How important should MLS performances be in National Team call ups?

[nobody]

Just curious what people think about players getting called up from MLS. Should the calls be based on MLS play, or a coach's perception of talent and international potential?

For example, does Eddie Johnson deserve to keep getting calls based on past play internationally if he continues to do absolutely nothing for his club? Or, does a guy like Eskadarian deserve a call up based on his perceived potential despite rarely getting on the score sheet for DC, even after he came back from injury?

My opinion, which may well be a minority one, is that even if a guy plays ok for the US when called and has talent, he should not continue to get calls unless he can prove himself in MLS. We may sacrifice in the short term by having a guy like Eddie Johnson left out in favor of a less talented player. But, in the long run, isn't it important that players understand that their regular work habits and level of play over time are more important than coasting through an MLS season and saving it up to play for a couple weeks here and there for the US team? Could holding players responsible for their MLS play help raise the level and competitiveness of the league?

Now, I do cut some slack to the boys in Europe, just because getting playing time at a club in the bigger European leagues is a much harder proposition, which is why I am only asking about MLS guys right now. For a league the level of MLS, shouldn't any players who are good enough to be getting time with the national team be at the very least solid contributors to their MLS clubs if they are playing near their capabilities? Should they be punished for slacking on their club teams?

[Martin Fischer]

...Now, I do cut some slack to the boys in Europe, just because getting playing time at a club in the bigger European leagues is a much harder proposition, which is why I am only asking about MLS guys right now. ...

Other than what I consider the sappy morality of this post, my biggest issue is that it seems to fail to recognize that "Europe" is not a monolithic place where all the leagues are tougher than MLS (example Norway, where MLS marginal starters Brian West, Ramiro Corrales and Aiden Brown become stars).

IMHO, what you care about is the likelihood that a player will perform well for the USMNT. And that depends on a lot of factors, one of which is how the player is doing for his club and another of which is what his level of club competition is.

If you have to have a single rule, mine would be you want players who perform well in mediocre leagues and players who perform OK in top leagues.

[nobody]

I recognize Europe has varying levels, which is why i said the BIGGER European leagues. I kinda figured that was self-explanitory rather than having to lsit 'em all out. I don't think anyone here considers leagues like the Scandinavian leagues one of the BIGGER European leagues.

And, sappy morality or not, do you think there may be any value in players having to perform on a regular basis to get called up rather than just assuming they can play like crap 80% of the time and will still get their spot?

[Martin Fischer]

I recognize Europe has varying levels, which is why i said the BIGGER European leagues. I kinda figured that was self-explanitory rather than having to lsit 'em all out. I don't think anyone here considers leagues like the Scandinavian leagues one of the BIGGER European leagues.

1. I think you are wrong regarding what people here think.
2. But your rule singles MLS out -- why wouldn't you apply the same rule to the weaker European leagues if your only consider the bigger European leagues different. Or better yet, if the few bigger European leagues are the exception, have a rule for them and another rule for everybody else.

And, sappy morality or not, do you think there may be any value in players having to perform on a regular basis to get called up rather than just assuming they can play like crap 80% of the time and will still get their spot?

If they outplay the other candidates at the international level, sure. My only goal is to put together the best possible team. And while club play is a good indicator of international success, it isn't perfect and an ironclad rule would hurt the USMNT. It's just plain hard and there are no short-cuts to having a successful national team.

[ugaaccountant]

Should a player who chooses to play in a scandanavian or similar league be called up to the US team at all? I would generally say no as guys like Califf, Brown, Corrales and Borchers appear to have done it for the money and hurt the growth of MLS in the process. Since MLS and the US team are fairly related parties (unfair but true), perhaps hurting MLS shouldn't be rewarded?

On the other hand we shouldn't punish the team and not call in a Charlie Davies or Heath Pearce who have a chance to impact our team. I'm just trying to think outside the box here as well in regards to proper incentives for performance (play well in MLS or a high profile european league).

Aren't we glad we're past the days of depending on players in european reserve teams :)

[m vann]

I don't care who you are or where you play if you aren't playing up to snuff at the club level you shouldn't be called in, period. Yes, there are extentuating circumstances like a manager change at the club level that effect you a bit and has to be considered but by and large you need to be performing at the club level consistently game in and game out. The national team is not a right its something that is earned. This goes for domestic and European based players. European based players are only different in that our players may not regular starters but you consider the production and rise in play based on the minutes they have on the pitch to determine if they should be called up. I like that our national team does have a core group of players but sometimes it erks that some players take a nonchalant approach to club play and then seem totally different internationally. Maybe I'm old school a bit and think you gotta earn your stripes instead of bring "x" player in because he fits into the system and not because of his current play club wise.

[nobody]

Well, you could go ahead and lump the lesser European leagues in with MLS if you want. I was just talking MLS since so many of our guys play there and its readily available for me to see. The guys in ower Euro leagues tend to disappear from my view anyway.

And, I guess we have different priorities in a way. I'm interested in the overall growth of the game rather than specifically the National Team. However, in my mind, the Ntional Team will only become a consistently high quality team on the world stage if we have a healthy game domestically. So, I see them working hand in hand. Thus, what is good for MLS tends to be good for the national team in the long run.

[scarshins]

The original post's facts are slightly flawed.

Eskandarian has, at times, scored good runs of impressive goals in MLS. The two he scored in MLS Cup 2004 capped off an impressive two months or so. Calling him into camp was certainly based on 2004 and moreso his form the first half of 2006.

MLS is now at a stage that the competition is a pretty good indicator of talent. Of course USSF also thinks about potential. MLS has also progressed so that it's competition helps form players too, especially younger ones. Not necessarily teenagers, but early 20s guys, alot of them have made significant improvement through playing in MLS- same way Eddie Pope and others did a decade ago.

[Klecko]

I think the better question is more simply:

Is a player performing well for a decent club?

If so, and he has the right passport, then he deserves a look. If not, then perhaps not. Granted, this is somewhat subjective, but herein lies MUCH, if not MOST of a national team coach's value to the organization: In making the tough decisions. (Of course we as fans have the right and the responsibility to question some of these decisions from time to time.)

Looking at the roster (SPECIFICALLY the extremely left-footed Alecko Eskandarian, he of the 1 goal every 211 min in MLS), it would appear that there is another heuristic(sp.) in-use.

For all that is stated about Cunningham, HE has done everything to deserve a look. Sure, he "may be too old to be a factor in 2010."

But THIS camp isn't about 2010. It's about Bradley and Nowak getting the better MLS and Scandinavian players in for a look-see. No matter how one slices it, Cunningham not being included is questionable at best, unless he's injured. (And I'm NOT a Cunningham fan nor a Esky detractor.)

[TimB4Last]

Well, you could go ahead and lump the lesser European leagues in with MLS if you want. I was just talking MLS since so many of our guys play there and its readily available for me to see. The guys in ower Euro leagues tend to disappear from my view anyway.

And, I guess we have different priorities in a way. I'm interested in the overall growth of the game rather than specifically the National Team. However, in my mind, the Ntional Team will only become a consistently high quality team on the world stage if we have a healthy game domestically. So, I see them working hand in hand. Thus, what is good for MLS tends to be good for the national team in the long run.

The world over, national team players are almost always standout players for their club teams. What are the common exceptions?

1) Non-European* players competing in the better European leagues; and

2) Players with particular attributes that (oddly enough) make them better suited to 'international' play than to league play; and/or fill a (perceived) 'hole' on a given national team.

Injuries are another obvious factor to consider - you have to know a player's capabilities when fully fit. Certain injuries require a long recovery period.

1's are pretty common now for us, and will be more and more common unless/until MLS salaries become more competitive. This requires a lot of subjective evaluation/comparison.

2's are pretty rare, and the concept is easier to understand in reverse, i.e. a player that stands out in the league (here MLS) but consistently fails to impress on the international level (for whatever reason).

----------

* Defining non-European somewhat confusingly as any player not naturally resident in the big league countries; 'European' therefore meaning only English, Spanish, Italian, German and French. I'm sure some here would also include a 'second tier' of Euro leagues. Money attracts talent, and talent seeks its own level, measured in monetary terms.

[Klecko]

Eskandarian has, at times, scored good runs of impressive goals in MLS. The two he scored in MLS Cup 2004 capped off an impressive two months or so. Calling him into camp was certainly based on 2004 and moreso his form the first half of 2006.

This is a little silly. NO player should be called in NOW for what he did two (now almost THREE) seasons ago. For that matter, NO player should be included or disincluded for his form from March through June of this year.

Just substitute the name "Beasley" for "Eskandarian" when discussing 2004, and you'll realize how silly it would be to include a player for what he did nearly 3 years ago.

Sure, Eskandarian is a fine player in MLS, and he "just happens" to play for your favorite club. We get it. But he isn't as good as some other players are right now, like it or not. He MAY be someday, but as of today, he just isn't.

[scarshins]

You are an Esky detractor. You take out the non-scoring slumps he has, it's a goal every 90 minutes I'm sure :)

On a more serious note, there's also the quality of goals. I'm talking about finishing that high quality defending and keeping won't keep out- like the one against Real Madrid in a friendly- and not just about being flashy or tricky or whatever.

I agree with you on Cunningham, and not just by his MLS numbers, when he got to play in qualifiers last time around- meaningless because we had qualified- also we had a B team out there- I thought he looked pretty good.

[scarshins]

Just substitute the name "Beasley" for "Eskandarian" when discussing 2004, and you'll realize how silly it would be to include a player for what he did nearly 3 years ago.

Sure, Eskandarian is a fine player in MLS, and he "just happens" to play for your favorite club. We get it. But he isn't as good as some other players are right now, like it or not. He MAY be someday, but as of today, he just isn't.

First off, it's not about 3 years ago...he showed the same ability again this summer. Second, finishing is a weak point in the US team's game. He has one of the best, if not THE best, shots in the pool.

[Klecko]

I agree with you on Cunningham, and not just by his MLS numbers, when he got to play in qualifiers last time around- meaningless because we had qualified- also we had a B team out there- I thought he looked pretty good.

I agree. But EVEN before we start talking about WC qualifiers vs. CONCACAF sides, we have the Gold Cup, and
Copa America for which players must be selected.

Cunningham is playing for a crappy team and has a moron for a coach. (Exactly what are they going to do with Andy Williams now that they have Adu?) Were he on a good team with a good coach (DCU or Revs or Houston), how many more opportunities would he have?

Anyway, this is just one example, (Esky vs. Cunningham) of the tough choices that Bradley must make. In this case, the numbers really stand out in suggesting that he's made the wrong choice. I hope he makes better ones down the road.

[Klecko]

Second, finishing is a weak point in the US team's game. He has one of the best, if not THE best, shots in the pool.

While I agree that finishing is a weak point for the national team, I disagree with you in that Esky's record indicates that he may not be the solution.

Sure he has a fine shot. But everyone in the stadium, from the players on the pitch, the coaches, the fans, and the hot dog vendors know that he's ALL left foot. Being so may work at the club level, (leading to 1 goal every 211 minutes) but less so internationally, IMO.

[scarshins]

maybe it will work better internationally. he will have some of the element of surprise.

[mattie g]

Our national team is a bit different from those of a lot of other countries (especially the "big teams") in that we tend to view the national team as a way to develop players and see how they'll fit into the program in the long run. Most other countries bring in players who are in top form and who can help the team in the short term. We tend to look at the World Cup and WCQ, whereas the other teams that many of us are accustomed to following (European, Brazil, Argentina, etc.) have big tournaments during WC off-years. For good or bad, the Gold Cup simply doesn't factor like the Euro Championship or Copa America. And because of that, we look at "who can help us in 2010".

That said, I think that bringing in promising young players to camps such as these (i.e. camps not leading up to big games/tournaments) can be a very good thing for them (and the team) in the long run. But if we're talking about WCQ or similar camps, then I think it's imperative to bring in players who are in form and performing at a high level - be that in MLS or elsewhere.

So I guess what that means is that MLS form is very important for important matches, but during a preliminary camp like this one, it's good to bring in players who have shown some promise but may not have gotten a chance to previously show the staff what they can do in camp.

[scarshins]

Eskandarian? overrated :D

[Adam Zebrowski]

eskandarian is in toronto now...

[TimB4Last]

eskandarian is in toronto now...

http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20061222&content_id=80846&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp