The Donovan Effect

Over the past year or so, one might get the impression that the USMNT has been transitioning away from its reliance on Landon Donovan as an engine of the attack.

In the previous cycle, the differences with and without Donovan in the lineup were glaring; you need not look further than the November friendlies against Slovakia and Denmark in 2009 as an example of that, as the US absolutely sputtered without their talisman helping dictate the tempo and direction of the attack.  But the months following the World Cup seemed to indicate that things were moving away from that dependence. It's not that Donovan was no longer important (on the contrary, he's still a vital part of the team), but rather that the team's success did not seem so reliant on his play.

Consider the following example. In the Gold Cup quarterfinals, Bob Bradley opted to leave Donovan, now 29 and then in the midst of a middling run of form, on the bench to start. Not long before that, the idea of leaving Landon Donovan, the most decorated American international of all-time, on the bench in an elimination game would have been thought of as ludicrous. Yet Bradley's decision was only met with an initial level of surprise in that it actually happened, not so much because fans and pundits alike thought such a move would be to the detriment of the squad.

And what happened? A stellar 2-0 win in which the US dominated play and generated numerous quality scoring opportunities despite Donovan only playing the final 24 minutes. Was that a sign that the Yanks were finally ready to move on in the sense of having a unit capable of succeeding- not just function- without Donovan in the lineup or with him as simply peripheral support rather than the lone pillar?

Those conversations happened, and the recent performances of Clint Dempsey with club and country have more than a few people believing that this is now Deuce's team, not Donovan's. But having had to sit through a couple of painfully drab performances over the past couple of months, I can't help but think back and wonder: is the USMNT still largely reliant on Donovan to drive the attack?

Against Belgium and Ecuador, the Yanks struggled to produce much of anything in the final third. Against Honduras, they managed to find the back of the net and create some opportunities, though offensively they seem to have underachieved nonetheless against a less-than-full strength opponent. The two matches that Donovan has played under Klinsmann? After some tactical adjustments, the Yanks put together a stellar second half against Mexico, generating a number of quality opportunities with Donovan pushing in the midfield. They then turned in a disappointing performance against Costa Rica, albeit one in which there were still many more scoring opportunities created than we've seen in some subsequent matches.

Look back to the Gold Cup, even. Sure, the Yanks were fantastic against Jamaica, as Bob Bradley put together one of the best tactical plans of his tenure. But was that just an exception to the norm? Consider the match that followed, in which Donovan once again started on the bench: it wasn't until he entered the match that the US was finally able to break down the Panamanian defense. And against Mexico, they were dangerous early on and managed to create quality chances throughout the match with Donovan back in the starting XI.

My question is this: could the Yanks' recent struggles have absolutely nothing to do with any shortcomings of Klinsmann or the players he has selected, or a lack of execution, but rather everything to do with the absence of Landon Donovan? Might Klinsmann have recently called up Donovan, knowing full well that MLS Cup would likely present a conflict, out of a tiny bit of desperation after the slow start to his tenure, understanding that Donovan makes the team tick, particularly against high quality opponents?

The other possible question: is it really Donovan, or is it the Donovan/Dempsey combination that drives things, a subtle but significant deviation from the days of Donovan-dependence? After all, those aforementioned successes v. Panama and Mexico in the Gold Cup were with both on the field, linking up going to goal.

There's no real way to answer those questions without some measure of subjectivity. As much as data analysis would provide some kind of message, it would be hard to attach much value to it given the small sample size caused by the sparse international calendar and the impact of multiple variables and their interactions on the team's success.

But all of this is certainly something to consider going into the international break. If the Yanks flounder in Paris and Ljubljana, will it be because of poor tactics or execution? Or will it be because the USMNT still isn't quite weaned off of its Donovan dependence, and that his absence is the largest factor in the team's underwhelming performance over the past couple of months?

2011 genuinely seemed like a new chapter in US Soccer, with Dempsey and others rising to take some of the burden from Donovan's shoulders. But it's hard not to wonder if the Yanks are still, in a way, that same team that went to Aarhus and Bratislava back in 2009 and stumbled without the Galaxy star.

Jurgen Klinsmann may believe that, and his call-up of Donovan despite the MLS Cup playoffs may serve as indication of that belief.

If the Yanks, sans Donovan, fail to produce much of anything during this next international break, more than a few people will be believing the same thing. If they are finally able to break through, though, it may help confirm that a change in the tides is indeed taking place.

But, having observed this team closely for years now, I'll have to see that to believe it.