I wrote an article around the "Best Athlete" myth in soccer: https://andthenthehex.wordpress.com...best-athletes-played-soccer-misses-the-point/ In researching one of the points - the soccer player archetype - I came across this data-heavy analysis of 50 countries in 2015. There are tons of interesting nuggets included in the article. For example, here is the US height and weight, plotted against the other 49 countries (data is from the article, image is from me): Some other fun facts: Michael Bradley played more minutes of international soccer in 2015 than literally every other player in the world. Number two was Gyasi Zardes. Tim Howard was the 6th oldest player to appear in a match. 63.5% of the minutes played were from guys who play abroad. Mexico was at 45%, France at 78%, Spain 39%, Germany 27%, Italy 24%, and England 0%.
Doesn't having the top two players in minutes logged, in a study of the top 50 nations (random probability: 1 in 2,500), speak to an extraordinary failure in attempts at integration, just like the incredible statistics of the median age of the CC playoff team being a year older than any team at the WC, and that up until the last camp when he cap-tied a couple dual nationals, the only MLS player that debuted outside January camp was a 30+ year old bench player (Alan Gordon). How are you supposed to unearth much new talent in your pool when relative to every other nation you're pretty much sticking with the same guys as you played before regardless of performance or age, and cutting off a pipeline from your decent domestic league? He claims he's looking at other top nations as templates, but is he really, beyond any superficial level. He doesn't seem to from any substantial perspective.
A couple of thoughts: 1) In this study, our average age on the field was 27.1 years, essentially average among the 50 countries. 2) We capped 49 guys in 2015. 3) How could you forget Alan Gordon's epic assist to Eddie Johnson in 2012? 4) In terms of new players, Zardes obviously broke through this season, but it seems like Wood and Nagbe improved their standing in the player pool. Yedlin played an increasingly important role, too, but his defined position is still undetermined. 5) I'm not sure if any other country has our situation as it relates to 17-21 year old player development. It's a unique challenge for any US national team manager.
You make 2 points (noted above). Response to point one is that you haven't looked closely at the data. If you look closely, you will see that the USA played 20 matches, which is tied for 2nd most in the study. I didn't do the math, but based on eye-balling the list, I suspect the mean number of matches played for the list is close to 12 and the mode is probably 10. So, no, there is no "random probability: 1 in 2,500" here- it is actually highly likely that one or two US players would be located in the top 10 of the "total minutes played list" - along with players from Mexico (check), S. Korea (check), Japan (check) and Argentina (check!). Point 2, however, is a good use of data. However, it's an open debate whether you are drawing the right conclusion. What was the goal of the CC playoff - to win or to blood new talent? There are valid arguments on both sides.
I think you make two very good points, however I would also say that in a rebuilding year the increased number of games relative to other countries (many of them friendlies) gave us an added opportunity to test out younger unproven players...especially before the gold cup and the resulting playoff with Mexico. This opportunity, in my opinion, has been largely wasted. I fully agree that tournaments and games that matter are not the place for experimentation. Bradley is a known quantity and fully integrated into the team. Playing him does little in terms of answering necessary questions. I can understand playing Zardes more because of his youth and relative inexperience internationally. I still believe others should have been given more of an opportunity but I can at least understand the rationale a bit better. In terms of trying new players and utilizing his player pool Klinsmann reminds me very much of my kid's hs soccer coach. He chose his team very early without really knowing all of his players (he didn't even know some of their names after 2 months!) My son has always played midfield. the coach decided he was a defender (that's fine, it's his perogative and I believe he has many qualities that would make him a good outside defender with attacking skills). He never gave any type of instruction on positioning and how he (the coach) wants the defenders to play. What's more is at the time there were a TOTAL of 5 defenders for the 4 defensive spots. The coach played the "starters" virtually every single minute of the preseason when one of his goals should have been building depth and determining who he could put in at CB and at LB. It was more important to win the meaningless games than to prepare for the games with meaning. I could go on, my son is now playing forward. During a game, the coach was complaining that he didn't have anyone else that can play forward. A player on the bench mentioned to the coach that my son could play forward and the coach, out of desparation, put him at forward. He has now scored 3 goals and one assist in about 3-5 games worth of minutes. If the coach had experimented with his player pool a bit better when the games didn't matter he might not have needed the player to help him out when it did. This situation is true for several of the other players on his team. I know you don't want to hear about my son's hs experience so I apologize but I feel it is a pertinent analogy.
I didn't look closer at the game totals, but still, to have the top 2 in minutes played, in spite of being tied for 2nd in total games, speaks to a relative lack of integration attempts. There wouldn't be a 1 in 2,500 chance of it happening at randomly, but 1 in hundreds at least. And Bradley blew everyone else away at 1,669. Previous data from World Cups shows that a roster anywhere near that old doesn't help you win either, in addition to not learning anything for the future. Letting it get near that old is reflective of a lack of past integration, just as the minutes logged #'s for individual players are. 1) It's well-documented the CC playoff team was historically old median-age wise. I don't know the median age of the Gold Cup team, but they had 8 players 30 or older. Mexico, for example, was at 5. A Mexico team, that in this study, was listed as older than the U.S. They use average age. As we all know from statistics, extremes can throw off averages. Mexico played 36 year old Rafa Marquez quite a bit. Keepers can also throw it off. Started a 35 year old keeper for much of the year. Whereas for us, Howard took a break, and we used a 30 year old Guzan. The problem on the whole is oldish guy, oldish guy, European/Mexican bench player or reservist, u-23. Brooks/Alvarado was our CB pairing in the Gold Cup. Throws it off in the other direction for us. Where are the youngish + prime players? I'll allude to that later. 2) that's a lowish number when as aforementioned we played 20 games. And it counts 10 minutes for Matt Hedges at right back and 1,669 for Bradley at a-mid all the same. What % of minutes went to the top half vs. the bottom half? The Bradley and Zardes totals are a reflection of the tendency to cycle back to the same guys over and over. Just called up Orozco to January Camp in spite of never playing in a league game for Tijuana this season. 4) terrible in quantity and quality. Zardes was not a top 50 American in MLS alone last season. Yedlin was already integrated. Nagbe has 1 cap. Really Zardes and a 2. BL striker, although a good one for that league. If you look on that chart, we're 37th in top division players. Not great co. 5) sure, then he should have the awareness to call up the uncapped early mid 20's MLS player, knowing full well most were in college until their early 20's, and are locally scouted. Don't think so small-mindedly as: MLS, 24-25; I think I'm gonna pass. Also, your premise in the attempt to counter the argument that futbol loses out on the best American athletes to other sports, is really poor, IMO. You're ignoring that 5'6 to 6' athletes gravitate to other sports, they just fail much more frequently before top level. Then, it's not like they can just hop over to futbol. Also that most athletes adjust their weight accordingly. They're fanatics about their bodies for the most part. They build up or get leaner in a way that's advantageous in that sport. And the U.S. has a taller population, so we'd play a style like Germany's ideally, as opposed to the Hispanic/Latino countries. Germany won the WC. Mertesacker, Gomez, Muller, Schurrle, etc. winning headers, physical battles, headers, gliding past people, and controlling a ball instead of getting shots altered with a goal above their heads. A lot of the movement, ideas, and coordination are similar in basketball. That's what we're potentially losing.
I agree with your disappointment at the US v. Mexico playoff game. However, the age/height stats from 2015 are already a weighted average by playing time. Also, look at Figures 2 and 3 on the CIES link. Compared to the other countries in the sample, we did not give a disproportionate amount of playing time to players younger than 22 or 30 and older. That, alongside our average age, suggests that our playing time distribution by age looks fairly normal compared to the other 49 countries. With regards to the number of different players capped, look at us, Mexico, Korea, and Japan. Those countries played about as often as us, and called in 58, 45, and 46 players respectively. If you have issue with *who* those players are, have at it - that's a subjective analysis of our player pool.