Davies was an American who could score in Europe. We still need those. Sweden of 2008 was much different than today.
Those are not the same type of "discipline" problems. Charlie Davies youtube highlights were great, especially with the "commentary". I think those videos were taken down. Maybe some OG yanks abroad people know where they went.
I've no idea what you're referring, so I def hope someone posts. I recall Davies got a red card which ended his time in Sweden but Bradley had a lot of close calls with his attitude with authority figures.
We lost in overtime against Ghana. Ghana took Uruguay to pks. That's the semis. We definitely had a chance. Imagine if we had Jones in there instead of Rico (who I love) too.
Nah fam, England and Slovenia's defenses were pretty well organised. The results would have been the same. And besides, when you make a hypothetical where you add a player to your team, you have to afford the other teams the same luxury. It's pretty goofy to create a new timeline that only favors the team you stan. Ghana was solid af in 2010, usmnt would not have made the Quarters even with Davies. As I told the breh, if you're gonna add players to your team, you gotta let your opponents use players that were unavailable too. So in that case, the results don't change anyway, so why even fantasise this new timeline to begin with.
I might agree with you, as you being a very valid and well-thought out counter-argument........BUT, if you really watch the US offense with Davies as that Supporting Striker, we were going toe to toe with Brazil in the Confed Final for an entire first-half. I remember Davies in the 2nd half dribbling by 3 Brazilian defenders in a tight space and was approaching the top of the box and just before he was about to shoot, a 4th brazilian defender poked the ball away. We were also toe-to-toe with Ghana, a team nowhere near brazil level a year later without him. He was the x-factor, and he was getting better and better every progressing year. His off the ball work was huge. If you could combine Mathis, Dempsey, and Bobby Wood = you would get Charlie Davies
Shoot, while technically a tie, we beat Slovenia anyway; there was that travesty of the goal being called back when every announcer in the World saw it was a clean play. Even a UK video later called it one of the most egregious calls at the World Cup;
How good was he? Listen, if we had a healthy Charlie Davies, we had a chance to win the World Cup. That's how good he was. He was super fast, strong, technically sound. His ceiling was much higher than Jozy Altidore. He was improving rapidly, and could have played in the EPL. He was the perfect complement to Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey. He spread the opposing defenses out and created lots of opportunities for other players. World Cup 2010 was ours to take. We barely lost to Ghana, who lost to Uruguay on penalties (after a Suarez cheat handball). Uruguay almost beat Netherlands, and Spain was ripe for the talking, as we had just beat them in 2009 Confederations Cup. Davies added another dimension to the USA team and made them hard to beat. With Landon Donovan and Tim Howard and Clint Dempsey in their prime, we could have gone all the way.
He was fast. But let's be honest. That's about it. Never had world class technical ability or vision.
We'll never know, but I think you're wrong here. Davies made the USA very dangerous, because of his speed. Realistically, the USA had a chance to win the whole thing.
I think Charlie Davies is a better version of Bobby Wood, and when he encountered the accident, he was on the surge of his career (better and better form in French League 1), so really unfortunate.
I really would like to compare the 2. Davies and Wood. Same height, similar build. I'd say similar playing traits.
Honest opinion: it was decent enough, but there's a tendency for a bit of a mythology to build up around a players who have decent but short careers. For the USMNT it's clear in my mind he was clearly one of the better and most productive players by mid-2009, but also clearly not on the same level of Dempsey, Donovan or Bradley. What set him apart from other US strikers at the time was his speed and confidence, but I don't he didn't have significantly more ability than the better US strikers. After the Confederations cup upper-level Premiership clubs were poking their noses around Dempsey, Donovan and Bradley, but Davies ended up with a lower-level Ligue 1 club.
Davies was a player in Sweden so that might have explained interest from a lower-level Ligue 1 club. Also, he didn't have so many caps (or fantastic matches for the NT) by the time of that move. If I recall, he was playing in the B level Gold Cup when he got his move to Sochaux.
Remember,though.... As compared to Robbie Findlay,Edson Buddle,or Brian Ching, CD9 bestrode the Earth like a colossus. He was the perfect complement to Donovan.
http://www.espn.com/soccer/united-s...ormer-us-striker-charlie-davies-retires-at-31 Farewell Chuck D. What might have been....
Well, he announced his retirement. Charlie, thank you for your contribution to US Soccer. I'm sorry that you had to deal with the extensive health issues. I hope that you are active in coaching and with the continued growth of the sport
I strongly disagree, they had no chance. The thing about hypotheticals is that if you give your team the advantage of using an unavailable player, you should give that advantage to the rest of the field too. So now the new timeline ends up the same or worse. Anyway, he was a solid player and good guy, no doubt close to the Latin community. May his retirement years go well, it's a privilege to play pro football, and he was blessed to have done so.
No, the question was if you add Charlie Davies and everything else stays the same, did the USA team have a chance to win the World Cup? The answer is yes, of course. The USA beats Ghana, they could beat Uruguay, and they could beat Netherlands. Now they face Spain, the team they beat the previous summer. Sure, Spain is the favorite, but knowing that you've already beaten them gives you a psychological advantage. I contend that adding Davies gives you 1 more goal per game, and that's a huge advantage. Why? Because Davies totally opens up the game with his speed. Now you have a 3 pronged attack with Altidore, Donovan, and Davies, and with Clint Dempsey sitting back a bit, and you don't have to use players like Findley, who was largely ineffective.
Why does everything else stay the same, that's a ridiculous advantage. Very strange fantasy you have there. But anyway, Ghana still wins. Look at how organised their defense was. Fantasising about using an unavailable player while no other team can do the same, is quite odd. It's like fantasising about getting to play with 12 while all other teams have to use 11.