Ryan benches Solo for consolation game at WWC

[MicroBob]

belly - yeah, you're mostly correct I think.
Solo's comments were inappropriate regardless of whether they were correct and I agree that people just don't seem to get that.

You don't think that half the Lakers team thinks the all-Kobe strategy wasn't somewhat ridiculous?
You don't think that the Bears had some frustration with Grossman's performance at QB?

No matter how bad a teammate's performance or whether you thought you should be playing in their place or not you just do NOT say something like that to the press. It just doesn't work that way.

Think about something like the Zambrano/Barrett fight in the Cubs dugout that carried over to the clubhouse later on. They freaking hated each other and were blaming each other for whatever mistakes and couldn't even control their detestment for each other when they were in the dugout and the cameras were on them.

Even with something like that where it is obvious to the public they still don't throw each other under the bus when doing interviews by saying things like, "that guy is a cancer on the team and should be traded. He sucks" and stuff like that.

Here's a quote I found of Barrett's after he was traded:
Barrett called the two confrontations "unfortunate," and said they were behind him.
"As you guys will see, some of the things that happened are not a mark of my character or of my integrity," Barrett said during a news conference before the Padres hosted the Baltimore Orioles. "It's just that some of the things that happened are a circumstance of the way baseball is, and what kind of competitor I am. I play on the edge, a lot."


This is how such "I hate that guy and never want to play with him again" type situations are handled in public.
by saying, "It was an unfortunate situation."

When a player is benched as Solo was yet feels they deserve to be playing then they say something like, "of course I would rather be playing but it's the decision of the coach. I just want to win the game."

Nobody notices such comments though because they are so common and everyday.
These comments happen by REALLY bitter players ALL the time.
And I mean ALL the time.
There's a ton of players out there in every single sport who feel they deserve to play a bigger role on their team and just aren't being given the chance.
But they don't run to the media and say, "I would have made that shot" or tackle or save or whatever. Or, "Kobe takes really dumb and out-of-control selfish shots sometimes and it just kills us" or anything like that.

[Dudd]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you're overestimating how often such a clear-cut situation arises. Although several analogies have been thrown out there, can anyone think of a legitimate parallel from another sport? The only thing I can think of offhand is the Astros playing Biggio this year despite having a demonstrably better player on the bench. However, even in that situation, there were external issues (such as the Astros feeling they owed it to Biggio, or that it was good for ticket sales) that at least made the decision marginally defensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The most obvious parallel is Doug Flutie starting the first 15 games for the Bills, sitting the final game after clinching, and then not getting the start in place of Rob Johnson in the Music City Miracle game. Idiotic then, idiotic now. Ralph Wilson doesn't control the WNT, does he?

[CardSharpCook]

good post, MBob.

The best analogy has to be from hockey, but they aren't good. You can't use playoff analogies as you're always facing the same team. So it would have to be the last stretch of the season for a 7-9 seed as they are either jockeying for position (so as to play the weakest conference winner) or trying to get a playoff spot. Let's say the Kings have been swiping keepers all season long, but it is clear Randy Prince is the better of the two and had been getting about 60% of the starts. He's an older goalie though, so he couldn't start all 82 games (hockey 84?). Johnny Duke is a younger, less talented keeper who averages more goals allowed per game. As it is the last week of the season, Prince is able to play every game. He even goes to his coach and says, "my knees are fine today, coach." However, the coach notices that it just so happens that Duke has started most of the games vs. Edmonton. In these games, he's actually been a better goalie than Prince's season stats. Additionally, the coach is able to explain why this might be so. Duke's strength has always been on rebound shots and close quarter keeping. He's certainly sub-par defending breakaways and distance slap-shots. Well, Edmonton is a slow team that relies on those put back shots. It makes sense that Duke preforms well vs. this team. Well, it just so happens this is the last game of the year. The Kings can only make the playoffs with a win. However, the coach uses Duke for all these reasons, and maybe a few more we don't know about (perhaps he felt that he wanted to rest his better keeper? Perhaps he wanted to give the kid confidence going into next year as he was going to be the franchise keeper for years after Prince retired?) Regardless, Duke started, the team lost.

I can think of no example from any sport that actually happened.

I wonder if one of Ryan's reasons was that he wanted to give Scurry one last WC game before she retired?

[MicroBob]

cardsharp - but this isn't a situation where they were swapping keepers all season long.
The only REAL season that counted were the actual W.C. games. Not the friendlies that led up to them. Those have to be counted less.

Scurry had played every one of the W.C. matches and had been pretty darned good. So she got benched in favor of someone who hadn't played in several weeks I believe.
Scurry's abilities vs. a team with Brazil's style might have been a somewhat half-decent reason to want to go that direction. But if you're thinking of doing that then you need to get Scurry SOME minutes in one of the prior matches so she isn't too game-action rusty.

She hadn't played AT ALL in this tourney and then she gets the start in the freaking semi-final.
Not good.

You keep trotting out stats for the entire year yet ignoring the fact that Solo had been their goalie throughout this whole tournament and Scurry hadn't played a lick.

[gumpzilla]

For those in the camp saying that Solo shouldn't say things like this to the press, what is the point of having reporters talk to athletes at all?

[ClarkNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
For those in the camp saying that Solo shouldn't say things like this to the press, what is the point of having reporters talk to athletes at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reporters job is to get athletes to say garbage like this. It's the athlete's job to avoid doing so.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
For those in the camp saying that Solo shouldn't say things like this to the press, what is the point of having reporters talk to athletes at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the reporters don't seem to mind reporting the tripe players usually dish out.

I don't follow the USWNT so I have no idea if the change was warranted, but cutting Solo (not benching, she didn't dress) was pretty standard in that situation.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those in the camp saying that Solo shouldn't say things like this to the press, what is the point of having reporters talk to athletes at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reporters job is to get athletes to say garbage like this. It's the athlete's job to avoid doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that coverage you want? Either the reporters are doing something they shouldn't be doing, or we're vilifying people for satisfying our desires, which seems pretty retarded to me. I remain unconvinced that taking something like this public - as if it weren't perfectly obvious there would be considerable discontent about it - makes things any more harmful, so the whole Code of the Team thing seems like [censored] to me, and I like when athletes say something that doesn't seem like a standard, canned response.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
For those in the camp saying that Solo shouldn't say things like this to the press, what is the point of having reporters talk to athletes at all?

[/ QUOTE ]


The reporters put a story together based on the mostly happy quotes they get from the players and find out occasional insights about the game or the play.
"They are really quick up front and we obviously had a tough time keeping up. They deserve a lot of credit. They are a great team and that Marta gal can really play."

That's pretty different than essentially saying, "I don't understand why the coach didn't play me and think his choice to play somebody instead of me was a really bad one..and also btw, I'm pretty sure I would have done better than that other player if he had done the obvious thing and put me on the field like he should have."

This reporter really didn't get Solo to say any of that stuff and most reporters don't go out of their way to try to get players to throw their teammate under the bus.

"Hey Joe, you only played 5 minutes today off the bench and did a great job. Don't you think you should be starting and should get the ball more because you're better than that other player?"

Reporters don't ask this type of stuff. It just doesn't work that way.

[CardSharpCook]

MBob,

I'm certainly not arguing that it was right to start Scurry, only that it was defensible. To my non-soccer playing eyes, it seems like a pretty strange decision. But then, I know nothing about soccer or this team. By looking at the stats from the games I can find, I am able to tell that there was no evidence that starting Scurry would turn out badly. She'd had a stellar season up to that point, allowing half as many goals all season as she did in 90minutes on thursday (or whenever). As a sports enthusiast, it is easy to imagine a situation in which you have a #1 goalie that you want in there for all the important games. Given that Solo had started every WC game and 70% of the games thru August, it would follow that she would start vs. Brazil unless injured. Ryan starting Scurry and then rationalizing the decision with, "She'd done well against Brazil," and "She's better at stopping Brazil's players," seems like fishthink to this poker player. Of course, so does, "Solo was in 'good form.'" <see response from earlier poster>

It was a very strange decision, but the stats we have make it defensible.