Athens: do we take 3 overage players?

The answer to this question is simple...or rather the question is simple.

Do we need overage players to medal?

If the answer is yes, we take 'em. Why?

Because the PR value of winning a medal for soccer in the USA is so significant -- after all, America goes nuts over the Olympics-- that few observers will make the distinction in this country, let alone care, that we used overage players.

If not, it doesn't matter.

 

I agree with Karl -- I say we take them because we want to medal to help in the development of soccer in the US.

Doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks -- we're not about making statements to them. We need to be about continuing to build the game here.

 

We're not Brazil.

And I'm not referring to talent. I'm referring to interest in the sport.

 

I would say Yes, and that at least one would be Chris Armas. Sort of payback for all the big tournies he's missed.

 

I think we should, but with a little slant. I think the 3 overage players should be the youngsters that just missed the age limit. Players like Cory Gibbs or Pat Noonan. Noonan ecspecially, he could really add something on the right side. At least he's played well for NE.

 

the problem there is we already have a great d-mid in clark <and pause to a lesser extent> on the u-23 squad...

 

I agree with this completely. We should compete in the Olympics on equal ground with the other teams in the competition, who are all allowed to bring three as well. If we qualify, bringing along John O'Brien, Brad Friedel, and Eddie Pope in an effort to put our best foot forward to win a medal is the right call.

I don't think not sending them sends any message that anyone in the US will actually hear.

Sending them and doing well sends much more of a message.

One could argue that developmental concerns would lead us to want to send only U-23s - if that's the case, we shouldn't bother sending Donovan or Beasley either, because they've played at a higher level than the Olympics already.

I think the players will develop best playing on the best team available against the competition, and hopefully advancing farther in the draw to gain additional experience.

The experience of a medal-round game could mean the world to the other eight guys on the squad who are U-23 than more playing time but early-round elimination.

 

imo the biggest reason why our team is so successful (besides the actual quality of our players) is that they have played with each other for years. sending in over aged players can throw off the chemistry in more ways than one. i know that's a really simple argument, but our player's confidence can definitely attribute to the fact that all of them have earned their spot on the team.

when a player like nakata played with japan in 2000, he barely had any desire to play well. and if the us does poorly with friedel (one of the best goalies in the world), pope (US' best defender), and job (2nd best MF option next to claudio), it would be devestating for PR and confidence. i really like these players, but i think we should leave it up to the kids to prove themselves. i think they'll do us proud.

 

Ban baseball makes a good point. There is definitely a chemistry issue with this team and we have to make sure the three over-age players take this very seriously and want it as badly as the three players they bumped out from the qualifying roster.

The theory about using the players just too old to be a U23 is an intriguing one. I doubt it's the route the USSF will go but it definitely makes you think. For PR value, you can still say the team is U23 or thereabouts and you get some more younger players valuable experience and exposure.

I would submit Todd Duivant (12/26/80), Pat Noonan (8/20/80), Matt Crawford (8/20/80), Jeff Stewart (6/21/80), Matt Behncke (2/20/80), Cory Gibbs (1/14/80), Chris Carrieri (4/28/80). - I throw Carrieri out just to be thorough and fair; I wouldn't add him because A) they don't need forwards on this team and B) he would ruin the aforementioned chemistry.

You've also got Twellman and Califf who are both 80s but both already have plenty of senior and youth national team experience and wouldn't be serving the purpose of exposing "new blood" with the overage slots.

Dunivant or Gibbs and Noonan actually fill needs. Noonan can play right mid and provide cover up front while both Dunivant and Gibbs can play left back and fill in in the middle. Crawford can play both right mid and right back while Stewart can play right back and in the middle. Carrierri, well....

Again, I doubt seriously this is the way they'll go but it is an intriguing idea.

As for the original question, I'm with Karl. I would LOVE to see us send all U23s and I feel really bad for the three kids that get dropped after qualifying. But, a medal would mean so much in this country and if we missed out on one because we didn't have a veteran defender or a quality right mid, I think we'd regret it for a long time.

As to who to take, as I've said before, I think we should wait till after qualifying and see what weaknesses are exposed. That said, it's pretty obvious that forward, left mid, creative attacking mid, right back, if Gooch isn't converted to the middle, and GK are strengths of this team.

That leaves right mid (could be filled by committee), center back (lots of depth but could use some experience), d-mid (could be strength by July 04 the way Clark is developing), left back (Lewis and Convey and maybe right back if Gooch plays centrally (and at 6-4, 212, that's tough to ignore.)

Here's the catch. A center back like Carlos Bocanegra would be a great addition. But it's not like right mid and left back are strengths of the senior team either. Who would you put in that spot that is that much better than what we have to justify using the slot? A healthy Olsen, ar tight mid, perhaps. Otherwise....?

I don't think we should use them for the sake of using them, only if it is a substantial upgrade at what we have at the U23 level.

 

I thought they (FIFA or the Olympic Committee) changed the rule, and there would no longer be any exemptions for overage players (over-23). Am I thinking of another competition, or is my memory just fuzzy?

 

I know that was talked about as I know FIFA wants it to be all U23 (IOC, on the other hand, wants all full national teams) but I don't know what came of those talks. I too suffer from FMS (fuzzy memory syndrome) on this issue.

 

I say take the 3 overage players. Use them as the spine of the team and take advantage of their experience. Don't leave the question of 'what if' hanging after the Olympics. We should go in with everything we've got to win it -- and not look back ...

 

Take the team that gives us the best chance to win. This includes three over age players. Perhaps a final send off for Cobi and Ernie.

 

Id love to see this for these guys, who never had a fair chance to be on youth national teams because of the way the age cuttoffs work.

 

The distinction is some want to beat them. I want to win. You don't break your toes just to prove you can walk. Hell, you may not need them, but shouldn't we be glad that they're there? Let's bring our overage players.

 

Cameroon sent Mboma in the last Olympics. End of thread.

 

You mean don't send overage players like the Gold medal winners in 2000 did?

I think the average age of the Brazilian side was closer to 21 than 23, but it wasn't an U21 side.

Adding overage players in 2000 didn't hurt the U.S. Chemistry is not an issue. Guys like Friedel, Agoos, and Hejduk made the 2000 team.

Nakata wasn't an overage player in 2000. He was a U23.

 

Re: Re: Athens: do we take 3 overage players?

but he played in 1996. So he was counted as an overage player.

 

Sydney is different because the Games overlapped with the European season. Most serious football nations sent no overage player and U-23 players who are playing regularly at home.

In 1996, the 1996 Olympics were a different story. Most teams brought overage players. In Athens, it would not overlapped with most European seasons. It should be liked 1996.

 

Why the Keller interest? Let Tim Howard go for the glory...Kasey's had his moments.

 

Re: Re: Re: Athens: do we take 3 overage players?

Wrong. Nakata did not count as an overage player. FIFA got rid of that rule from 1996 for 2000.

Japan's three were: Narazaki, Morioka, and Miura.

FIFA changed the rule so that players only needed to be age eligible (such as U23, U20, U17) and could participate even if they've done so in the past.

Freddy Adu can play in the 2005 U17 World Cup.

 

Re: Re: Athens: do we take 3 overage players?

Back in 2000 Italy - a serious football nation - did delay the start of that year's Serie A so that they could send a strong U23 team. They didn't use overage players and IIRC didn't use them in 1996.

It could be closer to how it was in 1996, but not completely. You will still find some clubs not wanting to release players.

The games in 2004 run from 8/13 through 8/29. One month earlier than in 2000, but one month later than the games in 1996.

This time of August is pre-season training for UEFA clubs.

Don't expect all teams to send their strongest squad.

 

For this very reason the answer is a resounding YES. Even if we think we can medal without the overage players, we take them because they offer insurance. The average Joe doesn't know the difference. And winning a medal is what will matter to the general public.