I'm just amazed. Oh, this rambles on a bit.... What started out as a funky little thought exercise of mine has taken on a life of it's own. I'm talking about those measuring marks- The Ralston Line (TRL) and the Stewart Level of Competency (SLC). Lately I've seen them on various other BS forums and even on other soccer websites. Of course I'm flattered. I also know that these are just fun little subjective tools I use to look at players and nothing more. I also know that various folks here think they are stupid. That's okay- I never meant them to be authoritative and if no one ever used them or referred to them again, that's fine too. But since various folks do think of them and I see folks using them in ways that I don't I thought I'd rehash them with an eyes to looking at what Bruce Arena is doing with various players- even the famous Steve Ralston . So let me define them again, especially for folks who have no idea at all what I am spewing here: The Ralston Line or TRL This refers to a certain level of ability for american soccer players. Specifically, it refers to the ability a given player on the cusp of becoming a regular member of the National team. I originally called this level TRL because the quality of Steve Ralston's level of play has been right at the brink of being called up to the Nats, not only under Arena but also under Steve Sampson. He's consistently been a very good MLS player; he's been an All-Star several times, even an MLS Best XI a couple of times. He's had several call-ups too but he's never been a call-up for the real important games. There always seems to be a couple of players ahead of him in the pecking order. I could have called this level of excellence (and Steve is an excellent player) the, oh, let's throw out names here: The Kreis Line? The Lagos Line? The Thornton Line? I chose to name it after Ralston because he's so.....consistent. Unlike say Manny Lagos, Steve Ralston fairly quickly reached a high level of play and has maintained it. If you follow baseball, Steve is sort of like how Eddie Murray was in his consistency (though at a lower relative level). Very few highs or lows. Now a disclaimer: I never meant to say that Ralston would never be able to play for the Nats, or that he wasn't good enough to ever make an appearance or score a goal. Hey- the guy's a really good player, worthy of consideration at all times. So I plead with folks that even though I names a measurement after him that I never meant to focus on the one individual. Now to the next definition: Stewart Level of Competency or SLC This ain't so controversial in part because, hell I don't know. Maybe because there are fewer american soccer players who are close to this ability: it's a given that the higher level of play the fewer the number of players, right? So the SLC defines a certain level of ability at the highest level of play, which in america at least is international play. It refers to the ability of a player to be consistently creative within an important international game (like the WCQs for instance or even tough friendlies like at Italy). So take Earnie Stewart the past four years. He's been a useful, multidimensional player, able to score goals in a variety of situations and to also make other important contributions, like getting back on defense to help. etc. Basically he knew what he was doing out there, unlike, ummm, Richie Williams! Our little ABMOD could go out there and work his heart out but really it was all he could do to destroy attacks that the other team threw at him and sometimes he was overwhelmed. Jeff Agoos in the WC is another such player. JMM. In fact in the last four years there have been very few american players who have reached the SLC. Chris Armas hasn't ( see how much more creative he can be with the Fire) though he fills his role very well internationally IMO. Also Pablo Mastroeni so far hasn't reached the SLC though he's closing in on it. LD is on the cusp of the SLC but DMB ain't- yet. Clint can be but he's so far too erratic. Josh Wolff has given us fleeting glimpses of SLC play when he hasn't been injured. Etc. I can go on and there's some players who we could argue about for years (and will in one form or another (hel-o Claudio Reyna!) but you get the idea. So hopefully I haven't bored you to death, cause now I'm getting to the difficulties of projecting players four years in advance based on what they are doing now. First we have the Bruce Arena Experimental Problem. Obviously Arena knows that this is the beginning of a four year cycle and as such he's trying out new players, or at least players he hasn't used much before, sometimes in new positions. So take Steve Ralston. Good player. Scored a goal vs Canada. Should he now be on everybody's short list for Germany? Who the hell knows? Obviously Arena knows about him and thinks he's good enough to look at him more in his camp and friendlies. That bodes well for Steve moving past TRL. But we can go further though. Ask yourself- was his play last year for the Revs better than his past play with the Mutes? Does he fit exceptionally well in Nicol's system but less so in Arena's or can he adjust? How old is he: If he's in his late 20's, he's probably playing as well now as he ever will- including four years from now. Who's his competition? Does playing in such a low-key game as the Canada game mean anything about the future? Will the Argentina game mean more? The Gold Cup or Confederations Cup? I'd say that if he keeps getting called up and plays in those games then he is a serious pool player (as is anyone else. However that still wouldn't make him a lock for Germany, three years later. Just ask Matt McKeon, or CJ Brown. We have to see how well they play too, at least in the higher profile games). Take Bobby Convey. Should we take the left back thing seriously? Could he be the next JOB, able to play at several positions for the Nats? Has he even crossed TRL yet? (Answer: No, but let's watch him this year since he's only 19.) We do know that Convey has now had not only several looks but also caps by Arena way before almost every other Nats possibility has ever had their first. That alone should have us take him as a serious contender for the pool even if some of us haven't really followed his DC United career. (DCU fans see him at left back and remember how Ray Hudson benched him for a couple of games early last summer, saying that he needed to play defense better. Convey responded with his best play for the club to date.) One could go on. Dan Califf we all know flirts with TRL and it shows in his Nats appearances. Chris Kelin is being looked at very closely- after all how would you rate him in MLS vs Steve Ralston? Sasha Victorinne better be pulling out all the stops. Donovan is working past the SLC as we speak. The point is for new players in the pool, it's hard to project what Arena's gonna do. However that Arena is looking at various players now means that he is looking at them before he looks at other players and if they do good then maybe those other players will never get looked at. Unless a given player is injured or in Europe or trying to get there or is very very young then this winter is hugely important for new pool players. You got a favorite MLS player who isn't in camp either now or in the Sallie camp last fall and isn't injured or at least in the U23 or 20 camp? I bet you that Arena has pegged him as being under TRL and he won't get a call-up except when Arena's first choices fail or are injured.
Nice. Have to agree that if there's an MLS player over the age of, say, 21, who is healthy and not called into either of these past camps he faces an uphill battle to improve his play and get called in. There will be a few who do it (see Pablo Mastroeni for a past cycle example), but I bet we could name 30 players today and be reasonably sure that at least 18-20 of them will be on the roster in 2006. The youngsters are the unknown at this point -- how many 17-20 year olds blossom in the next three years. A lot I'd think, but probably not more than 3-5 who emerge big enough to knock someone else off the eventual roster.
I'd like to submit a case for DaMarcus Beasley reaching the SLC. You defined SLC as follows: During the World Cup, DaMarcus was indeed consistently creative, he never seemed out of his depth and he never seemed like he didn't know what he was doing. He has also showed that he is more than just a speed demon. From reports of the Canada game (and from my memory of the Urguay game), he has very good dribbling skills. His crossing ability is ever improving. Finally, the thing that impressed me the most during the World Cup, was his defensive understanding and ability. Time and again (especially vs South Korea), he'd track back and either make a decisive tackle, and block a dangerous cross in the Penalty box. I don't know how to rate his scoring ability as he is not really asked to score for the Nats. But he has scored. So DMB reached the SLC?
Very nice indeed. I agree with Zed, even to the point of reminding us that Mastroeni was a special case because of the citizenship issue (as would be Kovalenko)... So if you're over 21 and US-eligible, it'll be very difficult to get beyond the occasional camping... (Joe Enochs, anyone?)
No, sorry. I don't read the Emerald City Gazette. I forgot to tie in a point in my initial post, that being that for the beginning of a new WC cycle, and especially in lower profile games like this Canada match, Arena tends to go below TRL to look at players. For instance Convey has yet to reach TRL, though I can imagine that he'll do it this season. Sasha Victorine hasn't reached it either, to name another player. However both of those players still have years of potential to grow into and Arena is playing them now to get used to the international game. And as said above it's much harder for older players below TRL to get more than the odd call-up, which basically confirms that they aren't quite good enough. Ralston might be the rare exception to that rule, but then again Ralston is an unusually consistent player. DMB at the SLC? Maybe, but I'd wish that he hadn't gotten hurt in the WC. I'd like to see him in several games at that level since it is possible that in any given game a player might do wonderfully but in the next couple of games, teams may shut him down,
Great discussion starter. I have a feeling that MLS form may play a greater role in call-ups this qualifying round. It seems far too early to eliminate anyone from consideration yet. Now, if it is early-mid 2005 and the player still hasn't been called in, that may be a different story. However, if the quality of the league continues with its rate of improvement, the chances for 2 or 3 more Mastroeni type players getting called up definitely increases.
I love the TRL, but it seems to be constrained to MLS players. Everytime I come across the TRL I alway feels that there should be an equivalent for European players. To wit: The Kirovski Corollary Kirovski has consistently had a European contract. This alone has been enough to suggest, to some, that he should get more time. (If you can make it there you make it... anywhere.) As with Ralston he hasn't quite made the splash with the national team that we expect, based upon club play or in Kirovski's case club location. As with Ralston some will argue that it's a matter of systems not talent... Or, it's the supporting cast... or, game conditions... or, he was used on the left not the right... or, blah blah blah. As more of our players go overseas we will continue to have people clamor for their inclusion simply based upon geography. Many of these players will be very talented, much as Kirovski is, but will be missing something when it comes to the national team. Some of these players will also, like Kirovski, continue to get called up, and may one day make the jump. I believe that, as with TRL, the Kirovski Corollary demonstrates that continued call ups start with club play, then camp performance, and finally with game performance.
TKC, might also include an addendum about the value of week-in, week-out match experience being vital. I suspect that Kirovsky has as much talent as most Nats players, but has suffered greatly due to lack of time on the pitch. Will be interesting to see where he ends up now that he's playing almost every week.
<Heh heh...> Wait a minnit, wasn't the "The Ralston Line" basically shorthand for "Not Good Enough?" So now the player you insulted comes in, has a decent half, gets a goal, and you're saying "Is beeg mistake, I make joke." ??
Re: <Heh heh...> I think that's your interpretation; it was never mine. I never insulted Ralston although I have said that he's not the best winger out there for the US. And he still isn't. To gho further I still think he's right around TRL If you want to call that an insult, be my guest. You might also note that I said that the Canada game does not prove that a player is above TRL as Arena is clearly bringing in players whop are still below TRL as part of his experimentation and projecting of their future abilities. Some of those players will prove him right; I think Bobby Convey is one of those. Some in the past have gone sour on him- Chris Albright for instance.
OK, so taking a look at players in their relationship to the TRL: Klein Cunningham Califf Ralston Victorine -----TRL------ Convey Martino Suarez Vagenas But of course, someone else may look at it this way: Klein -----TRL------ Cunningham Califf Ralston Victorine Convey Martino Suarez Vagenas Or someone else could see it this way: -----TRL------ Klein Cunningham Califf Ralston Victorine Convey Martino Suarez Vagenas What I am saying is the there is no such thing as "The Ralston Line." There is only "My Ralston Line."
Eponym Steve was almost never called up. So you drew the line and basically said "you have to be better than Steve Ralston to play for the USA." You gave this line (not "range" but "line") HIS NAME. You therefore tried to make Steve Ralston synonymous with "not good enough." Which could be perceived as glib and derisive, but I would definitely say it was insulting. And maybe it's funny. But not as funny as your saying you think Steve Ralston is "still right around" the Steve Ralston Line. Oh, ya think so?
Mathis hitting the post against Poland, creating another goal for Donovan, and nailing his one chance against South Korea doesn't get him to the SLC? C'mon, he nailed the game winning free kick against Honduras, the same game that Stewart scored in.
All I'm asking from Clint is a wee bit more consistency, though I can see your view that he's at or past the SLC. Certainly when he's on his game he's there, no question and I expect the consistency problem to work itself out.
On the international level, Mathis is one of the most consistent players we have. I can't think of the last time I saw him in an international game where he wasn't a net positive to our side. When he's wearing the US jersey, he always shows up.
Calling it "The Ralston Line" may be an insult on the international level, but it's quite a compliment on the league level. It also represents an interesting standard of competence: excellent player at the league level (consistent all-star level play) who just doesn't seem to be able to break in on the national team. I just don't see this as being that much of a bad thing.
You know, The Ralston Line has fallen below the minimal acceptable level for a Nat player. Ditto for Chris Klein. Time's right to be talking about the Twellman Line now.
True, but at the time, the Ralston line seemed to be about players that weren't getting real games (from the first post). Twellman has had plenty of chances to impress, both this and the last cycle. I don't think Ralston was given nearly as much chance over the cycle up to 02 that Twellman got up to 2006. Twellman was given every chance to play his way on to the squad, and arguably had a place on the squad. But he did not force Bruce to put him on the team. At the same time, Taylor is a dominant force in MLS, and can't cut our current expectations. Ralston was a good player in MLS and couldn't quite cut it. Seems the expectations have been raised and Twellman would be more appropriate today. He would have been above that line if expectations had not been raised.
I think, like the Mendoza Line in baseball, once it's named for someone, it stays named for them in perpetuity.
What's with all the baseball hating lately? Personally, I don't mind (and often appreciate) analogies to other sports. Soccer is, after all, a sport. I'd like to think (and do think) that many concepts applicable to other sports also apply to soccer, and that some insight into certain subjects can be gained by analogies to other sports. And don't kid yourself, by the way. The coining of the phrase "The Ralston Line" was an obvious tip of the cap to the phrase "The Mendoza Line" in the first place.
I still define a Ralston Line as the following: Ralston Line: A line of argumentation or thought, imperiously expressed, and uncritically accepted, by members of a like minded community - until subsequently refuted by fact.