SFS, which game(s) other than the Argentina game was Bornstein directly responsible for more than 1 goal? Again, Pearce needs to get an opportunity as well. They're both young, and should both be developed for 2010. At this point I'd say Pearce is a better defender, but Bornstein has more upside, especially with his ability to strike the ball from distance and his insane pace.
SFS is being very hard on Bornstein, I agree with that. But I remember Bornstein was responsible for the second Paraguayan goal with that terrible backpass. I think your assessment of the two players is pretty fair, and I imagine that is what BB is thinking. Pearce is steady but unspectacular, however Bornstein is inconsistent but has a big upside. If Pearce continues to play well in the Bundesliga, and Bornstein continues to be inconsistent with moments of brilliance, eventually it will be to much for BB to ignore and he'll have to give Pearce a real shot (unless another LB overtakes them both).
Pearce has insane pace, too. And in the report from this game it was stated that he just missed on a attempt from 25 yards out, so it would seem that he also can shoot from distance. Now consider the fact that Pearce is not a newcomer to the fullback position, as Bornstein is, and plays in a better league. So how exactly does Bornstein have more upside?
They're both excellent athletes. Bornstein I think is a little more agile and maybe accelerates a little better over short distances, while Pearce would probably win a goal line to goal line race. I think people are having a hard time reconciling what they want in a fullback. They like what Bornstein does offensively, except for losing the ball, but also love to blame him when he's upfield and the opposing team counters down his side. Pearce is a little more conservative about his forays forward, which is what many people like in a full back and why many people see him as a better defender. Full backs who are super aggressive (like Daniel Alves) scare the heck out of some people because they are more afraid of conceding a goal than hopeful of scoring one. The two players are more similar than many wish to believe. I don't have a preference between the two; I just want to see Pearce prove that he is better in the USA colors before he is annointed as better simply because he plays in Europe.
Agreed. I think the general opinion is that, because Bornstein has somehow already been anointed (despite not even having the admittedly flimsy defense of playing in a better league) many people on Big Soccer feel that Pearce (or anybody else for that matter, but Pearce seems to be the main candidate) hasn't gotten a real shot to show what he can bring to the team. Also, It is a very different thing to assume that a player is better just because he plays in Europe than it is to assume that the player must be high-quality because he plays in one of the 6 best leagues in Europe. While there are many European leagues that many be equal or below the MLS in quality, I think it's pretty safe to say that the competition and average player in the Bundesliga is superior to the MLS in general. Finally, while Bornstein has played reasonably well for the Nats, he has not played nearly well enough to be handed the position without having to fight for it. If we get to see Pearce and maybe a few others, and they get enough time to get a decent read on their ability, then we decide that Bornstein is still the best then so be it. But he certainly has not played well enough to be elevated to the category of untouchable with the likes of Donovan and Howard.
If its June 2010, I'll take steady. If its August 2007, I'll take magic with the hope it becomes magic + steady in 2 1/2 years.
Hope is a great thing. Maybe the best thing. - "Red" from Shawshank Redemption. Unfortunately hope also admits the possibility that it won't happen. Then you're stuck in 2010 with a left back who is still unsteady with moments of magic and a bunch of back-ups without experience at the international level. That's an awful lot of eggs to put in one basket. Especially a basket that we already know has some holes.
What dramatics! Bradley thinks Bornstein is better -- either based on actual performance or potential (and I am not a mind-reader). So naturally, he focused most of his attention on the guy who has the best shot of having a real impact when the games start to matter. Which is logical and fair, even if some or many of the BS experts think he has got it wrong, whether based on legitimate opinion or not. Bradley also, so far (and unlike many I don't profess to be able to see the future) has not abandoned other options, giving time to Bocanegra, Pearce and Spector at this position this year. Once again, giving more experience to the perceived better player is a reasonable thing to do, even if others would do it differently if they were in BB's shoes. Basically, BB is gambling that his judgment is correct and acting accordingly, as any decent manager would do.
Wrong, "playing well" in the BL no more equates to a Nats starting role than your reference to Bradley's favoritism means you know what you're talking about.
I think he just means that Pearce will have shown, in that scenario, that he is deserving of more chances.
Well none of us know what we're talking about, we are all just speculating on Pearce's future with the USMNT. And "playing well" in the BL doesn't guarantee a starting spot with the Nats, I agree, but it does force BB to give Pearce more playing time if it continues (which is what I meant in regards to all the opportunities Bornstein is receiving). Remember the context of this certain debate is all the chances Bornstein is getting as opposed to the opportunities Pearce gets. And obviously Bradley favors Bornstein, he keeps picking him as his starting LB, now whether he consistently picks him because he truly believes he is our best natural LB, can develop into such, or something else, that is for BS to endlessly debate.
Fair enough. The quote does read pretty dramatic. I mostly meant it as a semi-sarcastic nod to the wisdom of a longterm strategy based entirely on hoping a player fills the holes in his game. I mean, I hope EJ developes some touch and I hope Gooch figures out how to play with his hands a little less, but that doesn't mean I don't think we should explore other options in case those things don't happen. Here's my point. I don't care who ends up being our left back. I have no ties to any player. I didn't hang out with their siblings in high school. I have no vested interest whatsoever (except wanting the US team to win) in who plays. I just want to know 2 things: 1) That at a position where we clearly have no superstar (The only ones on the team at this point are Donovan and Howard) that the coach has taken a serious look at each potential player and makes his decision based on objective analysis of their performance. and 2) He has a back-up plan (in case of stagnacy, regression, injury, etc.) that doesn't include playing someone out of position. What I believe "any decent manager" would do is create competition at every position to push players to step up and earn their positions and then create depth at each position so one injury isn't catastrophic (ie. Gibbs or JOB). PS. I should also say that I do think Bradley truly believes that Bornstein is the best option at left back. I don't think there's anything underhanded or dishonest in his continued selection of Bornstein. Just possibly unwise.
That seems like good logic, until you realize that it is 180 degrees opposite of good logic. We are trying to anticipate who will play in 2010. What we really need to get away from are the players who dominate weak CONCACAF opponents but cannot hold their own against World Cup opponents. If Heath Pearce can hold his own against top European World Cup players while playing them in Europe, then that puts him ahead of most of our recent World Cup starters, and makes us not really care about how much he dominates opponents that he will never face in a World Cup. Unless we only care about whipping Barbados and El Salvador. Perhaps Bornstein is more dominating against them than Pearce. Who cares?
I don't have a big problem with Borenstein, and he's obviously a Bob guy, so we may as well get used to him. But, Pearce does seem to be making a strong case to get at least some consideration. And, I do have to sit in the camp that wonders why of all positions on the field to look locked down as far as playing time so far given for the US that it is the young, relatively untested and unproven kid learning left back that has seemingly solidified his spot the most. It does seem an odd choice. But, I think we need to understand that all coaches at all levels favor certain players, not because they are partial but because they really feel those payers bring something special and important to the team. Seems like Bradley feels Borenstein brings something Pearce doesn't. Only time will tell if he's right or wrong. I'd just like to see him hedging his bet a bit more, and with plenty of time left, he just might before all is said and done. And, continuing to hold down a starting BL spot is the best thing Pearce can do right now to plant that seed of doubt in Bradley's mind about sticking with his initial top choice for the duration. Glad to see Pearce doing well. I just wish I could watch as much Bundesliga on FSC as Premier League. I've always liked to watch Bundesliga since the old Soccer Made in Germany days, but seems whenever I turn on the TV, English is all I get right now.
Except that we, uh, have to beat such opponents to earn a chance to play the likes of Germany. Furthermore, Pearce doing okay against such opponents, while Bornstein isn't getting the chance to play similar quality opponents proves nothing about which would be better for the USA. My point in the previous post was that doing okay, showing potential, is much different from solidifying a position. If Pearce completely dominated Lahm or someone similar, I would be just as excited about him as SFS is.
I will take some raps, but not this one. I have repeatedly argued that Bradley has and will continue to give Pearce more shots. In other words, don't foucs on one match, but look at a series of matches to see if a player is getting a shot. And of course, Bradley has called up Pearce for another look. Of course, the opposite is true -- Bradley hasn't all of the sudden stopped drinking the Bornstein Kool-aid. This doesn't lead me to doubt that Bornstein is still #1 -- I would guess that Bradley discussed this with Chivas along time ago and decided that Bornstein would do the Sweden game and skip this date in favor of playing for Chivas against the Red Bulls. Of course, this is a chance for Pearce (if he beats out Spector) to change that dynamic.
I agree with your overall conclusion, but I'm guessing Bradley probably planned to call Bornstein into both and got shut down late. Who in their right mind would determine that it makes more sense to call in Bornstein for a game in Sweden and Pearce for a game in Chicago? It's like 6-7 extra time zones for each of them than if they did it the other way around. I can't imagine that extra travel would be overwhelmed by the matchup considerations for either club or country.