Chandler has shut down Ribery and Valencia in the past, his performance in Honduras was really bad and probably one of the worst in his career. He looked like he had cement boots from the beginning. I think he'll rebound and have a good performance against Costa Rica.
He can be a lot better. But that doesn't change the fact that he's not a top RB and wouldn't be in any Top 20 lists. And he is in a rather weak club, one that is hovering barely above relegation zone. Frankly, if he were not in Germany, no one here would be hyping him so much. Sadly, for many people, what matters is the league and nothing else. I can understand that from neophyte fans, not from a professional coach.
He could of signed with Stuttgart last year but decided to stay in Nuremberg and signed an extension, probably wants to wait a few more years for a bigger club to come calling.
Haha, he was in a midtable team last year, does that mean he's gotten worse? I'm confused why you keep referencing his club standing. I'm assuming you aren't watching him much, which is fine but don't make these concrete evaluations of him. People hype him because he's played well defensively, going forward and he's pretty damn fast not because he's on a team that sucks this year in the BL.
Because to many posters it seems the only thing that matters is where the guy is playing. I've watched him enough. He's good, but people here have been waiting on him as if he were a bona fide Top 10 RB. Which he is not. He's just a good one. Like Castillo is a good LB. Which means both would need time to integrate in the system, and once integrated, are unlikely to be as good as Cherundolo or Johnson.
Yeah, we don't know that yet. He's still only 22 and has the tools and potential to be as good or even better than them.
Doubtful. It's more likely that the missing link is in between the part of JK's brain that envisions how the U.S. should play and the part that chooses the players to implement that vision.
Something I've noticed in our games is that generally when LD is not our RM we have almost zero possession in the final third on that side. Against Honduras that barren stretch ran up and down the length of the field. I blame Klinsmann's scheme AND his over reliance on Jones to run the attack on that side. Jones may be one of our three best mids but in that role other players are a better fit.
I think if Hannover 96 had to choose unemotionally between a contract extension for Cherundolo and a Chandler move for free, they'd choose Chandler.
Of course. Clubs look for potential, and Dolo is about to retire while Chandler is 22. But a club like Hannover has room to grow, and time for it. The USMNT doesn't. They have to qualify this year. That's the bottom line.
Based on age for a club it's a no brainier but for one game both healthy they'd prob take dolo. That dude is mister consistent which is why he has lasted so long.
And Cherundolo is a 34 year old guy recovering from knee surgery; his club coach said in his analysis of the first half of the season that a key problem was the lack of high intensity runs from the fullbacks. I think you're overestimating what's left of Cherundolo. You have to qualify this year, not last year.
Ives takes a stab at tweaking the Midfield alignment. Have to agree that some form of this is solution. Caveat for me is if LD comes back and fills the creative, stretch D need from a wing position. http://www.soccerbyives.net/2013/02/klinsmanns-midfield-preferences.html If you start with the premise that Jones and Bradley are too good not to have in the lineup (which Klinsmann has made clear), then one of them has to take on the No. 6 role if the American attack is going to have room for some players who can stretch defenses and set up for the forwards. If you don’t, and you insist on playing either a Danny Williams or Maurice Edu behind Jones and Bradley, you are left with three pure attackers who have that much less service and fewer options to work with in attack. Are there instances where having that defensive a lineup can be necessary? Sure, the argument can be made that fielding a Bradley-Jones-Edu/Williams triangle in Mexico City could provide the defensive bite to stifle the Mexican attack, but if the loss to Honduras showed us anything it is that being too compact and narrow in midfield can also leave you vulnerable on the flanks against dangerous attacking
Let me be more specific then: I don't see Castillo and Chandler to ever be equal to Johnson and Cherundolo at their peak. Both are good, but Dolo was excellent, and Fabian almost is.
A solid goal was getting a tie in Honduras. The game would have ended a tie, IMO, if the three CM midfield had gone the 90'. When they scored their second goal, Jones was gone. Zusi had come in, and even if on paper he was marking the same man Jones had been marking (remember: Honduras had made no subs), in reality Zusi is not a player to defend against the speed and trickiness of Mario Martinez. The USA had been over-run at times on the sides, but Edu and Bradley had covered more or less well, when Boniek or Costly cut through. When Jones was taken out, a third weakness was created through the middle. One that had no compensation, since both Bradley and Edu were already busy helping Johnson and Chandler. The trivote didn't fail. The defeat happened when an attacking mid (Zusi) was put in the role of a defensive mid (Jones), and no rotation was done behind them to take care of the weakness. The other mistake was relying on Bradley-Dempsey to provide the link from defense to attack. That left the USA toothless, although provided some chances. Still, not enough to scare the Hondurans into keeping more people on their side. Simply put, the Bradley-Dempsey link cannot make up for the lack of Donovan.
He should stick to strict reporting. His lineups all flawed in one (or more) of these ways. 1. Zusi fetish 2. Bradley out wide 3. Kljestan out wide 3. Assume an in form Shea. 4. Assume a returning Donovan.
The USMNT switched to a 4-1-3-2 at the beginning of the 2nd half so JJ was playing at AMR, Deuce AML with Jozy and EJ up top. Both Honduras 2nd half goals (the first ruled offsides) came straight up the middle caused by Bradley applying very little pressure to the passer. In hindsight JK should not have changed to an attacking 4-1-3-2 and when JJ had to leave with cramps/leg issues JK should have brought in Evans and gone back to the strong trio to try to preserve the 1 point. I agree. Of course the lack of LD is a huge missing piece as far as chance creation.
That look had to be have been intentional. They stacked the midfield centrally and hoped to kick it wide right for a cross. Occasionally, they had Altidore going to that side too but he generally wasn't successful with the ball possession. Off memory, he was crowded and didn't get much of supporting help. I would have flip-flopped Eddie Johnson wide right but the coaches may have felt that having Jones in proximity would be sufficient.
The midfield was disorganized (or possibly poorly organized) throughout the game. If the DM steps up one of the CMs needs to drop for him, especially if a fullback is caught out. That failed way too often.
I'm convinced that the coaching staff is stupid or incompetent. I don't understand why they're playing three defensive midfielders at all. Or why they're playing an offensive formation with three dmids. Makes no sense. The coaching staff could put one or two other players on the field and we could attack. The German has lost me playing with three dmids. He's been doing it for a year and a half. And none of the defense has seen the show before. This is a recipe for disaster.