I agree, Freddy is best when he's running at defenders and he brings alot more technically to the game than beasley. Freddy has good crossing ability and great ball control. Freddy should be our left winger untill Donovan retires.
No, he knows that because Pappy did such a great job of equally dividing minutes between all contending players that it's the obvious conclusion.
It's funny that he can't even beat out a bunch of clowns on his club team, but he's our lock for the next decade.
clearly, it's torres over adu here... torres is playing well, and playing regularly versus the mexican style of game.. suspect torres is the first sub off the bench in the 2nd half... no adu might well mean OTHERS, namely kljestan and torres have stepped up.. doubt califf gets to play, as bocanegra and gooch won't sit unless hurt... bradley with clark might be a starting option IF BB wants to start with MORE defense, and bring kljestan off the bench...
Since when has Freddy ever played well as a left mid or as a left -wing? When is was a U-17's? At RSL he was a flop at that position He does not have the defense. He shines in the middle when the defenders make the mistake of giving him space. He also is good on set plays and strikes the ball well.
I know, silly isn't it. I don't know where people are watching Adu to make these determinations. He looked good at the U-20 and U-23 level, but we're playing with the big boys now. If a player isn't playing for his club team, like Adu and Edu for instance, they can't make much of an argument for themselves. Torres was obviously selected over Edu. If Edu was picked, we'd have a separate set of people complaining. It really has been Kljestan's rise over the past year, that's pushed Adu into the "maybe" zone. At every position on the USMNT now there is competition, except really left back. You better be playing and playing well if you want to assure yourself a position. People complain about Bradley including his son, but you know the kid actually plays in the Bundesliga. So nobody should complain about that one. If Edu wants to play for the USMNT, he needs to play in club football. Before people say, "foreign club coaches shouldn't determine who plays on our USMNT," you are correct. However, in the case of a tie you guy with the "in-form", match-fit guys.
If that's the standard I guess we should have excluded a few more of our Europe based players, no? Don't get me wrong, I'm not bothered that Adu is not on the team for this game. I think a week fighting for playing time at Monaco while others are out on international duty is better long term then leaving for 15 minutes on the pitch against Mexico. His long term success requires that he gets on the pitch on that I agree. I'm just saying..... strange double standards. Dempsey Beasley Donovan Bradley Altidore Pearce Have all seen *extended* time on the pine, trades to lower division teams or short term failures in Europe that didnt' seem to eleminate them from consideration at the time.
To get Adu into the game right now, you have to have him withdrawn as a distributor - he just doesn't bring much else into the game. That's the problem with Adu - he's only at his best when he's the central player which the offense goes through. I'm not sure at home vs Mexico is the best place to run him out, although I'd consider bringing him as a sub in case we're down late. So I don't think Beasley is who you replace Adu with, at least at this point in Adu's career. Because Adu on the left doesn't help you enough - you're getting someone who can make good passes on the left, but you're losing defense and pace. Instead, it's Sascha/Dempsey/Torres who sits. Depending on whether you have Donovan withdrawn or not, you have either a 4-3-3, a 4-4-2, or a 4-5-1, depending on what you want to call it: ---Target---Adu---Donovan----- --Beasley---Bradley----RM------- -LB---Bocanegra-Onyewu----'Dolo ------------Howard------------- Depending on how you want to space the team, you can go a lot of ways with the RM, but right now it has to be Dempsey because u need someone who can play both ways or you're too exposed. The real problem with Adu is that so long as we want Donovan on the field (who can't really play the lone striker), that means we're committed to three players who don't bring anything defensively. I can see why that would make a coach wary of starting Adu. But if you're smart - and keep your defenders and midfielders from playing too aggressively - I think it could work. This is particularly true if your outside players are speedy and good at getting back and playing defense, and your other central midfielder is defensive-minded (think Beasley, Wynne, and maybe switching Clark or Edu for Bradley). If it were up to me, I bring Adu but don't start him.
Beasley Heath Pearce division II .... Um, ok.... Edit: I'm not saying he should or should not be on the team... but the "he's not playing for his club" excuse does not hold water because, well, we name players all the time who are not playing for their clubs (in Europe).... always have.
This is sort of silly. As mentioned before, Adu is really only effective when he's the principal player on the team, an Aimar or a Valderrama type. Those players almost never blossom early, even if their skill is immediately apparent. And it takes a pretty big risk to put an unproven Adu in that position, so most clubs - either trying to avoid relegation, play for Europe, or win their league - are not going to take a risk. And a guy like Adu, whose not a physical presence, needs good surrounding players to synch with, otherwise nobody makes the right move to get in position for his plays. I think expectations on Adu are just too high, clubwise. But a team with talented attacking players and nothing to lose sounds an awful lot like the US come world cup 2010. So we'll see if Bradley thinks the way I do.
Here is a thought: Rogers was originally left off the Olympic roster (ostensibly due to a slight injury). Rogers then got really motivated and went on a tear in the MLS resulting in his selection to the MLS Allstar team etc. I expect that Freddy will use this as motivation to take the steps he needs to get ahead. Hopefully the first thing he does is calls his agent and tells him to find him a place where he can play (maybe Belgium? or Holland) at whatever the price. I also bet the kid kicks ass at U-20 this year! Good atheletes use these things as motivators.
If you are referring to me, I wasn't advocating he start, I was just trying to give an example of a formation where he could excel, and thought it would be a little easier if I actually had his name in the lineup while showing it. If we are going to play the 4-3-2-1, Donovan is a lock for one of the withdrawn freelance attackers. Dempsey is probably a good bet for the other. Beasley could also play up there, as could Davies, Altidore or Cooper (if not at the top), or even Sacha. The other options are a CAM in a 3-5-2 or 4-5-1, or the withdrawn striker in a 4-4-2. Problem is, Donovan is ahead of him in the latter two, and BB never plays the former (even when we need a goal).
The other thing is that people only saw him for a 90 minute period...Bob has been with him for most a of month. I think there is equal value in a training match and a training session, and if Rogers has been showing well during camp and practice, that's probably why he was brought up. As is often said, form is temporary, but class is forever
lol? Bradley's tenure on the full team is less than sparkling. He didn't play in the Gold Cup triumph over Mexico (referred to by many as the proof that Coach Bradley is the right coach) and he has made costly stupid fouls on several occasions. I can appreciate his accomplishments at 'Veen last year while separating those same accomplishments from his US performances. So whether or not Clark/Klejstan is the ideal pairing is not the point. We keep having these idiotic discussions about which one central midfielder we will play, and how our choice will dictate both our play as well as open opportunities for our opponents. These discussions occur because of Bradley's guaranteed spot. Is Clark/Klejstan the "best"? I don't ********ing know. But I do know that if they were paired together we'd have a more tactically flexible team on the pitch than if we have to choose between one of them and couple him with Michael. And that is "better".
Excellent points. I really liked the way that Parkhurst considered his options abroad - it was with an eye toward starting right away. With our player development system (college, little or nascent support for youth development from pro teams), we'll be at a disadvantage from an age standpoint. Guys like Spector, Altidore, and, yes, Adu aren't harmed too much by playing for a reserve side or accepting a loan to a lower-league team when they are in their late-teens. However, players like Edu, Feilhaber and potentially Kljestan are already in their early 20s, and need to play full-time - if not start - immediately to help their chances with the US. Despite the salary and prestige allure of playing abroad, players improve their national team standing by playing in MLS until they are certain they could walk-in to a side in a better league.
Here's a thought: A 20-year-old Rogers left Heerenveen with his tail between his legs after failing to make a single first-team appearance. That bit of info ought to put what Adu accomplishes in perspective. Isn't it possible that the reason Rogers got better this season while Adu got splinters is that both of them are at different points along far different paths?
So long as American players have this "country first" mentality you like so much, we're likely to never have a national team worth a damn. We need ambition and success at the highest club levels before we can expect much at the national team level. As 1998 and 2006 proved, 2002 was a fluke. We played out of our minds in 2002 and caught a few breaks along the way. My guess is the next time we make a WC quarterfinal, it will be with players who play for big clubs; even if they don't play all the time for those big clubs.
I think he has an clause that lets him out of his contract with BMG if they get relegated. Would I start Bradley against Mexico? I have to say I would. He's in the middle of his season and he starts in an elite league. People keep knocking him that he is the coaches son, but do you really think that if the USA had a high-profile European coach he would be more likely to bench a Bundesliga starter in favor of an out of season MLS player? Bradley's playing time with the US has been uneven. At times very good, at times ineffective. But that's about what you would expect when you are breaking in a 21 year old into the midfield. The last few BMG games I saw he has looked pretty good.
Nope, according to the folks I'm reading here. It does not matter what league you start in, as long as you start
It's not that Michael isn't a good soccer player. He clearly has strengths and skills that allow him to be rather successful. The problem is how his skillset and tendencies operate in the framework of the US squad and the other players. If Michael + Clark is too defensive, and if Michael + Klejstan is not defensive enough, and if Clark + Klejstan is an ok pairing, then the odd man out, regardless of his skill or where he plays his club ball, should be Michael. It isn't Michael's fault if we don't have a good option to pair with him at the moment. But the goal here isn't getting Michael on the field.
Pretty sure what people are worried about is players not just not starting, but NEVER playing. That's a physical issue. There's a vast grey area between the Zero PT Beasley and Adu are getting, and the full time starter minutes that Sacha gets at MLS. Look at Donovan. No one is questioning whether or not he should be called in even though he's basically a part time player with Munich. There's realy no right or wrong here.