It was a freaking joke. aplomb-self-possession; assurance; poise —SYN CONFIDENCE Yes lets throw out all those confident bastards, damn them we need people who play like they know the USA is a soccer minnow.
Just a hypothetical. Pablo appears to be the future d-mid for the US team. Right now it appears that he will be the d-mid for our next WC run. When Chris Armas comes back will it be unfair to not give him any more caps? Does the question of fairness enter into the equation for players who may lose a spot due to injury?
Fair enough -- and succinct, too. Except if I laid it out so baldly like that, well, folks would have a compete conniption. On your point #2, the great moral philosopher Yogi Berra has weighed in when he said "You can observe a lot by watching." Only if being wrong is a sometime thing; therefore being right is also a sometime thing. So, simply, is he more often right than wrong? That's the key question.
I have no problem with this type of questioning, as I think that it is one of the best uses of this board. In this spirit, I would like to respond to your specific arguments. 1. Regis: For me, Regis was worth the time because he was the only US left back who has real skill and subtly in the short passing game. When Regis was "on" offensively, he really helped the US maintain possession, with the US performance against Italy being heavily influenced by Regis offensive contributions. In the end, his physical abilities slipped to such a degree that Arena concluded, rightly IMHO, that he was too big of a defensive liability. But that is hindsight, and viewed at the time, I think the time given to Regis was a crazy risk. 2. Kirovski: After the first round of qualifying, most of Kirovski's time came in WC qualifiers, not friendlies. A qualify is not used to gain experience for the future but to win. The qualifiers that Kirovski played in were ones where the US was decimated by injuries in the attack. Arena made the judgement that Kirovski was the best bet to maximize points. Given the injuries and lack of experience of some other options, I think this too was reasonable. 3. Williams: This is a harder case but I will say that Williams, despite his severe limitations, usually, played well for the Nats. Given that he had some use as a late game sub, I don't see the time given to him as being unreasonable either, especially given the options. 4. Mastroeni: Here is where I get a little stronger. Mastroeni did not get citizenship until very late in the last WC cycle. Immediately thereafter, Arena starting giving him consistent game time up through the World Cup. There is absolutely nothing to complain about here.
It was a joke paroding Karl's big words and epic posts. Sorry I had to explain it to you. Really sorry.
Thank you. The coach of the national team is to put together the best team possible. That does NOT mean an all-star team. He needs to pick players that he feels will work for the tactics he deems necessary.
And this is an example of the type of post this site doesn't need. Sorry if the facts get in the way of your "argument" that BA should have capped Mastreoni in 96, despite his lack of US Citizenship. When you want to discuss things instead of namecalling, let me know.
Afraid your memory is faulty on this one. Mastroeni got his first cap in a friendly on 6/7/01. We still had seven qualifiers left to play, but he didn't play another minute until after qualifying was done. (He was hurt for a stretch, though.)
Did not mean to offend - sorry about that though I don't retract the statement. You seem to acknowledge that you were reaching here, and why? In the interest of fairness? Regis: "crazy risk." Your words. Kirovski: playing time allotted was "reasonable" ? We lived through it. We knew all the injury situations. That was not reasonable. Bruce tried to insist Jovan be a player he was not. Huge waste of time. Unfair certainly and detrimental to the national team. Williams: in your words "a harder case" to defend. If he had "severe limitations" as you say, how can you say we didn't have options - like not playing with a dedicated defensive midfielder hack? We didn't rely on that system or player-type in the World Cup! Pablo - if this is your strongest case then again I think you're reaching. Even though Bruce has appreciated Pablo since college, he did not lean on the citizenship issue as I'm told he did with Chino Allegria. He did not lean on the Federation to get Pablo on a Regis-like citizenship fast track -- which I for one thought was exactly what should be done. But maybe expecting him to do that is going overboard. IMO our defender/d-mid options were so bad that I did not think so. Anyway. Here's a point that is right on the money: Bruce did not give Pablo one minute of the European friendlies. To play Armas was at the very least redundant. Pablo's true blooding as a Nat came in the Portugal game. Not because Bruce knew Pablo was ALWAYS an international player (is that how Karl put it?) but because he was foolish and left a lot up to chance. Chance smiled on him. Bruce sqaundered the "precious commodity" in these cases and others.
Regis -- like all our players, he had strenghts and weaknesses. Yet you have to remember he was the ONLY left-footer in the pool who had a snowball's chance of actually PLAYING the left back position at an international level. Bocanegra and Gibbs weren't ready, Vanny was found wanting. What does it tell about positional depth when Arena HAS to get a RIGHT footer to play the position? Sometimes the hand that's dealt to you is NOT very good. Kirovski. He's extremely skillful -- probably a skilled as anyone we have. But skill is not enough. Sure Bruce rode him, but he perhaps he did so hoping that the skill would translate into workrate, smarts, tough defense, and off the ball agressiveness. But it didn't and THAT's why he was left behind. A waste of time?? Last I looked we qualifed, and advanced nicely. Pablo. In hindsight, you happen to think expediting his citizenship required more urgency, but in reality, did it?? Not as the results would argue. Meanwhile, Armas had been extraordinarily dependable and had won the position, and there were backups available OTHER than Mastroeni. Pablo's a fine player, but let's not kid ourselves that he was some kind of critial linchpin that if we DON'T get him, we're screwed. THAT's a bit of ex post facto revisionist history. Finally, guys are ready when they're ready. Whether its a first round qualifer or WC final.
While we're at it, let's toss another name into the mix: Richard Mulrooney. I noticed when he went down, so did SJ. Coincidence? Maybe, but he has a knack of breaking up attacks and passing accurately out of the back, a quality the Nats lack. Why he wasn't chosen for the 2002 team is beyond me. Maybe you posters can set me straight, but IMO RM deserves a shot at defensive midfield.
Who were the backups other than Mastroeni? In what friendlies/qualifiers did they play? Whom did they play with? Did they ever have an opportunity to play w/ that guy Claudio who everyone on the planet knew would be our starting central midfielder?
I too question the application of "fairness" when selecting a national side. I prefer the consideration of "objectivity" rather than "subjectivity" when considering a player or group of players. In the case of the U.S.: Consider the first round of qualification, where the team needed until the last match to advance to the final round of qualification. Or the rash of injuries that some would have us believe could not be bridged by any coach. Or the very fortunate gift of the Korea-Portugal match in the World Cup, this is a team whose results counter the stories behind the results. That is to say, the U.S. has had more than it's fair share of good fortune under the Arena regime. Now this brings us back to the question of "objectivity." All the Arenaphiles would doubtless point blame away from Bruce Arena were the bounces to go against the U.S., no matter who was selected in a given match. I for one have never been a big fan of Bruce Arena, but I do salute the outcomes in Asia this summer. I still question the methodology of some of his selections. I also worry that, given the history of good fortune and the history of some of the players he's chosen, the U.S. may not experience like results in the future. Examples of what may be considered questionable objectivity? Chris Albright, for one. Why in GOD'S name would this middling excuse for a player EVER see time in an international match? When he was called up, I believe he was the 4th forward on his club! Regis: If the man was injured or ineffective as some would tell us before the World Cup, why waste the roster spot? If Arena didn't believe in Regis' ability or his health, why call him in? Agoos: Given the burning doughboy Moreno gave him in '95, the virtual own-goal v Jamaica in '97, the sending off at Azteca in '97, I never would have given this great club player but mediocre international player a chance to embarass himself in Korea as he so clearly did. Ritchie Williams: Based on Mastroeni's performances in Korea, why was he ever called up in the first place? Razov/Kirovski: Calling these two up, and playing them out of position. Razov is hardly a back-to-the-goal/target forward, yet Arena calls him up and asks him to do things he's never done. Kirovski, who tends to play better withdrawn than all the way up top, yet there he his, match after match, playing a role that does not seem to suit him. My question to Arena would be simply this: What are you trying to accomplish? What is the object of the exercise? To show the world that The Great Bruce Arena recruited the right player when Albright went to UVA instead of Twellman? To show how AWESOME D.C United were in the early years of MLS by calling in Williams and Agoos? To prove to the world that he, the Great Creator of Players can remake Razov and Kirovski? Now, I understand there are many ways to skin a cat, and countless means to play football, and all can be right. I will never ask Arena to be "fair," but to simply have an objective to the exercise. Don't waste call ups on players that have no business playing internationally. (Albright and Williams) Don't put players in positions to fail. (Razov and Kirovski). Don't call in has-beens (Agoos and Regis), and then expect them to be the players they were 5 years ago. Pretend to be objective, and not the "former head coach of the University of Virginia and MLS' D.C. United" when considering players. Cheers!
What is that, a tautology? Are you just being lazy, admitting defeat, or have I come to the true dead end in this discussion: Don't Question Arena. And how does this work? 1. Arena's always right because he's always right? 2. Arena's always right because he's Arena? 3. Arena's always right because he made it to the quarters? Why have you wasted all this time on the discussion if you were just going to point to the scoreboard?
You make it sound as though Arena didn't think of options. Hey, give him more credit than that . Others could have played the position -- O'Brien, Sanneh -- not "backups" particularly, but guys who could have done it. Mulrooney, IIRC, was an alternate, and could have stepped in had it been necessary.
Really, can you learn how to USE the board correctly, and separate your stuff from the quotes of others? IF you can do that, maybe I might think you have the neurons to structure a reasonable argument. Watch how its done. Obviously?? I don't know what Vanney YOU were watching. Vanney in some ways was WORSE than Regis. So, lemme see, what grade did you get in debating. If it was a C, you were the victim of grade inflation. I never said EVERYTHING Bruce did was right. Don't put words in my mouth -- the ones out of yours are awful enough. I'll listen to other people only when they have something useful to say. Sometimes you do, while in this instance, you most certainly do not. "Badly needed?" Puhleeze. In the meantime, you're welcome to engage in the "shoulda woulda coulda" imaginary fantasies that support your oft-expressed shallow and intellectually empty opinions.
Cheers?? After that piece of vitriol? Well, I guess. Albright was a blind spot; but did it stay that way? Nope...and he DIDN'T make the roster. Kirovski. Well, HE didn't make the final 23 either. It must have been because he didn't play for the Cavaliers. Razov. Well, HE didn't make the final 23...hmm I see a pattern here. Of course, Cobi was one Bruin enough, doncha think? Ritchie Williams? He actually played OK in Costa Rica, but did anyone --ANYONE?? -- REALLY think he was going to be on the final roster. Only the TRUE negativists thought so...there were DESPERATE to have Arena pick him so they could justify their loathing of him. Regis? Well, where WERE the left footers? The aforementioned Vanney?? Jesse Marsch made him look bad. Gibbs? Sometimes, its pick your poision. Of course, given the fact that he DIDN'T play in J/K, made is SEEM like he wasn't picked at all, now does it. Agoos. Find me a defender who has NEVER made mistake. I dare ya. Ask Laurent Blanc about that. By the way, Arena made mistakes. He admitted as much when he said we were "too old" going into this cup. Betcha he doesn't make that mistake again, although the haters and loathers will scrape around for other reasons to despise him, like George Costanza rummaging for loose change underneath the candy machine in one of the great Seinfeld episodes. Cheers!!
Could you quote your source on this one, Karl? Where did he say the squad he brought to the World Cup was "too old?" And if bringing a squad that was "too old" was a mistake, why did this costly error result in an quarter-final success? And if this was a "mistake," then the flip-side must have been true. Had Arena brought players that were not "too old" to the World Cup in 2002, the US would have achieved an even better result. And if Bruce Arena stunted the US Team's success by bringing players that were "too old" to Korea, then what younger and better candidates did he leave out that would have achieved a better result? And if there were younger and better candidates in 2002, why were they not given a "fair" shot? You see, I would bet money that if there is one thing Arena WOULDN'T do if he "coulda shoulda woulda," it would be trading in the result the US achieved in the 2002 World Cup for the opportunity to bring players that were not "too old" to see where they'd get him. I haven't read that quote, and I have a feeling it is being either misrepresented here or doesn't exist at all.
No one expects a defender to be perfect. But Agoos career was one big mistake. I mean, he didn't just have one mistake at the cup, his entire performance was a catastrophe. Not one bad play, not one bad game, but complete and utter CRAP. Cheers
You People... You talk/write like we live in a video game. There is no right and wrong where player selection is concerned. There is no subscript waiting to activate if only Player X is selected, gauranteeing a win for club or country. A coach cannot be wrong to select a healthy player, and the player he didn't select cannot have been right. There is no alternate universe (at least not accessible) where the opposite choice results in Glorious Victory! There is only the fact that the MNT went to the quarter finals. Everyone involved, even Big Soccer posters, had a hand in it. No one has so far stepped forward and said "It was all me" or "We owe it all to Presidential Recognition" or anything else. I like to think thats cause all those involved, even Keller and Regis, realize it was a team thing. Along the same lines, the USA did not benefit from the SK/Portugal match. The USA benefited from all the matches adding up to put them thru. Sure it is fun, and the lifeblood of BS, to "what might have been" a situation. I am prone to an "I woulda" or two. But the nasty vitriol in this thread about what are unalterable past historical imovable and concrete facts... sheesh, pick an argument you can win. "Good, Bad, I'm the guy with the gun". Ashe, Housewares