Armas vs. Cameroon [R]

[Captain10]

For the second time that Armas played in this tournament, I thought he was our worst player on the field. Most of his completed passes were back and square passes. His forward passes were either intercepted or hospital balls. Defensively I didn't think he played particularly well and didn't really destroy any attacks.

He seemed so overwhelmed in both of his games in the tournament and looked like he didn't belong on the field. Should his time with the USMNT be over?

[The Wanderer]

I'm not surprised. Chris has never looked good against the better teams in the world. Witness his Germany and Ireland performances before the WC. Chris is an MLS level player who can play against lower or at best mid tier international teams. It helps if they are slower.

Dmid is not a place where we can't have improvement. In fact, I don't really like playing a 4-4-2 with one of these 'destroyer' types. Destroyers are for 3-5-2s IMHO.

At what point will Ricardo Clark be ready?

[Mason16]

I thought Armas had a very bad game against the Turks but was much better in the Cameroon game. Having said that, I still favor Mastro over Armas. Looking forward, I can easily imagine Armas helping us during qualifying but Mastro, backed up by Rico, will be our WC06 d-mids.

[Pyro]

Originally posted by Mason16
I thought Armas had a very bad game against the Turks but was much better in the Cameroon game. Having said that, I still favor Mastro over Armas. Looking forward, I can easily imagine Armas helping us during qualifying but Mastro, backed up by Rico, will be our WC06 d-mids.


Why bother playing Armas in qualifying, if he won't be in the picture for 2006? Armas is a backup to Mastro. I haven't seen that much from Rico Clark, but he seems to be too much of a winger/attacker to fill the DM role that Arena ball requires.

[superdave]

Originally posted by Pyro
Why bother playing Armas in qualifying, if he won't be in the picture for 2006?
To make sure we qualify.

[FlashMan]

I thought Armas, for the most part, "destroyed" pretty well, though he was obviously slower than many of the Cameroonis. Offensively he's no help whatsoever, and it hurts whatever transition game or passing game we try to implement when we're on the attack.

Also, his smalller size at the d-mid position is no help either, especially against such a larger oppenent like Cameroon.

[maccabee]

Obviously people have strong opinions about Armas, and to a large extent see what they want to see. Personally, I'm a big fan of his play pre-injury--even more before his first injury, actually. But I think he's a long way from where he was, and I don't know if he can get it back.

Vs. Cameroon--yes, he made the safe pass most of the time. He did have a nice through-ball to Kirovski, who made a hash of it, but for the most part he looked tentative about going forward until the last 20 minutes or so, at which point he got a little more aggressive. Also, I don't think his work rate--normally his biggest asset--is near what it used to be. Whether he's a valuable player for WCQ and even 2006 depends almost entirely on whether he can get this back.

Pablo to me still has a long way to go on work rate, showing for the ball, etc. He seems better than Armas at switching fields with the long pass but other than that really doesn't do much for the offense either.

Maybe Clark will surpass both of them by '06.

[Haig]

I think his timing is off, and he's not looking settled on the ball. Arena probably shouldn't have brought him back into the team so quickly-- unlike Mathis, Armas is the kind of player who has to work exceptionally hard 100% of the time, and he plays a position that is very noticeable.

I want to see where he is in three or four months. As much as I like Mastroeni and Clark-- and I recognize that parts of their game are much stronger than Armas can manage-- his role on the team isn't duplicated by anyone else, and he could be especially valuable in away qualifying games.

[MarioKempes]

It's amazing to me that a set of people watch the same soccer and have such divergent opinions about a player, but hey, it's BigSoccer.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

[flanoverseas]

One of the reasons Armas wasn't going forward was the fact that he was playing more of a central defender role than anything. This freed Gibbs and Dolo to move up the wings a lot more.

In this role, Armas does great at what he is supposed to do. Destroy. And he looked a lot more composed on the ball than Califf or Boca. That's for sure.

[Karl K]

Originally posted by maccabee
Also, I don't think his work rate--normally his biggest asset--is near what it used to be. Whether he's a valuable player for WCQ and even 2006 depends almost entirely on whether he can get this back.

I didn't see either the Cameroon or the Turkey game so I can't comment on Armas' performance.

I will say though, that based on the three Fire games I have seen in person, I think this is an astute assessment. I

Interestingly enough, Chris recognizes this too: he was interviewed on a radio show after the Fire drubbed Colorado, and he remarked how he felt really good, but not 100% in that he didn't think he could go all out for 90 minutes at that point. I am sure he felt he was 100% for this tournament, but you have to wonder.

So, can he get this back? That's hard to say right now, but given the level of dedication and determination he has shown throughout his career, I'd say it's more likely than not.

[Fah Que]

Armas is a midfield destoryer no doubt. He destroys opponent's attack and his own team's attack as well.

[Karl K]

Originally posted by MarioKempes
It's amazing to me that a set of people watch the same soccer and have such divergent opinions about a player, but hey, it's BigSoccer.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

Well, I think there are two reasons for that.

The first is that many of those who slam Armas on a regular basis really don't know a whole lot about soccer. They like the flash, and the obvious examples of skill, but when it comes to subtle and important things like holding the ball, supporting constantly, working to maintain good defensive positions at all times -- well, they just don't see it. And when they are told about obvious examples of Armas contributing to the attack -- like the aforementioned thru-ball to Kirovski -- they conveniently forget that. These are the same sort of personalities that pooh-pooh Claudio Reyna, too. In the end, they'd rather have an entire team of Freddy Adus.

The second reason, I would theorize, is that Chris Armas doesn't LOOK like a soccer player. He's short, squat, bowlegged, doesn't seem graceful but rather herky-jerky in his movements. How can a guy that looks like THAT be a national team level player? they no doubt ask..and answer...themselves.

You know, a few years back I arrived early at Soldier Field and watched the team warm up. My eyes were immediately drawn to....Sergei Daniv. The guy epitomized grace -- he was like a ballet dancer out there. With impeccable technique, he sent these beautiful curling balls, apparently putting the ball exactly where he wanted it to go.

But once the whistle blew, and the game began, he was a lost little boy among the flailing bodies, the aggressive challenges, the hard tackles.

But boy, he sure looked good.

[CbR]

Daniv really was good his rookie year w/ dallas, i think he got hurt and was never the same

[voros]

Originally posted by flanoverseas
One of the reasons Armas wasn't going forward was the fact that he was playing more of a central defender role than anything. This freed Gibbs and Dolo to move up the wings a lot more.

In this role, Armas does great at what he is supposed to do. Destroy. And he looked a lot more composed on the ball than Califf or Boca. That's for sure.
But he is just so slow, now. When an essential part of your job is closing down the attacker with the ball, you become a liability when they can run away from you, basically at will. Chris Armas was unable to close down attackers effectively in either CC match.

Yes Armas plays smart, plays hard, does everything he's supposed to do, but that's only part of being an effective player. At the end of the day you have to possess the physical abilities to get the job done. Otherwise, players would play into their 50s. Chris Armas no longer possesses the physical abilities to get this job done against good international competition. For all the things that Armas does better than Mastroeni (and a lot of that is due to experience), Mastroeni is twice his size and can run absolute circles around him. Since the former set of skills can be taught and learned and the latter can't, it seems like a transition from Armas to Mastroeni or Mulrooney (or Clark or whomever) is in order.

[Nutmeg]

Originally posted by Captain10
For the second time that Armas played in this tournament, I thought he was our worst player on the field. Most of his completed passes were back and square passes. His forward passes were either intercepted or hospital balls. Defensively I didn't think he played particularly well and didn't really destroy any attacks.

In the first half, Armas broke up a grand total of two attacks, by my tracking. He had six giveaways. I didn't track total touches.

With Convey, Dolo, Lewis, Mathis, and of course Martino as outlets, I thought Armas looked a lot better than he did against Turkey, but it was nowhere close to even his best, which still leaves a lot to be desired offensively. The through-ball to Kirovski was a nice sign, though, and confirmed what I have always thought about Chris.

The less that he is required to do offensively, the more he can pick his spots and catch the opponent off-guard. In a midfield alignment where Armas can focus on D, he's the man.

When he's required to play a big role in the attack, he isn't.

[lurking]

I think Id put it this way. If you had to sign Mulrooney, Mastroeni or Armas to a three year contract, who would you pick?

Armas wasnt bad out there, but he wasnt good either. Hes older, coming off a major injury and not appreciably better than the competition. Personally Id rather see future USMNT caps go to Mastroeni and Mulrooney (who I think is actually younger than Mastroeni by a couple months). Cant say Im free from bias though.

[imasyko]

Originally posted by lurking
I think Id put it this way. If you had to sign Mulrooney, Mastroeni or Armas to a three year contract, who would you pick?

Armas wasnt bad out there, but he wasnt good either. Hes older, coming off a major injury and not appreciably better than the competition. Personally Id rather see future USMNT caps go to Mastroeni and Mulrooney (who I think is actually younger than Mastroeni by a couple months). Cant say Im free from bias though.

The problem I have with our D-mids is not their defensive/disruptive capabilities, it's what happens after they steal the ball. Neither Armas nor Mastro inspire confidence. Is Mulrooney any better?

This is the reason I prefer Reyna to play the D-mid spot, or Obrien. They can play defense, but have far superior ball/passing abilities.

[Karl K]

Originally posted by voros
Yes Armas plays smart, plays hard, does everything he's supposed to do, but that's only part of being an effective player. At the end of the day you have to possess the physical abilities to get the job done.

Well, I think you are absolutely right here -- you have to have exceptional athletic abilities to be an international level player. It was my belief, unlike the opinons of many others, that he had all of those qualities before his injury, though those very same disparagers would have consigned him to ash heap even then. Is he losing those abilities to the point where he won't be useful in qualifying?

We'll see.

Originally posted by voros
Chris Armas no longer possesses the physical abilities to get this job done against good international competition.

This remark reminds me of the "Monty Python and Holy Grail's" plague scene, where the guy says, as he heading for corpse pile, "Wait, I'm not dead yet."

All I can say is, he may not be dead yet. In fact, I bet he plays a key role in qualifying.

But I put the odds of him being a starting 11 player in '06 at 1 in 4 or 5.

[Karl K]

Originally posted by voros
. For all the things that Armas does better than Mastroeni (and a lot of that is due to experience), Mastroeni is twice his size and can run absolute circles around him. Since the former set of skills can be taught and learned and the latter can't, it seems like a transition from Armas to Mastroeni or Mulrooney (or Clark or whomever) is in order.

Oh, and one other thing.

I DID see the Brazil game, and Mastroeni, for all his putative skill and athleticism, was not especially active in that game, and really didn't put much of a stamp on the game in midifield.

So you are right, you can be taught those mental skills that Armas knows...but you'd better put them on display when you have the chance.

Frankly, too, I worry about Mastroeni in Colorado. This is a team in complete disarray, with a hideous coach and a completely chaotic approach to play. It is not a good situation for him.