Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'USA Men' started by #1 Feilhaber and Adu, Dec 21, 2018.
Mixing speculation with old quotes. Nice tactic
I don’t understand conversations that discuss how “committed” a player is. That seems like an unnecessarily oblique metric to determine whether or not to use a player. If a player hypothetically only wants to play some games, and I think that player will help me win those games, I’d call him in. The fact that a player had some reason he didn’t want to travel or play for some game last year or whenever has no bearing on the game I’m trying to win today.
Now, if you think the player is not good enough, or makes the team worse because they aren’t familiar with the setup, or won’t give you enough effort when he plays, then you don’t call him. But it makes way more sense to me to evaluate the player in the context of the game in front of you than to carry some sort of grudge against a player for turning down a friendly in the past or trying to measure “commitment” instead of actual soccer performance.
In many football cultures, willingness to represent your country under any circumstances is synonymous with patriotism.
Hence the vitriolic attacks on Jamie Carragher when he retired from international football at 30, rather than travel halfway across the world to watch an England game from the sidelines, and further criticism when he said in his biography that he cared more about Liverpool winning than England (he was born in Liverpool into a family of Everton supporters).
In all fairness, JK would throw anyone under the boss if he thinks the player is the culprit of not getting the win. Nevermind, if JK ran the player to the ground in previous matches.
FYP, :questioning a player's manhood?
While Arena said "it is very rare" for him to single out individual players for blame, after the game Monday he did say, "Landon [Donovan] showed no aggressiveness tonight. We got nothing from [DaMarcus] Beasley on the night."
At his news conference Tuesday, Arena didn't back down about his team's disappointing play.
On Beasley, he said: "If he's any kind of a player and a man, he understands that. If he doesn't, then he's not going to be able to help us in Games 2 or 3, either."
it's a bad move for any coach.
Still think he has much to offer. likely the best 30+ player In the pool right now.
LB comes to mind. Antonee Robinson might not be good enough for another few years.
btw, I was watching US vs Panama game on TV, and they kept talking about Bradley playing at a "high-level" or berhalter saying "Bradley is playing at a very high-level". And it just now reminded me of the original postings in this thread of Fabian Johnson playing at "high-level" and criticizing for Bradley not playing at a "high-level"
The top soccer executives check these boards on a regular basis, that was my conclusion tonight.
If he's still interested and better than the rest at his position (which he is), he should absolutely be called. 31 isn't ancient, and even though he's probably too old for Qatar, there's plenty of meaningful games in the meantime
fabian had a great world cup at rb. the entire rest of his national team career is some mixture of very unimpressive and seemingly uninterested.
tony senneh was a better national team player (on the whole) than fab.
Fab is our best ever offensive FB with 11 assists in 57 matches. Fab's assist rate is better than players like Bradley 22 in 143, Beasley 13 in 126, Dolo 10 in 87, Bedoya 11 in 66, JJ 10 in 69, Zusi 7 in 54, Yedlin 7 in 57, Kljestan 5 in 52, and Feilhaber 2 in 44.
but thats not 57 matches at fullback, is it? whatever, its super, i dont care about this argument at all. "assist rate". how about total goals for cms and we can celebrate diskerud as a top five or so player of all time...