U20 Training Camp Report

I do not like Rongen's comments re. loyalty. Pick the best players period. No one is owed a spot on this team.

 

Great stuff, Gers. Thanks.

 

Thanks for the link.

Besides Memo, have their been any other additions to the roster that was origianally released by US Soccer?

Regarding Whitbread, at the end of the day, can't FIFA compell Liverpool to release him.

I mean, afterall, the tournament we're asking him to be released for IS a FIFA-sanctioned event and it IS a World Championship.

If FIFA can't compell its members, and Liverpool, via the FA, is a member, what's the point? And, England is sending a team and Ireland, presumably with players who are on English teams, has qualified for the WYC. Presumably their English clubs will release players for this. If the English and Irish players are released, how can an American be kept from going.

I know the answer is likely that they can't keep him from going but by going without their blessing, he'd be risking his standing at Liverpool. But, are they that petty that they would give up on a prospect because he played in a World Youth Championship? It's one thing if he was on the first team and left, but we're talking about reserve team games. Please.

Also, does Barry Whitbread WANT his kid to play in this tournament? It certainly sounds like Zak does and presumably the old man does, too. But, sheesh, does he have NO imput at the club where he works? I mean, I can't believe a player whose dad works for the team in a fairly important role can't assuage the team to be more reasonable and compromising.

Also, why the hell did they let Whitbread go to Spain in August if they weren't going to release him in November? Did they not realize that he was called up to get him acclimated to the team so he could play in the World Championship? Or does Liverpool think that Whitbread wouldn't have shown well enough to make our team because of the vast number of talented defenders we have in America who are better than Zak?

This whole soap opera has just been very strange and, frankly, getting tiresome. I've banged the drumb for this kid for about the past 18 months and I'm thrilled he wants to play for the US and that he showed well when he was called in. But, this club hassle makes me wonder if its worth it.

 

yeah, but there can be a mix of a little loyalty with the idea of bringing the best players. the loyalty thing just can't be taken TOO FAR (see Jeff Agoos and Bruce Arena if there are any questions).

 

Yes I think in our eyes they are that petty. I think in their eyes the tournament is that meaningless. I think most most pro clubs would like to see these youth tournaments be much less frequent.

I can see the purpose of the U17 WC as a comming out party for the top players. I can see how FIFA can't stop the Olympic committe from having soccer as a part of the Olympics, hence the U23's, but I really don't know why there is a U20 WC. Can anyone tell me?

 

Actually, Arena in WC02 is a perfect example of not being too loyal. In the run-up to the Finals, he brought in Beasley and Mastroeni, while dumping Kirovski and Richie Williams. He also benched Regis, who had been a fixture in our starting line-up.

Goose continues to star in MLS. Let's not pretend there were better alternatives in 2002.

 

Yep. The better example would be Clive Charles and the Sydney Olympics.


Thanks for the link, Gers.

 

GersMan have you or could you dig more into the Whitebread issue ie speaking with him and his dad or the club. It would be interesting to see what the opinions of all involved are.

 

I beg to differ. Beasley was getting play in the run-up to the WC, so it's not like he was put on the squad out of the blue, as you try to hint at. AS for Regis, he was NOT a fixture in our lineup in the runup to the WC. did he play some games ........ sure he did. fixture, not by any means whatsoever. where do you get that from? and lastly, are you insinuating there were no defenders the US had that were better than Agoos? have you ever heard of Bocanegra? we could have played him in the run-up to the WC, but Arena didn't, because he wanted to be "loyal" to goose. did you notice that our defense improved dramatically as soon as goose went out with an "injury" (yeah right). even if Arena wanted goose on the team as a reward, he didn't have to start him, and STARTING him was clearly a favor for goose being a trooper ........ and it clearly almost cost us the quarterfinals. i find it laughable that you say that a guy who was almost directly responsible for nearly every goal we conceded in the '02 cup was the best guy we could have played there.

 

Loyalty should only count when the talent level is even between players. Never loyalty over talent.

 

sandon- the english clubs will release the bit part players, definitely not those on the verge of the 1st team. we won't have our equivalents of your
u-20 stars like Ejohnson( though we might have the manutd one.) , b.convey, r.clark

 

You are excused. Regis, as you point out, lost his starting position because of pathetically poor play. He did NOT play that much in WCQ (no matter what the excuse you give for it). He played in a few matches, and after proving himself unfit for the task, was basically sent on his merry way. He was terrible against Italy, terrible against the Netherlands, and by the time the US played who i believe was Uruguay in DC in the final run-up before the WC (the game in which Armas got injured which i was in attendance for), Regis was nowhere to be found. The "loyalty" issue couldn't apply to Regis because he didn't play enough for us to inspire that type of loyalty in the first place. You cannot tell me that Agoos was the best option at central defender. both Bora AND Steve Sampson were confronted with this same quandary with Jeff Agoos in choosing a team for the WC, and BOTH decided that Agoos wasn't good enough to play on that level. Why did Bruce apparently reach the opposite conclusion? Because Bruce had coached him at the college level (i believe) and on the pro level at DCU. As a result, they were/are good friends and Bruce had a sense of loyalty to get a guy in there for whom it would DEFINITELY be his last shot at a WC. once again, it almost cost him the 2nd round, which in turn, would have cost Bruce his job. I hope Bruce sent a load of flowers out to South Korea for scoring against Portugal .........

 

Thanks for the correction. Can you remind me who did play left back during qualifying?

 

Noone wants to except this. Maybe if Bocanegra was healthy?

 

Have you seen anyone come along to replace him since? The only one is Boca and he was not available due to injury. Califf was not ready and many will say never will be. Gibbs is even further back and can not even get out of the regionaliga. No matter what you think of him he was the best option.

 

Uruguay was NOT the final warmup game!

We played Jamaica and Holland after that game.

Regis started the final warmup before Korea, which was the Netherlands game. However, he got torched a few too many times in that game and Bruce decided to convert Hejduk to LB for the World Cup.

Regis was a regular in qualifying, see fidlerre's post above for evidence.

Also, he was never sent on his merry way. Regis made the final roster.

 

Ok, far too many posters are breaking board rules and citing facts in this thread. Stop that now. Regis stinks and never even got capped for the US. (BTW, Regis was playing CD for Metz at the time, a position he was never tried at in real games for the US. And Sanneh played CD for Nurnberg as well - tho I'd be hard pressed to imagine anyone in the pool matching Tony's WC. He was a man possessed.)

Now, as to Zak, this is a bit strange with his Dad and all. Think he's just trying to keep his options open? Hoping the Andorran passport comes through before the '06 WC?

 

u 20 Camp

I thought Sandon's take on the Whitbread "scandal" was interesting, but does ZW deserve the benefit of the doubt here??

I 100% believe that Liverpool would rather hold on to an emerging player for the entire year, but that's a far cry from steadfastly refusing to release a player who is determined to represent his country. Maybe I missed the interivew where Zak said that it was his dream to play for the US & he's counting the days to the WYC. I personally had bought into the conspiracy theory heard on these boards that ZW really wanted to pull a Hargreaves & become English. (Think two N Americans on the English side!!) He's left-footed isn't he? And isn't the left side of midfield/defense the back door on to the English side? And isn't he a British citizen, whose parents are British, & has lived in England since he was 12?

Is it possible that people read to much in to his appearance at the August tournament? It's quite possible he showed up because a)he wanted to stay fit & sharp going into his most important year as a footballer & b)it was a way to keep his options open without pissing off Liverpool b/c they didn't really need him in August anyway.

I dunno. I think the boy may be ambivalent & Liverpool may be taking advantage of that.

Any inside info here would help.

 

Regis also started four of the six games in the semifinal round.

Overall he started 12 (out of 12 games played) during WCQ. Only Agoos, Armas, Sanneh, and Stewart started as many (or more). Only Cobi and Joe-Max played as many amongst players that weren't "starters".

He started against Italy, Germany, Uruguay, and the Netherlands in the run-up to the WCFs. He was a fixture in the starting line-up until is gaffes in the games against the Netherlands.

"One fine Lawyer" needs to learn some facts before he argues a case.

 

Yeah, I got a couple a questions.

Is onefineesq a better lawyer when he/she is representing his/her clients who pay him/her than he/she is arguing about soccer?

And if she/he isn't, how close to being sued for malpractice, or whatever its called when lawyers don't do their job well enough, is he/she?

Between davide and fidlerre, that was pretty much a slam dunk presentation of facts. If I ever need a lawyer, even if it's not about soccer, I think I'd call you two before I called the allegedly fine esquire!

Or, is there a chance that "esq" isn't short for esquire and we just presumed it is? If he/she spells as well as he argues, maybe "esq" is short for "esquort" and the person is actually a call girl. That would explain a lot.