The Donovan Omission: Six Months Later

I don't think there's anything else to say. I want this thread laid out in a small boat, lit on fire, and pushed into the sea.

 

But if Angelina Jolie arises from the icy waters, and promises warmth on a frozen day, I get first dibs.

 

Seriously?

We haven't talked about this enough? Hopefully this just gets shut down immediately.

 

Don't click on the thread then, guys. It's just that simple. (OK, it really doesn't belong in News and Analysis as there are plenty of more timely examples of JK's decision-making and statements to parse through)

For me, it's the perfect venue to make snide remarks like "LD never would have been motivated to perform like this in his last World Cup" and dream of what might have been for a second.

 

I don't need a six months later thread or a six years later thread: I'll never forgive Jurgen for doing that.

 

Much of the Donovan-Klinsmann commentary sort of implies that the counterfactual is a scenario in which Donovan not only makes the team, but he features, and in many cases it is maintained that he would have contributed.

However, I'm not so sure that's the most realistic alternative to what actually happened -- so long as Klinsmann is the manager (which in any realistic scenario, he obviously would have been). Leave aside the last part about how much Donovan would've contributed on the field for a moment (i.e. does he bury the chance that Wondolowski blew?). The more immediate question is this: How much would Donovan have even played at the World Cup?

First, does Klinsmann have Donovan in his starting 11? Almost surely not. The Ghana 11 were clearly his first choice and would probably have been so barring some stellar performances in the send-off friendlies. If anything, Donovan would've been backup for Dempsey or Bedoya in the first choice schema. Donovan's own comments in the ESPN series suggested he expected and was comfortable with such a substitute role, like he had against Mexico, and many, including myself, expected that role for Donovan.

So, how much does Donovan play after Jozy goes down in the first game? One can only conjecture, but let's be honest about it. Recall that Klinsmann didn't change much personnel wise between Plan A and Plan B. In fact, he rode his horses into the ground. Thus, I think a reasonable guess would be "not all that much." Chalk up maybe a start and a couple substitute appearances for Donovan (of course, that's maybe not what Klinsmann should do in that scenario, but that's neither here nor there).

I conclude that if we take into account Klinsmann's actual predilections and preferences, even had he selected Donovan for the World Cup there would've been a very good chance (maybe the most likely alternative in fact) that we'd instead be living in a world today in which: 1. Donovan went to the World Cup; 2. We still lost to Belgium in the second round; and 3. Donovan barely played.

In that world, what does the commentary about Klinsmann and the USMNT around here look like? Would your opinion of Klinsmann honestly differ?

I'll make three guesses about the commentary: I think it's fair to say that whatever egg on his face Klinsmann has now given Donovan's play in MLS, he would have less in that world, though still criticized for not playing Donovan enough (though it's an interesting question whether Donovan plays as well in MLS post-World Cup in that world). At the same time, I suspect there would be much less belittling of the actual results at the World Cup ("only achieved expectations", "no better than 2010", etc.). Lastly, I think Julian Green would get far less shit than he does now.

 

OK, I dream of a World Cup where Donovan went and JK wasn't angry, rigid, unable to tell Bedoya from Donovan in terms of talent or whatever.

 

Pity that at the time he wasn't playing at his current level. If he had been, his position in the team would have been unassailable.

 

Duh. But it's a strawman - only a fool would have assumed that his form for the first month of MLS indicated that his level wouldn't rise, especially given the lack of alternatives.

 

Only a fool wouldn't have seen JK's agenda. Simple as that really. LD's playing his way into shape merely played into the cat's grubby paws.

 

Yes, it is plausible that JK would not have intended to use Donovan as a starter, assuming he had been included on the squad.

But the hypothetical breaks down 20 minutes into the Ghana game, when Jozy is lost. At that point Donovan would have the best possible option to fill in up top with Dempsey. The team would have had the US's all-time best goal creator and the MLS al-time best goal creator ready to contribute.

And we would have been spared the frustration of watching Bradley try and play (with a nagging foot issue) as both a #8 and a #10 at the same time.

The Donovan omission will remain the worst coaching decision in USMNT history.

 

It's not at all clear to me that Klinsmann assesses that situation the same way you or I do, but I certainly concede it's possible.

 

Really? Brad Davis starts over Landon Donovan vs. Germany? Because he is a better goal scorer? Because he is a better play maker? Because he is a better defender?

 

Technically, Brad David did start over Landon Donovan vs. Germany. So, you really think there's 0% chance Klinsmann doesn't do exactly that when he has Donovan in Brazil? Honestly no possibility whatsoever? Really?

Second of all, in my first post this thread I said Donovan would've likely started a game after Jozy went down, did I not? Let it be the Germany one, fine.

 

Fine, your second paragraph makes sense. AFTER the Jozy injury, and having an LD available, recasts JK's thoughts. An LD at the point would have been a huge convenience.

 

The record will always show that Klinsmann started Brad Davis against Germany in a vital WC match, while he left LD home.

For sure the worst decision ever made for the U.S.

 

I don't think so. The early cuts, the cranky reviews of LD, the kid pulling the curtain back with his mocking tweets... His position was unassailable back then too. JK would pull the same shit today. Look what he is doing to Mike Bradley currently.

 

Absolutely no question that had LD been on the field, he would certainly have chased down CRonaldo and stripped him before that cross was made. ,,,,,,,,,,, Well, maybe.

 

Clearly you've forgotten 1998!

 

I've said this before (because nobody is repeating themselves here), but it can't be the worst ever soccer decision in US history because it had no clear negative repercussions except PR. So it can be the worst PR decision, but losing in extra time to Belgium in the round of 16, by one goal? Our results were fine, even good. There's zero evidence of any bad decision, unless you want to say Donovan makes us prettier.

 

There's never any "evidence" that a counterfactual can be true. You don't think an alternative with Donovan on the roster produces better results. That's fine. But you also seem to think that anyone who does is to be dismissed out of hand. That's ridiculous.

 

Sampson made multiple bad decisions in 1998, many of the "top-10" kind, and not nearly enough good decisions to offset the bad ones.

But JK's Donovan omission still gets my vote as the #1 bad coaching decision ever for the USA. Thankfully, a number of JK's other decisions worked out well: the pragmatic approach to the group phase, starting Beckerman, moving FabJ to RB and his faith in Beasley at LB, the surprise use of Yedlin as a wing midfielder, for example. As I have argued many times before in various threads, JK made more good decisions in 2014 than bad ones. But that doesn't eliminate how really bad the Donovan omission was.