OT: USA World Cup Roster

[MUMac]

I have sat next to Donovan at Mark Miller’s shootout and I don’t think he would make a difference on the team.

I think his best competitive days are behind him…….but he sure does like to yell at the refs...

He had competitive days? Are you sure about that?

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Here you are making the argument that he should have played it safe. But I'm not sure playing it safe in this group gets you anywhere.

It's not just playing it safe, though. Even without his pace, we know Donovan won't crack under pressure (156 caps tell me that), can unlock a tight defense (58 assists indicate that), and is as reliable as they come in the world from the penalty spot (57 goals confirm that). Further, we know he can excel at the international level, as he won the Golden Boot and Player of the Tournament at the Gold Cup less than a year ago. There's no one on this team (Dempsey included) that can be trusted from the spot.

I fully agree in bringing some guys that are "unsafe" picks to open things up. But in Chandler, Yedlin, Green, Diskerud, Johannsson, and Brooks you are talking about over 25% of the roster. You bring a few of those guys (I'd vote Yedlin, Diskerud, and Johannsson, with Green on the fence if there's an unspoken guarantee) and make sure there are some guys on the bench you can count on like Donovan and Goodson when you need to either protect a lead or get an equalizer.

I have to think at a glance the starting eleven will be Howard, Besler, Gonzalez, Cameron, Beasley, Bradley, Jones, Johnson, Zusi, Dempsey, and Altidore. Of the 12 players on the bench, there are a combined 14 international goals, 9 of those by Wondo. So outside of Wondo, that's 9 field players that have combined for 5 goals, and only 2 field players on the bench actually bring experience (Beckerman and Bedoya are the only 2 with 20+ caps). Again, not saying you should completely play it safe, but that's well beyond the bounds of safe.

EDIT: It may just be that I'm a fan of Landycakes and feel he's gotten the short end of the stick from way too many people for way too long. But just as a figure, he will bring a lot more to the locker room than someone like Chandler who is widely viewed as a cancer that was ready to quit the team, someone like Green who is barely able to speak English, or someone like Mix (whom I love) that is basically a poor man's Donovan.

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

Brew - I think you misunderstood my comment saying what you said was silly. I am by no means arguing for or against leaving Donovan or anyone else off the roster as I don't follow the team enough to comment on the lineup/roster intricacies, etc. I do believe Klinsman should be questioned on, amongst other things, his roster construction, if the team lays an egg and stinks up the joint for 3 days. However, that's not what you said - you said his roster decisions should be seriously questioned if they don't advance past the group stage. There's a big difference there as even if this team plays to it's full potential and proves that Klinsman did make the right moves it probably still won't be enough to advance. Does that make sense?

[Mucrisco]

Regarding Donovan's leadership: the guy was continually told that his roster spot was not a sure thing. Knowing that, why would he come into camp out of shape and overweight? Does he really have that fire anymore? I would rather have a guy with fire, like Dempsey or Bradley, setting the tone in the locker room than Donovan. With Donovan there, he might get in the way. The team needs to be hungry. Putting a guy on the roster out of respect does not match up with that mentality. Touch cut for sure. I am not one of those guys that have hated on Landon. It is disappointing that he won't be there. In fact, I've been harsher on Bradley in the past. Now, I think he's clearly our best player.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Brew - I think you misunderstood my comment saying what you said was silly. I am by no means arguing for or against leaving Donovan or anyone else off the roster as I don't follow the team enough to comment on the lineup/roster intricacies, etc. I do believe Klinsman should be questioned on, amongst other things, his roster construction, if the team lays an egg and stinks up the joint for 3 days. However, that's not what you said - you said his roster decisions should be seriously questioned if they don't advance past the group stage. There's a big difference there as even if this team plays to it's full potential and proves that Klinsman did make the right moves it probably still won't be enough to advance. Does that make sense?

I totally get it. Here's how I see it...if you take guys like Donovan, Goodson, and Parkhurst, all of whom seemed like solid bets (as did Boyd, who probably deserved it over Wondo, but I can accept that based on Wondo's NT form), there's no doubt that you are bringing the guys most ready to contribute now. So if you go out early, everyone will feel that the loss isn't because you picked the wrong team, it's because the players currently in the pool simply aren't good enough.

But that's not what happened. When you bring Green over Donovan, Brooks over Goodson, and Chandler over Parkhurst, Klinsmann is essentially saying "I am smarter than the rest of you and these kids with their combined 14 caps are better than those veterans and their 227 caps." He is saying that those kids, who have proven absolutely nothing at this level, are better options to win now than those guys that have won tons of matches for us. And if the team comes up short, the question won't be whether the players in the pool were good enough, it will be whether the players that were picked even belonged on the plane in the first place.

It's funny...by taking a less experienced roster, I think Klinsmann has actually put MORE pressure on this team to advance. There was very little pressure if you have the perceived strongest team. But when you say that these kids, these wet-behind-the-ears tweens are ahead of Donovan, which Klinsmann said directly today, and thus implied that the other questionable selections are ahead of the other guys that have performed at a high level for both club and country. If they fail, people won't look at the pool, they'll look at the inexperience and the guys that got left home. And there's no guarantee that these guys will still be in the mix in 2018. If they aren't, it's entirely possible that the way Brooks, Green, Chandler, Yedlin, and the other kids are remembered is only as the guys that weren't ready for this level. I'm not sure that's fair to anyone involved.

EDIT: And @crisco, agreed on Bradley. He is the engine room of this team. All respect to Dempsey, but Bradley is our best player and if we advance, it will likely be because of him more than anyone else.

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

All good points esp regarding the amount of pressure on him by his selections---never looked at it from that angle.

But bc we don't know how the Donovan group would've performed in comparison to the new team, it's difficult to say that was a good decision or a bad decision prior to the games being played or even after the games are played (unless it's brutally apparent that the "new" team is awful).

Anyways it will be intresting to see how they do.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Yeah, if it's bad it will always be a "what if" that can ever be answered. But had Donovan, Goodson, and Parkhurst been selected, no one ever would have asked no matter how bad the results.