Herc Gomez? No Thanks...

If someone told you six months ago that Alejandro Bedoya would be in the World Cup conversation, most of us would say, "who?"  If someone also told you that Herculez Gomez would be discussed as a real possibility for South Africa, you probably would have laughed or cried.  Yet here we are, less than 90 days away from the USMNT's opener against England, and those two names are attracting a lot of attention of late.  It's just another example of the craziness that ensues in a World Cup year.

Though strong resumes and international experience are nice, sometimes it seems as if the final months of a cycle are completely disjoint from the rest.  For those few unfortunate players who can't yet consider themselves locks for a spot in the final roster, their performance in the preceding years matters little in comparison to what they're doing in the here and now.  If Landon Donovan or Carlos Bocanegra had a dismal winter at the club level, we'd be no less confident about their status as World Cup locks.  But those guys like Robbie Rogers and Robbie Findley don't have that luxury; their position can be dealt a quick and severe blow if they fail to produce in the final spring before the tournament (which both have suffered in recent weeks thanks to underwhelming performances for Bob Bradley).  The flip side to that, though, is that you can have one or two late bloomers make a charge for the roster with an eye-opening start to the year.  That's exactly how Bedoya and Gomez have vaulted themselves to USMNT relevance in such a short period: they're on form, and the other fringe guys simply are not.

An issue with this trend (and I say trend because it seems to happen every cycle) is that evaluations are based on a small sample, which can often distort a player's ability for better or for worse (just look at what people thought of Eddie Johnson after the torrid start to his international career).  Further, the more obscure the league, the more the calls for inclusion seem to be based on nothing more than the stat sheet, with little consideration taken to style of play or other variables.  There aren't many of us who can honestly say that we watch teams like Aarhus, Orebro, or Puebla on a regular basis.  Most of the time, we simply rely on metrics like minutes played, goals, and assists to gauge how Americans are faring in those less-covered (read: non-EPL) leagues (though by now you should know that this site's Yanks in Europe posts make a concerted effort to give you more than just a handful of numbers [/self promotion]).  The reason I bring all of this up is because I am just not particularly impressed with what Herculez Gomez has done in Mexico over his past handful of games.

Goals are great, but should a goal in Mexico mean as much in our evaluation of a player as a goal in, say, France?  I'm not trying to be a snob of some sort (though my writing probably comes across that way, unfortunately), I'm just trying to say that different styles in leagues across the world can have a huge influence on a player's ability to fill up the stat sheet.  And when we rely on those stats to form the foundation of our opinion of a player's success, doesn't that ignore a lot of what actually goes on in a game?  Sure, five goals in five matches is nothing but a good thing, but is it really as impressive when you consider what league it was done in?  Maybe it's just the Mexican League games I've seen of late (a fair share, mind you), but there just doesn't seem to be a lot of tough defense played south of the border.  Of course, there is defending, but it's of a different variety.  Rather than the aggressive tackling and high pressure of the EPL or even MLS, there's more space on the ball and a more finesse, open style of play.  Gomez' goals would count all the same around the world, but would he be piling up the same numbers in a league that featured tougher defensive opposition?  And from a USMNT perspective, wouldn't you expect the defensive style at the World Cup to be of the more aggressive kind? (Aside: I know I use rhetorical questions far too much.  I can't help it.  What else do you want me to do?)

Instead of simply focusing on Gomez, let's take a look at a pair of other MLSers who made the jump and found some success in Mexico: Carlos Ruiz and Duilio Davino.  Ruiz' production hit a sharp dip in his last two seasons in MLS, during which he evolved from a potent scorer to a flashy non-factor.  Fast forward to a move to Puebla (after a brief stint in Paraguay), and Ruiz was able to find his scoring touch once again, scoring six goals thus far with the club.  It might not be the most impressive total, but the bottom line is he is once again an offensive presence, whereas in MLS he had deteriorated to nothing more than one of 22 bodies on the field (if he even got that privilege).  Meanwhile, Duilio Davino was nothing more than a glorified traffic cone in his time with FC Dallas, but he was able to make a seamless transition to the Mexican League and become a consistent starter and defensive stalwart for Puebla, and now Monterrey.  Maybe I'm just completely off base, but I think the Davino case highlights what I've been saying: defense in Mexico just isn't as tough as it is elsewhere.  In a post on Herculez Gomez today, Ives Galarcep referred to it as the "defensive frailties" of the league, but he made this point as if it were nothing more than a throwaway.  But really, that's a pretty darn important thing in a conversation about whether a forward would be effective at the international level.  I've never heard someone seriously say "the defensive frailties of the World Cup", and none of us would expect anything close to that.  So maybe those goals for Puebla shouldn't really excite US fans as much as they are.

Maybe I'm just overly skeptical and overly critical of something outside of Gomez' control.  Good for him for taking advantage of his surroundings, regardless of what lies ahead in his international future.  But I really have a hard time believing that he's a viable candidate for the World Cup.  You may be thinking, "well, beggars can't be choosers, and there isn't much better than Herc these days in terms of fringe forwards."  Fair enough.  But there is another choice: don't bring a fourth forward.  I feel as if there is some sort of belief that four forwards must be on the World Cup roster; it's been implied in enough pieces by even some of the most reputable writers that a casual fan might think that to be some sort of FIFA requirement.  But the bottom line is that there isn't really a need for one.  As I've said before, Bruce Arena used just three true strikers in Germany and Bob Bradley did the same in the Confederations Cup; there is precedent.  And with Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey much better alternatives at striker, why bring along another when you can use that roster spot for cover in the midfield (which permits the kind of lineup flexibility that would allow the aforementioned midfielders to slide up, eliminating the need for emergency forwards in the camp).  The 23 spots have to maximize the team's ability and flexibility, and I don't see how adding Herculez Gomez over the likes of DaMarcus Beasley or Ricardo Clark would do that.  We can't just say "Player X is playing well, get him in there!"; there's much more involved than that, specifically the composition of the rest of the roster.  Who get's dropped in favor of someone on a hot streak in a league not known for water-tight back lines?  It's looking as if Altidore, Davies, and Ching will be ready to go for South Africa, and Dempsey and Donovan would be preferred over Gomez 100 out of 100 times by USMNT fans and coaches alike.  So, really, why all the fuss?

Jason Davis at Match Fit USA was correct in saying that Gomez has just had some unlucky timing with his hot streak.  While Davis contends that it is because his run is taking place so late in this cycle, I would say it's more because it's happening in this cycle at all (or this "era", for that matter).  So long as Dempsey and Donovan have prominent roles with the national team, there just won't be as much of a pressing need to get four forwards on the roster.  

Gomez is on a hot streak, and that is very appealing heading into a World Cup.  But when it comes down to it, I don't think he's shown enough (at just the club level, nevermind the fact that he has very little international experience) to merit a spot on the final roster over the likes of Beasley, Clark, Torres, Edu, etc.  Unless there are injuries, I just don't see it happening. 

I think it's just the craziness of a World Cup year reaching it's peak as June creeps closer. 

Then again, maybe I'm just being overly cantankerous on a Monday.