He admitted he hadn't and that is all that I was saying. His quote was that he had seen him on highlight reels or something like that. But I didn't mean to make it personal and it wasn't about whether he was rigth or not. It was the fact that someone would talk so mightily about someone and when it was all revealed they had just read game trackers and some summaries. And if my memory serves me right JRI was calling for Cory Gibbs to play in 2001 and that was a big deal. The "so somene is playing in the Bundesliga so he should just come over and start a WCQ even though nobody has seen him play?" line was thrown around. In 2002 I think I was disappointed that he wasn't called into camp for Italy and then for Germany he was injured? I think I am remembering that correctly.
In most cases, it helps (a lot) to view a person's games. There are also problems with that (however). This should be obvious, but I guess I have to explain. Trying to analyse a player's performance based on one or two viewings is difficult as well (for many). Many here don't know what to look for and/or have not played soccer on a high level. They can not analyze on bits/bites. Also, TV can also be disceptive. I reckon very few of the posters on BS have seen most players in enough live , different situations to make a true analysis. Therefore, we are all going on bites and bits. But one can make some relative assumptions In the Gibbs situation, there were extenuating circumstances: That being, we had a fairly respected publication (and antedoctal reports) telling us that Gibbs was performing well/very well at one of the best leagues in Europe. By comparison, we had defenders in our Nat pool team that we had seen many, many times (most of us), and many/some posters knew their faults, and knew their weaknesses and how they performed at the highest levels. We had defenders in our Nat team pool that would have difficult repeating even the short season accomplishments of Gibbs of that period. By all accounts, Gibbs was having a better/much better 2001-2002 season then Sanneh (who rose to the occasion at WC 2002 and played his best ball ever- but we've never seen that before or since). Point is, the gap between Gibbs relative performance (live or reported) and our Nat team pool was so large at that time, that Gibbs deserved a look. And that's the whole point- we were only talking a cap here. No one was saying guarantee the guy a starting spot based on reports or even a Nat team place for WC 2002. Just a shot. There was nothing Jeff Agoos was going to tell Bruce or any of us by playing in the Rostock friendly. But Gibbs may have had a chance to show us something interesting, and maybe worth pursuing. That's why I am responding to your post. You are not thinking this out. I was only talking one cap (and let's see where it goes from that). You don't need to see him (or any player) play live to come to that conclusion. It all depends on the circumstances...
It is standard fare for a mutual-fund manager to boast about visiting a company, talking with its management, and "kicking the tires." The implication is that no real analyst can speak knowledgeably unless the experience was first hand. However, this is 100% investment marketing. There is no evidence whatsoever that people who visit companies make better investment decisions than those who do not. Many people have invested very successfully solely by relying on secondary research. My point? I agree with jri, at least to the extent that he phrases his argument here. If a player is in Europe succeeding at a fairly high level, you don't have to see him to know that he's worth a look for the U.S. National team. OK, off topic, sorry.
I agree with this principle, but I don't agree that Gibbs was widely regarded as being "successful" at a high level. At the time, I think that jri was basing his claims on the pure fact that he was playing in the BL, and totally disregarding that he was playing on the last place team that had no prospects and was just playing out the season and that further, if memory serves me correctly, the commentators were not by and large praising his play. He was also ignoring the fact that before his BL adventure, he didn't exactly have a past suggestive of USMNT material.
Not surprisingly, you are getting the facts wrong once again. I would appreciate that (you especially) please do not try to characterize my arguments to others, since you have a history of getting it wrong. It was more then just the fact he was playing in the BL. Gibbs was a young defender who was still learning, but he was learning rapidly. St. Pauli had a 10 game stretch in which Gibbs- according to Kicker and other reports at the time- was playing outstanding. His Kicker ratings were similiar (over a 10 game stretch) to the period Cherundolo recently had (in which we were all raving). During that 10 game period, St. Pauli thoroughly had beaten a very talented Bayern Munich team, tied undeservedly (St. Pauli should have won) a very strong Dortmund team (in which Gibbs had shut down Ewerthon). In fact, during that 10 game period, Gibbs was shutting down the top strikers in the BL, and St. Pauli was playing well. This "playing out the season" stuff is pure crap. In early March, St. Pauli was 4 pts. from avoiding relegation, and had just completed a 10 game period in which they had played top BL teams, and had a record of 3 wins, 5 ties, and 2 losses. They were a young team, looked like they were finally jelling, and were coming together (as a team). Gibbs was a big part of that- a just turned 22 year old American who was playing as well as many good defenders in the BL at that time. That was the context of discussion about Bruce calling him into camp. That was the period we were talking about. Posters here have to remember that the quality AND depth in the back of the US backline in Feb/March 2002. We were still considering Llamosa for God sakes. Regis too. Berhalter, I believe, was sporadically playing for a Coca-Cola League Crystal Palace (and he was considered pretty much 'a lock' to make the team). Mastro had maybe one cap, if that. The stuff about "not having a career path"? He played for our youth National team, and you want to penalize a guy who rockets (a la Spector) to a great situation and was performing. Its the crap logic of your post (and getting the facts wrong) that is troubling. If you want to talk about poster decorum, let's start there. Lazy ass remembering passed off as fact. Too bad for you Kicker has a search function...
I think I said "if memory serves me correctly". And a good ten game stretch, though nice, is not the same as "successful." So I amend my initial statement, you were basing yuor claim that Gibbs should be on the MNT because 1) he was playing in the BL, and 2) he had a good 10 game stretch. And by the way, Llamosa still might be the best tackler we ever had.