The US Attack After Donovan and Dempsey

I looked at life after Donovan and Dempsey, starting with an evaluation of the forward pool:

https://andthenthehex.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/the-us-attack-after-donovan-and-dempsey-part-1/

The November WCQs were the first time under Klinsmann that we played without Donovan or Dempsey in a competitive game (with qualification still at stake).

This article helped place the importance of these two players in context. Both immediately played regularly in MLS, made contributions quickly to the national team, and had enough versatility that provided Arena, Bradley, and Klinsmann tactical options (either playing to strengths or covering up a weakness.)

Here are the club careers of Donovan and Dempsey, compared to others in the pool. The two measures of Involvement and Contribution highlight how the player is used by the team. The definitions are:

Involvement = League minutes played / (Appearances * 90)
Contribution = League minutes played / (League games * 90)

Each circle is a stint with a team. A bigger circle means more appearances, so loans are the smaller cirlces.



Donovan and Dempsey set a standard at the club level that translated to the national team. Wondolowski and Zardes are the only two strikers who have multiple seasons in that upper-right corner of strong playing time. Encouragingly, Wood and Wooten are both there with Union Berlin and Sandhausen this year (and Wooten was last season as well).

I've left out any wingers or wide attackers at this stage...more coming on that for part two.

 

Definitely, and it might be an instance where we cannot replace them one-for-one with another player.

I also don't see a guy who could play 3+ positions in attack really well. This means for future tournaments, we'll probably need two players to provide the options that Donovan or Dempsey did by themselves.

 

I'd encourage you to read the full article for the additional context. I also get into the merits of playing time as a metric here.

I'm working on this theory in real-time, but I'm convinced that consistent playing time is a strong indicator of player quality. The amount of player turnover and yearly fluctuation in minutes played surprised me. Simply put, players - particularly forwards - only have so many opportunities to perform before they are replaced. Even Altidore found himself on the bench at times at Toronto.

Additionally, playing time matters for form. I mention this in the article, but it's not a coincidence that Altidore's best stretch with the national team in 2013 occurred off of the best club year of his career. I'd rather have a US player as a key contributor at a slightly weaker club than a part-time player at a stronger one.

What's more, the playing time acts as an indicator for the *chance* with a national team. Other factors matter as well: the depth at the position, how the player fits within the construct of a team, how the player adjusts to international play, etc.

Regarding Wondolowski, he didn't reach that upper-right corner until his 6th season (2010), and has maintained that level of performance with SJ since then. He received his first cap that following winter, and first competitive cap at the Gold Cup that summer. Similarly, Zardes put together two strong club seasons, earned his shot with the national team, and maintained his club performance this season. Bruin earned a shot as well after his 2012 season. To shift this to performance while on the field, there's a short list of US players who have scored 10+ goals in multiple MLS season.

Finally, though it is not accounted for in the graph, age matters. Clearly any player 30+ will not be the primary focus of this cycle. What the playing time does show, though, is how those players reached their role with the US. It also shows that players moving in that direction - Wood and Wooten - are doing something right.