The Donovan Omission, Part 3

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by Friedel'sAccent, Jun 20, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MPNumber9

    MPNumber9 Member+

    Oct 10, 2010
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here's the thing.

    To me, it's not really about whether or not we'd have done better with Donovan at the WC, per se (although it's my opinion we would have). The fact is, a good chunk of the fanbase was invested in seeing Donovan play in the last WC of his career, on the 20th anniversary of the '94 Cup that really jump-started soccer in the US and nothing short of a wild California grizzly mauling Donovan's legs off during a routine jog should've prevented that from happening. Even out of form, the opportunity cost of bringing Donovan to his last WC is incredibly low, given what it would've meant to his fans.

    I get it. In Germany, no one believes in magic or ever makes irrational decisions and is always inappropriately plainspoken or whatever. But we're not Germany and we don't connect to sports the same way or are superstars the same way. I can see why Jurgen views American quixoticism as a peculiarity or even an annoyance but he is doomed to lose that particular culture war. I personally would've traded the extra R16 match (if it came to that) to see Donovan and the guys he's played with most of his career playing the games of their lives in Brazil and I think there are probably a lot of fans who'd agree with me. I'm not sure this is something Jurgen understands.
     
  2. pichichi2010

    pichichi2010 Member+

    Oct 24, 2010
    In your nets
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The opportunity cost was a missed sitter by Wondo...even LD could have done that...or sit on the bench like Mix. The upside OTOH...
     
    StillKickin, Ghosting and MPNumber9 repped this.
  3. Ghosting

    Ghosting Member+

    Aug 20, 2004
    Pendleton, OR
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I actually would not object to Donovan being left off the squad if there was even passable performance-based justification for doing so. I did not agree with JK cutting LD from the squad, but if Donovan's post-cut performances had shown that he had "lost it," I would have been sad to see one of my favorite players fall off the cliff, but OK with the decision. It is about putting the strongest possible team on the field, after all. Obviously that's not what happened, though, and all evidence points to the likelihood that Donovan would have been a major contributor on the field if JK had brought him and played him.
     
    Honore de Ballsac repped this.
  4. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    That's true, the upside of Donovan was considerable if he came good. It's a much stronger argument than your previous pathetic attempt to skew the numbers.

    More to the point, it would be stupid to include them just because they'd been outstanding in the past. And in fact, the status of these players in our pool was much more debatable than you claim.
    • Ramos in 1998 was a unproductive player who had lost a step but went bitching to the press because he felt that his previous service entitled him to more minutes.
    • Pope belonged in our 2006 squad, but he shouldn't been starting ahead of Conrad, who was a solid defender and superior organizer (which was needed to pair with the inexperienced Onyewu).
    • Reyna was so injury-prone by 2006 that he was bound to break down sooner or later. In addition, he had been spending so little time with the national team that his return to the lineup required a formation change and seemed to disrupt the chemistry that Mastroeni and Donovan had developed in central midfield.
     

Share This Page