Yes, another reaction to the news that Charlie Davies won't be part of the 2010 World Cup, even in the run up. The visceral response to the news, expressed as both anger and frustration by many fans, is striking.
Still, it would have been much more surprising if a passionate fan base had reacted instead with grudging acceptance.
But that's not to say everyone doesn't need to take a deep breath, review the situation and all of the factors involved, and pull back on the rampant criticism for Bob Bradley and US Soccer officials (okay, so mostly just Bob). The complexity of the decision, one involving a player whose return from injury goes far beyond the usual, makes it difficult for me to join in the outrage.
Bradley, according to reports, chose to leave Davies off his preliminary roster, and therefore exclude him from camp, because Sochaux did not clear him to play. FIFA rules allow a national team to call up a player regardless of what the club decides, but Bradley and Co. were faced with a sticky problem; pushing the envelope on a player whose health status, even as he's in "full training" in France, is a questionable move at best. US Soccer walks a fine line here, caught between wanting their player and allowing him to complete his impossible dream, and a club who has a financial investment in the long term ability of Davies to play. We can hardly blame Sochaux for failing to clear Davies if they had any doubt at all; we also can't fault US Soccer (or at least I can't) for erring on the side of caution, and avoiding creating tension with the club Davies will be playing for if and when he fully returns.
Perhaps Bradley saw the choice as in Davies' best interest. Why push a player, whose body condition is still far from optimal, by putting him through a high-pressure camp that will determine his participation in the World Cup, meaning that he'd be more likely to give too much, go farther than his body could handle, or ultimately break down under the strain? Even if Davies, and I'm sure he'd tell us he could do it because he's always had a incredibly positive attitude, is capable of such a feat, it may not be in his best interest. Short term gain for the national team and for Davies is only worth the effort if it doesn't preclude him from making a complete return to his former form, and without any setbacks or complications.
Can any of us say, without a hint of doubt, that there wouldn't be a negative effect? I'm not comfortable making that assessment from afar and without any medical training. Maybe you are.
It's all of the unknowns that trouble me. Davies hasn't played in a competitive match, a much different thing than the training he's done to this point, since the accident. Bradley had to make a decision, and do it now. Sochaux told him that Davies hadn't cleared their fitness tests. If Bradley had any reservations, even the nagging kind that might subconsciously affect how he treated Davies or if there was a question as to how the team would respond to him in training (taking it easy on him, perhaps subconsciously), then passing him over was the right move.
Charlie Davies is twenty-three. He'll have a chance to play in a World Cup, almost a full five years after his near death experience, and four years after he worked himself back to kicking a ball around a field in a professional environment against all odds. That alone is an amazing thing, and we shouldn't allow him missing this World Cup to take away from it.
The other issue galling many is Robbie Findley's inclusion over Davies. Generally stated, the opinion is that if Findley has no shot of making the World Cup (and most of us don't believe he does), then why not bring in Charlie and give him a chance to show whether or not he's ready? Why "waste" the roster spot?
All of the Davies decision-specific factors mentioned above aside, Findley is literally the last man in. He takes Davies spot because Charlie was left out, and so the argument that it makes no sense to bring him in holds no water. If Charlie was healthy enough, there would be no Findley; the decision that Davies wasn't ready precedes the RSL striker's addition, meaning that Findley wasn't chosen over Davies for any other reason than that the latter was not fit.
There may be other choices on this roster for which Bob Bradley deserves criticism, or for which criticism is justified; Sacha Kjlestan comes to mind, for example. But without the all of the necessary data, which is critical in this unique circumstance, ripping Bob Bradley for leaving Charlie Davies at home is a ridiculous overreaction.
We should be celebrating what Charlie has accomplished, rather than focusing obsessively on what he didn't, and credit Bob Bradley for making the tough choice to pass on Charlie despite public pressure and the inspirational story. In the end, I suspect it will serve Davies better to sit this one out.
It's difficult to separate our emotional investment in Charlie's story from the practical business of putting together a World Cup soccer team. Be glad Bob Bradley is capable of doing so.
