PDA

View Full Version : US-Costa Rica, the Bruce (R)


Pages : [1] 2

superdave
04 Jun 2005, 09:35 PM
Ballsy first XI. ESPN had it as a 3-4-3, with Dolo as a center back, and Convey out there too. I was thinking, man, if we don't win, Bruce is going to get killed here. And rightfully so.

But I thought a second more and realized how easily we could morph into a 4-4-2 (by dropping back Beasley and Convey.) After the first goal, we weren't quite a 4-4-2, but I'd say it was a 3.5-4-2.5. I think Bruce got outcoached at the half; the Ticos had too much of the initiative until we got our 2nd. Pope was a gamble, and IMO it was a push. He didn't f'up, but he wasn't the key defender, Boca was. I still think Gibbs would have been better. But then, Gibbs will be fresh in Panama.

Convey, likewise, was just out there IMO. Didn't help us, made some good plays, but mostly just filled the position in a neutral way.

I think it was smart of Bruce to a) get Beasley those few minutes of rest and b) get Clint D. those few minutes of action.

On the one hand, I don't like some of the decisions Bruce made. On the other hand, we won 3-0, so it's hard to fault him. On the 3rd hand, I think it was mostly the players and not anything Bruce did. In retrospect, playing Dolo as a centerback was a gamble predicated, correctly, on CR playing a lone striker. In reality, we were playing a sort of 2-5-3 until the CR subs changed the tactics.

Carry on.

DCFAN96
04 Jun 2005, 09:46 PM
Convey in the starting eleven suprised me, and as the game went on it made even less sense. If hes going to start its to use him as an attacking option out the back, which the team didn't use, although he made some nice runs to the corner but never was given the ball. So he ended up having a nuetral game, not great, not bad, just average. Just didn't make too much sense. I think Bruce's subs were on point, he probably shoudl have taken Bease out sooner though.

Cweedchop
04 Jun 2005, 09:51 PM
Convey in the starting eleven suprised me, and as the game went on it made even less sense. If hes going to start its to use him as an attacking option out the back, which the team didn't use, although he made some nice runs to the corner but never was given the ball. So he ended up having a nuetral game, not great, not bad, just average. Just didn't make too much sense.

It actually was quite clear to me. Since Costa Rica was only going to send one forward up, why not use an outside player with the ability to switch from midfield to defense?

Worked like a charm in that regard. Granted, aside from a sweet nutmeg and resulting corner, we didn't get much offensively from Convey, but I don't think that was his primary concern. Getting back and playing a pseudo defender was probably his main instructions. He did well in helping out the defense today.

Nutmeg
04 Jun 2005, 09:52 PM
I'm glad Bruce was more aggressive in his substitutions today. Hejduk came on and made an immediate difference, as the left side seemed to be struggling a little.

As for the opening lineup and game tactics, what can you say? Scoring a goal in the first 5 minutes makes any coach look like a genius. Bruce made good adjustments as the game wore on, but this was the player's game today.

reddog694
04 Jun 2005, 09:55 PM
From what I saw it was a flexible 4-4-2.

I say this because:

- Convey was more of a back with license to roam forward at will along the left (the question is was he successful)

- Beasley to me wasn't a forward, but he wasn't his usual left wing either. He seemed move a midfielder also with license to move inside and wide right

- A 3 man backline just seems wrong with someone the size of Cherundolo

ursula
04 Jun 2005, 09:56 PM
Starting Convey made no sense? Come on! It gave the team a versatility. he played his positions well, allowing the team to go from 343 to 442 easily. Contrast with CR with their 541 then having to start subbing in the first half because they had the wrong players on the field. Arena didn't have to do that. He could wait until players got tired or hurt to sub- always best.

Ultimately what we saw out of Convey today underscores his unique role on the team- which will keep him in the mix and probably earn him a trip to Germany.

before the game I was wondering if Arena was gonna go big- start McBride with Casey, start Dempsey, etc. anticipating all the CR defenders. Instead he started fast with Wolff and Convey (though Ralston slowed things up). Smart read.

And Dave- you spend too much time here with remarks like this:

I was thinking, man, if we don't win, Bruce is going to get killed here. And rightfully so.

If Bruce spends a minute on BS I'd be worried.

DCFAN96
04 Jun 2005, 10:07 PM
Starting Convey made no sense? Come on! It gave the team a versatility. he played his positions well, allowing the team to go from 343 to 442 easily. Contrast with CR with their 541 then having to start subbing in the first half because they had the wrong players on the field. Arena didn't have to do that. He could wait until players got tired or hurt to sub- always best.

Ultimately what we saw out of Convey today underscores his unique role on the team- which will keep him in the mix and probably earn him a trip to Germany.

before the game I was wondering if Arena was gonna go big- start McBride with Casey, start Dempsey, etc. anticipating all the CR defenders. Instead he started fast with Wolff and Convey (though Ralston slowed things up). Smart read.

And Dave- you spend too much time here with remarks like this:



If Bruce spends a minute on BS I'd be worried.

I wanted Convey to start the match, I think hes one of our best attackers. I was just suprised (as were many) he got the start. It made sense to use him as an attacking option out the back knowing CR would buncker but he WASN'T being used as one. He made the runs but wasn't being given the ball, and for the majority of the first half he stayed back. I guess all I'm saying is that he should have been used more effectively. He could have been a lot more dangerous if he made more overlapping runs and if he were given the ball more. I guess all I'm saying is whats the point of having him out there as an attacking option out the back if your not going to use it enough?

eric6854
04 Jun 2005, 10:11 PM
If Bruce spends a minute on BS I'd be worried.
See: Brushes Sand

:D

ursula
04 Jun 2005, 10:14 PM
yeah, right.


lol

BigKris
04 Jun 2005, 10:22 PM
If that was a true 3-4-3 then I'm a Thai crack whore. That was a 4-4-2 where Convey had permission to push up on the left because we were playing aggressively. DFB spent as much time in the center and right side of the midfield as he did as a striker on the left.

You can certainly question Bruce's dogged commitment to Convey over the years, but Bobby didn't play poorly today; he acquitted himself well today I think.

voros
04 Jun 2005, 10:27 PM
Ballsy first XI. ESPN had it as a 3-4-3, with Dolo as a center back, and Convey out there too. I was thinking, man, if we don't win, Bruce is going to get killed here. And rightfully so.
Honestly, to me it looked like a 4-4-2 the whole game, I wouldn't put it past Bruce to give bum info to the press officers.

It looked to me like

---------McBride-----Wolff--------
---------------Donovan------------
Beasley--------------------Ralston
--------------Zavagnin------------
Convey--Bocanegra--Pope-Cherundolo
----------------Keller------------

The whole game. Convey was certainly a defender for most of the game.

MarioKempes
04 Jun 2005, 10:57 PM
See: Brushes Sand

:D

Bruce is Brushes Sand? Wow!

Nutmeg
04 Jun 2005, 10:59 PM
If Bruce spends a minute on BS I'd be worried.

Bruce reads BS, Skip.

DoctorD
04 Jun 2005, 11:04 PM
Guess this fits here: we looked like we ran out of gas in the 2nd half when CR started attacking. Not only were CR players pushing up, but we had a lot of guys standing around at the same time.

XYZ1234
04 Jun 2005, 11:11 PM
I was surprised by the lineup. It worked, so okay. It's good to be able to win qualifyers without the best 11.

I was also surprised Beasley stayed out there so long. Thought he would only last 60 to 70.

USA4Life
04 Jun 2005, 11:16 PM
Good lineup by Bruce.
I wanted either Hejduk or Convey to play left back and Bocanegra to play center back. I got both of my wishes granted.

The only question (in my mind) was who was going to play next to Bocanegra. I thought that the pairing of Gibbs and Boca would be best.

I didn't like the subs. Dempsey should have come on around minute 50 when the US was getting shelled. Take off McBride and push Donovan up. This would have added that extra center player. Donovan and Wolff could have worked the counter.

Keller saved Arena's ass. Arena should have adjusted.

Cobi would have been a better sub than Noonan. I would have loved to see Cobi come on for Ralston around the same time Keller was saving the day.

In the end Arena did well with the lineup, got the result and will look good.
His subbing will always leave much to be desired.

sidefootsitter
05 Jun 2005, 12:39 AM
When someone posted Balboa's predictions that the US was going to be "patient", I immediately replied that this was not a proper approach. And, in fact, the team did start in fine fashion.

To open the second half however, the notion of being "patient" - which invariably involves aimless back-passes - was reintroduced and Costa Rica used that aimlessness to create most of its good chances.

That one I lay 100% on Bruce's shoulders. The US is not a possession team except in his mind. But he was bailed out of his faux pas by the remarkable play of Kasey Keller. Which means that the lesson went amiss.

denver_mugwamp
05 Jun 2005, 12:53 AM
When I first saw the lineup, I thought it was the 2002 WC Reunion Tour. It might be good enough to win a home game in qualifying but Bruce is going to do a Steve Sampson if he takes this team to Germany. Although Pope was good against CR, England seemed to show that he's getting a bit gimpy and can be exploited. Bruce needs to decide on the next couple of center backs and start getting them more experience. And a player like McBride, Ralston, or Wolff might be great on a team as veteran leadership, but all 3 of them on the field at once? It's a recipe for disaster. Having EJ would have forced the CR defenders to sit back a bit more. As it was, they were able to neutralize DMB with fouls and weren't afraid to come forward.

I have faith in Bruce and I remember that the actual team that went to Korea in 2002 wasn't the same as he used for qualifying. Perhaps he'll use the Gold Cup to start getting the youngsters ready.

Karl
05 Jun 2005, 12:58 AM
People seem to be forgetting Bruce's great achievement in Korea--his use of no fewer than twenty different players for a national team with notoriously poor depth. Quarrels about tonight's inclusion of Convey and exclusion of (banged-up?) Gibbs and Onyewu may be more about the upcoming match on Wednesday than anything else. My guess is that Bruce decided upon the starting XI for Panama a few days ago, in conjunction with tonight's lineup, and that it will be considerably different. For example, I too was surprised at how much action Beasley saw; perhaps the plan was always for him to be a late sub on Wednesday.

NoSix
05 Jun 2005, 01:14 AM
Well, without wading into the genius vs. idiot debate, from the note at the end of this article, it appears Arena had little choice in tonight's lineup - Onyewu, Gibbs, and Johnson were all out injured.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/more/06/04/costarica.usa.ap/index.html