We may not have a choice. If Boca loses it and Gooch can't get healthy we are f#cked. At least one of the younger CB's needs to step into the fold.
2010-11 season totals for Fabian Johnson at Wolfsburg: 1 Bundesliga start 1 DFB Pokal start Dude had zero involvement with the U.S. program (played for Germany teams during his second division career up until 2009) and had made little impact on the field to merit a push for a FIFA switch prior to the fall of 2011. Like with Danny Williams, if Johnson had been a born and/or bred American who had no affiliation with other national programs and was getting piecemeal minutes in the Bundesliga, he probably would've been brought in for some friendlies like the Kamani Hills and Sal Zizzos of yore. But if a guy is working with other countries even while barely playing any professional ball, why should we press for him instead of a guy who has always been devoted to the U.S. program AND has more pro experience? Johnson didn't break this ceiling until after Klinsmann was hired, and I'm still doubtful that Williams was really worthy of his fast-tracking into the USMNT starting lineup.
Of course. Has Klinsmann's 1st year been so disappointing that one of the only major success stories is the obvious move of bringing in 2 breakthrough Bundesliga starters, as if any other US manager would have done differently? (Assuming a different hire, whether domestic or a foreign big name like Bielsa or Hiddink, would not have been biased against German-Americans for whatever reason.) On the other hand, I doubt any other manager except Klinsmann would have brought in Morales or Boyd at this point. So if their careers skyrocket, especially Boyd's, then Klinsmann absolutely deserves praise for his bold selections there. And Klinsmann would have looked like a genius if he had given Brooks the Boyd treatment.
You're right. If he brings Brooks in and Brooks immediately takes a spot in the starting XI at Azteca or a September WCQ and does well, then yes. But if Brooks continues his success at Hertha, then it becomes less Klinsmann making a bold move and more Klinsmann doing the obvious. And if that happens, then it is less like Klinsmann calling in Boyd/Morales, and more like Klinsmann calling in Johnson/Williams or BB calling in Jones/Chandler. And I wouldn't be shocked to see Brooks in Mexico City in 6 days.
You seriously don't know who Brooks is? You're probably right though that he will more than likely not get called up for the Mexico game because he was called up for the German U20 team yesterday. Like schrutebuck said I wouldn't be surprised either if he gets called up, but I think his call-up will come in October or November.
So you've finally come to the realization that our issues with the CB pool are not the fault of the previous manager?
With they way that Jurgen loves the sound of his own voice, if he had done anything at all at the U15, U17 or U20 level we'd have heard about it by now. This statement is so factually inaccurate its infuriating. Stu Holden spent the first couple of seasons of his professional career as a second half sub, behind Rico Clark and DeRo. In fact, most of the minutes that Holden got in those years was on the right side of midfield. 4 months into Holden's first season as a starter, Bob gave him a featured role at the Gold Cup (the one that didn't matter and was mostly B-teamers) to give Holden an extended look without throwing him into the fire. Holden performed and became a fixture with the A squad. Even then, he wasn't an automatic starter. He would get minutes off the bench, and by the Netherlands friendly, it looked like he had worked his way into a starting role. Then he got DeJonged. JK is so transparent with his talk of Hispanic players being overlooked and wanting to play a "Latin" style, it was pretty obvious that the only reason that Orozco and Castillo were called up early on is because the played in the Mexican league and had Hispanic last names. Klinsmann was pandering to the fan base. He wasn't actually giving those guys an honest look.
he played them in multiple games. how is that not giving them a look? man you are just so against JK it is amazing. he isnt a savior but he certainly is a good idea man. a voice people will pay attention to in the media and keep us in the spotlight. good hire.
GVPATS77 disdain for JK reminds me a lot of people's hate for the previous regime. New coach, same story. I generally like JK but question some of his decisions...just like I did with Bob.
No, that is a misunderstanding and conflating of the two issues. JK critics here are pointing out that they are not satisfied with the work that JK has done in settling the back line and is not transitioning in younger players sufficiently to their liking and timing. I pointed out that (1) JK has given a number of players a chance at CB to find out which will work best for him and (2) JK addressed the back line weakness in more ways that just trying out new players at CB, namely in changing midfield assignment, the way that the entire team plays and defends. I further pointed out that no matter what he does he will not make his critics happy ...unless, I suppose, were JK to deploy a formerly unknown 15 year old wunderkind that simultaneously is fast, has excellent defending skills, and can play masterfully out of the back. Anything other than that and the refrain is that Bob already played him there so that doesn't "count" (Goodson) or they just don't like this player (Orozco). Moreover, JK has stated that he puts a premium on players that are in form, players that are getting regular starting time with their clubs and his call-ups generally are consistent with that position. Generally. Finally, I stated that I wasn't entirely happy at the extent to which we continue to rely upon older players/the speed at which we were transitioning to younger options. The issue that I discussed with the pro-Bradley forces some time ago, perhaps a year ago or so, in the face of great criticism, was that to the extent that they felt like our options at CB were not sufficient, then the blame for that lay at Bob Bradley's feet, because he had the team since 2007 and had all the time in the world (or, at the very least, the time since the end of the 2010 World Cup) to transition new players in. It's essentially the position that Koko is advancing above, but applied to Bob Bradley. The difference here is that while Bradley had a much longer period of time to move new players in, JK's had a period of scarcely a year to accomplish the same task.
And that argument is as silly now as it was then. The blame for our lack of options at CB belongs with the folks in charge of youth development.
How is it factually inaccurate? If anyone was paying attention to Holden, he would show in his time on the field that he had great promise. But by the end of the 2008 Olympics, which were BEFORE the 2009 Gold Cup, it was obvious that the guy had a great deal of quality, mind you he played significant minutes during the Olympics at CM. His game against the Netherlands was fantastic, he was one of the best players on the field for the USA, even in spite of his foul that led to the free kick that ultimately doomed us. If you had no idea who Holden was going into the Olympics, or even that game, you couldn't help but notice after that run. But he still never got time with the senior team, until after the 2009 Gold Cup (and that was a B/C type team at that), and at that Gold Cup he was named to the all-tourney team. He FINALLY got minutes with the senior team after that. That De Jong tackle happened after Holden was with Bolton. So Holden didn't get minutes with the full senior team until well after it was obvious that the kid had quality, regardless of the fact that he was behind one of the most skilled MLS players at Houston. I had stated this: And that's how it played out. That's your unfounded opinion and you're entitled to have that and so forth, but it's not more than that.
Bradley had one year. JK has had one year. Bradley tried to bring Ream along at an accelerated pace until he hit the wall hard in the Panama game. At that point the games were must win so he benched Ream for his flop. To this point JK has not committed to any younger CB to that extent. It was not that obvious. No one really mentioned his play on these boards or in the press and in fact he was subbed out in two of those games. Now mind you, I DID bring up his play at the time as the most consistent over those 3 games, but he was NOT the star of that team. Consistent? Yes, very consistent. But the original analysis was correct. He wasn't getting much time at Houston, played consistently well in the Olympics, won the job at Houston and was given a starting role for the 2009 Gold Cup as a reward, played VERY WELL at the 2009 Gold Cup and then was a mainstay with the full team and likely a starter until the injury. He was brought along just fine. We could blame Rongen. That seems easiest to me.
I don;t think holden was a full start after the GC. He played on the wing vs. Holland, and at that point was still a good 'sub' off the bench, or a good option for us on the wing thanks to his beautiful crosses.
And at the time, any mention of integrating Holden into the starting XI as a wide player was vociferously attacked as a scheme to keep the obviously inferior Mike Bradley on the field.
Quoted for truth. People were pimping MARVELL WYNNE after the 2008 Olympics more than Holden. I'll say that again: MARVELL. WYNNE.
Ok so over the same period, Bradley was similarly unimpressive, perhaps even worse because he had the entire period since he took over post WC2006 to get experience with the full player pool and JK has only had one year total to do all that. I definitely disagree with you on this point. There was a great deal of discussion about Stu and the Netherlands game, at the very least, because he was both extremely good but also caused the loss because of the free kick. I'm not sure that there was a "star" of that team, but Holden was among the best. He didn't get minutes until after the 2009 Gold Cup. He was at the Gold Cup with other MLS luminaries such as Logan Pause, Jay Heaps, Sam Cronin, Jimmy Conrad, so it's not like his inclusion on that team was some stroke of genius. It was Camp Cupcake, summer edition. The fact is that Holden seized the opportunity and made his quality even more obvious. If somehow you couldn't notice it during the Olympics, you simply couldn't avoid it any more post Gold Cup. But that's almost beside the point, was Bob supposed to be "bringing guys along to international quality" or not? What you and the inimitable GVPATS are talking about is whether Bob was giving Holden chances when he had indubitably earned minutes, not "bringing Holden along to international quality". And mind you, Bob never made Stu a consistent starter with the full team. DAMN YOU, RONGEN!! It does feel a bit better.
Actually Ream with Bradley and Orozco and now Cameron with JK have very similar development. Bradley brought in Ream at CC2011 then started him 4 of the next 5 including the first 2 at GC2011 before Ream was discarded as not ready for the last 4 GC2011 matches. JK brought in Orozco and Ream for the first 5 matches of his tenure. Orozco started 3 of the first 4 was in camp 5 of the first 7 but was also deemed not ready. Ream lost the competition to Orozco (and Goodson) in the first 5 camps and was also deemed not ready. Cameron started the 2 matches in CC2012 and has been in camp for the next six making the game day 18 for 5 and playing in 2 including a half at Guatemala in a hostile away WCQ! I'm not sure how JK could have been more aggressive and with who? The other 2 CBs from CC2011 were Gonzo and Wynne who could not even smell a call up from BB after that January camp!
No, at the time that Holden had secured for himself as a starting player in the EPL as a central midfielder and was consistently commented upon as being one of the best on the team and sometimes among the best in the league (and led the league in tackles, and was voted best player, etc.) when Michael Bradley was often having difficulty getting consistent starts at Monchengladbach were people appropriately commenting that the player who was pretty clearly our best CM at the time (Holden, for those of you keeping score at home) should SHOCK HORROR be the one getting the starts at CM for the USMNT, even if that meant that displacing Michael at that position.