Janet Green New York City How can Tony DiCicco leave Debbie Keller off the roster for the U.S. women’s residency camp? I know there may be some ruffled feathers from the lawsuit she filed against Anson Dorrance, but don’t you think she deserves to be there and that DiCicco’s decision is wrong? Pete Bailey: Well, Janet, I would say that Debbie definitely deserves to be in the residency camp, but Tony DiCicco probably made the right choice in not inviting her. Let me explain: Keller tied with Tiffeny Milbrett for the second-leading scorer on the women’s national team in 1998, with 14 goals. (Mia Hamm, of course, was the top scorer.) She accomplished this while playing 500 less minutes than Milbrett — that’s not a knock on Milbrett, who is an excellent player in her own right, but a testament to Keller’s nose for the goal. DiCicco said in the Jan. 18, 1999, issue of Soccer America that Keller’s absence was not due to the lawsuit, but because the coaching staff “didn’t see her stepping into the starting lineup” and thus brought in some younger, potential future stars like Alyson Wagner and Susan Bush. It is, however, interesting to note that Keller started seven games for the U.S. last year, and that the team went 6-0-1 with a tie and a victory against 1995 WWC runner-up Germany and wins over USA ’99 qualifiers Sweden, Japan and Canada. After a win over New Zealand in May of last year, DiCicco said: “Debbie Keller definitely showed why I think we have 18 starters on this team…. If Debbie keeps scoring, it will be tough to keep her on the bench.” Keller replaced Hamm in the U.S. lineup for 4 games in May and June after the star striker injured a hamstring. When Hamm returned, Keller and Milbrett split time in the starting lineup, with Milbrett starting both matches at the Goodwill Games and Keller starting in a 4-2 win over Germany in June and a 4-0 win over Canada in the MLS All-Star Game doubleheader on Aug. 2. In the Canada match, Keller scored the first two U.S. goals. That was the last game that the U.S. women played before Keller filed suit against Dorrance, her former coach at North Carolina. Since then, she has returned to a substitute’s role, but has scored in three of the four matches that the U.S. women played, including the recent win over Ukraine. It seems obvious to me that Keller is not only deserving of a place at the residency camp, but should be under serious consideration for a roster spot, if not a starting position at USA ’99. However, there is another issue that must be considered, and that is team chemistry. If you read the Sports Illustrated article on Dorrance, you’ll recall that his theory of coaching women is that the game and the competition are secondary to the camaraderie and harmony of the team. He talked of how the 20 minutes or so that players would talk and gossip while stretching and putting on their shoes was more important than all the drills and games in the practice session that would follow. I imagine that DiCicco, who assisted Dorrance with the women’s national team before taking over as head coach, has similar thoughts. With that in mind, then, will the U.S. team be at its best with Keller in the mix? Remember that, regardless of whether Keller’s claims have merit, the national team is chock full of players who are fiercely loyal to Dorrance. Tracy Ducar, one of the backup goalkeepers who is married to a UNC assistant coach and has served as an assistant for the Tar Heels herself, is a co-defendant in the suit as well. The simple truth is that having Keller in camp is a potential nightmare for team morale, and, unfair as it may seem, DiCicco’s decision not to invite Keller makes plenty of sense — it will give his team the best chance to win the Women’s World Cup. Unfortunately, the upshot is that Keller’s international career is probably over. Don MacGregor Chicago An acquaintance of mine claims that the Mitre-made MLS ball handles differently than a hexagon-pentagon paneled ball, such as the ones adidas makes. What did he mean by handling? It hooks differently, I guess. My acquaintanece’s comment didn’t make sense, until I remember hearing how Roberto Carlos was grumbling that he couldn’t hook the World Cup ’98 ball as well as the one used in WC ’94. Was this a lame excuse? To cut to the quick: Have you heard from any MLS players about the way the Mitre ball handles. Does it hook better or no differently than any other league’s ball? Ridge Mahoney: Many MLS players said the same thing as your friend, and a few told me the ball felt lighter, that it tended to wobble and bounce more on uneven surfaces, and didn’t roll as “heavily” as other balls. They didn’t have so much to say regarding how it could be swerved or bent, to my recollection, but I can’t say I conducted an exhaustive poll on the subject. What is interesting about the Mitre ball is that it is panelled much like the balls used in England several years ago. There’s no question that a different panel arrangement would affect the aerodynamics, but just how much is open to question. Balls do react differently, and remember how many shots went zooming over the bar at Mexico ’86. Some blamed the ball; others pointed out the thinner air at the higher elevations of many Mexican stadiums may have been the primary reason. Or, there’s always plain bad shooting! Matt Manning Bowie, Md. Do you think that Bora Milutinovic will have an sudden impact or a long-term progression with the MetroStars? Mike Woitalla: Bora is known for his success with national teams. He’s played in four World Cups with four different nations, and he’s taken each of them to the second round. That’s his forte. His rise in coaching came as head coach of UNAM Pumas (1977-83) in Mexico. Winning with Pumas led to his Mexican national team job, the first of his World Cup assignments. But since his time with Pumas, Bora has not done anything impressive at the club level. (He had short club coaching stints in Italy, Argentina and Mexico, before his failed last-minute attempt to salvage the MetroStars season in 1998.) No doubt, Bora is one of the world’s most successful national team coaches, particularly with underdog nations. (In my opinion, getting Costa Rica and the USA to the second round remain his greatest achievements.) However, coaching a national team is far different from coaching a club. The national team coach needs to find 11 good players — plus reserves — from a country’s entire soccer-playing population, then turn them into a good team. He can drop players he doesn’t get along with, or who don’t fit into his system, because there are many eager replacements. As coach of the MetroStars, Bora will have to do the best with the hand he’s dealt. Bora’s test will not be how well he can choose players, but what he can do with the players he has. He will also be challenged to do what successful MLS coaches have done — get the most out of young American talent. You may have noticed by now that I’m not going to answer your question — that would require making a prediction, and I like to avoid that. I will say that since the MetroStars have been so bad for so long, it’s the short-term success that will be used to judge Bora. Johnny West Lewisville, Texas Can you explain why international teams have decided that the Dallas Cup is a great place to show their skills and gain international experience? Is it great marketing by the Dallas Cup staff or just blind luck? Why has the Dallas Cup become so international? Paul Kennedy: The Dallas Cup folks did a great job in the earliy years, first with Ron Griffith, who started the tournament. In the early ’90s, it started to get better teams. The success of Tahuichi helped a lot. The money it had around the time of WC ’94 from American Airlines allowed them to recruit big-name clubs from around the world — remember, Tahuichi is a big-name youth club in the United States but it is hardly well-known, say, in Europe. Clubs continue to come to the Dallas Cup. A major reason: it’s convenient to get to Dallas. Another: It offers a club the opportunity to meet top clubs from around the world, but on neutral territory. It will be interesting to see if they are so interested if, one day, American clubs become world-beaters. John Flor Omaha, Neb. I seem to remember at the start up of MLS, FIFA wanted to use the new league as a rules-testing ground to some degree, assuming testing innovations would be much more easily accepted in the U.S. than in Europe or elsewhere. I think I read where the USSF resisted this to some degree, being afraid it would aggravate older or sophisticated US fans, just as the shootout has actually done. Question: Did FIFA try to get the USSF to try rules innovations, including larger goals, shootouts, time clock, etc. and other things, some which were actually used, some not? Ridge Mahoney: A lot of those experiments were conducted by the USISL — bigger goals, different types of shootouts and other tiebreakers, liberal substitutions, penalty boxes, etc. — with the approval of U.S. Soccer. Different USISL divisions used different menus of changes, with interesting but hardly conclusive results. For example, goalscoring didn’t markedly increase with the use of bigger goals. Most USSF executives objected to such experimentation in MLS games, both due to their traditional roots and the complications that would ensue for national team players going back and forth between league games and internationals. Some MLS owners favored such innovations during the league’s startup; fortunately, they agreed to wait and see, and now appear satisfied with the game they have.