Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Shootings Near Thunder's Arena Follow Win Over Lakers,

Jurgen Klinsmann setting precedent, getting this part right

Freddy Adu’s name came up this week on our SI.com podcast as we tossed around opinion on those recent, flagging U.S. national team performances. Of course, Adu hasn't been part of the proceedings so far under Jurgen Klinsmann. So why was the young attacker suddenly topical?

Simple. Two goals in five matches says it all. Klinsmann’s team has a scoring problem. Inexperienced strikers who aren’t quite up to snuff internationally share the blame. So does a lack of creativity. (Lost in the debate is Landon Donovan’s absence, but that’s a topic for another day.)

So, Adu could probably add some spice to the soup in terms of additional ideas, more clever passing, more attacking variation, etc.  He’s one of the few players in the current U.S. pool with real tricks up his sleeve. But there’s a bigger problem to consider here for Klinsmann, and it’s about precedent. So, I think Klinsmann is absolutely correct in declining to summon young Adu. Read on for why …

Star-divide

 

Klinsmann has been clear about the need for players to be, you know, “playing.”  Talent that languishes on some European bench is not talent that’s going anywhere. So believes Klinsmann, who also stresses physical fitness. The best player in the world can't be truly match fit if he's not pulling regular duty over longer stretches.

Well here’s the thing: Adu is not starting regularly for Peter Nowak’s playoff-bound Philadelphia Union. Adu did start the last two matches, but overall the young fringe U.S. international has been on the field to begin just six of the 12 MLS matches for which he’s been available.

And in Adu’s most recent start, I wasn’t particularly impressed with his body of work in the Union’s 1-1 draw at home with Toronto. Nor did this writer, who sure seems to know his way around match analysis.

So where does all this leave Klinsmann? Anyone who watched the U.S.-Mexico Gold Cup final couldn’t help but be impressed with the best U.S. attacker that day. Here’s what I wrote in the SI.com player ratings:

Easily the best U.S. player in the Rose Bowl -- and what a stunner that is. Playing beneath Landon Donovan as a central creator, frequently drifting to the right, he made big contributions on both U.S. goals. He helped win the corner kick and then served up Bradley to open scoring against the run of play. Then he helped move along the attack that found Donovan for a 2-0 lead. Early, he seemed to be the only U.S. player moving the ball quickly, which is what the United States needed against a Mexican side swarming in numbers. Later, as space opened up, he absorbed the ball and tried to dribble up a little trouble. Adu had a pretty good eye for finding space. He drew fouls and even won a header or two.

So, clearly, a difference-maker at the international level lurks somewhere in Adu’s slightly stocky, 5-8 structure. In my mind, he could certainly do better than Maurice Edu in the attacking end of the role Klinsmann asked Edu to play during last week’s loss to Ecuador. The tracking and tackling? Not so much. That’s a tactical issue that Klinsmann and his merry band of rotating assistants would need to address.

But I really don’t think it should get there.

I like that Klinsmann is encouraging, through not just words but also through his selections, players to find clubs where they can get some serious PT – some prime time minutes. Otherwise, they are stuck. They have plateaued, for the moment at least.

Bruce Arena used to stress this. Bob Bradley seemed far less concerned. He called in players regularly through the years who weren’t necessarily starting or even playing at the clubs. For me, that was always bad precedent.

In the bigger picture, players who wish to further their national team careers should be extra careful in matching their skills and a realistic opportunity assessment with their choice of clubs. (Of course, they are well within their rights if they are less concerned with international opportunities, more concerned with optimum cash grab or simply with living the fast life of European soccer. I say, “live and let live.” Just don’t complain when you fall off the international radar.)

Klinsmann should continue to send the message, “There’s no free ride here. Get on the field, or don’t bother checking the national team schedule.”

Comment 12 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Agreed, but...

Freddy has been nursing an ankle injury that has limited his playing time and you would expect there’s some rust to shake off. He doesn’t deserve a call up because he just hasn’t been sharp for the most part. JK will face dilemmas though: eg What does he do with Altidore if he has indeed been benched? Pass him over for Nov. friendlies? We’ll see.

by ennuihead on Oct 19, 2011 1:59 PM EDT reply actions  

Fair point ...

… probably should have mentioned that.

by Steve Davis on Oct 19, 2011 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

At what point

do club managers control the national team? What happens when a player gets benched because of the club manager, whether it is because the manager doesn’t like the player personally or the manager misjudges the players talent, rather than the players actual form or skill? At what point will holding out such players also hold back the team? Precedents are nice, but winning is better.

by musamonster on Oct 19, 2011 2:56 PM EDT reply actions  

no problem for now....

I have no problem with JK bringing in players that are playing and doing well. In the instance of ADU if he is dealing with an injury he would most likely not be brought in anyways. Jk gets a pass for right now because nothing counts but when qualifications come he need to call in those that are going to be most effective.

On a seperate note will JK do a January camp to look at the fring MLS players?

by soccerroo on Oct 19, 2011 3:22 PM EDT reply actions  

I agree ...

… with your last statement. But I don’t believe our ideas are mutually exclusive. If you’re talking about winning in the short-term, then your suggestions ring true. My thought is that asking your talent to find better fits (at the right clubs) is more beneficial to building a program that wins over a longer period. But I do get what you’re saying about getting into bad situations. Sometimes managers change, for instance, and that’s not the player’s fault.

by Steve Davis on Oct 19, 2011 3:22 PM EDT reply actions  

I cannot see ...

… Klinsmann missing the opportunity to do a January camp, given his stated thoughts on an insufficiently lengthy MLS season.

by Steve Davis on Oct 19, 2011 3:24 PM EDT reply actions  

While I agree with the reasoning

by that logic, Torres shouldn’t be playing for Spain. I realize they are different coaches and in different worlds really, but there are times when taking a chance on him wouldn’t be bad. If he has plans for him in the future, he should call him up for a friendly or two so he can at least practice with the squad and get acquainted with all the new faces on the USMNT.

It is definitely a tough spot to be in, but given the slow start to the Kilnsmann era, why not see what he can do in a game that means nothing.

"The trouble with referees is that they know the rules, but they don't know the game" -Bill Shankly

by Bromantic on Oct 19, 2011 7:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Are you really likening Adu to Torres?

Torres has played 9 games for Chelsea this year. No one in the US pool is as talented as Torres. I’m just not seeing your point.

by fennsk1 on Oct 20, 2011 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

Based on their current form

(minus yesterday’s game) they are about on par, but I am likening their situations. Say what you want, but Torres has been dreadful and should have been benched. Each goal he has scored since his move has cost 10m pounds. Not worthy of a call up to the best team in the world. Likewise with Adu, his form hasn’t been consistently there(partly due to injury) and his playing time has suffered (albeit way more than Torres’). So when they finally give up on Torres because the only time he can score is with the help of a mud puddle or a poor Belgian team, should he be benched from the national team? If Adu can provide the creativity that we so desperately need, should he be called up regardless of form? Yes, just like Torres was still called up when he was sucking for Liverpool and Chelski and when just coming off yet another injury.

The point was in the many discussions was that calling up players in poor form and therefore not playing as much isn’t likely to happen for the US. If we were picking teams around the world based on that assumption, Torres should have been dropped the before he left Liverpool (even though his playing time hadn’t suffered because Liverpool had no one else). Much of the discussion has been about club managers selections having huge effects on the national teams. There is a parallel, but perhaps Tevez would have been a better example.

For me, normally the internationals are not a time to find your form. You should be doing well before your call up. However, we are in a rebuilding phase, unlike Spain. We can afford to call up US players that are good, but in poor form and let them try to find it on the pitch during a friendly. If there is even a thought that Adu might be in the future plans for the USMNT, then he should at least be called up for a friendly and allowed to practice with the team (especially if you are Donavan-less and therefore have no creativity on the pitch). You are right, my point wasn’t expressed well and I likely contradicted myself no less than 20 times in this reply as well.

"The trouble with referees is that they know the rules, but they don't know the game" -Bill Shankly

by Bromantic on Oct 20, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

We shall see

I can’t disagree with the logic expressed, on both sides of the issue, but logic is one thing, chemistry and performance another.
Logic said that Uruguay in the last World Cup, barely squeaking in via playoff with Concacaf team Costa Rica, would probably not make it through the group stage.
Time will tell whether or not Klinsmann’s philosophy helps or hinders MNT performance, as well as US player development.
I’m sure the some players could start every game in USL teams, but would that prepare them for Int’l play more than coming off the bench in EPL or other European league play?

by Brian1204 on Oct 20, 2011 10:25 AM EDT reply actions  

Anybody else bracing themselves for a long dry spell?

Even a non-qualification for World Cup 2014? Bradley surely seemed to have a stagnation thing going on, but beyond that I don’t think it’s the coach, it’s the lack of good choices to make a team. I think Klinsmann is the right man for the job, but I wish he’d come in about 7-8 years to use the next crop of up and comers, either that we don’t know about yet or that are just getting some exposure now.

by chrisperry1983 on Oct 21, 2011 1:44 PM EDT reply actions  

keep in mind

we are in the concacaf…not uefa or conmebol. qualifying for the world cup will likely never be a problem for us.

by Nathaniel Perlow on Oct 21, 2011 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SB Nation's soccer blog is heavy on the domestic game -- flavored with a dash the global greatness

Recent Posts


Managers

Daily_soccer_fix_crest_small Steve Davis