Role Players and the Last Few Slots

[H]

In deciding on the last few backups, Arena has to be thinking about some specific situations in which those players can make a contribution. It seems to me those situations fall into two categories: 1) Protecting a late lead or 2) Needing a late goal.

Under the protecting a late lead category, he probably has in mind potential subs for Cherundolo, or Lewis/Convey at the outside backs. Someone a bit bigger and stronger who can play those spots. On the left side, the logical candidate is Boca. I know his form has slipped a bit lately but no one else is there as a defender who can come in if the other team decides to start attacking Lewis/Convey in the air. On the right side, we have the usual suspects, Hejduk, Albright and now Spector. Another late sub in that category is putting in a second defensive mid. I think this kind of need is the main reason Armas has a better than 50% chance of being on the squad. Spector has a better chance than Clark because of versatility. He could be a late sub anywhere in the back or defensive mid.

Under needing a late goal, you obviously want a quick forward off the bench. Wolffe is the player to beat for that spot. But I think there are enough question marks about him to make Arena be willing to check out someone like Adu or Rossi. Cunningham should continue to get looks too in spite of attitude problems. Late in a game it would also help to have some blazing speed to bring in at midfield. This is why Brian West is my #1 pick for the player most likely to go who is generally not on the radar at the moment. I think he has a better chance than guys like Ralston, Quaranta, and Dempsey, who to be honest will only bring something fairly pedestrian to the team. For the same reason, I think Mapp has a better chance than those three guys. That last midfield spot could well come down to West versus Mapp.

[FirstStar]

We'll see if West gets invited to camp and keeps himself healthy this time.

[Winds350]

In deciding on the last few backups, Arena has to be thinking about some specific situations in which those players can make a contribution. It seems to me those situations fall into two categories: 1) Protecting a late lead or 2) Needing a late goal.

I would agree with you for a single game roster. For a tournament roster, the last spots go to multi-role players who could start at several positions to cover for injuries and cards.

I suppose part of the decision is based on what a successful WC2006 is. If you define it as getting out of the first round, I would be more tempted to take someone like Cunningham in a late offensive sub role. If you think that the difference in public opinion between one win and getting to the same level as WC2002 is a wash, then you need to think about who you'll be left starting at that round. Not who you might have available in a late game sub role.

[Ringo]

I would agree with you for a single game roster. For a tournament roster, the last spots go to multi-role players who could start at several positions to cover for injuries and cards.


I would say this is pretty accurate ... if had beat Germany last time around we wouldn't have had enough defenders to fill out a lineup (practically).

versatitlity will be huge.

[H]

I would agree with you for a single game roster. For a tournament roster, the last spots go to multi-role players who could start at several positions to cover for injuries and cards.

I suppose part of the decision is based on what a successful WC2006 is. If you define it as getting out of the first round, I would be more tempted to take someone like Cunningham in a late offensive sub role. If you think that the difference in public opinion between one win and getting to the same level as WC2002 is a wash, then you need to think about who you'll be left starting at that round. Not who you might have available in a late game sub role.

That's a good distinction. What I have in mind is we have 10 outfield players who are starters. Four or five backups who play this broader role of potential starters that you outlined above. For that group of players versatility is important. I was thinking of a final group of maybe three or four players who would not be chosen for what they could bring as 90 minute players but more for the kinds of late game situations I discussed.

[Jabberwocky]

From what I've seen, a large part of this said role playing position has to do with what goes on off the field. Think Earnie Stewart here (no one ever talked about his deft shot on goal...). Spirit and cohesiveness are extremely important in keeping a team focused.

This is why Cletus will not be thought of Germany and why Hedjuk should be considered a lock. It is part of why Mastroeni made it to Korea/Japan and why Ralston is a strong candidate for Germany.

[lobtuf]

we could almost still use Earnie right now on the right

[theprophet]

I would agree with almost your whole post except for that part on Bocanagra. His form has fallen off so much with in the last year that it would be hard to see him starting for many A-League teams. At the “moment” we really need to find an alternative; we don’t need an Agoos 1998 in Germany.

I would hope we can see a lot more of Mapp, he is such a impressive player. We don’t have many players that run at opponents and he is the only one that does it well from the midfield; this type of player gives the USNMT another dimension. I knew Mapp was something special after watching him play the first half of the Chicago Fire AC Milan game over the summer. To tell you the truth with seeing so little of Brian West as of late it is hard to see where he will be for the World Cup.

[Nutmeg]

The whole premise of this thread is off, if you ask me. My apologies, H.

The last few slots last time around went to role players like DaMarcus Beasley and Pablo Mastroeni. Meanwhile, entrenched vets like Cobi and Joe-Max became bit players.

A lot can and will change over the next few months. Bruce shouldn't be selecting "nice-to-have's" to fill out a team. He should be evaluating players based on their ability to make an impact - right now - at the World Cup. Why? Because there is a very good chance they'll be called on to do just that.

[braun]

Convey is alas one of the role players. He can be plugged into either left midfield or back positions. Lewis is in fact a role player unless he cements the LB spot, then he is a starter. After Dolo, Hejduk is a role player, able to play in the LB spot as well. Dempsey, if he should improve in the next 6 months, can be considered a F/MF. Noonan, though slow, can play F/MF. Spector as mentioned is a B/DMF. All these guys are role players and with the exception of maybe Lewis would not be starters after Keller-Dolo-Onyewu-Boca-Lewis-Mastroeni-Reyna-Donovan-McBride-Johnson/Twellman make up the starting roster. If Johnson cannot go, maybe Cunningham/Wolff might get the nod! Can you think of anyone else in that spot?

[H]

The whole premise of this thread is off, if you ask me. My apologies, H.

The last few slots last time around went to role players like DaMarcus Beasley and Pablo Mastroeni. Meanwhile, entrenched vets like Cobi and Joe-Max became bit players.

A lot can and will change over the next few months. Bruce shouldn't be selecting "nice-to-have's" to fill out a team. He should be evaluating players based on their ability to make an impact - right now - at the World Cup. Why? Because there is a very good chance they'll be called on to do just that.

Allow me an analogy with a different sport to explain why this approach does make sense. In a perfect world, Tony LaRussa would have a bunch of Albert Pujols sitting on his bench and a bunch of Nolan Ryans in his bullpen. But that's not the way it works. Budget constraints and limits on the supply of talent mean he has to think about have a couple lefty bats on the bench for late inning pinch hitting and a mix of lefty and righty relievers.

Now soccer doesn't lend itself to these kind of situational matchups to quite the degree that baseball does. But it does make sense to think about having some of the kind of late game specialists I discussed. Of course, some of these late additions can play a bigger role than anticipated. In the next WC, someone like Spector could be chosen with the idea he could be a late game sub at outside back, but due to unforeseen developments end up starting at central defender. The fact that those kinds of unpredictable things can happen doesn't mean that considerations of the kind I discussed should not enter into Arena's roster building calculations.

[Winds350]

Now soccer doesn't lend itself to these kind of situational matchups to quite the degree that baseball does. But it does make sense to think about having some of the kind of late game specialists I discussed. Of course, some of these late additions can play a bigger role than anticipated. In the next WC, someone like Spector could be chosen with the idea he could be a late game sub at outside back, but due to unforeseen developments end up starting at central defender. The fact that those kinds of unpredictable things can happen doesn't mean that considerations of the kind I discussed should not enter into Arena's roster building calculations.

The point I've been making (perhaps poorly) is that Spector, who is probably a good example, isn't in a situation where having to start is unpredictable. It is higly likely that he will have to start. Being used as a late game situational sub is far less likely.

Where your analogy breaks down is that a World Cup tournament is much more like two days of double headers.
You can't use the same starters all the time. I would be surprised if more than four field players start all three games in the first round. If by incredible luck, that last game of the first round doesn't matter, it might not even be that many.

Twenty slots for field players. No margin for error. It's going to be hard enough covering injuries, cards, and a compressed schedule without bringing someone whose primary value is ten minutes at the end of a game against a tired opponent.

[H]

The point I've been making (perhaps poorly) is that Spector, who is probably a good example, isn't in a situation where having to start is unpredictable. It is higly likely that he will have to start. Being used as a late game situational sub is far less likely.

Where your analogy breaks down is that a World Cup tournament is much more like two days of double headers.
You can't use the same starters all the time. I would be surprised if more than four field players start all three games in the first round. If by incredible luck, that last game of the first round doesn't matter, it might not even be that many.

Twenty slots for field players. No margin for error. It's going to be hard enough covering injuries, cards, and a compressed schedule without bringing someone whose primary value is ten minutes at the end of a game against a tired opponent.

I'm not saying take a player that you know can't go 90 minutes. But it is worth noting that 5 of the outfield players we took to the last WC never started. I give you that Llamosa and Regis would have had to start in the semis if we had made it. That would still have left three outfield players who would not have started even if we had made it all the way to the semis. It would be interesting to look at some of the other teams that made it deep into the tournament. I bet Brazil and Germany both had quite a few outfield players who never started a game.

[bostonsoccermdl]

I would agree with almost your whole post except for that part on Bocanagra. His form has fallen off so much with in the last year that it would be hard to see him starting for many A-League teams.

Yet, he starts for an EPL team? :confused:

[Maldini#3]

Twenty slots for field players. No margin for error. It's going to be hard enough covering injuries, cards, and a compressed schedule without bringing someone whose primary value is ten minutes at the end of a game against a tired opponent.

Wasn't that Cobi Jones' role towards the end of his career? He was good at killing time and got put in for the last few minutes of any match the US was winning. Although it makes more sense to have a guy that can play the full 90, I wouldn't be surprised if Arena found another guy to fill in at the "Time Killer" role ...

[Dr.Phil]

we could almost still use Earnie right now on the right


Theres still Cobi Jones :D

[sidefootsitter]

The cards accumulation will probably go to the d-mids and the defenders, so you'd very versatile players who can play several of these positions, which is why Arena played someone like Chris Albright at right and left wingback positions and even a bit of a right mid.

Injuries are harder to predict, so you may rely on history for that.

[Elninho]

Let's look at the outfield players on Bruce's 2002 team for insight into what he does.

Penciled-in starters - 6
Agoos, Pope, Reyna, O'Brien, Donovan, McBride

Multi-role players (potential starters) - 5
Mastroeni, Sanneh, Hejduk, Moore, Mathis

Single-role players (potential starters) - 6
Regis (DNP but fits this category), Cherundolo (injured but fits this category), Beasley, Lewis, Stewart, Wolff

Backups - 1
Berhalter

Late-game subs - 2
Llamosa, Jones


It's interesting that Bruce didn't take anyone in a specific late-game attacking sub role, but rotated his attacking players and used whichever attacking players were on the bench when trailing. Also, the only player I see as being in a clear backup role when Bruce made his roster decision was Berhalter. All the other "backups" were potential starters because they could be (and were) used as starters for tactical reasons in specific matchups.

By multi-role players I refer to players who could potentially start in more than one position; single-role potential starters were players who were in or out of the starting lineup based on tactical considerations.

[Asprilla9]

It seems to me those situations fall into two categories: 1) Protecting a late lead or 2) Needing a late goal.why does no one else find it troubling that we have NO ONE that fits category no. 2???? no one. except for Cobi Jones, i guess (whoop-dee-doo). i still cannot believe that in the last 4 years, NOT ONE new player has emerged as a offensive-burst, super-sub. i can't believe that. honestly i find it impossible to believe, and i basically have to blame Bruce for that.

seriously, 4 years later and we have no offensive sub??? our options seem to be: 1. Cobi Jones, who is older than Nebuchadnezzar, 2. Jeff Cunningham, who apparently everyone thinks is an a-hole, and 3. ??????????????? i can't believe we have our own domestic league and we can't find anyone. amazing.


BTW ... I agree with your assessment of West. no disrespect to MLS, but this time around I favor the Euro-based dudes over MLS if all else is equal.

[Asprilla9]

It's interesting that Bruce didn't take anyone in a specific late-game attacking sub role, but rotated his attacking players and used whichever attacking players were on the bench when trailing.good observation. and right on, of course. and we had 3 guys that could play that role: Wolff, Mathis and Jones.

now, the problem is ... 4 years later. Mathis is gone. Wolff is not even close to his 02 form. Jones is ... well he'll be 35 years old.

in the last 4 years, Bruce has replaced those 4 with ....... with .... someone help me out. oh yeah, NO ONE. again, not to repeat myself, but does anyone find that the least bit troubling?? is Twellman our quick-offense, super-sub for '06 (God help us). can Dempsey play this role?? Bruce, please tell me you have someone in mind. because we will, at one point, be in a situation where we are down and need a goal.