Whitbread / Gonzalez I'd like to see him play in the WYC, but I guess we'll just have to see what happens. I'm not defending Liverpool here, but we know that the English clubs aren't crazy about letting kids go to this tournament. I don't have a link, but when Convey initially left for Spurs, I think I remember Rongen lamenting the fact that his transfer likely meant he wouldn't be part of the U-20 team at the Cup, since English clubs aren't willing to let players go. Does anyone else remember this? It's a shame, and I'd love to see the U.S. put forth its best possible team, but that doesn't seem like it will be the case. And since I'm an optimist, who knows--maybe one of the other players will really shine in the tournament and surprise a lot of people (similar to Sanneh in 2002). Shifting gears to Gonzalez--how did he look against Japan? While he had his moments at the U-17 Cup, he seemed fairly inconsistent (though this probably had more to do with the style the team played). Maybe an LA fan has had opportunities to see him play more?
How does relying on the judgment of two guys who both did a worse job than Arena did prove anything? Is there a thread of logic hidden there somewhere? Hindsight is always perfect. Most coaches are going to make decisions that are intelligent at the time, but because the future cannot be predicted, don't work out. The Agoos choice was one of those - Agoos was at the time, and still is, one of the best defenders in MLS. While he had obvious weaknesses, he had performed well for the most part in qualifiers and friendlies. It was a reasonable, if ultimately mistaken, decision by Arena when it is looked at without the benefit of hindsight. P.S. For those of you who howled about Agoos since the Jamaica qualifying game in 97, you are not guilty of utilizing hindsight. But you ought to consider whether you really made 15 correct personnel decisions like Arena did.
For those of you who thought that i was afraid to come back and take my medicine, think again! LOL Ok ok. So Regis played. He still sucked, and everyone in my circle new it. And i'm sure that most of you knew it too. My basic premise still remains though. There was a reason that other coaches chose not to have Agoos on the previous WC squads, and that was simply that he wasn't good enough. To say that Arena is sooooooooo much better and smarter than our other coaches is misleading. Do i personally like him better? Yes. But performance is also helped out by players, wouldn't you say? and in 94, we had no league, and in 98, our league was young. It's safe to say that Arena has more talented guys to work with now than Bora had in 94. and we lost 1-0 to Brazil there (who happened to win it all).
Liverpool & Zak The funny thing is, Liverpool let Michael Owen play in the U20 '97 event. He was only 17 at the time, so maybe that's the difference?
Re: Liverpool & Zak I just think the difference is that they are being jerks due to the fact he is not an English player. you can't convince me that he'd being having this problem if he were.
Re: Whitbread / Gonzalez Yep...I think this is the article you're referring to. http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/NationalTeams/20030814191040/view
which? the one where you said regis was not a fixture in the lead up to the world cup? so he sucked and he played in all those matches? he wasn't the greatest left-back in the world but he was the best the us could manage at the time and did an okay job against concacaf competition...as some have pointed out, he was playing out of position with the us team...he was ultimately not quick enough to be an outside back in a 4-4-2, i thihnk he would have made a pretty decent centerback <note the word decent> with the national team but we'll never know...
Ok, you guys need to get something straight with this whole Agoos-Regis debate. Regis was NOT a fixture despite what evidence all of you so-called lawyers show. We've all seen your postings on all the games Regis played in approaching the WC but that does not make him a fixture in the lineup. What happened with Regis is that for a while, he looked like the best guy for the job and was given ample opportunity to prove himself...of course he couldn't play consistently enough and lost the job. I'm sorry but playing in a string of games in less than 1 yrs time does not make someone a fixture in the lineup. Someone who is a fixture in the lineup plays in every important game as long as they are healthy for an extended period of time (in other words--years). Examples of fixtures would have been marcelo balboa, eric wynalda, tab ramos....and unfortunately, Agoos. Agoos, for reasons I will never be able to figure out was consistently in our lineup for years. No matter how inconsistent his play was, he was a fixture in the lineup. Now you guys can argue all you want that there was nobody better than him out there, but the fact is nobody (until Regis came around) was given a shot at being groomed into the position. I mean, look at how terrible convey played early on but he's been given the opportunity to grow and learn and become better through experience. Bottom line is, Agoos had a monopoly on that position and he was terrible at it for years...inconsistent at best. It's one of the only real issues that can be had with the way arena has handled this team.
Well, i can't help it if you chose not to read the very next sentence that i wrote explaining what my basic premise was. If you HAD read it, instead of conveniently cutting off my post at the line before i explained it, you would know that what i was talking about was the notion that Agoos was good enough to be on the WC squad and that he was not a mistake by Arena from the get-go.
Dang, ease up on us, alright. The attorney in here (me) is the guy who has been arguing that Regis IS NOT and WAS NOT EVER a fixture. It was the rest of the people in here who are all over me with this talk that he was the man, yadda yadda yadda. In other words, you and i are totally in agreement. Your post said what I've been trying to say better than i have been saying it. LOL
So, between June of 1999 and October of 2001, Regis started in three World Cup games and 12 of 16 World Cup qualifers, plus a bunch of friendlies in between and he's somehow not a fixture? The guy got 27 caps, all between 5/23/98 and 5/19/02. That's a lot of caps for someone to get if he wasn't a fixture. Remember, with a lot of the players in Europe, Arena didn't call them in unless the games mattered, ie qualifying. So, if he didn't play in a bunch of friendlies in 1999 and 2000 doesn't mean he wasn't the first choice left back when it counted. He was. That's why he started the vast majority of the qualifiers and that's why it was a bold, albeit obvious, move for Arena to bench him as he was the guy when it counted for most of Arena's first four years.
as an attorney shouldn't you admit when your are wrong? get over it, regis was a fuucking fixture for the united states mens national soccer team between the 1998 world cup <including those world cup matches> and up to the 2002 world cup. every important match played between those world cups <and in the 1998 world cup> he played in the match if he was available...which was just about every single one as easily shown with the evidence you have been presented. are we saying he deserved to be a fixture? maybe, maybe not. are we saying he was the best choice as a left back? maybe, maybe not. but what we are saying, and with the evidence to prove it...is that he was a fixture for the united states mens national soccer team between the 1998 world cup and the 2002 world cup. god i would feel sorry for the people you defend in court...
whoa, hey, i'm not the one cursing over a discussion on david regis ........ you are. so it would seem to me that you are the one who is having a hard time with the subject matter. when you cool down, maybe you would be a little more rational. I simply asked how the guy could have played in a WC during a time period given when no WC was played. get your panties out of a bunch.
I can't believe this thread has taken to, basically, arguing what the word fixture means in the world of national team soccer. Sheesh, lets bring back the Mathis threads.
sorry did my cursing offend you? i just find it funny how adament you are that david regis is not a fixture for the u.s. national team when the evidence is quite clear that he indeed was a fixture for the national team. rightyly, or wrongly it doesn't matter...what matters is that when it mattered, and even when it didn't, he showed up and played 90 minutes as the left back. and i think you, as a soccer fan and expert, knew that sandon was referencing the 1998 world cup, he just got his years mixed up. anyone that is everyone who has followed the national team since wc1998 knows that regis was "fast-tracked" in order to obtain his citizenship and play in the 1998 world cup, where he started all three matches.
not offended, because i don't know you. as you find some things funny about me apparently, i find it funny that you have gotten so personal about what is meant to be a discussion, not an argument. I don't quite take this so seriously to raise it to that level, but I guess i'm in the minority on that too.
a discussion in which you were incorrect, a simple "yep, i was wrong about regis not being a fixture" is all it takes. i just find it funny you continue to fight the fact you were wrong... i don't care that much, it's just when you are adament about something and then it turns out to be incorrect, just admit you're wrong about it and move along...but you try and defend yourself even though all evidence points to you being wrong. admitting being wrong isn't hard to do...
Ok. for future reference, i will remember to make sure to agree with people in a "civil" discussion so as to avoid getting into a personal battle.
hahahahaha. I laughed when i saw it too, and he was talking about ME! the funny thing is i was going to make a joke about myself when i read that, but i decided to go serious with it. I guess i missed out on my opportunity! LOL
you don't have to agree...and we are in no way in a "personal" battle. so you don't agree that regis was a fixture in the us mens national team in wcq'ing?
Attornies are supposed to represent their clients to the best of their ability with no pre-judged idea. They present the facts (from their clients view) to the court to be judged. They do not consider right or wrong. There is no right or wrong for them. They do what the judge lets them get away with. To say they are wrong is a concept that is foreign to attornies.