There you go. That’s the roster. Of course you can bellyache about this inclusion or that inclusion, but such bellyaching is completely futile.

First, there’s really not much on Bruce Arena’s roster about which to debate.

I suppose you could bellyache the Jimmy Conrad selection and say Berhalter would have been the more obvious choice. But isn’t that nagging little ache just the tug of your inner-Eurosnob, isn’t that just the squeaky little voice that doubts Major League Soccer, that can’t quite shake that old superstition that says European based players are inherently more prepared for the international stage than players plying their trade right here in the States? And isn’t that nagging little achy voice overdue for a right and proper beating? Jimmy Conrad earned his spot.

Perhaps I would have taken Taylor Twellman over Brian Ching. Perhaps. But truth be told I really can’t justify taking one or the other. I think I understand why Bruce chose Ching. If Brian the Elder takes a knock, Brian the Younger will come in handy. Of course, I can come up with an equally valid argument for Twellman. Perhaps I’d even consider taking Twellman over Wolff. But, then again, I’ve never been a great fan of Wolff. And there is something to say for his international experience. Back and forth it goes; it’s an exercise in futility.

So Hejduk gets pulled with an ACL injury the day after the roster is announced and Albright comes in to take his place. It’s lousy for Hejduk but when you get right down to it Hejduk vs Albright isn’t going to make much difference. Hejduk runs all day (like a chicken with its head cut off some say) and has loads of experience. But I don’t trust him one bit and whenever he steps on the field I think he’s a red card or a penalty kick waiting to happen. To me he’s always been the soccer player equivalent of a ticking time bomb. Albright? He’s a top notch defender and he’s more versatile than Hejduk in the attack. He lacks experience but he brings other attributes to the team, namely crossing and set piece ability. Ticking time bomb with plenty of experience vs an inexperienced but more versatile player? It’s a wash. Anyone who spends much time worrying about it is wasting his time.

Second, it’s done. The roster is decided and there ain’t nothing you can do or say about it. For this brief moment there is nothing to talk about. It is what it is and nothing’s gonna change that. Right now we just have a list of 23 names. Those are our guys: come what may.

Come what may. That’s been the underlying sense for me since the roster was announced. Come what may: whatever happens will happen. Come what may.

I know the fatalism will wear off as June draws closer. Training camps and friendlies will instill in us a sense that we control our fate. Come June we’ll have a structure of reasonable expectations, we’ll have criterion for judgment and we’ll have a sense of exactly what to expect from this team. No matter what happens in camp we’ll go to Germany and with an idea of what has to occur if we’re going to control the situation and dictate the games.

Of course this sense of control is merely by proxy. And, yet, it is not unreasonable. If we, “the home viewer,” can speak with some facility about what we have to do to control the situation then surely the coaches and players, who see and (hopefully) know more than us, can do the same. Particularly at the World Cup, particularly in evenly matched groups like ours, every team - at least as an intellectual exercise - ought to be able to anticipate and understand what it must do to succeed.

But there is a distinction between thinking you know what you have to do, and truly knowing what you have to do. There is also a distinction between knowledge and actualization. You can’t tell where teams end up amid those distinctions until the game is played. That is also why this sense of control is only temporary. Once the whistle blows that fatalism will take hold again. There’ll be 11 guys on one side and 11 guys on the other: come what may.

There have been some pretty bad teams in Major League Soccer. Which was the worst ever? Who’s to say, but the argument usually boils down to two possibilities: the 2001 Mutiny and the 1999 MetroStars. Seems to me today there’s a third team vying for the title of worst MLS team ever.

Counting shootout wins as draws, the 1999 MetroStars currently hold the MLS winless streak record at 19 games. Real Salt Lake hasn’t won a league match since August 6, 2005. In the 17 games they’ve played since then they’ve amassed a grand total of two points. That’s right, in 17 games they’ve gotten two draws, the rest were losses.

Now, I know it’s not nice to laugh and point, but I will admit it’s fun. However, along with laughing and pointing I’m going to offer an observation. It is unconscionable and irresponsible to retain John Ellinger as coach after 17 games without a win. It makes the team (and the league) appear less than serious.

I can hear it now. “But, but, but … the COACH isn’t the problem!” Or how about my favorite canard: “Coaches don’t win games, players do.”

Yup, I’ve heard those confused cackles before. As a DC United supporter I heard them about Thomas Rongen. And then I heard them about Ray Hudson. It turns out, in both instances, the coach was the ultimate problem. The coach is the problem in Salt Lake too.

I watch an unfortunate number of Real Salt Lake games. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a team take the field that looked fully prepared to meet the challenge at hand. They’ve gotten lucky here and there; a few times they played a team even worse off than them. But they haven’t won a game in a very long time, and there’s no sense that they’ll win a game anytime soon.

This morning I read the following John Ellinger quotes in the Salt Lake Tribune:

“People have to show up to play. And it’s disappointing and frustrating - I’m sure for the fans, I’m sure for the coaching staff and the teammates - when players don’t show up to play.”

“There’s no sense putting guys on the field who aren’t going to work. We’re not going to get through this if we don’t work. We need an honest effort every game - especially at home. It’s criminal that we didn’t get that kind of effort at home.”

John Ellinger is absolutely right. But he clearly doesn’t understand that in those statements he has condemned himself.

If a coach truly and consistently prepares his team to play then it really is “disappointing and frustrating” on those rare weekends “when players don’t show up to play.” Real Salt Lake, however, has never been truly and consistently prepared. Only Ellinger can be blamed for that consistent lack of preparation.

It’s true that it’s “criminal” not to put in an “honest effort in every game - especially at home.” But to put in an honest effort you have to have a solid mix of players and you have to be prepared for the game. By that standard Real Salt Lake has made dishonesty a habit. Ellinger fields “guys on the field who aren’t going to work” week after week after week.

Of course a coach doesn’t win the game on the field. He wins the game off the field. His two most important duties are player selection and player preparation. It’s his duty to select guys who can get the job done and it’s his duty to prepare those guys to do that job every single weekend. John Ellinger has absolutely failed in both regards. His team has shown neither ability nor improvement. Indeed, this year’s team is arguably worse than the one he fielded last year.

It is time to make a coaching change in Salt Lake City. The credibility of the team and the league is at stake.