I'm not ignoring talent, and I doubt that JK will ignore talent. But I don't think you or anyone is going to claim that talent is everything. Freddy Adu is undoubtedly one of the most talented players we have in our pool and is no good to the USMNT when he's not getting playing time. If talent isn't put to use, talent has less of an impact and is less important. Landon himself had to decide whether to get consistent playing time or ride the bench in Europe. He decided to make MLS his home and the USMNT has been no worse off because of it. Every player with national team ambitions for any country has to take this calculus into account. Does that mean that sometimes the midfielder that is getting consistent starts and playing time is going to start over an arguably more "talented" player that is riding the bench and getting no minutes? Yes, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that. If the player's club ambitions outweigh his national team ambitions, that's fine, but the USMNT is not a reward for reaching a high club only to ride the bench. Also, if the player is riding the bench, perhaps there has been a miscalculation about the level of talent, as well. The fact is that most players in our pool remain somewhere in the middle and so the decision among players is not a simple binary one. I have no doubt that JK will weigh talent, but talent is not the trump, it doesn't carry the day every time.
Yes, but if you choose to chase the money but you can't find the field you shouldn't expect to start for the USMNT. Your position should be in jeopardy. Does anyone here think that the reason that Beckerman looked like he belonged out there against Mexico was because his talent was equal or superior to Bradley's and Jones' talent? Or might it have been, perhaps, that he was sharper? Rhetorical and case in point, really.
Most likely the former more than the latter. And that does have an impact, and that does mean it's something to take into account. What I'm saying is simply that a coach needs to use his best judgment on a case-by-case basis, deciding what he thinks is best. Resorting to an arbitrary "the player who isn't playing can't play" rule just gets in the way of that (and needless quibbling over exactly how much sitting on the bench equals "not playing," or theoretically weighing X number of starts at a certain club vs a greater number of starts at a lesser club and lots of other relatively irrelevant minutiae). But that doesn't mean that he can't decide to go with form over talent case-by-case, maybe even more often than not. There are plenty of instances where that would make sense.
I agree to a certain extent. But you can't use that one example as a catch-all solution for every situation going forward. The US talent pool isn't deep enough for fans to start with this ridiculous moral posturing. If Landon Donovan is sitting the bench for Bayern Munich, he's still brings more to the USMNT than Bobby Convey who happens to see the field a lot. Spain has the luxury of turning down extraordinarily talented players whom they feel may not have played to their potential during recent seasons. Because no matter what, they will still end up with extraordinarily talented players. This is something a few people in this thread don't seem to understand. They would rather see the US field players of lower quality to teach the excluded players "valuable life lessons". Let's be real here...
If you're saying that Beckerman may be equally talented (compared to Bradley/Jones), you could very well be correct (though it's far from the world view of Kyle around here). Even so, by what many people are saying here, we'd have expected him to look worse on the USMNT. But fundamentally I can't disagree with your position that a textured approach is better than a binary one. I just think that if you really weaken the requirement, you make it difficult to have a real fight for positions. I'm also willing to see what the team would look like with a pure "club form" approach. We've seen the other approach for the past many years, and it could be that what we've done in the past is what will work best. We haven't tried the other way, though, so I'd be interested in seeing what kind of results it would yield. I'm not predicting that we'll necessarily play better, but I think it would be interesting to see. First off, I can't speak for anyone else but me, and my only interest is improving the team. I think that there is value in stocking our team with in-form players. I absolutely agree that our talent pool isn't the same quality as Spain, England, even Mexico. That said, I don't think that that alone means that a "playing time required" model would fail. Mexico seems to have done fine without Nery Castillo. You're right that it's not fair to point to Beckerman and say that the "playing time required" model cannot be gainsaid, but it does provide a good example of why playing time is important, of why this model may have some benefit for the team. I'm a Galaxy fan as well as a USMNT fan, the last person I want to see benched is LD, but I have to be ready to accept the fact that him not playing may be the best for the team if he's not game-sharp. I've also got to think that if this is the kind of system that JK puts in place, to the extent that this system is respected, if the integrity of the system is maintained, the players will respect it. It gives them a good understanding of what is expected of them in order to be eligible for selection. It's less of a black box.
There is no Correlation between club and country, as long as your match fit thats all that matters. I've seen enough of Chris Wondolowski and Conor Casey play over better players because of this stupid rationale
As someone mentioned, the important variable is talent. Perhaps the real issue is evaluating the talent level of the players in the MLS. It does seem that the talent-level of a player in Europe is taken for granted. A lot of arguments about who should start tended to go like this: "Jozy's not contributing much. Why isn't Bob starting Buddle?" "Pfft. Jozy's the best option we have by a mile, that's why. He's currently training with a very good Spanish team." "Well, okay. But Edson Buddle just lead his league in scoring." "You mean the MLS? (eye roll). If he was really any good, he'd be in Europe!" Not arguing that Buddle is more talented, but it's possible for someone on a hot streak in a lesser league to be the better option AT THAT MOMENT.
I';m not sure why you think the USMNT needs to "reward" players for dominating the MLS. This is not a CHARITY service. This is not AYSO soccer. This is the big leagues. If I score 10 goals halfway through the season in the MLS and Joe Schmo gets called in over from Europe before I do...I know damn well I better score 15 goals the 2nd half and probably have to get some looks from a better club. And I have a question for you OP: 1) Free agent offer of $8 mil euros a season to play at Man City vs 2) $1.5 mil a year from the Galaxy. Knowing full well going the Man City route will probably not get you minutes, probably fall out of form, and out of the USMNT starting picture.....you and just about everyone else will go to ManCity to support their family...
Not a single person said anything along the lines of the USMNT rewarding players for dominating MLS. Do you think that the USMNT needs to "reward" players that move to bigger clubs and aren't good enough to see the field?
No I do not. I am of the opinion that the USMNT will play the best players..period. Whether that player is playing in the MLS or sitting on the bench in Europe...I expect the USMNT to play the players that gives us the best chance to win.
You can tell in this thread who is an underachieving savant and who actually manages and runs an organization. Underdog, genius and talented people love to talk about how great they 'could' be if given the chance. Leaders are judged by results. While their might be time to 'encourage' certain players by bringing them in to give them a feel for camp, starting and playing should be reserved for guys who have proven they can play at their chosen level. I don't necessarily recall the company that handed out bonuses for sitting on your a$$. Or the sales team driven by guys who could close, if only... Part of JK's job is setting expectations and requirements that help generate a culture of success and accomplishment and this comes primarily be establishing true competition for positions, which begins way before the call into camp takes place.
Yes, great point. Playing the best players with the most talent is akin to giving out larger bonuses to people that don't work hard. What are you talking about?
lol I can tell which posters in this thread are good at making analogies that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. I assume he's doing a bang-up job of running his "organization". A USMNT call-up is not some sort of merit badge or achievement award. Players already know what they have to do to get called to the national team. They have to offer something more than the next player at their respective position. This isn't about rewarding players for their hard work and dedication. This is about picking players that give you the best chance to win. I bet Bornstein is working his ass off right now. Wondolowski has been working his ass off and playing regularly. I don't give a sh**. Agudelo is a better option despite not starting for NYRB. Players need to be picked on a case-by-case basis depending on how their inclusion to the team provides the best chance to win. This isn't some new phenomenon. Ronaldo was routinely overweight and out of form throughout his career. Not to mention how lazy he was. But he was a regular starter for Brazil because he gave them the best chance to win. And he rarely disappointed at the international level. It's not like Brazil didn't have other world-class options at striker.
Best is a great word. What does it mean? I know what playing time means. I know what it means to beat someone else out for a starting spot. I know what scoring a goal means. What an assist means. What a pass completion rate means. I know what starting vs. not starting means. But I dont know what best or talent actually mean in a world driven by results and accomplishments. I think what you are saying is that a 55m pass by Freddy Adu to Donovan is a conceptual creation that defines his talent and not an imaginary 55m pass to Donovan. Or is that backwards? Can you give me some conceptual plays you created that really isolate a players talents? I am low on imagination right now. I think the OP encapsulates a very simple and important philosophy that can and should be a cornerstone of the USMNT. No Play. No Play.
This would be good and great if everyone played in the same league against the same competition. I think you're a little out of touch. That's why people get paid very good money to be able to evaluate things that are not easily quantifiable. Identifying qualities such as "talent" doesn't seem to be your forte.
If the manager decides that you are match-fit, you have talent and he thinks you will help the team win, you play.
The only absolute with respect to USMNT rosters and gameday squads is nobody's position is guaranteed. That's it. Everything else is subject to the coaching staff's assessment which should include some combination of relevant historical performance, current form, tactical fit, and current health. Best leave it to the coaches who are paid to make the actual decisions to determine what type of weighting to assign each of these things.
Again, clearly not real world based. Now you are always beholden not to the players, but the talent selector. Set in some clear guidelines and build a strong foundation that emphasizes results and playing time and you have a real world variable that removes a lot of the guess work. It might not always work in the short term, but it is a great long term strategy and clearly isolates something a player needs to do to get on the team. I am big on rewarding performance and results, not so much on unicorn burgers...wait...bad example.
This is UMNT selection. This is not a process in which we decide the mission statement for a fortune 500 company. I think you're a little out of touch. Again, the USMNT is not about rewards.
Why else fight and battle and suffer if not for the ultimate reward of playing for country? It should be the ultimare reward. And a team like the US, with fans that think like you do will only lead to mediocrity where they know they can do whatever they want and still get call ups on talent. It is the wrong message and frankly doesnt push our players to get playing time as much as they should at home and abroad.
What you call guess work I consider a pretty damned important element of coaching a team. "Eliminating the guess work" isn't an issue for an actual coach, which you are not. Coaches need to do the "guess work" you're referring to. It's kind of important in the whole process of building a team. No one in that kind of position is going to agree with your bizarre understanding of what "talent" means and how you compare players. It's fine for some abstract philosophical discussion, but your belief that it should translate to the US team's player selection criteria in such a concrete way is beyond ridiculous.