Charlie Davies Reaction

Well, the 30 man roster was announced, and there was one big name missing: Charlie Davies.

Now, before I delve into this, let me just preface it by saying that I have always been a Bob Bradley supporter; anyone who reads this site knows that.  But on this occasion, I'm really having a hard time backing his decisions, as some of the names on this roster in place of one Charlie Davies really have me scratching my head.

For starters, Robbie Findley got the call.  The same Robbie Findley that left Real Salt Lake's game last weekend with an injury and has struggled with knocks all season, failing to really produce.  The same Robbie Findley that wasn't very effective against Honduras or El Salvador, two "B" teams, let alone against a World Cup caliber squad like the Netherlands in March.  You mean to tell me that an 80% Charlie Davies can't add the same things that a dinged up Robbie Findley can?  What harm is there in getting an in-person look at Chuck to see what kind of progress he's making?  Why not use two weeks of camp, during which he could continue to make the stunning progress that he's already made over the last six months? 

Bob Bradley stated that Davies was not yet "medically cleared" by Sochaux, but this really smacks of a cop-out or a severe degree of information asymmetry.  I don't see how a player could participate in full-contact training if he wasn't medically cleared, and Charlie seemed to be under the impression that he was cleared as well.  Bob also said he wanted Charlie to continue to rehab; wasn't Charlie done rehabbing weeks ago?  And what will staying at Sochaux give him that working out with the USMNT won't?  He'll get fitness work and training in at either place, and at Princeton there's at least the chance that he surprises us (it's not like he hasn't done that before...) and shows everyone that he's actually ready to at least fill a substitute role in South Africa.  I'll say it again: I really don't see what the downside would have been to putting Charlie on the 30 man roster.  I don't think leaving Robbie Findley at home in favor of bringing Chuck would have been an egregious offense, particularly after everything Charlie has done and everything that Robbie really hasn't done.  I just don't get it.  Someone please explain it.  Bringing Charlie to Princeton doesn't force into bringing him to South Africa, and it's really not denying a noticeably better option their spot in the mix.

And on top of all that, Bob Bradley said that Davies hadn't been granted a full release by Sochaux, but that flies in the face of FIFA rules.  Sochaux couldn't have had the final say on the matter; if he got called up, they would have to release him.

I'm sure some of you reading this are out there on your high horse, looking down your nose at my reaction to this, thinking to yourself that it shouldn't matter what Charlie has done, just what he can do in June.  Well, to all of you out there who scoff at angry fans like me, I challenge you: tell me why Robbie Findley is a better option than bringing in Charlie Davies to get a look.  Convince me that bringing in a dinged up forward that has looked out of his depth at the international level, hasn't shown much in the way of form in recent weeks, and will likely not be in the final roster anyways is a better option than bringing in a player who has proven himself to be a quality international player and has the potential to continue his incredible progress and be ready to make an impact by mid-June.  Convince me that there would be severe negative repercussions to bringing Davies to camp and getting an in-person look at exactly where he's at.  Convince me that conferring with Sochaux, a club that is clearly going to want to be conservative with what essentially amounts to there long-term asset, is enough to support a decision like this.  Tell me what the downside would be to bringing Charlie.

I don't want to hear the distraction angle; the questions will be there regardless.  Instead of asking about how Charlie's progressing in camp, the questions will become "Why did you leave him behind?  Why did you choose player X instead?  Player Y, what do you think about Charlie Davies being left off the squad?"  And that's not even getting into what will happen if the offense sputters in South Africa, when all the second-guessing will begin.  Why not give him one last look and see, really see, what he's capable of at this point and get an idea of what he'll be able to contribute should he come to the World Cup.  I'm not saying he deserved to go to the World Cup, but, to beat a dead horse, I don't see why you don't at least bring him in to get a look.

I also don't want to hear the no matches angle.  Bob Bradley said he was pleased with the progress that Oguchi Onyewu was making, yet it was Davies who returned to full training first.  I find it hard to believe that the two are at materially different stages of their returns.  Once again, maybe this is just a big case of asymmetrical information.  But if you're going to take the chance on Gooch, why not do the same with Charlie?

Obviously, Charlie Davies making the World Cup was always a long shot.  But was it so different for Findley?  Will the potential drop in team morale really be worth bringing someone into the fold who looks far from ready for the international stage even when healthy?  After all, this a team that has been built on chemistry and cohesion this cycle; it'd be a shame if that took a blow just before the big show.  I guess we'll find out in the coming months. 

And to those out there who say that Charlie still has plenty of World Cups ahead of him and that he shouldn't be rushed into this one, I would say that that is far from guaranteed.  We all thought it was a lock that he'd be in South Africa not too long ago, and look how that turned out.  Anything can happen, from a tragic injury to a severe dip in form to a new crop of up-and-comers pushing him down the totem pole; we just don't know.  So while it's nice to reconcile this decision by saying that Charlie has plenty of World Cup opportunities ahead of him, we just don't know if he'll ever get this close again. 

I know Bob Bradley is in the business of winning games, not doling out sympathy and charitable considerations.  But I can't help but think that the expected value that Charlie Davies could add to the team with the progress he'd make in the next couple of weeks would be greater than what Findley could provide.  And if you really want to maximize the ability at your disposal, you take that chance to see if Charlie can provide even a quarter of what we were accustomed to seeing in 2009.  It's not as if we'd be short on forward options should he come up short; there's five others in the roster, plus Clint Dempsey and Landon Donovan.  I just don't see it, Bob.

When you consider that there are SEVEN wing midfielder options on the roster as well, including Robbie Rogers and Sacha Kljestan, two players who have shown little to merit any kind of confidence from USMNT fans or coaches in their recent appearances, it also seems a little off that Charlie didn't at least get the call to camp.  The only way that Robbie Rogers or Sacha Kljestan make it to South Africa is if there are injuries, and if that is the case, they wouldn't need to be on the 30-man roster anyways.  Why do both need to be included?  Why not bring Chuck instead?

You know, I'm sure that a lot of this is more ramble and less logic than I'd like; too much heart, and not enough brains.  But hell, that's what tomorrow's for; for now, I'm just really annoyed with what's transpired.  If you agree or disagree, feel free to let me know in the comments section.


Stay tuned for the podcast and more coverage at USSD.  Tell your friends; I could always use more readers.