Jordan Carroway Arlington, Va. I am stunned by the dismissal of John Harkes from the national team. I understand that Sampson had some problems with him, but he is getting rid of a player with a wealth of international experience. It seems to me that can only hurt the USA’s chances. Do you have any ideas about the “leadership” issues that Sampson and Harkes had? What are your thoughts on this coaching decision? Duncan Irving: You weren’t the only one to be surprised, Jordan. This story caught us all on the hop. I can’t really say for certain what the “leadership issues” were and neither of the principals are prepared to discuss the matter. I can read between the lines from the press conference and offer some ideas as to what they might be. John Harkes is 31. He has a wealth of experience, yet he is coming to the end of his international career. He is also very outspoken. Steve Sampson is a decade older, and has no pro experience as a player. The equation is that you can be the biggest thorn in a coaches side as long as you deliver the goods. The problem arises when a player ceases to deliver, in which case the disadvantages of having a troublesome player around far outweigh the benefits. This could be the case here. During qualifying rounds such as the Hexagonal, a coach relies on his players to get him through the graft. He’s prepared to ride with certain things, but once qualifying has been achieved, the shoe, for want of a better analogy, is on the other foot. From trying to placate your veterans, the coach is now in a stronger position to tell his players how he wants to play them. If they agree, fine. If they don’t, there’s a problem. “He didn’t embrace the left back position,” said Sampson by way of explanation. Translation: He didn’t do as he was told. If you’re Eric Wynalda, you sit for a couple of games, and then you come back. After all, who else is going to score or set up your goals? Sampson also talked about Harkes being a dominant figure and that his absence might give rise to other personalities coming to the fore. Translation: (1) He talked back, which undermines a coaches credibility. (2) Sampson either felt his players were sick of the bickering and/or his players were sick of Harkes. The guy’s self-belief outstrips his ability. He won’t play where he’s told to, or if he does, he performs well below his ability, and the easiest solution is to cut him. This rids you of a problem player, and it also sends a message to the rest of the team: that no one is unimpeachable. Clearly, it was not enough to merely strip Harkes of the captaincy, so the situation must have been irredeemable. Sampson also mentioned the Paraguay game, for which Harkes was not present, and from assorted calls I made, the impression was that the atmosphere was a lot better without him. As for the rest, I have no idea. You either end up coming up roses afterward, or you get bitten in the butt. My concern is with the timing of the decision, and the lack of cover. I don’t think he has adequate replacements and I think Sampson is tardily looking for solutions to his personnel shortages (chasing Carlos Llamosa and particularly David Regis). For all his faults, Harkes could play a bit (when he felt like it) and none of the alternates — Deering (not good enough), Dooley (too frail) and Sorber (not a favorite of Sampson) — look exactly peachy. Kurt Braunsroth Stockbridge, Ga. During the April 10 Q&A, Paul Kennedy said: “MLS can’t justify the expense of the youth team programs that clubs in Europe have. It’s reached the point where clubs can afford to spent hundreds of thousands on dollars on setting up programs in Africa in the hope that maybe one player is produced. It’s a cost/benefit ratio they can afford.” Why do you think that the European teams have never tried to fund a developmental program in the USA? Paul Kennedy: The wealth of talent simply isn’t there yet, compared to what is available in Africa. Also, teams can sign players in Africa for nothing. That doesn’t mean clubs aren’t interested. I’ve received calls from French scouts (representing European clubs) wanting to know about players as young as U-14. At the Dallas Cup, foreign scouts are now watching U.S. players, along with the many great young foreign players. Bob Stoddard Fair Oaks, Calif. Like most people I was stunned by the omission of John Harkes from the roster for the Austria match, but I was also very surprised that Jovan Kirovski was not named either. I thought Steve Sampson wanted to use this match as an opportunity to look at his foreign-based players. Why does he then ignore a player who has received a good deal of playing time this season for one of the world’s top clubs? It seems to me that Kirovski ought to be an integral part of Sampson’s plans for the World Cup. Ridge Mahoney: Bob, since joining Dortmund, Kirovski has played only 17 Bundesliga matches (one goal) and a handful of cup games. This season, he’s played 10 league games and not scored a goal; and turned in an absolutely dreadful performance — being substituted after 28 minutes! — when Dortmund surrendered four goals in the first 25 minutes of a 4-2 loss to 1860 Munich. In those 10 games, three were as a sub, and in five others, he started but didn’t play all 90 minutes. Yes, he’s on a great club, but he’s only playing as much as he is due to injuries: 13 Dortmund players have missed at least five games this season. Kirovski also suffers a bit from inflated ego syndrome. He’s not all that coachable, tends to sulk if he’s not treated as a special case, and isn’t impressed with Sampson, who is not really sure where to play Kirovski — at forward, wide midfielder, or attacking midfielder. Kirovski can be a national teamer for the future, but the U.S. World Cup opener is only two months away. Remember, Kirovski had a nightmare match when Sampson picked him to play in San Salvador last June, and that game counts a lot more than the friendly against Israel in which he scored. And Sampson also needs to look at Deering, Berhalter, and Wagner, as well as some MLS players on the bubble: McBride, Maisonneuve, etc. I don’t believe Kirovski has done enough, either for the U.S. or Dortmund, to be an “integral part” of the World Cup plans, but he should be on the squad. Ned Brodeur Brick, N.J. My son has been playing the game for 4 years now and plays presently on a U-8 travelling team. He loves to play but can’t bear to lose. It doesn’t matter to him if its a pick-up game with his friends or a tournament! He has a tremendous drive to win! When he gets defeated he gets upset and angry. He puts too much pressure on himself. My question is how do I get him under control and not have him lose that desire. He plays harder than any kid I’ve seen. Dan Woog: This is an excellent question. I consulted with a psychologist who deals with adolescents, and who knows the soccer world well. His reply: “How wise of you to understand that over-competitiveness can be harmful. Since your son is competitive in soccer, he probably also competes strongly in school, in other games, even playing with friends. Because the joy of childhood comes not just in winning but in exploring and fantasizing, I would suggest bringing non- evaluative things into his life — events that do not involve score-keeping, or winning and losing. Try taking hikes, building something together, or going to museums. Your son probably needs just a bit more balance in his daily activities.” Ken Olandersson Olofstrom, Sweden Why doesn’t Sampson try John Van Buskirk? Mike Woitalla: Steve Sampson recently sent some U.S. Soccer coaches to watch Van Buskirk play two games. He did not respond to their reports by inviting him to the April 22 Austria game, so I guess they concluded he could not contribute to the World Cup squad. Considering his consistent play for a decent German Second Division team, Van Buskirk perhaps deserved consideration earlier on. But truth is, if Joe-Max Moore and Eric Wynalda return to health soon, the U.S. already has a fair number of forwards.