Revs News, 3/19

[rkane1226]

http://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2005/03/19/for_starters_for_revolution_it_all_starts_with_reis/

[Soccer Doc]

I guess Reis statement makes it a bit more clear just what formation SN plans to use---3-5-2. It's going to be interesting to see just which of the current defensive corps get the start in a three man back line. We may get some indication of just how well Llamosa has recovered and how evolved our two rookie defenders are next week on Gol TV.

[firstshirt]

I would imagine that unless Parkhurst or Riley play balls to the wall and earn a starting defensive slot we will be seeing Heaps, LLamosa and John in the back. Question is, is LLamosa healed enough and in shape to start? I think his health is the key. If he can not go I think Riley gets the nod over parkhurst and starts on the left with heaps on the right and John in the middle. I am just hoping and praying that parkhurst is better than Heaps....god knows the revs fans deserve seeing better play on the right side and someone who can contain and keep their mark and not ball watch.

[Soccer Doc]

My guess is that Heaps is headed to the bench and we will see both Riley and Parkhurst as starters very early in the season

[The Magpie]

My guess is that Heaps is headed to the bench and we will see both Riley and Parkhurst as starters very early in the season

I'd be quite surprised if this were the case, especially if Nicol decides to go with a 3-5-2: no way he starts two rookies in a 3-back defense... no way. FWIW, I don't even think we have the personnel at present to be effective in a 3-5-2, at least as it relates to the three backs. Just a thought...

[congo2]

Just remember, Parky & James have played a 3-5-2 since they arrived at Wake. They should not have a huge adjustment to the formation like others coming from a 4 back set. Their adjustment will be adapting to the speed/physical increase to the pro game.

[The Magpie]

Just remember, Parky & James have played a 3-5-2 since they arrived at Wake. They should not have a huge adjustment to the formation like others coming from a 4 back set. Their adjustment will be adapting to the speed/physical increase to the pro game.

No matter their talent, either in evidence in camp, or before they were selected by the Revs, they're rookies, and I don't know any MLS coach who'd start rookies in 2 out of 3 spots on a defensive back line. I'm sure they'll get minutes, but I'd be awfully surprised if either say starting minutes in any early match.

[Jeremy Goodwin]

No matter their talent, either in evidence in camp, or before they were selected by the Revs, they're rookies, and I don't know any MLS coach who'd start rookies in 2 out of 3 spots on a defensive back line. I'm sure they'll get minutes, but I'd be awfully surprised if either say starting minutes in any early match.Quite. 3 backs is usually a sign that a coach doesn't think much of his defensive personnel depth :/

[Soccer Doc]

No matter their talent, either in evidence in camp, or before they were selected by the Revs, they're rookies, and I don't know any MLS coach who'd start rookies in 2 out of 3 spots on a defensive back line. I'm sure they'll get minutes, but I'd be awfully surprised if either say starting minutes in any early match.

Conventional wisdom says your correct. I was just taking a SWAG and opining that we may have the two players in MLS most likely to win ROTY fighting for playing time in our back line.

If Llamosa hasn't regained his mobility and if Heaps hasn't had a brain transplant we may see at least one of them starting---so why not both?
;)

[pwykes]

If Llamosa hasn't regained his mobility
I would argue that even at full health in 1993, Llomasa's mobility had dropped off significantly and was a liability for the team even then. He had to resort to desperate fouls on several occasions because he couldn't keep up. With a year off for the injury, I don't see how he's going to be any better this year. If we're really counting on Llamosa to be the backbone of the defense, we are going to be in big trouble. Riley and/or Parkhust had better come through.

[Dan B]

I would argue that even at full health in 1993, Llomasa's mobility had dropped off significantly and was a liability for the team even then. He had to resort to desperate fouls on several occasions because he couldn't keep up. With a year off for the injury, I don't see how he's going to be any better this year. If we're really counting on Llamosa to be the backbone of the defense, we are going to be in big trouble. Riley and/or Parkhust had better come through.
I agree.

I just don't see building a 3 man back line with Llamosa. OK, maybe in the A-League or lower. Parkhurst's footspeed has already been questioned, and if you don't have speed in the center of a 3 man back line, then you are in big trouble.

[Jeremy Goodwin]

Wait a second, 1993?

I know that things are pretty dismal here in 2005, but I'm not sure that pretending it's 10 years ago is an effective way of dealing with it.

[Jon Martin]

... if you don't have speed in the center of a 3 man back line, then you are in big trouble.
I don't know about that. The big red donkey did pretty well for LAG in the middle of a back three, and he's no Tim Montgomery (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/summer/track/2002-09-14-montgomery_x.htm). I guess shirt-pulling is worth a couple steps. ;)

[IRguy]

Quite. 3 backs is usually a sign that a coach doesn't think much of his defensive personnel depth :/

I think you are right, also we have three players at the central midfield that should in theory play well together in a 3-5-2.

I believe what we are likely to see is a Bleeding of Parkhurst over the first mouth or so until he is ready to start. If he is not up to it then i think the revs will look to add a vet CB by midseason. I know it's not what most of us what to hear but i think it maybe the smartest thing to do given our resources. If the "buzz" is right about Parkhurst being the next nats call up for the revs then why bother to trade sign someone else when we have a good player already.

I think are opening day line looks like this:

Riley - john - Marshall

Parkhurst sups in second half

[REV IT UP]

Quite. 3 backs is usually a sign that a coach doesn't think much of his defensive personnel depth :/

Personaly, if i was a coach that didn't think much of my defensive depth, the last thing i would do is decrease the number of players in the back line. If we have a bad defence then the least we could do is put another body there to get in the way of the ball.

Lets say we had 3 really talented defence men. There would be no point in adding a 4th if, say the midfield, could use some extra bodies.

If we have 3 poor defence men then maybe it would be a good idea to simply have a 4th guy there, hell maybe even a 5th!

Shalrie, Cancela, Ralston, Dempsey seems to be quite good mix of midfielders in my opinion, and if Cassio is as good as he has been made out to be then we have our selves 5 good midfielders, do we need all of them on the field at the same time? If it means adding another man to a not so deep defence then by all means bench one of them and put in a another defender. It'll also be good to have a decent midfield sub, if we play all 5, then who do we have, Dorman? I like Dorman but still don't think hes a great regular sub.

So I'm still pushing for a 4-4-2 and just for example:

------------------Reis-----------------

----llamosa----Riley*---Heaps---John-- <-- Parkhurst could be a good sub

Cassio----Cancela---Dempsey---Ralston <-- Joseph/Dorman as subs

----------Twellman-----Noonan--------

*Replace Riley with a possable good central defender that SN signs and you can have Riley and Parkhurst as a good rookie subs.

Having 4 men in the back just simply, physically, makes it just a tiny bit harder to get a ball through since there are simply more bodies. Plus I think that we have enough depth in the midfield that playing 5 is almost over kill and the once again the defence could really use that extra man.

RRRREV IT UP

[Jeremy Goodwin]

Personaly, if i was a coach that didn't think much of my defensive depth, the last thing i would do is decrease the number of players in the back line. If we have a bad defence then the least we could do is put another body there to get in the way of the ball.

Lets say we had 3 really talented defence men. There would be no point in adding a 4th if, say the midfield, could use some extra bodies.

If we have 3 poor defence men then maybe it would be a good idea to simply have a 4th guy there, hell maybe even a 5th!I agree with you here, by my statement that it meant that the coach didn't think much of the depth, I meant that the talent after the top 3 was considered suspect. If your number 4 guy is an asset, then you put him in. If your number 4 guy is a liability, then you go with three.

Of course, it also depends on the quality of your midfield players. In practice, this may not be much of a difference, we may just have one "defender" playing as a dmid on a regular basis instead of an ad-hoc basis.

[Chowda]

Did I miss something or did we lose Marshall Leonard during the offseason? He did fill in at left back several times last year. Although he was a weak link at first, I thought he played quite well towards the end of the season.

If Llamosa or Franchino could hold down one of the center back spots in a 4-4-2, Leonard could play left back with Heaps and John rounding out the back line for the opener.

This formation will have to suit us untill Cassio get's his visa and we have a left wing for a 3-5-2. Although Noonan did look good today bringing the ball forward in that position for the USMNT.

[mosler]

Quite. 3 backs is usually a sign that a coach doesn't think much of his defensive personnel depth :/
The 5 midfield players + Noonan and Twellman dictates a 3-5-2, not any lack of confidence in the 4th defender.

And did anyone see the game vs. Honduras? (I haven't read that thread yet) But Ralston seemed great at playing an in-between role where he stayed back to help on D as a 4th defender when needed but was still able to get forward at the right time. Whether it's Ralston or Shalrie or someone else, the back 3 will be getting support from the midfield.

Now you may be concerned that the Revs back three will need help constantly, and thus severely hamper one/some of the midfielders from getting forward. A definite possibility but until we see what it looks like on the field, I don't think it's a bad place to start.

[REV-OKe]

maybe, just maybe, if some of you could get past the fact that 3 is less than four, you might envision a scenario where 3 center backs is actually a defensive posture, leaving you with numbers in the back at all times.

infact, that might work like a 4-1-2-3 going forward and a 5-3-2 comming back.


we won't really know from looking at a lineup card. 3 in the back doesn't signify anything, if that is the only info you have.

[pwykes]

Wait a second, 1993?

Sorry - it was a typo. I meant 2003. :o