I agree that he did have a tough run in Korea...but, I also think that it has been blown way out of proportion at this point........ Goose had a fine National team career and has helped organize the backline for many years....I just think he deserves better than to be lumped in with Albright and the like....
I will skip right past the discussion of “fairness” because fairness is always in the eye of the beholder, once you get beyond the clear impossibility of giving every relevant player an equal number of minutes. So, in that sense Karl is right, it will never be “fair” so there’s no point in discussing fairness. I’ll just tell you what I want and expect from my coach in this regard. The main thing that I expect is thoroughness. I want the coach to explore EVERY option that is within his power to try out. Now, with the limited number of friendlies and tournaments and other opportunities to get his squad together for training, he is constrained in the number of players he can try out and the number of game minutes he can give those players. And he has budgetary restraints and demands from clubs that constrain the number of players he can call into his camps. Understanding all that, I want to feel that my coach has tried out as many of the legitimate possibilities as he could have and built our team up to the big tournaments with the best possible set of 18 or 22 or 23 players. For the most part, Bruce Arena has done that. I think he’s done a noticeably better job of it than Steve Sampson did, though that may be more due to having better and healthier players available to him, I can’t say for sure. He has brought almost all of the relevant players into camp, gave many new players game minutes, and there were very few callups that were completely without merit. Now that we’re past the Cup, I see no reason to rehash the old arguments about this player or that player. It’s a new cycle now and all those arguments are now moot. What I would like to discuss is how to give the coach the best resources to ensure that he is as thorough as he can be. I think there are two major developments that could give Arena the ability to be more thorough than in the past: 1) a National B team program, and 2) an annual summer camp, held at the National Training Center of his choice with a much larger group of players than has been present in the past. National B is an idea that’s been around for a long time, but has never been discussed seriously, I think mainly because few, if any, other countries have such a squad at present. But that should not stop us. We are beginning to develop enough depth that we have a second tier group of players that are not far from international level, at least in terms of the CONCACAF region. We can give that second tier group a better chance of developing to the next level if we place them into a program that mirrors the tactics, speed and skills of the full Nats and gives them playing time against other international caliber players from around the World. Whether this is realistic or not, given the finances of the Federation, the depth of the coaching staff or the ability of such a squad to find legitimate opponents, I don’t know. But that’s why it’s just an idea, not a policy recommendation. I like it, but I’m aware that it might not fly. Now that the international calendar is making inroads into MLS’s scheduling plans for the future, I think a regular summer camp is inevitable. For my money, the best camp is one that involves virtually all the players that have a chance of contributing in the subsequent one to four years, so I’m thinking on the order of 60-80 players. This might mean that there would be one National A camp and a separate National B camp, or just one large camp. The competition that an all-inclusive camp would bring could only help us, IMHO. Clearly, this would be taxing on the current management structure of the team, that’s why my suggestion would be to incorporate the extra players into the National B program with a matching coaching system. As I see it, these suggestions would have the added benefit of further reducing the tired excuse of fans that such-and-such didn’t get his fair shake. (See how I did that – came full circle back to the original subject of the thread). Of course, the most likely scenario is that neither of these things will happen and the structure of friendlies and camps future will be similar to that of the past two cycles. My only suggestion to this coaching staff in that instance is to pay close attention to their natural bias towards their veteran standbys and to counteract that bias wherever possible. I would never quibble with the coaching staff starting a solid veteran in a meaningful qualifier and having these consistent security blanket guys around is perfectly acceptable. But there are many opportunities to play new players both during qualifying and in friendlies and other tournaments. The coaching staff can make better use of those opportunities than it has in the past to develop that same kind of trusting relationship with new players.
The issue in the way of National B (which every US coach has wanted since at least Gansler) has always been money...which shouldn't stop us either... There's also (and I'm thinking this was your point here) no rule that states USA B must always play World Power B...have them play A sides out of the Top 50 (many of whom could also use all the matches they can get)...
Both of KD's ideas -- a national B team and a huge summer camp -- are, on the surface, quite good. The issues, of course, are simply money and time. I think both of those are going to be in short supply. Meanwhile, as you move into years two and three of the cycle, when qualifying begins in earnest, you really have to concentrate on the "A" group, because here, it's win or stay home. But I think KD's expectation of a national team coach -- thoroughness -- is very much an essential job requirement. The question is, in the absence of a lot of time and a lot of money, how do you do accomplish that? Part of being a national team coach is really KNOWING your player pool. KNOWING each guy, his capabilities, his approach to play, his strengths, his weaknesses. Camp and actual game time are arguably the best way to acquire that knowledge. But, as we've seen, game time, and camp time, is precious. A national team coach has to have many skills -- managerial, tactical, pychological. In my view, one of THE most important quality is "imagination." Not the standard way we think about that -- you know, so and so has a creative "imagination" , the quality of being fanciful is some unrealistic way. But rather the ability to step outside of youself, and "imagine" Player X in a national team kit, or playing a particular position, or filling a particular role -- and having that imaginary image conform as closely as possible to the reality on the field. Isn't that what Bruce did with Frankie playing left back, a change that startled all of us? He could "imagine" him in his mind's eye, taking up that position, and succeeding at it. The ability to imagine a player as suitable or not isn't thought up off the cuff. It comes from a lot of hard, diligent scut work, watching players in person, looking at videotape over and over again, analyzing performances, talking to trustworthy people who see them everyday -- and talking to the players themselves. Part of it is asking and answering the questions, "Is this guy skilled, consistent, talented, mentally capable enough?" This work we don't see, but I guarantee you, is happening RIGHT NOW. I know one professional coach, great guy, terrific player in his day, tremendous teacher of technical skills -- but when it comes to "imagining" players in this role or that, or able to perform certain tasks on the field, well, it just all falls apart for him. It's like a gene is missing. By the way, this ability to imagine is not about gut feel, or subjective decision making. In many ways, it can be highly precision thinking. In my mind, a coach who has a highly refined imaginary capability, and who applies efficient hard to work to allow that capability to flourish, is achieving the thoroughness necessary.
Just because fairness is subjective and impossible to implement perfectly, doesn't mean you abondon the concept. My problem on Bigsoccer is with people saying player X did poorly for the Nats without realizing that said player only played a handful of minutes. I'm not sure where "fairness" fits in to begin with, but it is unfair to say player X did poorly when he only played 67 minutes in five years. At the very least, we can try to be fair as fans.
Ah, this IS a distinction with a difference. You're right, it IS unfair for a fan to say that "Player X did poorly for the Nats" when he only got limited minutes, or limited minutes in circumstances that made evaluation of his play THEN fairly meaningless. In this specific case, fairness matters. But in contrast it is VERY unhelpful to say that the national team coaching braintrust is unfair of didn't provide a "fair shake" because Player X got limited minutes. THAT view does provide understanding and knowledge. In this case, "fairness" as a concept doesn't help at all. Meanwhile, a fan could advance the discussion by saying "Player X is (or isn't) national team quality because of the following characteistics he displays..." That is a suitable starting point, it seems to me, for some useful discourse.
Let's be fair to Arena for a moment... Didn't 90+ players earn a cap under him? Too say he left any rock unturned would be a stretch. Who'se to say that Ralston (since he's the player du jour here) didn't totally stink it up in training? We don't know. Maybe his 67 minutes were a courtesy to him, much like Marsch's appearance in the final WCQ in T&T. Sachin
P.S. I like how much everbody uses the word "fair" in this thread. Just goes to show you it is so central to our logic that it cannot and should not be abandoned as a basis for discussion. I know life's not fair, and soccer's not fair, and national team coaches aren't fair. Brilliant point. But abandoning the standard of "fairness" or justice from an internet discussion analyzing the national team? Might as well throw out the alphabet.
Hey I just laid out the issues -- fairly, I think. Sure it's fair to ask them. To have them ACTUALLY do it in the context of national team call ups....well, that may be too much to expect. Unfair, in a peculiar way.
Karrrl... you're doing it again. Here's an idea: Whenever you think you're smarter than everybody else, punch yourself in the dick.
Clearly, but that's why I want an annual and ongoing program that helps bring along new players even in those early years of the cycle. You're right, though, money and time will be the obstacles. Going hand in hand with this is the reality check, though. The coach has to recognize that reality will never conform to his imagination exactly. Players will regularly underperform or outperform his expectations come game time. He's got to be able to quickly and efficiently switch from imagination to reality. I don't agree. I think the coach needs to use a system of projecting players' talents and skills to the next level and that that should form the bulk of his player assessment, but he should also spend time working with players that have had success at the 1st Division level who don't quite fit his preconceived notions of what will work at the next level. A coach should recognize that his imagination is fallible and his scouting is fallible. He should keep open the possibility that a player who isn't a "conventional" international player might prove to be useful.
This is precisely what Arena does as shown by the huge number of guys he called into camp and capped. The only real issue here is whether a National Team coach has to give a significant number of minutes in real games to a guy who he doesn't project as making it at the international level and who has not wowed him in camp. I say no as game time with the Nats is a precious commodity (and back to the point of the thread, fairness is completely irrelevant).
Well, the one thing I hope I am not is a poster who resorts to the crude, crass, and juvenile in the insult department.
Let me preface this by saying that Ralston is and has been since the beginning one of my favorite players in MLS--he's creative, attacking, SMART and does the little things well that a lot of other MLS players don't. That said: right or wrong, I don't think that BA has to justify any player's inclusion or exclusion in terms of "fairness" or minutes to any wanker on BS. I can think of a dozen reasons to not include a player without giving him a single minute. How? This has to do with building a TEAM, not picking a best 11 or 18 or 24, with a particular style of play. Let's take Ralston: - He's SLOW! - Defense? - Where do you play him? Is he suited to being a winger at the Intl level (see speed)? - Can he be as effective in the middle as he is on the wing in MLS? Do you modify the TEAM strategy and style to incorporate this player into the side? Is it worth it to do this? BA undoubtably has all this going through his head, for every player he considers, before ever giving any of them a minute. The minutes merely confirm or deny his thoughts as to whether they can fulfill the role he envisions for them. If he can't see a role (or there are too many players ahead of them with the same role- Kreis?), then they're not likely to get a lot of minutes.
A crude, crass and juvenile comment? Perhaps. An "unfair" comment? Certainly such a thing is not permitted on this thread.
Well, rather than respond in kind, I guess I find juvenilia a kinder and more palatable response to your sophomoric smugness, which is depressingly genuine. Oops. I mean you suck the big one. And Martin, some of us would point to Regis, Kirovski and Richie Williams - or Pablo on the flipside - in arguing that national team game time is more of a "precious commodity" than Bruce seems to treat it.
Ah, the first paragraph shows you have the potential to be an adult.... ...but the second shows it's still just potential. Meanwhile, don't like what I say? Take a deep breath, exercise your ADULT rights and don't read it.
See what I mean? "Ah"... 1. Pot/black 2. I'm mainly joking - though admittedly in response to irritation. We shouldn't take this so seriously. 3. I'm responding because your comment was vaguely targeted at those posters who didn't agree with your grand theme about abandoning fairness. You (insultingly) implied that we couldn't grasp it. But I think a lot of the disagreement is easily explained. We can grasp your arguments, as you are very meticulous in explaining them. We just don't make the mistake of reading Karl Keller's words/opinions and ingesting those as immutable fact - as you seem to do. Apologies for once again not addressing the theme of the thread itself -- but Karl and I are doing a favor BigSoccer at large by tying each other up some.
I think I can speak pretty clearly for my self when I say, you would have shown a tad more genuosity and a bit more lexical economy if you'd stated your prime thesises thusly: 1. Don't question Bruce about being fair. He is. 2. You must watch a soccer player play soccer in order to discern how well he/she plays soccer. 3. Just because someone is a great club player doesn't mean they will be a great national team player. 4. Countervalently, just because someone doesn't play great club soccer doesn't mean they can't play international soccer. This is much shorter I think. I'd also like to add for the record that I firmly believe any player who plays with aplomb (in public anyway - what people do in private is their own business) should be banished from the national team pool forthwith and immediately. I just don't like it, and I'm sure many are with me on this issue. Finally, the crux and conundrum of this enigma stems from this elusive paradox: If Bruce Arena declares that he's wrong, can he be right? (Just joshing you Karl, but you really should relax...)