US-Costa Rica, 2nd viewing

[superdave]

1. It would be difficult to exaggerate how much the 3-0 scoreline flattered the Ticos. I'm not even sure 2-1 would be a "fair" result. But watching a 2nd time, our collective inability to make a simple move and hit an effective long shot is a failure of the US development system. We try too much to score from within 12-15 yards, and that's really hard against an equal, organized foe. If anything separated the two teams, that was it. Their first goal was mostly a nice goal. We had a goal disallowed for offside. Their last goal was 10% skill and 90% luck. But that 2nd goal...we don't/can't do that.

2. As to the formation...some people were saying Gooch was playing wide right, or that Albright was a midfielder (which was half right; he was a wingback, but not a winger), or that we were in a 4-4-2. WE WERE NOT. My first impression was right...we were in a 3-5-2 with wingbacks, but a lopsided one.

3. I don't get the bashing Albright got, except as a reflex action. The doctor hits you below the kneecap, you kick out. Albright defended well, didn't get into the attack much. I'll agree he should have gotten forward more, as the lopsidedness of our attack added to our predictability, but in situations like this, I don't know whether it's the player's fault for not being smart in getting forward, or the coach's fault for putting the player on too tight of a leash. But Albright's a nice player to have around. He passed reasonably well. Remember, he's our backup to Cherundolo, who IMO is one of our very best players. Even taking into account Hejduk's proven big-game ability, this match, for me, burnished the argument that Albright should go and Hejduk should not.

4. Lewis' defending was...well, I won't say poor. That would imply he missed tackles or was continually easily caught out by wall passes and stuff. It was non-existent.

5. Convey wasn't as good as I thought on first viewing. He was a'ight.

6. Related to #5, Beasley sucked. He added almost nothing to the attack, which is one reason why Convey's contributions stuck out. He also took an amateurish defending angle on the 2nd goal.

7. Boca was never fast, but to my eye it's as if he's lost a step. He was beaten badly for pace a couple of times, losing a 1 yard lead in 10-15 yards and letting the attacker get goalside.

8. Related to #7...I've been a proponent of the 3-5-2 for us, but that was back when Pope was still infallible and Boca could run. Now, we just don't have the pace for it, unless Spector gets into the equation. A backline of Gibbs and Spector flanking Gooch would have enough pace to pull it off. Otherwise, if we want to go with this type of formation, it's gonna have to be more 5-3-2 than 3-5-2, and we're gonna HAVE to get a better defender on the left (namely, Beasley.)

9. Twellman's goal was onside. I saw no indication that the AR was calling a foul, and it would be mighty strange for an AR to call a foul in a scrum in the middle anyway. He just blew the call. And TT's late header was effective; he beat the keeper, and the goalline clearance was outstanding. Twellman advanced his case to go to Germany in this match, but despite the goal, to me, he took a step back against Panama.

10. Mastroenni was absolutely fantastic.

11. Our attack was much, much too predictable. So while we were able to do alot of nice things with the ball, ultimately, our predictability allowed the CRs to continually find areas where they could badly outnumber us and force a turnover, a desperate forward pass, or a back pass. In general, the US player is much more technical than creative. Missing Donovan was a big problem in this area. But Bruce's tactic used only 2/3 of the field; he's done that before, it's dumb, and makes us easy to defend. We played similar forwards, which was made worse by the fact that neither was willing to make the Jaime Moreno-style run into the corner. Beasley's poor play was a factor too.

The main things I would take from this match are:

Pope and Boca are too slow to play in a 3 man backline.

We just canNOT play Beasley in central midfield anymore. I wrote elsewhere there are literally 20 other players I'd rather see out there, easily listed 16-17 names, then had to add a few names as a joke. So I'll ratchet it back; DMB is not one of our top 15 central midfielders.

Bruce needs to stop this lopsided attack crap.

Mastroenni, on his day, is nearly a world class DM.

Gooch is a WIP.

[TomEaton]

Interesting observations. I only watched until after the second CR goal because I TIVO'd it and it turned off thanks to the delay in the broadcast, but from the 2/3 of the game that I saw I agree with most of your assessments. I felt like the game was basically even except for several bad screwups by the U.S. defense and a couple of good shots from distance by CR, an aspect of the game which the U.S. doesn't seem to include, as you point out.

The midfield was okay but once we got into the attacking third we seemed to run out of ideas. Much of that was the odd mix of players, with two back-to-goal type forwards and Beasley at central attacking midfield. It was less that the players played poorly than that nobody played well; everything was just sort of blah on the attacking end.

On Twellman's disallowed goal I felt that the replay was inconclusive. It might have been onside, but given the poor angle on the replay I guess I'll take the linesman's word for it.

[ursula]

Seems about right to me also, Dave.

[Mr Martin]

Good post, superdave. Much to agree with:

* This game was a strong reason to end any idea that a 3-man backline is a good primary formation for the US. On an emergency basis, maybe. But Pope's recent decline and Boca's poor performance really kill any hope that the US has enough depth to handle a 3-man backline regularly. As much potential as they have shown, if the US is depending on Spector and Marshall to hold the defense together at the WC, I'd be worried. Gooch needs to stay healthy and Gibbs needs to get healthy, fast. Then I'll breathe easier for the quality of a 4-man backline, but definately not the 3-man.

* I suppose finding out the limits of the 3-man backline now, long before the WC, is a good thing, but I am REALLY dissapointed that this meant the Lewis-at-left-back experiment lost a terrific chance for another serious test. Arena's Lewis experiment was the single most interesting and potentially valuable positional idea Arena has had all year, and the loss of this prime testing chance was a bad move on his part.

* Goodness, I hope the Beasley in the center-mid idea is now also history. Beasley is a very useful flank midfielder or a winger/striker. The idea of Lewis at left back with Beasley at left mid, and having Convey provide depth on the left, gives the US a really nice set of talented options out there.

* I generally don't think Twellman is a WC quality striker. But I don't think he did as poorly in these last two games as many posters have argued. He was OK. He's a step up from what Kreis was (or never was internationally). But the pairing of Twellman and Ching was a really bad idea and not worth ever trying again. One of these two may end up on the WC squad due to a lack of better choices, but not both. Twellman has a slight edge at the moment, but not so much that the bigger Ching can't improve his form enough to beat out TT by next spring.

* The US really needs Johnson to get healthy and McBride to keep up his good form for another 9 months or so. After these two, the US really doesn't have a WC-quality striker and Donovan or Beasley will have to play up top, which causes all kinds of other ripple effects in the lineup.

* I really respect Mastro. Let's hope he stays healthy and on-form through the WC.

* Albright is slowly growing on me as a reserve back, and Hejduk should be concerned.

[Jagermeister]

Boca has never been fast.

In the middle he can't get exploited as much.

Outside just shows it. Has been exploited outside for a while now for club and country.

I agree about Albright and BC on my second viewing. If BC had played like that last year, when he wasn't playing for Reading, I bet he would have been criticized more. Since he is playing well this year people are giving him a bit more credit than he deserves for that match. Ahh, perception is reality, isn't it. The fickle fan.

Yes, the scoreline flattered CR, but I don't think that's the main issue. Watch our A teams get completely outplayed, with little possession, and the occassional counter down there over the last 10 years.
This team held the ball better. That's no lie.

Would have been nice to see a couple of the younger guys get into this one.

The Pope and Boca issues were just so damn obvious considering the last 18 mths or so and DMB in the middle? You said it already. WTF. DMB looked very uninterested also to say the least.

Until we learn to stop the ball and take that quick shot from the top of the box it will be so easy to defend us, or it will be so hard for us to break quality teams down. Take your choice on what sounds better to you.

[Nutmeg]

We should give mad props to JohnR on calling Bocanegra's lack of speed well over a year ago. Well ahead of the curve, John.

[michael greene]

Re: the outside shooting, I've thought for a while that we need to get both Lewis and DMB on the field somehow. Lewis will take that shot and keep the D honest, which gives even more space for players like DMB, Donovan, EJ (hopefully healthy) to operate.

And I'd love to see R. Clark get more looks after this WC. Another guy who can crack the outside shot.

I hate to say this, but we are so thin at outside back right now that I fear Hedjuk is going to Hamburg. That would be bad enough, but I think he's going to play serious minutes as well. If Albright makes the trip too, than the situation becomes absolutely tragic.

[sidefootsitter]

Boca has never been fast... Which is why you protect him with 2 defensive or 2-way mids. In that case, I'd have much rather had Albright pair up with Mastroeni than on the flank.

As to Convey, he didn't have a good game but he helped keep possession and, as a central/central-left mid, his options going to his right were horribly limited.

And to the lack of the outside shooting ... this has been a problem forever. Of the fringe USMNT players, only Rico Clark and Chris Klein are known for cracking a few in from distance. Of the starters, it's pretty much a blank sheet.

[cleansheetbsc]

The artist formerly known as Clint Mathis is/was the only player in the Nat pool who would be considered 'dangerous' in that Lampard/Gerard range beyond the 18 box. Hell, Hedjuk may have been the most dangerous one during qualifying, thats how bad it was.

Boca was called out as too slow after the T&T match #1 and that was a 4 man back line, not 3. And that was when he would have been in the middle of season and was presumably fit.

Gooch has yet to impress me on the outside. I'm basing that on CR, Gold Cup matches when he was outside and, not sure if he was on the outside vs. Jamaica in Columbus last year, but he was smoked on the outside that led to the Jamaican penalty kick.

[Chowderhead]

Even when I watched the game I felt that we were playing pretty well as far as possession was concerned. What frustrated me was that the formation and selection guaranteed final third impotence and a defensive breakdown. It was obvious.

I'm still amazed that Arena put Ching and Twellman out there and expected then to get service from the right side or reliable service to feet from the middle.

I'm worried that Arena couldn't see that Pope and Boca would get torched in a back three.

That he did not have double d mids in front of that back three just boggles my mind. Sorry, gang. That one is on Bruce. Can he be that dumb? I've often criticized him for not applying lessons learned. Bruce, were you paying attention during your romp through the Gold Cup?

To paraphrase Tom Hagen who sat faithfully beside Mikey as he faced Senatorial bullying, "This coach owes us an apology."

[Jagermeister]

Which is why you protect him with 2 defensive or 2-way mids. In that case, I'd have much rather had Albright pair up with Mastroeni than on the flank.

As to Convey, he didn't have a good game but he helped keep possession and, as a central/central-left mid, his options going to his right were horribly limited.

And to the lack of the outside shooting ... this has been a problem forever. Of the fringe USMNT players, only Rico Clark and Chris Klein are known for cracking a few in from distance. Of the starters, it's pretty much a blank sheet.


Hey side, I'll ask you because I know you'll give it a shot. Rev fans, and fans of our friend Clint D in general have been avoiding this like the plague.

Has he improved since cap one and all of his time with the Nats? No one seems to want to answer or know how to answer. He seems to playing and doing the same things he was since the start. Has tere been growth?

Do you think Clark would be a viable alternative?

I ask because on viewing two I thought about how some young guys might fit. When I thought about Clint in the middle I just couldn't picture him doing all that much. The usual fight and hustle would be there, but that's it. I saw him spending way too much time on the ball, holding it too much and getting stripped, knocked over, or making slow/poor decisions because he wouldn't have much time on the ball.

Rico seems a bit more decisive with his decisions IMO (just not enough caps to tell for sure, but he plays like this for the Quakes also from what I have seen) and I think he would be more effective in a match like that. I want to see more of the kid and I think Clint could be at risk.

This is not to say I have lost hope or have given up on Dempsey ( he has gotten a hell of a lot of time, and I understand why, but is it working?) I think Rico may fit better into the Nats and what BA likes to do. Just like a Carrol does, whether I agree, or like it, or not.


Rico can play D while making penetrating runs and passes. If we have a double d mid with someone playing behind him he could be a very interesting, and decisive and effectivce prospect IMO.

[Chowderhead]

I agree that Clark is an alternative. He's more than an alternative. He should be considered.

Dempsey, although his immaturity still manifests itself in his attempts at flash, has improved since his first cap. I thought that he was solid on Wednesday. His recent play with the Rev has been an improvement.

[sidefootsitter]

I would play Mapp as the creative mid before Dempsey (recall how Juston slipped the ball to Chris Albright for that lob from the center-right position) but all may change if any one of them ends up with a decent Euro squad come New Year.

Otherwise, it's Donovan virtually by default and he better show up for the big games.

Another key here is the forward line. Seeing clips of Brian West from Norway, I suspect he is tactically far more astute than Eddie Johnson, if paired up with Brian McBride - but I would play Johnson, if going with a sole striker - meaning that he would come back further to midfield to help out with creating the attack rather than feast/starve on leftovers a la Taylor Twellman.

Another potential player is Philipakos, who has played both right wing and withdrawn forward.

Will Bruce call any of these players in?

Not sure.

[Jagermeister]

I agree that Clark is an alternative. He's more than an alternative. He should be considered.

Dempsey, although his immaturity still manifests itself in his attempts at flash, has improved since his first cap. I thought that he was solid on Wednesday. His recent play with the Rev has been an improvement.

Thanks. What have you seen get better?

I ask becuase many say he has improved, but never say what. They can't seem to answer.

Is he moving the ball quicker? Better vision? Etc. Just looking for an honest appraisal becuase this kid has "Joker" status for 2006 IMO and I just can't get a handle on him, other than -

"He's young, very raw and talented but improving."

[HartwickFan]

That he did not have double d mids in front of that back three just boggles my mind. Sorry, gang. That one is on Bruce. Can he be that dumb?

That Brucie lined up only one d-mid also boggles my mind. No matter who your back three are, I always thought that the 3-5-2 formation demands two d-mids. I suppose if you're playing an inferior team who you know is going to bunker, it might not be necessary. But against a decent opponent who is going to come out attacking and playing to win, I think it's obvious that in a 3-5-2 you need two d-mids. The fact that we had only one d-mid against CR really hurt us, as it left our backline quite exposed, and let CR attack too easily straight up the gut of our midfield.

[Jagermeister]

I would play Mapp as the creative mid before Dempsey (recall how Juston slipped the ball to Chris Albright for that lob from the center-right position) but all may change if any one of them ends up with a decent Euro squad come New Year.

Otherwise, it's Donovan virtually by default and he better show up for the big games.

Another key here is the forward line. Seeing clips of Brian West from Norway, I suspect he is tactically far more astute than Eddie Johnson, if paired up with Brian McBride - but I would play Johnson, if going with a sole striker - meaning that he would come back further to midfield to help out with creating the attack rather than feast/starve on leftovers a la Taylor Twellman.

Another potential player is Philipakos, who has played both right wing and withdrawn forward.

Will Bruce call any of these players in?

Not sure.

Can't see how Phil can get a look. He doesn't play. I'd like to see West in camp for the simple reason that if Jeff C warrants another look, why not West?

Still didn't answer the Clark question? I want to see him given the Dempsey role for few matches to see what he's got.

Mapp. No opinion. Like Dempsey, I'd need to see him get a good run of games first before I start questioning. I kno wone thing, he seems to not want to go to his right foot and in the middle of the field that can really hurt at times. Need a competent other foot for that role IMO.


BTW - I would love to see a mini camp run in Europe for the players over there during breaks next cycle. Why not? What's to lose?
Never know what you might find or see. Certainly can't hurt with the number who will be there next cycle.

[sidefootsitter]

... Still didn't answer the Clark question? I want to see him given the Dempsey role for few matches to see what he's got... I don't think Rico's a creative mid but at best a decent 2-way deep mid. He has speed over size and, depending upon the group draw, you may want the latter, i.e., Albright.

As to Peter Philipakos, he gets as much first team action as Tim Howard.

And both are on the roster of the Champions League teams.

[Jagermeister]

I don't think Rico's a creative mid but at best a decent 2-way deep mid. He has speed over size and, depending upon the group draw, you may want the latter, i.e., Albright.

As to Peter Philipakos, he gets as much first team action as Tim Howard.

And both are on the roster of the Champions League teams.

I don't think he is a creative mid either, but he may fit the way BA plays very well. Conservative and carefull first.

Yeah , but TH has played first team ball at times. Peter hasn't had a run yet and according to YA he still isn't even practicing with the first team. Not sure how you can justify him, and I'm always trying to justify getting new players a look.
Anyway, I think MH is clearly number two right now. That little MU on Timmy's shirt mean squat to me.

[Adam Zebrowski]

I agree the 3-5-2 without a double d-mid in a MEANINGFUL match should be highly questioned...

but in a match where the usa result didn't matter, to experiment by placing some players in DIFFICULT situations gives you a better read on the LIMITS of certain players...

finding their limits is half the elimination battle, finding what players can and can't do in testing situations is the sort of knowledge needed to make finals roster decisions...

the ticos 3-0 win in saprissa flattered them as the 3-0 usa win in slat lake somewhat flattered the usa...keller made the scoreline look that good....

as to the player pool, I'd think the top 100 names would be in arena's vision, he'd have a pecking order or hierarchy of where players fit....

the west and philipakos' of the world are surely evaluated....and fit somewhere below the hex camp radar.....

quaranta's improving play makes the right side less speculative.....

[superdave]

That Brucie lined up only one d-mid also boggles my mind. No matter who your back three are, I always thought that the 3-5-2 formation demands two d-mids. I suppose if you're playing an inferior team who you know is going to bunker, it might not be necessary.
Against Mexico in '02, our central midfield was Pablo, JOB, and Donovan. A DM, a 2-way, and an AM. Against Germany, it was Pablo, Reyna, and JOB. A DM, and 2 2-ways.

So no, it doesn't require 2 DMs to play well. But playing 2 AMs is a bad idea, esp. on the road.