How many new players is enough?

[kpaulson]

One of the consistent knocks against Arena is that he doesn't bring in new players-- instead sticking with his old favorites a bit too long.

But it's never struck me as true that it's Arena's reluctance to try new players that's the problem-- in fact, I wondered whether other coaches were more likely to try out new players, so I looked at what Sven has done with England. The initial result- Arean had played 58 players in the last 2 years compared to Sven's 44 (those numbers could be off be a few in either direction). That seems to me like a lot of players.

Of course, that doesn't settle the debate-- there's a couple of caveats to the comparison:

(1) Arena doesn't have the advantage of seeing nearly all of his players in one league-- the easiest way to see them is to call them in (the Gooch camp call).

(2) SOme US starters aren't regular starters for their teams, so Arena needs to call them in if he wants to see them play (the McBride call-up).

(3) The US plays more games than England. I'm not sure this is actually a caveat-- because ultimately the number of games you play limits the number of players you can look at. If you choose to play more games as the US does, you're choosing to have more opportunities to look at players.

(4) England has played more serious games-- Euro qualifiers and the Euros -- so is less likely to tinker in those games (however, even if The US had played in Copa America, Arena, it seems, is more likely to use his entire bench in a tournament whereas Sven probably tinkers a bit less)

(5) When Sven plays friendlies, he'll often use almost two entirely different teams in different halves.

These points pull in different directions, but I still think Arena has managed to look at a decent number of players.

Put another way, are there any players that you think Arena should have looked at two years ago that still haven't been looked at today? I can't think of any.

And for all the players that people on BS have started threads: "Arena must cap X NOW!!!", I see a bunch of solid contributors to the USNT, but very few who are clearly better than their predecessors. Yesterday's BS darling is today's Wolff or Olsen-- players that we hyped up, but that, due to injury, poor form or just plain unrealistic expectations, are really just good players-- not the dominating forces that we all hoped for. I'm sorry to say that I think that Gooch and Gaven will probably just turn out to be good players too.

Now's the time when you ask: but what's wrong with Arena capping as many "good" players as possible? And why cut off the chance to play someone truly exceptional? I guess the answer is: nothing's wrong with that-- it's exactly what's happened over the last couple of years. Gooch, Gaven, Russel, Spector-- they will either continue to succeed in their leagues and get chances with the national team OR they will falter and have to wait.

[luvdagame]

nice!!!!!!!!!!

a little too well thought out - too reasoned - for bs.

[voyager]

nice!!!!!!!!!!

a little too well thought out - too reasoned - for bs.

Yeah!!
Take that damn logic of yours and git the heck outta here!!!


Back on topic, I think there are many factors leading to the call up or non-call up of players. One hinderance is where they play. A guy tearing it up in the Swedish league might not get a real opportunity because he might never be seen. Thru hearsay, Bruce may decide to call him up. Let's us Brain West for an example even though he has already time in the nats. He's doing pretty well now from what I hear. Anyway, Brian is playing well but Bruce can't really watch game tape so maybe he brings him into a camp to check him out. Brian has an off day and see you later. No more call ups. Now, if Brian were still in MLS and having a similar season he has, IMHO, a better chance of being recognized even if he has a few bad outings. More visibility.

Another issue, and one that has almost never been discussed on BS :rolleyes: is that Bruce likes to stick with experienced players in certain situations. It does make it difficult for a player like Gooch or Gaven to get meaningful playing time. Yes, there will be friendly's on the horizon. Personally, I get frustrated when I see veterans getting called in for qualifiers because I doubt that they will be part of the World Cup team if we qualify. I go back and forth. Their experience will help us qualify but when the big games of World Cup run around our "experienced" players will be guys with 10 to 15 caps.

I can't think of anything else to say. Bruce does seem to have a pretty good record of getting the young guns integrated. Some days I would like to see more of them, though. It's gotta a b!tch of a job, though.

[smith07]

another factor to consider is the amount of "locks" in a line-up. There is no doubt in my mind that Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Cole, Campbell should always play- first choice, no doubt. We have LD and that is about it. You can dispute all the other positions on the field. Some people have even called for Landon to get benched. Therefore, we have to try out more players.

[MLSNHTOWN]

another factor to consider is the amount of "locks" in a line-up. There is no doubt in my mind that Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Cole, Campbell should always play- first choice, no doubt. We have LD and that is about it. You can dispute all the other positions on the field. Some people have even called for Landon to get benched. Therefore, we have to try out more players.

Wrong. Reyna is a lock, Pope is a lock. Boca is a lock whether at left back or center back. Of course these "locks" are contingent on us playing to win/our best team.

[numerista]

To be honest, I'm not sure what can be gained by comparing the number of players used by Arena and Eriksson. You already provided a long list of caveats, but you seem to have ignored a big one: England players never skip matches for club commitments. Among US goalkeepers alone, that difference probably explains why Hahnemann, Walker, Cannon, Rimando, and Hartman have been capped recently.

Yesterday's BS darling is today's Wolff or Olsen-- players that we hyped up, but that, due to injury, poor form or just plain unrealistic expectations, are really just good players-- not the dominating forces that we all hoped for.

Regardless of whether a player is a "dominating force," Arena has shown a reluctance to call upon capable young players in meaningful games. 2002 qualifiers would probably have been easier if Arena had made better use of talents like Donovan, Mastroeni, and Mathis. Similarly, his recent decision to start veteran Earnie Stewart was an obvious mistake, and lots of us on BigSoccer were saying so before the game.

[K.P.]

Yeah!!
One hinderance is where they play. A guy tearing it up in the Swedish league might not get a real opportunity because he might never be seen. Thru hearsay, Bruce may decide to call him up.

Give me a break. Arena is not calling people up because of "hearsay." I'll criticize Arena on a lot of things, but I'm confident that he spends an exorbitant amount of time watching players, either in person or on t.v. (including tape). And if someone is performing in a lower league, then he's probably being called up on the basis of that performance, not hearsay.

Fortunately, if a player has the potential to play for our national team, he's going to have to be in a good league, or on a strong team in a lesser league (aside from MLS). If he's not, then he's probably not good enough. Let's give ourselves some credit. We're not a top 15 team based on guys who languish in Sweden and Norway. And of course, top teams in lower european leagues get their chance to shine in the european cup competitions, where every coach can watch them. So that's another opportunity for Bruce to watch all these players who you think are tearing it up in smaller leagues but unable to break into the national team picture.

[SamsArmySam]

One of the consistent knocks against Arena is that he doesn't bring in new players-- instead sticking with his old favorites a bit too long.

One of my consistent knocks against the majority of posts I see in the N&A forum is the unrealistic expectations they place on the time it takes for Arena -- or for any coach of the USMNT, for that matter -- to bring in a promising young player and effectively integrate them into the squad. A young player doesn't just report to the team one day and magically hit his stride.

Without extended training camps, it's just not possible. And with the stakes being NOT PLAYING IN A WORLD CUP, Bruce has chosen to mitigate his risk.

Nice post, kpaulson.

[SUDano]

One of my consistent knocks against the majority of posts I see in the N&A forum is the unrealistic expectations they place on the time it takes for Arena -- or for any coach of the USMNT, for that matter -- to bring in a promising young player and effectively integrate them into the squad. A young player doesn't just report to the team one day and magically hit his stride.

Without extended training camps, it's just not possible. And with the stakes being NOT PLAYING IN A WORLD CUP, Bruce has chosen to mitigate his risk.

Nice post, kpaulson.

It seems everyone separates National Camps (2 practices prior to game) and League play. Then says the real talent evalution should be in camps. I say it should be reversed. My take is league play is your tryout not the 2 practices. Someone must explain to me what the term 'integrate' into the National team means. It sounds like a long drawn out proposition and I think it should be in 3,4,5 months not 2-3 years. It may be naive and simple but if you play consistantly well over an extended period of time (4-5 or so months) as compared to other players in the league (MLS) you get called in. The second smaller factor is if you compete well in those 2 practices you play in the games. To me C.Jones (and others) has not proven over this season that they are the best at their positions. I say we have much better options watching every game televised and those on MLS.net. I don't profess to play all youngsters but play them more than you are now.

[kpaulson]

To be honest, I'm not sure what can be gained by comparing the number of players used by Arena and Eriksson.

Sure-- I mention numbers and you show up to rain on the parade. ;)

Every single coaching situation will be distinct, but I still think it's better to know that Arena, for whatever reason, has looked at more players than Sven. Does it "prove" that Arena brings in players at the right time and gives them the right chance? Of course not. But it does show that the net is wide.

You already provided a long list of caveats, but you seem to have ignored a big one: England players never skip matches for club commitments. Among US goalkeepers alone, that difference probably explains why Hahnemann, Walker, Cannon, Rimando, and Hartman have been capped recently.

Really? You think that's a big one? I can see how that would affect goalkeepers (though of that group, only Rimando sticks out as being a true charity callup), especially, but with a 40 player pool, I'd think you'd be able to shift players around a bit without capping additional players.

Also, I don't really follow the politics of English player selections, but I would assume that players do, in fact, miss matches (especially less important ones or friendlies) due to pressure from their clubs (although thanks to the unified calendar, never due to actual club matches). Alex Ferguson is certainly no friend to the England national team.

Regardless of whether a player is a "dominating force," Arena has shown a reluctance to call upon capable young players in meaningful games. 2002 qualifiers would probably have been easier if Arena had made better use of talents like Donovan, Mastroeni, and Mathis.
I agree. But how much earlier could he have brought in those guys?

-Donovan was raw when he first got into the league and not ready for qualifiers (yet he already had 4 caps) really until he blew up in the second half of the season-- especially the play-offs.

--Mathis was up-and-coming, but I don't think we really realized how good he was until the Hernandez trade (by which point he already had three caps) which happened 8 games into the season. At best, Arena had reason to bring him in for matches 3-5 of the semifinals (during which period we got 7 of 9 points). I would have loved to have seen him against CR in Cbus. But really, that's one match.

--Mastro wasn't eligible until mid-2001, I believe. Arena, I suppose, could've brought him in during the second half of the hex-- and, in hindsight, we really could've used him. But I'm not really sure many people, Arena included, really felt he belonged yet. That was a mistake-- but not one the BigSoccer hordes really harped on. ;)

In short, I agree with you-- Arena could've done and can do a better job bringing guys along. But generally speaking, the lag between when a guy gets good enough to help the team and when Arena brings him in doesn't seem to be that long.

[russ]

Part of the reason it may take longer to break in players is that BA uses a lot of specific tactics and tries to play to the opponent.This is probably the correct approach,as I don't think we're at a level where we can roll out our "in-form" XI and take on the world.

This method requires a certain level of comfort for the players with the coach and each other,and this does not come in two-day camps.

[numerista]

Every single coaching situation will be distinct, but I still think it's better to know that Arena, for whatever reason, has looked at more players than Sven. Does it "prove" that Arena brings in players at the right time and gives them the right chance? Of course not. But it does show that the net is wide.


But regardless of what numbers come out, the question boils down to how many players Arena should have used but didn't ... which you brought up later in your post.


Really? You think that's a big one? I can see how that would affect goalkeepers (though of that group, only Rimando sticks out as being a true charity callup), especially, but with a 40 player pool, I'd think you'd be able to shift players around a bit without capping additional players.

Actually, a bunch of players received all of their caps when (and probably because) most European-based players were unavailable. In particular, the Wales game alone involved six field players who haven't received any other caps during this time period: Agoos, Brown, Suarez, Petke, Lagos, and Eskandarian.


In short, I agree with you-- Arena could've done and can do a better job bringing guys along. But generally speaking, the lag between when a guy gets good enough to help the team and when Arena brings him in doesn't seem to be that long.

Just to clarify, Arena hasn't had a problem identifying good young players and bringing them into friendlies ... as you imply, Mathis appeared in Arena's first game; Donovan in the first friendly after the 2000 Olympics; Mastroeni in the first friendly (May '01) after he got citizenship. With MLS players, things don't break down into the final hurdle.

To wit ...
August 26, 2000 -- Burn-MetroStars
Clint Mathis scores five goals in 6-2 win that clinches MLS Eastern Division.

September 3, 2000 -- US-Guatemala
Everton benchwarmer Joe-Max Moore plays 90 minutes at forward. Sporting Lisbon benchwarmer Jovan Kirovski plays 90 minutes at attacking midfield. They achieve nothing, and desperate for offensive help, Arena brings on Fulham benchwarmer Eddie Lewis, who promptly throws an elbow and gets sent off. Mathis DNP.

Arena had a guy playing the best soccer this country has ever seen, and instead, he relied on experience, an approach that took us to the brink of elimination ... thank goodness we got that short-handed goal when we did.

[onefineesq]

Wrong. Reyna is a lock, Pope is a lock. Boca is a lock whether at left back or center back. Of course these "locks" are contingent on us playing to win/our best team.

The difference with your definition of "lock" and the other posters is that the players he listed where players in their prime or moving towards their prime. Reyna and Pope are both most clearly in decline at this stage (and this is coming from a Pope apologist). Now you may very well be right about how BA decides to swing things, but for BA to go 2 years without developing suitable backups for 2 older players in decline who get injured more and more often, he would be silly ........ as opposed to a coach who might not spend a lot of time developing backups for Cole, Lampard, Rooney, etc. (who are younger).

[Bill Archer]

It seems everyone separates National Camps (2 practices prior to game) and League play. Then says the real talent evalution should be in camps. I say it should be reversed. My take is league play is your tryout not the 2 practices. Someone must explain to me what the term 'integrate' into the National team means. It sounds like a long drawn out proposition and I think it should be in 3,4,5 months not 2-3 years. It may be naive and simple but if you play consistantly well over an extended period of time (4-5 or so months) as compared to other players in the league (MLS) you get called in. The second smaller factor is if you compete well in those 2 practices you play in the games. To me C.Jones (and others) has not proven over this season that they are the best at their positions. I say we have much better options watching every game televised and those on MLS.net. I don't profess to play all youngsters but play them more than you are now.


But you're falling into the BigSoccer theory of National Team Selection (BSTNTS): Player A is at least as good as player B and thus "deserves" or "has earned" a callup. (Usually, as noted, proven beyond doubt by the use of the poster punctuating his point with "NOW!!!!". which is indisputable evidence of being right)

The corrollary to this is that, if Player A becomes unavailable for duty then the next best player on the list is obviously Player B and thus should be called in.

(So of course Arena calls in Player M and BS has Forum fodder for days thereafter)

You need to understand player selection, particularly as practiced by Bruce Arena and, frankly, most everybody else.

Arena does not make a list of, say, Forwards, ranked from 1 through 10 so that when a match comes up he calls in the first four or five guys on the list because they're "best". Furthermore, when one of them isn't able to come he doesn't cross out that name and move down the list to number 6.

That would be - what's the word I'm looking for here - oh yes, "STUPID".

Rather, he figures out how he wants to play, picks a couple starters based on that and THEN picks his bench. Not based on who the "thrid best" Forward in the USA is, but on the ROLE he needs filled. So he'll take one guy who'll maybe be an early sub if one of the first two goes down early or is hurt in practice. He'll pick another guy as a late-game speed insertion. He may decide he wants a time killer who can hold the ball, dribble into the corners late in the game. Or maybe he thinks he'd like a classic target guy to try and turn a game around late off of corners and DFK's.

The coach is building a team for contingencies and situations, not as a merit badge/reward system for good play in your league. That ain't the point, and making you happy doesn't get the US into the Finals and/or keep il Bruce's job.

So if you think your player of the moment, that honey-bunny who just scored three goals last month for your pet team, should be called into the national team, you need to also say a) what his role should be and b)who he should replace.

Otherwise, so much of this is just childish prattle.

[kpaulson]

Actually, a bunch of players received all of their caps when (and probably because) most European-based players were unavailable. In particular, the Wales game alone involved six field players who haven't received any other caps during this time period: Agoos, Brown, Suarez, Petke, Lagos, and Eskandarian.

To be precise, I think the fact that there were MLS games during that game led to it being a DC/SJ All-Star team-- otherwise you'd have the regular US 'B' team. There may be a couple of games like that-- and it's hard to say that Arena is truly evaluating Brown or Goose. :) Out of that game, though, Arena got a look at Ching and, to a lesser extent, Eskandarian. You're right though-- it definitely inflates the numbers.


Just to clarify, Arena hasn't had a problem identifying good young players and bringing them into friendlies ... With MLS players, things don't break down into the final hurdle.

To wit ...
August 26, 2000 -- Burn-MetroStars
Clint Mathis scores five goals in 6-2 win that clinches MLS Eastern Division.

September 3, 2000 -- US-Guatemala
Everton benchwarmer Joe-Max Moore plays 90 minutes at forward. Sporting Lisbon benchwarmer Jovan Kirovski plays 90 minutes at attacking midfield.
...
Arena had a guy playing the best soccer this country has ever seen, and instead, he relied on experience, an approach that took us to the brink of elimination ... thank goodness we got that short-handed goal when we did.
Yes, I think that's a good and strong example.

Here's why I disagree: yes, Mathis was definitely the flavor of the entire summer-- even before the five goals. The question is: do you start him on that basis alone?

Moore had come off of an easy brace against Barbados-- he was an easy pick.

Kiro's a tougher sell-- but still you ask: if you're going to include a guy who hasn't been around the nats much, are you going to start the guy with 30 caps or the guy with 4?

OK, so Arena doesn't start Mathis. When is Mathis supposed to come in? When Jones comes in? Maybe-- but Jones seems to be one of the few veterans that actually is a good veteran addition to games. When Lewis comes in? Maybe (you could shift O'brien over). After the red card? Absolutely not.

Without that Lewis red, maybe you could put Mathis in as the last sub-- but the game didn't work out that.

With the CR game in Cbus, I think that's probably a stronger case (unless Mathis was hurt? I don't remember). Arena decided to play a very ugly team (Chad Deering?!) but was willing to give Chris Albright a look... I would call that a mistake.

But all in all, Arena's mistakes end looking like minor missteps over the course of qualification. He eventually gets things right. You'd be right to point out that the margin between success and failure might be so small that "eventually" may not be good enough. But if that's the case, I'm not sure the incremental improvement we'd see from inserting Mathis over Kiro in Columbus is enough either.

[numerista]

Kiro's a tougher sell-- but still you ask: if you're going to include a guy who hasn't been around the nats much, are you going to start the guy with 30 caps or the guy with 4?

That's seems to have been Arena's (mistaken) reasoning. It's the one factor that worked to Kirovski's advantage, but doesn't it pale in comparison to the fact the Mathis (who did have some caps) was in dominant form, while Kirovski hadn't appeared in a serious soccer game in several months? Or the fact that Mathis was just plain better?

Clint finally got his big chance six months later against Mexico (games against Barbados don't count). He came on for an injured Claudio Reyna, but only after Reyna had been staggering around the field for 20 minutes. Arena preferred the guy with 75 caps over the guy with 7, even though the guy with 75 caps could barely walk!

[voros]

Put another way, are there any players that you think Arena should have looked at two years ago that still haven't been looked at today? I can't think of any.
The problem with this argument is it doesn't quite address the point. To wit:

Martino, Buddle, Twellman, Mullan, Eskandarian, Noonan, Cannon and Gaven have all been "looked at" so to speak as they all have been capped.

The problem is that he tends not to look very long before going back to his old standbys. In the case of Martino and Twellman, both had excellent games in their last caps, and have since been nowhere on the radar. Buddle got one short run out last year and has been absent ever since.

[voros]

But all in all, Arena's mistakes end looking like minor missteps over the course of qualification. He eventually gets things right.
He's only done it once. How do you know this?

All I've been saying is that the age of Arena's lineups this time around have tended to be much higher than what we normally see with good internationally sides, and that's even more of a concern because our talent pool is supposed to be growing faster than other sides.

This wouldn't be a problem if we were playing well, but I don't think anyone can seriously make that claim right now. I really don't think we've had a good game yet in a qualifier (we were okay against El Salvador, but if we were playing well we would have dropped five on them when they only had 10 men). He can go with an older lineup if he wants, but if the results are underwhelming, I think it's more than fair for him to receive criticism.

[TAKK]

He can go with an older lineup if he wants, but if the results are underwhelming, I think it's more than fair for him to receive criticism.

What!?!?

He is God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jmanuwiz]

New young players are great, but the margin of error is slight in the semi-final stage. For instance I'd love to see a Howard (younger and future GK) but what would happen if he blew two games out of six (possible with what happened with Man U) in the Semifinal group. A better place to experiment is younger players playing home and away against whatever crap team comes out with mexico in their group. What I would like to see is US wrapping up the semifinal with a game to spare to play a future team. Also a lock up a birth with 1-2 games to spare in the final group would be nice. Where I do agree on the younger player stance is about 1/3 of the roster is boderline just on age, on being a major factor in the World Cup. Younger teams tend to do better, it is the young break out players that give middle-tier teams a good run in the world cup (which the USA is in, if anyone disagrees and believe in the FIFA rankings a little to much, US is actually around 14-18 teams).