If you are not playing you shouldn't be playing.

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by Flagreekguy, Aug 12, 2011.

  1. EruditeHobo

    EruditeHobo Member+

    Mar 29, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Because they are professionals? Someone that doesn't work hard without reward doesn't deserve whatever reward we're talking about in the first place.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFHJkvEwyhk"]Matt Damon defends teachers against a [expletive] cameraman! - YouTube[/ame]
     
  2. 7211

    7211 World Class

    Jun 28, 2010
    Because these players are paid to fight and battle and suffer. And because each player should strive to be the best.

    Being selected to the USMNT isn't a way for the USSF to pat players on the back and tell them thanks for scoring 8 goals for the Columbus Crew.

    You would like a desired player to receive regular playing time, but you aren't going to punish a player (who could contribute) for sitting the bench at a good club just to show him that he should have gone to play in the Angolan 4th division where he'd be a star.

    If a player stays match-fit, looks sharp in camp and shows the ability to contribute to a winning team, then that player should be selected. The rest is great and all but it has nothing to do with the national team.
     
  3. 7211

    7211 World Class

    Jun 28, 2010
    rep'd
     
  4. Flagreekguy

    Flagreekguy New Member

    Aug 13, 2007

    When Sir Alf Ramsay was manager of England, there were two stipulations before he would consider you for selection. You had to be playing regularly for your club and you mustn't be in dispute with them.

    And I get we aren't England Or Germany or Spain. But to use the example of Spain, they weren't a world beater team over night. They stood by these types of rules for their team for decades before they stopped under achieving. But that's also why their team is so fluid together. When a player is benched for something like this it gives another play time on the field. This makes it easier to lose a player to injury.

    When Donovan is injured we don't look like the same team. But, if we lived by this rule and players would get regular playing time when others are benched due to injury or whatever, we look like a much more cohesive team.

    Personally, i'm tired of saying "We don't have these luxuries, we the US not england" because I think in the end, the only way to improve our depth and quality is to start changing the way we think.

    This is one of those thought processes that needs to change. If howard gets benched because he's not performing well with everton we can't just start him because he's tim f#@kin howard.

    What you do on your club team determines if your able to try and mimic the same performance on your national team.

    Without that, I can't justify seeing you in the USMNT kit. sorry. I don't care who you are.
     
  5. Sam Hamwich

    Sam Hamwich Member+

    Jul 11, 2006
    1. the only way to stay match-fit is to be in a match, often. You cannot replicate playing with training. Just doesnt work.
    2. have nothing but players who are already contributing to a winning team on the field and you increase your chances of having a winning team.
     
  6. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I think as with all things there needs to be balance. If a guy signs to a big club, you expect he may ride pine for a bit while he works his way into the squad and you probably cut him some slack. (although even in this case it is arguable if being called in hinders this process and only draws it out and hurts the player more than left with his club until he is a regular) If a guy keeps practicing at a big club but can't break through and ever get regular playing time...well, he's probably over-reaching and really should be at a smaller club if remaining in game shape matters to him.

    I'm not willing to say we should take a snap shot of a moment in time and say we can't call in anyone who isn't playing right at that moment. Sometimes you need your best players and sometimes your best players face temporary struggles at their clubs. But when patterns emerge, the guys who actually play are the ones you need to be relying on. If a guy has played well for the US and continues to do so even though he's sitting the bench for a couple months... cut him some slack as long as he still brings the goods. But if he starts having entire seasons where he's nothing more than a practice player, he's not going to be anyone you want to rely on.
     
  7. 7211

    7211 World Class

    Jun 28, 2010
    I agree when it comes to being match-fit. But you are placing all the emphasis on club performance. Club performance is a very good indicator of what a player could potentially contribute to the national team, but it isn't the only indicator.

    In your view it's the only thing that needs to be evaluated. That's just not how things work.

    I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with point 2. Whether a player's club is winning or losing matters very little in the grand scheme of things when it comes to player selection. Does it really matter if Çaykur Rizespor is having a great season or not?

    You're quick to throw out all these philosophical ideas on how player selection should take place. But very few of those concepts actually mean anything. Very few of those things actually matter when it comes to putting the right team together.

    We could do this for days. We simply don't agree.
     
  8. TheNearPost

    TheNearPost Member+

    May 21, 2010
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    I think that both arguments have merit. If we want to become one of the best teams in the world, part of it is having some of the best players in the world, right? You can have not great players and still win, but, technically, you're still not one of the best teams in the world. We've heard guys Jag who're saying that we don't have the luxury of just bringing in players who are getting playing time when it comes to winning, which is completely true. However, if we're trying to become one of the best teams in the world, we have to build towards a certain identity. We have to build towards a certain system. Teams like Brazil and Germany have been incredibly successful on the world stage because they have a way of developing players, and Spain, after being one of the most frustrating teams success-wise for a long time, is now on the same level as those teams. That process of getting to a certain identity and system and style didn't always involve winning, but once they had attained those three things, it was all about improving it more and more until they were the best.

    That's where the playing time argument comes in - if we want to be the best, we have to find a way of making the best, and that comes from finding our identity as a whole, growing it, and then eventually utilizing it when the time comes. Part of the best systems in the world is that if you're not playing/playing well for your club, you're not going to play for your country. Does that always bring results? Certainly not, but it BREEDS players better - that is something that we're trying to do in this country. I'm not saying that the national team we throw out there on the field is necessarily responsible for developing players or maing them better. However, it is responsible for setting the example for how we want our players to be and how we want them to be handled.

    A player not getting playing time for their club, believe it or not, doesn't always mean he or she is lazy. It can be down to tactical changes that need to be made, poor coaching, or simply that a better player came along. That being said, a player not getting playing time for their club does mean that their growth is slowed, although to what extent depends on the player and the club. That, no matter how you cut it, isn't good, and eventually the guy getting playing time is going to be better.

    Now, all of the above being said, when it comes time to win, we can't consider the state of US Soccer, development system, the youth, or whathaveyou. When Juergen has to make game-changing decisions in the World Cup, he has to think about what he's going to do that will help his team walk off the field with a win - that's his job. If the guy who isn't getting playing time is the right guy, then he needs to be out there. This is where guys like Jag have a point. There is just a point where we need to "screw the system" and win.

    Now, THAT being said, the time to win isn't 100% of the time. There is time between now and World Cup qualifying for Klinsmann to really help the USA find it's identity, or at least AN identity, and I truly believe he can do it.
     
  9. HailtotheKing

    HailtotheKing Member+

    San Antonio FC
    United States
    Dec 1, 2008
    TEXAS
    Club:
    San Antonio Scorpions FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So somehow, Donovan only playing 1 in 3/4 matches for Munich wouldn't be a better player than Bedoya playing every game for Orebro .... even though Donovan is quite clearly a better player.

    Bedoya can play every minute of Orebro's title winning season but that doesn't change the fact that he's only playing at the Allsvenskan level.

    A player can play every minute of every game and not get any more skillfull. Playing time =/= rise in ability automatically.
     
  10. juniorLA

    juniorLA Member

    Mar 4, 2008
    El Lay
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    THIS.

    The USMNT is not a reward for a player riding the bench, just because it's a good team. That player is not going to be match-sharp, that player is not going to be at his best, and so the purported talent advantage is going to be lessened or eliminated. And there's a good chance that if he plays, he's more likely to hurt the national team because his fitness, decision-making, composure are all likely to suffer. An arguably more talented player that is not getting games is not the same player.

    And the fact that someone is performing at the MLS level is not irrelevant. It takes a level of talent to do well in MLS and playing in MLS can keep you sharp for national team duty, as it has done all these years for Landon Donovan.

    So, again, let's revisit Kyle Beckerman's recent performance. You can look at it two ways: (1) either he is at the same talent level as Bradley/Jones and thus this inane anti-MLS bias is very much misplaced or (2) he's not at the same talent level but the fact that he's consistently playing is making him a better performer than Bradley/Jones.

    The context of all of this is how you can create a true battle for positions at every position. To the extent that there is a lot of subjectivity thrown in, maybe you end up with the best playing team, anyhow, but you likely weaken the integrity of the battle for positions. And the battle for positions is not intended to unseat the most talented guys, but to keep pushing them, to make sure that they are always sharp and at their best. Maybe in the process it reveals that the guys that we thought were our best options turned out to be lesser, perhaps not.
     
  11. Sam Hamwich

    Sam Hamwich Member+

    Jul 11, 2006
    This underscores a very important point, you dont build true competition through subjective claims like talent. Competition needs to be brutally honest. The winner is the guy who plays more, passes better on the field, scores more, achieves more. You start throwing in 'best' and 'talent' around and your men look at you like you are phony and full of it.
     
  12. HailtotheKing

    HailtotheKing Member+

    San Antonio FC
    United States
    Dec 1, 2008
    TEXAS
    Club:
    San Antonio Scorpions FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    While it may not always translate (and it doesn't) talent is not subjective.
     
  13. juniorLA

    juniorLA Member

    Mar 4, 2008
    El Lay
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In one sense that is correct and I'd agree, but the evaluation of talent is often subjective.
     
  14. ayers

    ayers Member

    Jul 9, 2002
    somewhere
    Example:
    BB's evaluation of Adu, Bornstein, and Michael's talent kept them on the GC squad even though their club situations weren't ideal. BS posters, however, vary wildly in their assessments of whether or not each of the guys deserved the call-up.

    It seems to me, a lot of the arguments here are based on posters' own evaluation of a player's talent -- player A or B should always get the chance because he is talented. But in many cases, it's not so clear cut even when we are talking about the "best" players on the team. On top of the subjective evaluation of a player's talent, there is also the often uncertain evaluation of whether or not a player is fit/sharp when he's not playing. Put the two together and you have Bornstein in GC....
     
  15. 7211

    7211 World Class

    Jun 28, 2010
    It's not a reward for anything. I think that's where we fundamentally disagree.
     
  16. 7211

    7211 World Class

    Jun 28, 2010

    Good post.

    The main problem I have with encouraging players to focus on seeking regular playing time is that it doesn't always push the players to maximize their potential. You wan't players to aspire to play at the highest levels. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. That's life. But I do think that it's the best way to advance the sport for American players.
     
  17. juniorLA

    juniorLA Member

    Mar 4, 2008
    El Lay
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, I don't believe that it's a reward, either. I'm not sure that anyone who values playing time is stating that it's a reward for playing time, but rather that players who are getting more minutes may be better options for the team than players that aren't seeing the field.
     
  18. TheNearPost

    TheNearPost Member+

    May 21, 2010
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    An equally good post, and in like a tenth of the length of mine :eek:
     
  19. 7211

    7211 World Class

    Jun 28, 2010
    Call it what you want. Encouragement, rewards, incentives... You would like the players to understand that the only way to get on the USMNT is to receive regular playing time at a club. This is great in theory, but how exactly does this not result in complacency? Should Altidore have been warned that lack of regular playing time at Villareal would directly result in him no longer being considered as USMNT material? Should Clint Dempsey, Landon Donovan and Maurice Edu have also been warned?

    The "system" that's being suggested is far too rigid and hardly promotes American players challenging themselves.
     
  20. Otergod

    Otergod Member+

    Sep 20, 2007
    indianapolis
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    did you read the rest of my posts? I am fine if the player is a consistent option off the bench, but if a player is not making the game day 18 then perhaps they should have made better career moves.

    And typically you arent match fit unless you find the field at the club level. You may be in shape, but being in shape and playing the full 90 of an intl' match are two different things.

    Donovan still got off the bench at Bayern, in fact he played nearly a whole half each match he was there. Now if (using an old example) Donovan went to Real Madrid and rarely even sees the bench, at which point do we stop calling him up? At some point he will be less sharp, less fit and overall not the best option. We saw it with Adu when he was struggling with his club. It appears we are seeing it with MB.

    i dont think Beckerman is a better player then Jones or Bradley, but he was that match. He was sharper and quicker in his thoughts. If beckerman had been riding pine at RSL, would he be the same quality option?


    In the end: PT should matter as match fitness and sharpness are connected to playing in matches. I am not saying you should be playing the full 90 every match, but at the very least an consistent option off the bench.

    But there are no extremes here. It really isnt this or that, but who's best. If Holden comes back and is an option off the bench, i would rather start him over Beckerman despite the fact he's playing full matches with RSL. There are variables, but i think those variables have to be taken into effect after the call up. I do not think MB should be called up in up coming friendlies b/c i think he needs to get his club status fixed and find some consistent PT, despite the years he's put in with the US have been very good IMO. Same thing we've been saying about Adu, Jozy, etc...
     
  21. Que Bueno

    Que Bueno Member

    Aug 7, 2010
    Kentucky
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In football players can be substituted in and out on every play. Thus those FSU players who were so talented yet may not quite be match fit have the ability to play a half dozen plays a game and be substituted out.

    Whereas in soccer, you only get 3 subs (period). So if you are not match fit it doesn't matter how talented you are you still have to play a full 90min.

    -Look at how long its taking Fernando Torres to comeback from his hamstring injury. Thats because he isn't fully fit.

    -Remember when people though D-Wade was done? He wasn't fit.

    -Tyson Gay wasn't the same for 2yrs now he just broke Usain Bolts record

    Soccer is a sport for the "well conditioned athlete" not a "quick burst" sport. That is why you have to be fit.
     
  22. juniorLA

    juniorLA Member

    Mar 4, 2008
    El Lay
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ^ Very pragmatic and I suspect may very well be JK's approach.

    I'm not sure I follow your point about complacency--requiring consistent playing time should be a bigger weapon against complacency than anything. The player always has to be proving it, always. If selection is based purely on talent or perceived talent, then one of those favored players need not worry, there is always a starting spot.

    Should Jozy have been warned for lack of playing time--absolutely. His form was not terribly good for us over the past year or so, he suffered for lack of playing time. Same goes for Deuce or LD or Mo during any periods when they are available and not seeing the field for prolonged periods, certainly.
     
  23. Cool Hand Luke

    Cool Hand Luke Member+

    Aug 13, 2008
    Austin Texas
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Which record? Not the 9.58 - 100 metre? That's untouchable.
     
  24. jond

    jond Member+

    Sep 28, 2010
    Club:
    Levski Sofia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In regards to this thread, all I know, is Pontius is playing, and playing damn well. I want to see him called up for one of the next 3 friendlies. If he's not called in for CR, then he won't go to Belgium, but get his ass in there for Ecuador.
     
  25. Otergod

    Otergod Member+

    Sep 20, 2007
    indianapolis
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    how very rare we tend to agree on subjects. This ranks up there when Ant0n and I agreed... once :D

    Perhaps it'll happen again in the future
     

Share This Page