I am just not convinced yet that the Bradley and Kljestan combo is not strong enough defensively. And I do buy into the in season/out of season form. I like Clark, but having 2 MLS based players start in an important game in early February is a concern.
When he starts playing in Bundesliga II we'll have to compare that with the other guys. If Edu is starting in the SPL(or playing regularly off the bench), Torres continues to play well in Mexico, Szetela continues to play and perform in Italy (by next year maybe in Serie A), Feilhaber starts playing well in Denmark, Clark and Mastro perform in MLS (and maybe a guy like McCarty too will have a good 1st half of the MLS season), Arguez sees playing time at Hertha Berlin, etc. then we can have a discussion. Hell, I'm fine with the having an argument now. What can't be argued is that out of all of our central midfielders, Bradley currently plays in the league which gives him the most experience against world-class players, etc. (and please for the love of god don't tell me Torres plays against better competition in the Copa Libertadores. Because you know, they were just knocked out of that competition in the opening round by a pretty mediocre Chilean team). So right now, I have absolutely no problem with Michael's inclusion in the squad. And I'm not going to look too much farther ahead than right now. What's clear is that with the depth we have in the central midfield position (and frankly positions all over the field) you better not be sitting around on a bench in Scandinavia (or some equivalent league like the SPL) if you expect to be a starter on the USMNT. MLS is a slightly different beast, because those players get to demostrate their skills in games like the one we had against Sweden and participate in camps like camp cupcake. A kid like Arguez doesn't have that chance, so he better be playing somewhere (so you know, Bob actually see him). The guy that's clearly fallen off the face of the earth is Benny Feilhaber. He looked quite good for us, but the fact that he never got to play (anywhere) has made his stock drop fast. (injuries too)
I think camp is a lot different from in-season practice though. I don't have too much concern about MLS players' fitness/sharpness. The US staff has a lot of experience dealing with this and I trust them to keep MLS players fitness and form up during these extended camps.
Jozy has been playing every so often, at least earlier in the season. I wouldn't start either Beaz or Pearce because I don't know that they'd be physically be able to go 90 and who knows where their form is
To be clear, I have no problem with Jozy, Beaz heck or even Pearce on the team. I was just addressing the larger topic of not playing on teams in Europe being a standard disqualifer like some here have argued. Who here does not think Jozy and Beaz would be starting and playing 90 minutes in the MLS? If we exclude guys from the USMNT for seeking to play in the best most competitive environments we risk discouraging players from doing the very thing that will help the USMNT become better over time.
Such as prior nat's and youth nat's experiance and results? Does anyone even take into account the possibility of club politics ruling out a spot on a team like AS Monaco for Freddy Adu? Same for other players in those positions. Landon might do well at Bayern because of Klinsmann's willingness to play him (over an extended period of time). European soccer operates with the same menatality of a veteran speed junkie (score within 5 minutes of substitution time or you're benched). We are going to get it handed to us Thursday, I just see too much preparation and skill coming in from El Tri.
Why should the best player and center mid of the group be sacrificed? Bradley is a box to box midfielder, so is Clark. Bradley isnt a pure attacker like Sasha nor a pure destroyer like like Mastro. He ability to do several things exceptionally well is the reason he always starts. He can press forward and get into the attack (as evidecned by his numerous goals scored over the past 18 months..which is WAY more than Sasha btw) and his ability to sit back and read the game and disrupt the oppsoitions attack. The Bradely bashing is stupid, but i am used to it. I've been defending him since he was 17 with the Metrostars.
Oh, well that's not what my reasoning was. If they're playing even once in a while. I'm fine with that player starting for USA. But Beaz and Pearce have been basically MIA.
Sadly, I too am now used to the questioning of Bradley's automatic inclusion in our starting lineup being labeled as bashing the kid.
Don't know what's going to happen Thursday, but only a Cassandra would predict a big home loss by the US on Wednesday.
But Cassandra was always right despite the fact that nobody ever believed her. Are you saying that despite the ardent denial of BS the USMNT is certain to lose big?
I don't think it's a lack of ambition, I think it's being savvy about a career path. I, too, want to see our guys reach the top clubs in the world. Let's set aside youth programs and focus on initial professional appearances. With the influence of college, many (most?) of our guys enter MLS a few years later than other players would enter a pro environment. I'll continue with the Kljestan example: he made an impact as a rookie, continued to improve his second season, and was the best player on the team in his third. Additionally, he transitioned to the national team fairly well. I think he's ready for the next step. However, at age 23, he needs to ensure that the next step is the right one. It makes more sense for him to (hypothetically ) go to a place like Celtic than a mid-table EPL team, even if the latter were a bigger club/name. The critical component of a move at that age is to be challenged while achieving success. It helps him grow as a pro, and that in turn helps our national team. The key is to get guys on this path at an early age, and I think we're trending toward this approach: Davies is 22, Bradley is 21, Altidore is 19, Adu is 19. That way, the players have time to grow and reach those upper-tier clubs in their prime.
No i understand it fine. You think Bradley should be sacrificed because one you think the balance between the other two is better overall. Its not a rocket science post chad. I am saying that your reasoning is flawed and that having Bradley in fact allows the team to attack and defend through the middle because bradely isn't a player that is hard role defined. This game is about movement and instincts and having a player that can flow in and out of the tempo and momentums of the game is always better than having a guy that is pure defensive and pure offensive and less predictable.Bradely as a box to box type midfeilder is apt at accomplishing both goals in midfeild and using his match instincts to decide when to paly with one mentaility and with another. Sorry if that went over your head.
I was hoping no one would bring this nuance up In current conventions of literature and plot, before the event occurs, Cassandras are traditionally thought to be crazy and overly negative. I certainly am not pretending to predict the result, but I am inclined to think the poster a bit crazy at this point Is there a term for people who are Cassandra-ish before the event then turn out to be wrong? I couldn't think of one, so I just settled on the half-right Cassandra.
Who cares what happens Thursday. On Wednesday Mexico will be beaten. "Too much preparation and skill"? Have you been living in a hole the past couple of years?
Reality. In tournament soccer, the difference between success and failure is often the lucky breaks. Like, for example, being absolutely gifted two goals in your final group match by an incompetent refereee and then proceeding to dive and roll for the last 45 minutes of the match. Sometimes that gets you to the second round.