Davies at Sochaux 2: Hang in there, Charlie

I smell small-mindedness on the part of Sochaux--a squad with very few World Cup-bound players, and a team that's rarely been in a position such as this one. If this were Chelsea or Liverpool, there wouldn't be the same kind of blockage. I really can't imagine Liverpool preventing (the injured) Fernando Torres from joining Spain.

I would have to agree with Davies that he is not yet 100%, but he will be close to it in the next month.

So, yes, Bob Bradley is correct to think that CD9 is not ready to play in the World Cup tomorrow. But neither are Torres, Barry, Sorensen, etc--and they're all going to South Africa.

 

Are you kidding? Way to support USMNT players! Sochaux burned the bridge with him. This stupid move on their part will only hasten his departure. They should have let him go--if he failed, at least it would have been on HIS terms.

 

Spot on, and what else is new about the US soccer media.

And the curfew violation ayatollahs who think this accident was Charlie's "fault," I could understand your crazy evaluations if Charlie was driving drunk. He wasn't. Or even if he let his driver drive drunk. He didn't. Since no drunk driving charges have been filed (and what more "investigation" could possibly be going on at this point), the driver did what millions of people are doing every night, which is have a beer at a friends house or a restaurant or a club, and then drive home under the legal limit. What kind of insane puritanical bs is it to blame a car crash on staying out past your curfew two days before a game you're not playing in? I have more sympathy for the guy blaming earthquakes on premarital sex.

 

Charlie Davies did.

No. What I am saying they have no ability to judge whether or not he'll be capable of performing well on the pitch in one month.

It's difficult enough to predict one's recovery schedule, let alone anticipate how that translates into a performance on the pitch.

It's not merely questionable, it's egregiously dumb - as pointed out by the French journalists, who wanted to know if Davies was leaving the club this summer.

Sochaux's own quick retraction of their alleged plea to the USSF supports the notion that their president was indeed a stupid ass moron for writing that letter.

A) He admits to not being in a top shape.

B) The World Cup isn't on for another 30 days.

C) He believes - he could be wrong - that, given a chance, he would be at 100%.

That's good enough for me to bring him in camp.

Mind you, there's a huge difference between being named on the 30-man preliminary squad and the final WC roster.

The 30-man squad contains players who will not be going to the Cup. Had Davies's condition not improved to the level required for South Africa, he simply would not have been named in the final 23.

What is astounding here isn't the fact that Davies didn't make the WC team but that he wasn't even given a chance to make it.

The outcomes of this decision are yet to be played out.

But it conceivably could be another Harkes-Sampson'98.

If you prefer to be a part of the illustrious US soccer media gang, it's your call.

I say it was a coaching decision, not a medical one.

The medical information that has been given doesn't support that version.

But the US soccer journalists - you among them - don't care.

By not allowing Charlie to show off his current state of mind and health publicly, the USSF and Bradley are inviting speculation, not eliminating it.

If a reliable journalist was allowed to be present at the US Princeton practices and observed Davies as being in physically poor shape, half of the insinuations would be dropped. The way it was handled, the conspiracy theories are only beginning to form.

Some are blaming the club and its president. Some are blaming the curfew violation. Some are blaming a weak USSF and some are blaming Bradley.

It would have been extremely easy - as a cost of one spot on the preliminary roster - to squash all rumors and doubts.

Alas ...

 

They are paying him, if they feel he's no where near ready, why should they sent him? He's not burning anything because he's angry at the moment. They knew it would probably happen that he wouldn't take the news well.

 

They are not allowed to hold a player back past May 16 unless he is playing in the Champions League final.

Bob's trying to deflect the decision to Sochaux is, like somebody said earlier, a failure of leadership.

 

As usual, sidefootsitter is the only one with any sense around here.

All that we--the true CD9 fans--ask for is that he be given a shot to prove himself. No one asked that he be automatically placed on the 23-man roster. Given that Findley--who both sucks AND is injured--will inevitably be cut, why not give that place to Davies, and let him earn it?

I guarantee that CD9 would have felt much better about being dropped later rather than sooner. And who knows--maybe he would have made the team. Instead, he's left fuming at his club.

 

Dude, you're way out of your league here. It's got nothing to do with pay. It has everything to do with FIFA law, international soccer conventions, and etiquette. Davies is not some toy owned by Sochaux.

 

Was it Sochaux's fault that he failed to pass his fitness test for the pre WC camp? Was it Sochaux's fault that he can't accept a reasoned decision on the part of professional doctors? CD needs to stop looking to blame everyone else for his disappointments.

 

When was this test given and what were its stipulations and criteria?

BTW, as has been noted several times in this circular discussion, there are a bunch of players - just as there have been in the past - who couldn't pass the fitness test right now .... Torres, Iniesta, Barry, Kewell, et al.

They are given a chance to be fit as late as the opening kick-off due to the players' importance to their respective teams (as was the case with Rooney and Owen in 2006, for example, or Beckham in 2002).

So, the next question is whether Davies is important to the USMNT.

I say, given the Confederations Cup US performance where the US was 0 points with 1-6 goal difference without Charlie in the starting line-up and 6 points and 7:3 goal difference with him, that he was one of the "irreplaceables".

But the current US coach disagrees.

He may be right.

Or he may be crazy.

 

Where's the link for failing a fitness test? It was reported that he recently passed one.

 

Most players worth anything at a high level will always believe that they're going to be ready for a big game. Or tell their coaches that they will be.

Why can't it be a coaching decision based in large part on medical information?

Like it or not, I think it's pretty clear that Bradley chose to omit Davies from the roster because it became clear that Davies wasn't going to be fit enough to fully participate in camp, which in turn raised serious doubts about his ability to be fit by the World Cup. You and a lot of other people want him brought in anyway because not being fit by May 17 doesn't necessarily mean he won't be fit by June 11. That makes sense. In many ways, I agree; I'd certainly rather see Davies in camp than Rogers or Findley.

But Bradley's position makes sense also: if a player who hasn't played a competitive match since November isn't fit enough to practice fully with his club (which Sochaux now says is the case) and isn't convincing US rehab experts that he'll be ready to play during the camp and the friendlies, then I can see why a coach would decide to leave him off the roster. Especially if it turns out that Davies has been kidding himself and/or his Tweeties about the degree of his recovery.

People keep saying, "Well, what about Onyewu?" as if this proves that Bradley is a hypocrite. First, Bradley has much better information that we do about the players' health status. Second, maybe it means that Bradley decided he didn't want too many guys on the 30-man roster who hadn't played for a long time and might be unfit and/or irretrievably rusty, and he decided that central defense in general or Onyewu in particular was more worth the gamble.

To me, it just makes more sense to say, "Tough call, and maybe I would've made a different choice if I had the same information in front of me that Bradley did, but it's still a reasonable decision." But I think a lot of people on here would rather get angry.

 

Word.

 

I wonder who's become less popular in the last few days, Bob Bradley or Dunga? Both made some questionable decisions.

 

They know a whole lot more about it than you or I or CD!

You're welcome to believe in UFO's, science seems like the better option.

 

Of course, the difference in Davies's case was that he was released from Capbreton almost 2 months ago at the stage where he was presumably ready to practice... which he commenced upon arrival to Sochaux.

Then, after some fitness drills, he did pass the dreaded fitness tests given to him by his club and began practicing with his first team.

So, based on what we do know and what is pretty much outside of the speculative realm, Charlie's own evaluation of his physical state was not off by a large margin and that held throughout his rehab. In other words, he began to walk when he said he would, he began to run when he thought he would, etc..

I say it's the likely scenario.

But it also shows that Bob wasn't willing to make an exception in this case.

Which is why I wrote that it was purely a coaching decision.

The repercussions of it are yet to be felt.

I am pretty sure Bobby Zamora would fail any reasonable fitness test given to him yesterday.

 

Between passing a "fitness' test at your local health club, being ready to play WC soccer matches and everything in between, there's room for variation.

 

Strange comparison. BB didn't take Freddy Adu, a player very unlikely to make the 23, and Charlie Davies, where Sochaux told him that Davies was not ready. So other than Davies, criticizing the 30 should be completely ridiculous.

Meanwhile, Dunga and Maradona are 2 coaches that supporters have every reason to criticize, looking at the names that they are not taking to the World Cup.

 

It's not just the decision, it's what he said. If he said something like, "We need a player who can compete and train with the team at the highest level of intensity from the beginning of camp. Charlie has done a heroic job of coming back from his injuries, but our medical and training professionals have evaluated him, and for the team's sake and our competitiveness in SA we have decided that he is not quite ready and have decided to go with a player who is farther along in his fitness," then I doubt the anger would be the same.

 

The hypocrisy of everyone on BS astounds me. All of a sudden, everyone thinks Sochaux and Bradley are totally justified in holding Davies back, when a mere week ago most everyone believed that Davies would (and should) make the roster. Hindsight is 20/20.

People must admit, though, that this decision seems quite odd. Even Wahl and Ives were blindsided.

The fact that BB was in contact with Davies up until the day before the selection tells me that it was a very marginal decision. It's not like BB had ruled him out weeks ago and didn't even bother to check in on his progress. It was a last-minute decision.

If that's true, and Davies was nearly selected, then it's a very bad decision on Bradley's part. If Davies was that close to being called up, then he deserved a shot. It's not like we're Argentina, with a plethora of attacking options. We NEED CD9. BB should have given Davies the benefit of the doubt.

 

Bradley admitted it was a last minute decision.

 

It's not hypocrisy.

There are new facts.

There's no way that BB would exclude Davies unless he could not contribute. There's no other logical conclusion.

 

The players you mentioned had been playing top level soccer before they were injured and once injury free it will take less time to be 100%. Davies has not played full competition soccer in 8 months! Not comparable.

I think it is unfair to deny Buddle or Gomez a shot just for a feel good story like Davies. Buddle and Gomez are feel good stories themselves and they did not put themselves in harms way like Davies did.

I read an article on Sports Illustrated today that I agree with. Davies showed glimpses in the Confed cup and that beautiful goal at Azteca but he is not a sure thing star like Dempsey and Donovan and I bet you if this would have been Dempsey the USSF would have found a way to bring him into camp. Davies is not as proven yet.

Also it is more important to take in-form players than players that have had success in the past but are not in-form. For Example Nery Castillo was one of the leading scorers in the 2007 Copa America and was sold for $20 mil but he has not played all year and Mexico left him off the list in a heartbeat without a media storm.

 

With Ricardo Clark in the game during the Confed Cup the U.S. differential was also 7:3, and Landon Donovan had also created and his teammates then squandered multiple opportunities against Italy before Clark's red card.

Food for thought.

 

Then BB deserves all this abuse. I repeat: If it was a marginal decision, then why not bet ON Davies, rather than against him, and save us all the sight of Findley at the training camp.

Playing top level soccer BEFORE an injury doesn't matter. What matters is the severity of the injury. And Torres has a pretty nasty knee injury. He would fail ANY medical exam today. Yet he's flying to SA with Spain...

As for Buddle and Gomez, few would disagree. The real problem child is Findley, followed by Johnson.

Finally, Davies didn't "put himself in harms way." It's not look he stood in front of a train. He stayed out 3 hours past curfew--something that footballers do ALL THE TIME. The difference is that those rule-breakers didn't happen to be out with an unlucky driver.