Being a neutral, Clint Mathis looked like he didn’t belong on the pitch during the world cup. He did start versus South Corea, and had a goal to show for it, but looked like the weak link in that squad. He didn’t stretch the Corean defense, whereby making himself available and supporting O’Brien and Reyna, lost possession on many occasions, disrupted the USA’s run of play with poor balls, and untimely touches, in many instances he would occupy the same space on the pitch McBride does, and ultimately, waste McBrides effectiveness of winning balls and support. He did have his moments, but they were limited. I honestly think Clint’s inclusion into the squad late in the game versus Poland and Germany disrupted the USA's run of play also. I can distinctly remember rooting for the USA late in the matches versus those teams and hoping your coach wouldn’t sub on Mathis. Fearing and knowing that it would be a tactical waste. He reminds me of a poor-mans John Hartson of Celtic(slower in mind and body), both looked the goods, but lack the commitment, and consistency. Just a bit on the unpredictable side.
"Put a coach in that will give the team a chance to win, and Mathis will start playing like the best striker in the league again, but Mathis plays poorly for a coach he doesn't respect who won't put players on the field that will help the team win. OZ is the problem. Not Mathis. And none of it has ANYTHING to do with the Mathis/Arena issue." hey, that's it: blame the coach for everything (who was clint's coach when he was tearing up the league?)! clint's responsibility is to the team and himself, not oz, and in that he's faltered badly. my guess is that oz & arena have a great deal in common to talk about.
See I don't know. In the Korea game, I felt the wink link was the fact that both McBride and Mathis weren't running off each other's balls. It wasn't one, but both. Now...the fact is that against Korea we had about 7 scoring chances. Look at the original pass that openned up the space. That was Mathis' work. Our midfield was completely outmuscled, so Mathis came back and made the pass that no one else was making. You have to remember, that he is very unpredicatble, but he has proven that he can score. Pre-WC friendlies he was our most dangerous player hands down. Against Germany he was the attack. Ireland he had his moments. You can't just say that he is a tactical waste. Also, as I said 2 few posts before in more detail, he did the utmost service to the team by being quiet. If he didn't care about winning, he could have been a bit(h and spoiled the team chemistry. He didn't! HE cares about the team. HE could have been another Keane. He wasn't. As for the Metrostars, the fact that the whole team is in anarchy is not brought up? Why? Why doesn't someone say that it isn't Mathis alone who is freaking out? The whole team does it. The fact that they all do means that OZ has lost control. Mathis stood up after saturday, and said I fu(ked up. It is my fault we lost. OZ doesn't do that.
You and I watched different games. 1. One of Mathis' "limited moments" against Korea was a pretty important goal. 2. Mathis started against Poland. 3. At the end of the Poland game when you were rooting for us and hoping he didn't come in, he set up a goal for Donovan. 4. In the Germany game, one of his "disruptions" was to set up one of our best scoring chances that Sanneh should have finished. 5. Don't make me sick (sp?) Ben Reilly on you.
So let me see if I get this straight, Mathis and McBride can't play well together at all because they both don't run off each others passes to be an effective striking tandem? I thought this thread was supposed to validate Bruce Arena's decision not to start Mathis? My take is this, Mathis and McBride don't work well together at all. Putting them on the same field is useless. You need a smart fast Owen type of forward to pair up with both of them who works really hard and runs alot. The perfect compliment for both of them is Landon on the USMNT. So when they are both on the field together and McBride flicks on to no one, and Mathis throws passes out of the blue into space, and McBride doesn't go and track it down because he didn't see it, I don't blame the players for that one (nor do I blame my English teacher for the fact that I didn't use a period in this entire stream of thought) Now the question becomes at the World Cup, did Mathis not run on to the ball because 1. He was fat and out of shape and running sucks or 2. He is the type of player who when he plays runs some, but isn't a runner like Wolff or Donovan. He is more of a creator. He likes the ball at his feet so he can do something with it. I vote for #2.
I knew I would probably upset a few Metrostar and Mathis supporters, but that comes with the territory on a message board. As for the tactical comments, everything I have said reflects what I saw during the world cup in Asia. He looked slow of mind and slow of foot. I, like many of my associates in the office were disappointed in his performance overall. In my opinion Mathis had this paralyzing effect on the USA shape and formation. He had his moments (goal, assist, post), but overall, his performances left a lot to be desired when compared to the other USA front-men. Don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t the only player with high expectations who disappointed during the cup. There were many, Totti, Figo, Owen, Dudek, most of the French squad, ect ect. As for the partnership statement, again, it was obvious to all concerned. Tactics are tactics, and personnel are vital. For Bruce Arena’s style of play, which I might add was pleasing, Mathis was just a liability. That is why he didn’t play as much as Donovan, McBride, and others. There is so much that go into tactics, like you all know, and to effective each person has to play a certain role. Mathis didn’t posses the style to be effective in Bruce Arena’s tactics. What Bruce needed for his tactic to be effective was a forward with pace, a lot of off the ball movement, a tremendous amount of support in the final third of the field, and pressure to disrupt the opponents rhythm. The only reason Mathis played versus Corea was because of Reyna’s holding abilities in midfield. Bruce probably felt that he could bring on a ‘striker’ because the rest of the final third could compensate for Clint’s short comings in the tactic. They couldn’t, and that is why he came off the bench the rest of the tournament (no game versus Mexico, sub vs. Germany) just look at Keane and Veron in midfield together, both great talents but thwart each other because of style of play and where they pop-up in the field. As for the Poland game, I guess you were right, but I could have sworn that he replaced McBride. We all know why he played that game. Politics and opponent lacked pace, perhaps maybe desire, but again same old story.
I think you are dead-on with a lot of what you are saying here -- but I see it (maybe because I'm a fan) as more to do with the style that Arena wanted to play than Mathis' shortcomings. As many have said, it's questionable whether any other American striker could have pulled that goal off against Korea and he set up some great chances (as well as a nice long range blast) in the Poland game and the Germany game. Also, his benching against Mexico had as much to do with Arena's rotation over a grueling tournament as much as anything. PS - do you spell Corea with a C in England or is your choice politically motivated?
Thank - you! (I'm personally taking credit for this. What would the boys have done without my support and computer-rigged voting?) For those who would like to offer more laudatory remarks: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271317#post271317
Yes, OZ was his coach when Mathis tore up the league, but anyone with more than half a brain cell can tell that OZ isn't the same coach now. He trots out strange formations, his personal favorite being a 4-4-2 with ONE wing midfielder, one attacking central mid and 2 d-mids. He leaves one side of the midfield (used to be the right, now it's the left) completely open. That shrinks the field for the offensive players, leaves the defense out to dry, and severely limits the different angles of attack for the offense. On top of that, OZ has tried starting Mathis, Diallo and Faria all at the same time. Sound like a great idea? Sure until you actually realize that all 3 are target forwards who naturally play centrally. They were constantly running into each other's space. As many Metrofans have commented, at times, it seems like OZ is playing to lose rather than win. With his lineups and subs, he doesn't give his team much of a chance to win. As I said before, the entire team is frustrated, and Mathis, having always had his temper (and that temper being part of what makes him great with a good coach) is showing this frustration the most. I also agree with the person who said that Mathis looks as fit as he's been all year. His game has never been to run around like crazy. Mathis has almost never dominated a game from start to finish. He goes out there, disappears from time to time, tries the low probability passes and shots, and when the game is over, he might not have run the most, or made the highest number of pretty plays, but damned if he doesn't have a goal or two and a handful of assists. That's the kind of player he is. A damned good player too. OZ is a lousy coach. Arena is a good coach who, in my opinion, made a mistake by benching Mathis against Germany. I've never complained about Mathis' playing time aside from that match. JMac
MLSNHTOWN That's exactly the point. Mathis is not JMM who is a drone who runs around like a moron. Mathis chooses his spots to run. In this way he can use an instaneous burst that will come out of nowhere. With McBride up top, the US boots the ball upa lot. McBride gets to a lot of headers, but even w/ Wolff or Donovan, a lot of balls are lost. Mathis keeps the ball on teh ground, and needs a partner who will run into space. That is a fact. jacen I was the one who said that Mathis looks fitter then before. I also think last thursday was one of his better overall performances of the year. He was running. He was pacing the ball. He made some spectacular plays.
In the Korea game, also due to the insertion of Mathis for the second forward spot by moving Donovan into the right wing, US lost the deadly combination of Donovan/Beasley that caused so much trouble for Portugal. If in that game, Bruce using Reyna on the right side as he did in Mexico game, inserting Mastronei in the middle to protect Agoos and Pope, then we may win that game out right. Mathis did about 15 minutes of running and did score a good goal. So it is a delima for coach.
the fact that arena and oz could have anything in common is laugable.... oz is an idiot...he's deflecting blame for a failed season on mathis (whether or not the Metros make the playoffs)...
idiot or not, he's actually been quite upfront in placing the blame on himself during post-game interviews. look around the league- he's hardly the only coach w/ a struggling team.
I just rewatched the Poland game, and I was shocked to realize that Clint's lack of hustle, temper or poor play had nothing to do with why we lost. Seriously, if you remember Clint having a bad game in this one or walking around the pitch, you should rewatch it. He was one of our best players. If he had finished the two very nice shots that he often does finish (the chip that went just over the bar and the volley that came back off the post), he would have ended the day with 2 goals and an assist. Even without the two goals, he rarely made a bad pass or mistake, he showed for the ball well (and often) for Reyna and O'brien, he made a lot of nice one touch passes that set up a shot or an attack, he showed good control, made some nice through passes, and he had a couple of very creative plays such as the scoop pass to Beasely and the brilliant no-look head pass to Donovan for the goal. Overall, he played great. If we're looking for scape goats, here are some random reasons why we didn't draw this game: 1. The defense let in too many goals. (This was out of Mathis hands.) 2. The third goal shouldn't have been allowed because the offside player shielded Earnie from defending. 3. Donovan's disallowed goal. 4. Friedel calling people off of Olisadebe's goal. 5. I'm not going to blame Agoos for that 2nd goal. Some reasons why we didn't look like the same team against Portugal as we did against Poland that had nothing to do with Mathis: 1. Portugal was sleepwalking. 2. Poland played 5-6 totally fresh players that were very hungry to get a win. 3. Our players were a step behind after playing 2 grueling games (especially the Korea match). 4. The team as a whole was out of synch. 5. McBride, Beasely and Donovan (with the exception of a couple of very good moments) were often invisible and mediocre. Rewatch the game, the team didn't play lackluster because Mathis was on the pitch - we just got beat by a fresher, hungrier team.
I KNOW you can't be talking about OZ. He almost NEVER takes the blame. He's blamed Hernandez, Petke, Chrono, Mathis, His former assistant coach and the referees just this season. He's quite upfront in being the first to the media claiming it wasn't his fault. JMac
Yes, that one should have stood as a goal… very unlucky . . .changed the whole game. Who knows, maybe USA wins, which in my opinion is likely, and in the other group match, portugal and south corea get their act together, maybe portugal wins? To digress slightly, I hope Clint moves forward and ‘all’ can recall the truly great moments that befit his talent. I have seen them, just as you have. Fiery, unpredictable, tremendous shooting touch. When I first saw him play I was reminded of a more ‘direct’, and yes, more skilled Roy Keane.
Your analysis would be more relevant if Zambrano was not aware of the Arena-Mathis conflict. Otherwise, it's an easy sell to the gullible (see above statements). But, hey, Zambrano has got everyone talking about Clint. Score one for him. Zambrano should get his house in order and make a real challenge for Cup. This "Bruce-hater" will finally admit that starting Agoos was a brilliant move. I'd have hated to face Italy. Arena is a genius. Get real. Nobody hates the guy that took us to the QFs, but that doesn't mean every decision is a good one. 90% is still an A grade.
You are absolutely dilusional if you think that Rivaldo was only .003 ahead of Mathis in productivity. That said, Rivaldo showed the level of class that he has by taking that dive against Turkey
Mathis' public statements seem a pretty strong indication that OZ and Bruce were right on. That said, being an angry, out of control b**tard doesn't mean you can't play the game. Unfortunately for clint, in America it also doesn't mean you have a best selling bio in your future.