Bleacher Report - WideLeft

Sergio Garcia Can't Think We're This Stupid, Unless He's That Stupid

Dan Levy — Wed, 22 May 2013 12:48:55 -0400

Sergio Garcia sat with members of the European media on Wednesday and apologized for his ill-timed and poorly-worded "joke" about Tiger Woods at Tuesday night's European PGA Tour black-tie event, suggesting he would serve the best golfer in the world fried chicken for dinner when they play in the U.S. Open next month.

Garcia later apologized to those who were offended, the European tour, his European Ryder Cup teammates and, finally, Woods (via The Guardian):

I didn’t mean to offend anyone. I obviously was kind of going by the question, but don’t get me wrong, I understand that my answer was totally stupid and out of place. I can’t say sorry enough about that....

Finally, and most importantly, I want to apologize to Tiger and to anybody that I could have offended by the comment I made. I just want to say that I feel sick about it. I’m truly, truly sorry.

The apology was as sincere and heartfelt as one could expect from Garcia, who clearly comes out of this situation looking like a total buffoon. It was noteworthy that Garcia apologized to Woods last, not first, but his statement certainly underscored how important he felt it was to apologize publicly to Tiger for his comment.

Time to move on, right? Well, Garcia didn't exactly handle the media's questions as well as he handled his opening statement, leading one to wonder if he is ignorant and naive, or just pretending to be.

Making an Effort to Reach Tiger

When asked if he had personally reached out to Woods, Garcia explained that he didn't have Tiger's number, but that he left a message for Woods' agent, Mark Steinberg, hoping to set up a call.

Here's the thing about that one, Sergio: It shouldn't be that hard to find Tiger's number.

Garcia, after all, is playing a European PGA Tour event this weekend with dozens of other professional golfers. One of them surely has a working phone number for Woods.

Garcia said he spoke with higher-ups within the PGA about his comment. Surely commissioner Tim Finchem has Tiger's cell phone number.

Failing that, Woods was on Twitter earlier on Wednesday to share his thoughts on Sergio's comment. Garcia could have easily followed Woods on Twitter, sent him a message through social media and asked Tiger to DM (direct message) a phone number to ensure he had a chance to speak with Woods before talking to the media.

Note: Garcia, who is verified on Twitter, has not tweeted since August, 2011. Today would have been the perfect day to start that up again.

Sergio, Meet Fuzzy

Sergio's gaffes went beyond his inability to call Woods before he talked to the press. Garcia admitted during the conference that he was unaware of Fuzzy Zoeller's comment during the 1997 Masters, when Zoeller overshadowed the epic victory by Woods after making a "fried chicken and collard greens" comment about the following year's champion's dinner. Sergio said he was made aware of the comment for the first time on Wednesday, suggesting that he was only 17 years old at the time and was unaware.

But how could Sergio not know about Zoeller's comment? I was 19 at the time and still recall it being one of the biggest stories of the year in American sports.

Garcia didn't play professionally in America until 1999—his first professional tournament in America was the 1999 Masters—but he was a highly regarded amateur in the game and that was one of the biggest stories in golf that year, especially on the heels of Woods' record-setting victory at Augusta.

Perhaps Sergio didn't remember it, but suggesting he didn't know about it is patently ridiculous.

Recognizing Racism

Still, that may not have been the dumbest thing Garcia said to the press on Wednesday. Sergio apologized for his offensive remark, but stopped short of admitting it was racist (via GolfChannel.com video):

Reporter: Sergio, you spoke about it being a silly comment, do you accept it was a racist comment, or do you disagree with that?

Garcia: No. Not at all. It wasn't meant that way. Like I said before, I was caught off guard at what seemed to be a funny question and I tried to give a funny answer that came out totally wrong. I want to make sure that everybody knows that I'm very, very sorry. I cannot apologize enough times.

To be clear, in Garcia's own words, he does not accept that his comment was racist—"not at all"—but admits it came out totally wrong and he is "very, very sorry" for saying it. But if he does not believe the comment is racist, what exactly is he sorry about?

Is Garcia "very, very sorry" for an inappropriate and clearly racist comment or is he only "very, very sorry" that this became a story so big he needed to hold an entire press conference about it so he could apologize?

Garcia has a long and less-than-cordial past with Woods, so he must have known that any snide remark about the world's best player would make international news. That said, making a comment—joking or not—with any racial undertones was a dangerous move for Garcia to make. Not owning up to the racism the next day, even while apologizing for it, is somehow even worse.

The reporter didn't ask Garcia if he intended it to be a racist comment, only if he accepts that it was.

If Garcia can't accept that making a fried chicken reference about Woods is racist—even if Garcia truly didn't know about the past comments from Zoeller—he's lying to himself, lying to the media and lying to Woods.

Sergio cannot be this stupid. Unless he is, which given his comments, he just might be.

Read more WideLeft news on BleacherReport.com

Mike Trout Cycle: Does It Matter If the Angels Star Was Out on the Single?

Dan Levy — Wed, 22 May 2013 10:18:43 -0400

Mike Trout is one of the bright young stars in baseball. As a fellow South Jersey native, I'm not only happy for the kid's early success, I find myself rooting for him to succeed. It came with great joy and civic pride, then, when I saw Trout hit for the cycle in the Los Angeles Angels' 12-0 rout of the Seattle Mariners on Tuesday.

I immediately clicked the video on MLB.com to see the highlights and share in the excitement.

Well now, Trout sure looked out on that infield single, didn't he?

Trout's first hit of the four-hit night was a bang-bang play at first base in the third inning. While he may have looked safe at live speed, the replay sure as heck looked like Aaron Harang got his foot on the bag before Trout.

Was Trout out? More importantly, should we care if Trout was out?

Yes and yes, if you ask me. (Note: My editor and I have both watched the video many times, and he thinks Trout is safe while I see him out every time. Good thing for me, I'm writing this story, not him.)

Trout looks to be out, but with the play coming in the third inning of a game that was already 3-0—and ended up a one-sided laugher—the call had little impact on the outcome. In fact, the play had almost no impact at all, as Trout was stranded on base after Harang struck out Albert Pujols and forced a pop out from Mark Trumbo to retire the side. No harm, no problem, right?

Well…in a way, sure. The call didn't impact the outcome of the game, but it did change everything that happened after it. Pujols would have been at the plate with two outs and nobody on instead of one out and a man on first (Trout eventually stole second base).

Trumbo would have led off the fourth inning, which might have changed the horrible outcome of that stanza for Harang, who started the fourth by giving up a triple, a home run and a double to the first three batters. Not to get all Chaos Theory on Harang's outing, but the guy couldn't get out of the fourth and left the game giving up seven runs on nine hits in 3.2 innings. Things could only have been better for Harang had Trout been called out in the third.

This story, however, isn't about Harang. In a way, it's not really about Trout, either.

This is about getting the calls right.

Even if you think Trout was safe, the play was really close—so close that if he needed a single at the end of the game for the cycle (and not the home run he hit to complete the cycle), the story of the game would be as much about the call at first as the cycle itself.

It's much easier to forget about a questionable call when it doesn't have much impact at the time, but had the play come in a more significant moment, we would surely be scrutinizing the call with as much zoom and frame-by-frame video technology as we can find.

Why? Because bang-bang plays at first do matter. When a close play at first happens, all roads lead back to Armando Galarraga, don't they? What if Trout wasn't running to first base in the third inning of a blowout win where the kid eventually hit for the cycle?

What if Trout was trying to beat out a throw to first in the ninth inning of a perfect game?

Would Trout have been out then?

What if Trout was trying to beat out a throw at first that plated the game-winning run against a division opponent that, come September, could be the difference between making the playoffs or not? Would Trout have been out then?

The goal of the umpires—sorry, the strictly defined role of the umpires who are employed by MLB—is to get the call right. Out or safe. That's it. That's their job.

It has been proven time and time again that it's impossible for a human being to get every call right when the game is as fast as a professional baseball game can be.

Replay is faster and better than ever, and it has been used time and again to show how often umpires miss calls at first base.

Of course, instant replay challenges are the easiest way to correct umpire mistakes—or validate the calls they get right—but truth be told, this particular play at first probably wouldn't have called for replay, especially given the circumstances of the game.

The only real answer is robot umpires.

I say that somewhat in jest—as someone working on a fictional book about robot umpires taking over baseball, my brain immediately goes to that joke every time—but the fact remains that some sort of artificial intelligence to aid the human umpires is the only way MLB is going to ensure all the bang-bang plays are correct.

What if the batters and infielders had sensors on their shoes they could easily snap in place before going out to their position, and whichever sensor touches the bag first lights up a signal to the umpire like a game of laser tag?

What if MLB allows calls to be left in the hands of the umpires until a manager chooses to challenge a bad call, and that call then gets handled by the league office like the NHL does its replays, completely taking the decision out of the hands of egomaniacs (like Angel Hernandez) who refuse, despite clear visual evidence, their call was wrong? The challenge system isn't perfect—just ask the NFL—but it's better than what baseball does now.

What if the first-base umpire was replaced by a robot? What if all the umpires other than home plate—where there is still some nuance to calling balls and strikes—were replaced by a tennis-like Hawkeye system where we could all see on the big screen whether a guy was safe or out?

None of this, of course, will happen anytime soon. For now, we have to rely on the human umpires getting most of the calls right and hoping that when they get the call wrong, it doesn't impact the outcome of that contest, or the history of the game.

Trout is in the record books as the youngest American League player in history to hit for the cycle. He was called safe at first, so he was safe at first. The hit was a single, even if maybe, just maybe, it wasn't. I suppose we all just have to be OK with that for a little while longer.

Read more WideLeft news on BleacherReport.com

New York City FC Is a Huge Victory for MLS, Defining Moment for Don Garber

Dan Levy — Tue, 21 May 2013 14:19:06 -0400

It's safe to say that in the soccer world, Don Garber and MLS have won the day.

Garber, the long-tenured commissioner of Major League Soccer, announced the creation of New York City Football Club on Tuesday, a joint venture between Manchester City FC of the English Premier League and the New York Yankees of Major League Baseball, to be the league's 20th official club, starting in 2015.

Garber has been working on a deal to bring the 20th team to MLS for nearly three years, essentially demanding the 20th franchise be placed in New York City despite other viable markets being ready to take on a club. And how can one forget those plucky Cosmos—whatever they are—constantly remaining a thorn in the whole NY2 concept since its inception.

Today, the story isn't about the Cosmos. Garber has taken back New York, placed his 20th franchise in the city he always wanted and took care of the coveted franchise fees of $100 million dollars the league certainly needs moving forward.

From the press box of Major League Soccer, commissioner Garber is quoted as saying:

We proudly welcome two of the most prestigious professional global sports organizations to Major League Soccer. This is a transformational development that will elevate the league to new heights in this country.

The New York area is home to more than 19 million people, and we look forward to an intense crosstown rivalry between New York City Football Club and the New York Red Bulls that will captivate this great city.

A new team in New York backed by the Yankees and a top EPL club, and Garber gets to cash a check for $1 million. Yeah, I'd say Garber had a pretty good day.

Truth be told, Garber has been on a run of good news over the last few days.

After announcing his retirement from playing, David Beckham was linked with returning to MLS in an ownership capacity. The rumor got so hot that MLS vice president of communications Dan Courtemanche had to publicly put out the flames, telling reporters (via The Miami Herald):

Our focus is on the second team in New York, and Orlando City SC’s owners are very aggressive about bringing an expansion team to Central Florida. We’d love to be in South Florida at some point, but we currently do not have any specific plans for an expansion team in Miami.

So in a week's time, MLS has been the center of a nine-figure deal with backing from the Yankees and Manchester City to bring a second team to New York—an actual team in New York City to create an instant rivalry with the New York Red Bulls of New Jersey—and rumors that Beckham might want to be the owner of team 21. (It should be noted that Garber has since told reporters the league plans to take a break before further expansion.)

This is a time for MLS to celebrate.

The only thing that didn't go Garber's way this week was Frank Lampard's one-year deal to remain with Chelsea, keeping him away from MLS for at least one more season…and clearing the path for him to be the face of NYC FC in 2015. All in all, it seems Garber made out OK for now, and maybe down the line as well.

The Yankees and Manchester City haven't done too badly with this deal either.

For the Yankees, it's another way for the franchise to own a piece of New York's sports scene. With 10 professional sports franchises already in the market, the Yankees are smart to expand their brand in whatever ways possible.

The Yankees, per Forbes, are the most valuable sports franchise in America at $2.3 billion. Of the 27 American sports franchises valued over one billion dollars last year, four are in the New York area. The Yankees are on top, but it's savvy business as much as good baseball that keeps them there.

Manchester City is also smart to partner with MLS and the Yankees, helping to expand their brand beyond the moniker of the second best team in the third largest city of the 22nd most populated country in the world. Manchester United is one of the richest sports franchises on the planet, and despite the deep pockets of the current City owners, the "other" team in Manchester will always play second citizen in its own town.

In New York, however, they can be kings. By teaming up with the New York Yankees, Manchester City can take a small glimmer of the spotlight away from their cross-town rivals (Note: The owners of Manchester United also own an American sports franchise with a bit more value in Tampa Bay) and be the first Premier League side to truly make MLS a bridge to European soccer for young players who get their start in America.

Sure, there are detractors of the deal. For one, Red Bulls fans cannot be happy about this, no matter how MLS tries to spin it.

For years it has felt like RBNY was a second citizen in New York to the theoretical NY2 team, so now that the team actually exists and has enormous backers, RBNY fans have to be nervous about getting lost in the swamps of Jersey.

Some critics have suggested that such a visible partnership with Manchester City and the Yankees could hurt the MLS team from growing an organic fanbase in New York, especially if there are Manchester United fans and New York Mets fans looking to get into MLS.

The easy answer there? United fans and Mets fans should root for the Red Bulls! MLS wins either way.

Still, Garber's next challenge has to be to convince casual American soccer fans to care about a rivalry between New York teams. He informed reporters on Tuesday's teleconference that the plan for two New York teams was part of the original MLS model back in 1996.

Garber is doing his best to stoke the rivalry, beginning on the day of the announcement.

Of course, the league has to also remember there are 18 other teams. We know the league is aware of at least one of the two teams in Los Angeles, but there are 17 other franchises around the country that Garber needs to make sure stay happy and competitive. Relying too much on a few teams can be dangerous for any league, especially one as top heavy as MLS might easily become.

That becomes a problem for the near future. Today's MLS news is all about New York and Garber. He shouldn't need to sell this to anybody.

Read more WideLeft news on BleacherReport.com

PGA Tour Has Lost the Anchored Putter Battle; Now It Just Has to Admit It

Dan Levy — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:39:24 -0400

The USGA and R&A have officially agreed to adopt Rule 14-1b of the rules of golf, which "prohibits anchoring the club in making a stroke. The new Rule will take effect on January 1, 2016, in accordance with the regular four-year cycle for changes to the Rules of Golf."

There's more, via USGA.org:

Rule 14-1b, which was proposed on November 28, 2012, has now been given final approval by the USGA and The R&A following an extensive review by both organizations. The decision to adopt the new Rule came after a comprehensive process in which comments and suggestions from across the golf community were collected and thoroughly considered.

Sadly, that comprehensive process has not been enough for the PGA Tour, which has yet to fall in line with the other governing bodies of golf. In fact, the PGA Tour's statement smacks of a child yelling at his parents as he walks up the steps to his room. Don't tell me what do to!

The PGA Tour statement, in part, reads like it was transcribed through the gritting teeth of commissioner Tim Finchem:

We will now begin our process to ascertain whether the various provisions of Rule 14-1b will be implemented in our competitions and, if so, examine the process for implementation.

In this regard, over the next month we will engage in discussions with our Player Advisory Council and Policy Board members.

We will announce our position regarding the application of Rule 14-1b to our competitions upon conclusion of our process and we will have no further comment on the matter until that time.

The PGA Tour needs more time, despite the fact the USGA and R&A have given a clear and elaborate explanation for the change, specifically allowing players to use long putters—they are not limiting the length of any of the clubs, which was an issue for much of this lengthy debate—but eliminating a player's ability to anchor the club to his or her body.

In other words, a player can still use a club that goes up to his chin, as long as the end of the club never rests against his chin. This seems like a fair and reasonable ruling, only the PGA Tour needs more time to comply.

Steve DiMeglio of USA Today tweeted that the LPGA took all of two seconds to announce its compliance with the adopted rule. The LPGA statement, in part:

The USGA provided ample time and opportunity for us to not only educate our players, but also to solicit input, concerns and feedback surrounding Rule 14-1b. While we know that not every one of our members is in favor of the rule change, the LPGA will continue to respect and follow the Rules of Golf which includes the implementation of Rule 14-1b in January of 2016.

Hey, PGA Tour, was that so hard?

The LPGA acknowledges that not all of its members agree with the rule but that, essentially, it got beat by its own game once the USGA and R&A combined to come to this decision. If the U.S. Open, all the U.S. Amateur tournaments and the British Open (The Open Championship, if you prefer) will adopt the new rule starting in 2016, it makes the use of anchored putters rather ridiculous for any young player to adopt at this point.

Really, the only hiccup would be any current player, and those with the most power in golf are feeling squeezed just when the anchor putters have shown their longest and most consistent value.

Four of the last six major champions used an anchored putter, with many more players in the top 10 in those tournaments—in all tournaments—enjoying the benefits of a longer stick. As Jason Sobel of the Golf Channel pointed out on Twitter, the long-putter crew has 11 more chances to win majors before the rule goes into effect.

Some casual golfers and weekend hacks (like myself) may wonder why this whole anchoring ban is such a big deal. Golf, more than any other sport, has been fighting the growth and depth of technology for centuries. It's very difficult for courses to change, and with technology of the clubs and balls becoming far more advanced than in generations past, the game has become, frankly, easier for the average player.

The USGA and R&A are charged with policing the game to make sure all the rules are applied, but in a way, these organizations are also charged with leveling the playing field from one generation to the next.

We can already hit the ball farther and straighter than ever before (well, good players can). The last great equalizer in golf has always been the green. Drive for show, putt for dough as the cheesy saying goes.

Still, there's some truth in that. It doesn't matter if you hit a five iron or a pitching wedge into a green, you still have to make the putt, and if there is a way for the rules of the game to make that process the same for every player, that is what the USGA and R&A will do.

The lengthy explanation compiled by the USGA and R&A explains the difference between freely swinging a club and anchoring the club, in an attempt to explain why one is different from the other. Via USGA.org (PDF):

Reduced to its most basic elements, golf involves a player swinging a club at a ball to move it toward and ultimately into a hole. The player’s most basic challenge is to direct and control the movement of the entire club in making that swing. Anchoring the club while making a stroke also involves a challenge, but it is a different one, in which the player uses the immobilization and stability of one end of the club as an essential component of the method of stroke. It is not the same as freely swinging the club.

In defining the essential nature of an appropriate method of stroke, Rule 14-1b is also based on the related determination that anchoring provides a player with a potential advantage as compared to making a stroke with a free swing of the entire club. This potential advantage is the main reason why golfers use anchoring: intentionally securing one end of the club in place against the body is designed to help to avoid or alleviate some of the inherent obstacles to a successful stroke made with a free swing.

In other words, anchoring the club has been shown to make golf easier. The PGA Tour still disagrees. The PGA Tour is wrong.

Let's face facts; the anchoring of a club against the body makes it easier to repeat that motion, thereby making it easier to hit the intended shot.

The PGA Tour—and any member of the USGA and R&A who disagree with the ruling—have made the argument that the timing of banning the clubs now is arbitrary at best, unfair at worst, because the use of anchored putters has been around for 30 or 40 years.

Why now, after all this time, is the anchoring an issue? If the USGA and R&A let this slide for so long, why does it matter all of the sudden?

This is pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if it has to do with the success on the PGA Tour drawing more attention to it. Nobody cares if a weekend hack with a bad back uses a belly putter at his local municipal course, but when Fred Couples is devouring the greens at Augusta with a belly putter and Ernie Els switches to the long putter and wins a major out of nowhere (over Adam Scott, who was in contention after switching to a broomstick putter himself), the attention to the situation became more pronounced than ever.

In essence, the PGA Tour is continuing to protest a rule that may only be in place because the players on Tour essentially made the problem too big to ignore. Now, the Tour has little choice but to fall in line with the rest of golf's governing bodies. Putting up this fight isn't going to help the game, and it's only going to make Finchem and the brass at the PGA look like they are protecting their current stars in favor of the betterment of the game.

Golf has always been about protecting the game first. The PGA should remember that while it takes a few more weeks to get in line.

Read more WideLeft news on BleacherReport.com

NFL Draft Is Moving in Wrong Direction

Dan Levy — Mon, 20 May 2013 17:15:35 -0400

Back? The NFL wants to push the NFL draft back?!? The draft process isn't long enough as it is?

The NFL is in the process of moving the draft from the last weekend in April to the middle of May, which would also push back the NFL Scouting Combine from the end of February to, potentially, later in March. Via NFL.com:

NFL.com's Albert Breer reported Monday that the NFL and NFL Players Association are working toward a deal to move the 2014 NFL Draft to May. It likely would start as a one-year trial before deciding if the May move makes sense. NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reported that the likely target start date for the 2014 draft is May 15.

Pushing the draft back to May is something Breer reported weeks ago. But it's probably happening in 2014 because of a scheduling snafu. The Radio City Rockettes show "The Spring Spectacular" is scheduled to be held at Radio City Music Hall in late April, when the draft usually is held.

Please. Commissioner Roger Goodell has joked the league is being bumped by the Easter Bunny, but the NFL has far more clout than it is giving itself credit for. The league moved the draft from Madison Square Garden a few years ago. They could easily find another venue if Radio City Music Hall was unwilling or unable to move its spring spectacular.

The league has also indicated that moving the draft away from actual Easter weekend is a reason for the change, but that doesn't make much sense considering the NFL draft is now a three-day event that starts on Thursday night and ends on Saturday afternoon. Easter Sunday is a non-factor. Unless the draft will be expanding to yet another day and this is its way of telling us.

The real question: why not move the draft up, not back?

NFL's Real Motive

It's been long rumored that the NFL would like a marquee event in every month of the year, and moving the draft back enables the league to make steps to achieve that ridiculous goal of taking over the entire sports calendar, despite playing meaningful games in fewer than half the weeks of the year.

Not only has the NFL benefited from the popularity of the NFL draft as a television production, the buildup to the draft has become a cottage industry for those who cover the league (full disclosure: this site included.)

The longer the league can string out the NFL draft process, the more the sport will stay in the media spotlight during the otherwise football dormant time of year. Everybody wins! Well, the NFL wins.

The league is stressing that nothing is definite.

Just because the NFL draft may move to May, that doesn't mean draftniks will start focusing on the draft any later, which means more work and more talk and more guessing and more sideways rumors about teams taking a quarterback first overall and simultaneously trading out of the pick altogether.

More time before the draft just means more lies, more innuendo and more NFL-sanctioned parlor games.

And more and more mock drafts in those additional three weeks. Does anyone really need more mock drafts?

The draft should move up, not back. If the NFL combine is in late February and free agency begins in early March, why can't the NFL draft be in late March or very early April? (Side note: imagine how much fun the NFL draft would be on April Fool's Day.)

Traditionally there are two months between the NFL combine and the draft, which seems like a rather unnecessary amount of time given that NFL teams have scouts around every college campus the entire year.

The NBA has its draft almost immediately after the NBA Finals. The MLS SuperDraft is a month after the MLS Cup. MLB and NHL have their drafts during the season (though to be fair both of those leagues draft for the future, unlike the other American league drafts). Why does the NFL need two months between the end of the season and the draft?

Real Benefits of a March Draft

What the league should do and what the league will do are, essentially, the exact opposites. The league could easily shorten the offseason by having the combine and draft one month apart instead of two. By doing that, the league would put more importance on players participating at the combine by giving players less opportunity to hold their own pro day workouts over the six weeks after the combine takes place. There could still be time for workouts, but that calendar would be truncated.

Holding the draft at the end of March or very beginning of April would then allow teams to draft for need and fill in whatever they didn't get in the draft with the remaining viable free agents, while giving teams more time to sign high-priced draftees to rookie contracts that could aid in signing additional free agents or re-signing potential holdouts far earlier in the league's offseason.

Everybody wins. We get fewer mock drafts, far less unnecessary pre-draft conjecture and the league gets to get on with the next year with a total complement of players nearly a full month earlier than they have in the past.

Instead, in an effort to maximize the buzz around the offseason, the NFL is going to push the draft back, making it harder for undrafted free agents and unsigned players to hook on with a team before the mandatory camps begin.

If the NFL is trying to win the offseason, this is the way to do it. If it is trying to make the calendar more palatable for teams, players and fans, this seems to be moving the process in the wrong direction.

Read more WideLeft news on BleacherReport.com

World Cup Qualifying: Klinsmann Ignoring Donovan Is Short-Sighted and Stubborn

Dan Levy — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:21:02 -0400

Jurgen Klinsmann is playing a dangerous game with his latest roster of U.S. national team call-ups. If Klinsmann doesn't get the results needed in the next trio of World Cup qualifiers, everything—Klinsmann's entire tenure as manager—will hinge on one decision.

Why is Landon Donovan not in camp?

It's one thing to leave Donovan off the list of players for the next round of World Cup qualifiers because you think he isn't fit. It is entirely another thing to not include one of the greatest players in American soccer history out of stubbornness and spite.

Look at the players Klinsmann chose in the midfield instead of Donovan. The list is less than inspiring: Michael Bradley, Joe Corona, Brad Davis, Maurice Edu, Stuart Holden, Jermaine Jones, Sacha Kljestan, Brek Shea, Danny Williams and Graham Zusi.

Who on that list can do more to help the USMNT qualify for the World Cup more than Donovan? Bradley. That's it. Maybe Jones if he's healthy.

Certainly a few players on the list don't play the same role as Landon, but some of the midfielders named make it obvious what Klinsmann is trying to do.

Sadly, in an effort to make his team less about Donovan, Klinsmann only served to make the conversation surrounding this team more about Donovan.

It was fine to leave Donovan off the roster if Klinsmann didn't think he could help. Seeing the players he picked over Donovan makes the motivations more obvious: Klinsmann is trying to punish Donovan for taking time off this winter, even if it means hurting the USMNT's chances of qualifying for the World Cup in the process.

Not only is Donovan one of the best players in the history of American soccer, he seems to be quickly coming back into form after his lengthy personal hiatus from the game. Donovan admitted to seriously contemplating retirement, but he seems rejuvenated and back to his old self with Los Angeles, tied for the team lead in assists and tied for second in goals after playing in just six of the team's 10 matches this MLS season.

After his stellar performance on the road at the Philadelphia Union on Wednesday, scoring once with two assists, Donovan told reporters exactly how he felt (via LaGalaxy.com):

It always feels good to play well and tonight I felt like I was back to my old self. And always a goal is nice but I think just being aggressive and running at people, making a difference that way felt like the old me and it was nice to play that way again.

Unfortunately, Klinsmann seems to disagree, yet is talking out of both sides of his mouth when compiling this current group of talent.

Klinsmann was asked by USSoccer.com about Donovan's progress after being off for four months. His reply is transparent:

I think Landon is catching up. We’re all excited that he has decided to continue to play. That was the first major answer that we needed to get, and now he’s just working himself back into shape and back into a playing rhythm. He will get sharper and more confident with every game he’s going to play now. So we’ll watch that, we’ll monitor that and we’ll decide then when to bring him back into our picture. It’s not going to be for these upcoming games, but maybe later on we’ll definitely expect him back in the team.

Again, if Klinsmann is looking for players at the top of their game, Donovan has shown with his recent performances that he is getting there. Let's not forget that the MLS season is just starting, compared to the long, grinding seasons in Europe. Donovan is fresh after his time away from the game, which should be seen as a benefit to Klinsmann when comparing him to other players who are just finishing up a full European slate.

And what does Klinsmann's comments on Donovan say about the players he did choose who aren't in form? Brek Shea is in better form than Donovan?

Please. Shea was nearly run out of Dallas last season after a poor year by his standards and was given a European lifeline after being bought by Stoke City of the English Premier League.

Shea played twice for Stoke this year, toiling away with the reserves.

Joe Corona received another invitation to camp as well, which would be fine if Klinsmann was picking out the Gold Cup roster this summer. Corona should—read should—have little chance to make it on the field for these World Cup qualifiers, so it makes no sense why he would be on the team ahead of Donovan.

What about Stuart Holden, who has been injured for nearly three years?

While Holden is a great story and is having a miraculous comeback, putting him on the roster ahead of Donovan makes little sense if the goal is to actually field the best team to qualify for the World Cup.

Holden has started only four matches for Bolton this season and appeared in four more for Sheffield Wednesday, both mid-table squads in England's Championship division. Yet when asked at the start of May about Holden being in camp, Klinsmann seemed to be unconcerned with his lack of match time or fitness (via USSoccer.com):

He’s on his way back. That being said, we want to have him back in our picture. We are going to bring him for the May-June camp, and also for the Gold Cup.

So that’s exciting news for us, having him back in the group and seeing him and evaluating where he’s at, and helping him become the old Stuart Holden, and even better because he’s still so young.

Ah, perhaps it's youth, more than fitness, that Klinsmann wants on this current team.

Donovan surely doesn't bring any youth to the side. How, then, does Klinsmann justify bringing Brad Davis in over Donovan? Davis, a standout in MLS for years, is 31 years old (and four months older than Donovan) and until Klinsmann brought him in to camp during this recent run has been widely ignored at the national team level.

Davis came on in the 71st minute of the USMNT's most recent qualifier at Mexico, serving mostly to remind fans that Donovan was still on sabbatical. With Donovan back, Davis seems to be the most expendable player on the roster.

In theory, the move by Klinsmann is understandable. Clearly Klinsmann knows that Donovan is past his prime and, frankly, unreliable at times. The USMNT was facing a rash of injuries for the previous set of World Cup qualifiers and Donovan seemed content with staying out of the conversation then. If he didn't have the drive to play when the team needed him, why should Klinsmann trust him now that—at least from a health standpoint—he may not be the first choice to start?

In reality, he is still one of the best options available, and excluding Donovan from camp smacks of stubbornness and spite.

Could it just be a matter of not having a place for Donovan on the field? Graham Zusi has been solid for the USMNT in his brief tenure with the national team, and at this point Zusi probably deserves to start over Donovan. Still, that shouldn't have kept Landon off the roster entirely.

If Klinsmann perhaps thought that Donovan being invited to camp but not put in the lineup would serve as a distraction, he absolutely miscalculated how much Donovan's complete absence—in favor of players with far less international experience and, let's face it, quality—would be received.

In the end, Klinsmann's decision better work. A failure to qualify with Donovan on the field would be one thing, but failing to qualify with Donovan in form and sitting at home will be impossible for Klinsmann to justify…or survive.

Read more WideLeft news on BleacherReport.com