cartel..

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

What the hell is wrong with that? He is probably our backup for 2010. He needs the experience, so it's good that he has gotten the opportunities, and why not use him in the Spain match with that in mind?


Some people just look for any excuse to bitch and moan.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

it wasnt about experience, it was about him getting better looks for Spanish clubs... if this is true, which I can see as a possibility...

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

As said, I don't have any particular problem with Guzan playing against Spain. He appears to be the US No. 2, it was an important friendly, etc. I don't really even care if the US staff thought to themselves "let's pencil in Brad for the second half so he can perform against the Spanish since, you know, he may be playing against them eventually."

But what would you say if it were revealed Bradley Sr. specifically didn't play, say, Edu in England or Spain because Bradley Jr. were being looked at by English and Spanish clubs? How about if Cooper or Buddle or Rogers weren't called in so that Wolff could try to win a contract in England and not, as is commonly believed, because Bradley just dislikes those strikers? How about if Subotic weren't contacted so Boca could try to find another club in the Premiership?

Look, Bradley Sr.'s player selection and decision-making has been thoroughly scrutinized, but this aspect of it has only been theorized about, and not really in the most flattering light. I think this little reference is rather revelatory.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

He is going to be in there anyways. He was clearly not called up purely to play against Spain to increase the chances of getting looks from La Liga sides. No smoke, no fire.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

Eh, mountains out of molehills. Does anyone think that Brad didn't deserve to be on the pitch against Spain? No.

Playing some fool like Josh Wolff just to get him a contract would be very bad, but playing Josh Wolff for any reason is bad. That's been fully covered elsewhere. Besides, getting potentially key players into very good clubs is pretty important from a national team manager's perspective.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

First, to Rainer, the only thing worse than BS bitching and moaning is bitching and moaning about BS bitching and moaning. It shows a lack of understanding of the entire concept. Posters post whatever they want and other posters respond however they want.

And forgive us if some of us post with a critical eye. It's one thing to have suspicions about player selection, or to read "one of a hundred factors we consider is ..." and another to read that Spanish clubs' interest in Guzan was an important factor in playing him, knowing that securing his English WP was already an important consideration.

Forget about us, what are the players are supposed to think? When Jonathan (wants to go) Bornstein starts over and over ahead of (already in Europe) Heath Pearce? Feilhaber, whom I liked and still like, got a big Bradley push (into the EPL) last year. SCB has provided other examples worth questioning, above.

I would say our entire program requires more scrutiny, not less, and we may well start right here and right now.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

so you condone playing players for contracts overseas in national team matches... I cant believe im actually reading this

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

I do to an extent. Especially in a friendly (aka EXHIBITION) match. The coaching staff sets out to do and see certain things in these matches. There's an agenda whose highest priority is not "Win at All Cost!".

I say Guzan gets the work permit because of the PT in those games.

It'd be a totally different scenario if the kid who was the 3rd GK got time in those games. That would just be a stunt.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

You're right, in part.

As I said, I haven't got a lot of problem starting a No. 2 keeper vs. Spain in the second half.

The point I was making is that we haven't had any verification in a long time that USMNT playing decisions are made with an eye towards getting contracts. Sure, sometimes it's a good thing, as it may result in a big contract for a player with a need.

But, more to the point, is that we've been treated to some mysterious call-ups and playing decisions. People have endlessly speculated about Bradley's reasoning and sometimes granted him latitude ("he called up Wolff and not Cooper since Wolff was available and Cooper wasn't") or not ("he played Mike all 3 games because of nepotism").

Now we know that one factor, for at least one player, was obtaining a contract. Does this explain any of his other choices? Maybe some of the less sensical ones? And what if he did play Wolff to get him a contract in England (or Spain) and didn't call up Cooper or Rolfe because he was trying to get Wolff a job at the risk of harming the USMNT, and not coincidentally not helping other players' career prospects?

Look, it's a small reference, but an intriguing one.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

It depends on the player. It's very much to the benefit of the team to have as many members of the pool as possible in good club situations.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

Okay, what if it's BB played Wolff to get him a contract somewhere in Europe -- a move that failed -- and no other MLS forwards were called up, thereby further strangling our front-line options and not learning a damned thing about how to solve the woeful US offensive output?

Again, NOT saying that was a factor, but an intriguing question.

To ME, the highest priority of the European friendlies should have been to experiment with new formations and new players to solve old problems. Unfortunately, that was not accomplished.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

my thing is this... and this doesnt apply to Guzan because he is clearly the #2... so I have no probs playing him for experience...

but why not give players who actually deserve a call up a chance... especially if those guys are in good form... maybe Euro scouts may take a look at them, instead of playing Josh Wolff... or even playing Lil Bradley too death... it makes more sense on both sides of the coin to put in guys who are untested but have shown good form... just seems too much like an Old Boys Network, imo

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

There is a massive difference between capping a guy just to earn a contract and what happened with Guzan. There are few supporter bodies that don't suspect their federation of being inherently corrupt, so I suppose it's just another sign of the continued evolution of the game in this country.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

The issue isn't Guzan.

The issue is whether this is a factor commonly used in USMNT player selection and playing time. How big of a factor? How often is it used? In what other situations and contexts? Was it used to justify some head-scratching decisions? Has it ever been used in tournaments or qualifiers?

If there was, you know, a decent soccer press in the US, they'd be all over this. Can you imagine something like this happening elsewhere and it not being thoroughly discussed? Imagine what the British press would say if Huckerby had been called up to play the US so he could impress MLS (as if that would be necessary, but you get the picture).

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

In how many countries is the federation president also the president of one of the professional club teams? And corruption elsewhere is not a convincing argument in favor of corruption here.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

Playing a young GK against Spain in hopes that will enhance his chance of playing in a high caliber league, which would develop him as a player for the USMNT is one thing.

Playing an old striker so that he doesn't have to accept MLS wages is totally different. Just because we have a snippet here suggesting Bradley did the first doesn't mean that he did the second.

I don't like Bradley, either, but this doesn't wash with me.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

When I say that it was? I simply stated the supporters are raising hell, which happens everywhere, not that it is necessarily corrupt.


Bozeman, I don't think I or anyone else has seen evidence of the sort of stuff you are insinuating.

 

Re: Guzan sold to Aston Villa (Sideline Views)

Of course not. I said so myself. The question is whether this was a one-off, or whether this is something that's happened before. As I pointed out in my last post, there are questions that this raises that haven't been and probably won't be asked...