Garlacep Blog: Likely Lineup against Czechs based on Press Conference Today

If that's what he thinks, he must be wrong ... because that's what Bruce wanted him to think ... (cue in Vincent Price) buahahaha ... buahaha ..

 

So I guess we can pretty much guarantee that won't be the lineup.

 

Wait a minute, he didn't have Ben Olsen in goal?

 

You know, the fact that they deliberately didn't bring that up in the press conference does make it a likely possibility. Good catch.

 

2-0, Czechs. As the Czechs realize we have no pace in our lone striker, negating Reyna's key attacking attribute, and that Beasley is a big zero offensively in that role, they will throw more players forward, and the dam will break. A counterattacking goal in the last 20 minutes will kill the game off.

 

Convey on the bench.
Beaz on the left JOB on the right.
Reasoning:
JOB doesn't give us anything off of the bench, the game has already taken shape. Convey can be more of a difference maker.

 

Agreed. And EJ up top to get service from JOB.

 

Ben Olsen in goal is like Gouvou to replace Cisse.

 

After reading that blog is guaranteed: JOB will start.

 

I have to admit, the idea of Beas on the right doens't give me much confidence. And I don't think it will give Bruce much either.

 

I think the First XI is anyone's best guess, but I'll say this about the "consensus" line-up: it looks like an effort to force the Czechs to defend the hell out of the wings, or at least to not let their wide players think only about attacking.

Lewis/Convey and Cherundolo/Beasley are both pretty top-gear pairings on the outside. Of course, Czechia is strong there as well, I recognize that, but I like this tactic at face value. We'll see.

 

If JOB is healthy, would anyone be surprised to see JOB and Mastroeni back in the middle and Reyna on the right (tucked inside, not necessarily as a winger)? I mean, he could easily take Earnie's spot from the '02 lineup. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic, but it tugs at my heart strings.

 

I have a gut feeling this is what we will see, unless any of Claudio, JOB or Mastro are nicked up at kickoff time. Bruce knows that he needs to have our best players on the field, and these are our best. The real question is on the left.

 

Garlacep put up two line-ups. Here is the second one:

Cherundolo------------Pope----------Onyewu------------Lewis

-----------------------------Mastroeni-----------------------------

Donovan---------------------------------------------------Beasley

------------------------------Reyna---------------------------------

------------------McBride------------Johnson---------------------


Is the first line-up Garlacep put up -- the one with Beasley at right midfield and Convey at left midfield -- a one-forward formation? If so, I like the second line-up better. I worry about McBride being isolated in a one-forward formation. Even if the first line-up is a two-forward formation with Donovan and McBride as the forwards, I still like the second line-up better. But it’s a lot closer.

Arena has access to much more important information than we do. He gets to see the players train every day, and he got to see the Angola scrimmage. But against the Czech Republic, I would start Reyna at attacking-mid, and Donovan either at right midfield or forward. Apparently Reyna played well against Angola. And he is a good attacking-midfielder. He played well there against Mexico in Columbus this cycle. He had a nice assist on Beasley's goal. Also, it is important to start Mastroeni at defensive-midfield, for his ability to take good positions, win balls and make safe accurate passes when building out of the back.

I would start Beasley. He will play good defense and apply good pressure. And he holds the ball well in big games and creates scoring opportunities. He scored a nice goal against Mexico in Columbus this cycle. Also, his speed is important. It was very important against Portugal.

From what I've seen, Beasley has tended to play better on the left than on the right. He is a better crosser with his left foot than with his right, he seems better at holding the ball on the left flank, and he seems to be at least as good at cutting to goal from the left flank as he is from the right flank. He had a great cut to goal from the left flank against Uruguay at RFK Stadium in a friendly right before the last World Cup. However, I think it would be okay to start Beasley on the right and Convey on the left. Beasley still can hold the ball reasonably well on the right side, and we would still take advantage of his defensive abilities and stamina. Also, he has been good at cutting to goal from right midfield. When Beasley scored against Mexico in Columbus when we won 2-0, I think he cut from the right flank into goal.

Donovan has the skill-set to be an excellent right midfielder. He is a good crosser. He has great endurance and speed. And he is right-footed.

Should Eddie Johnson start at forward along with McBride? Johnson is a little unpolished. And he sometimes doesn’t hold the ball as well as he could. But with more concentration he is capable of holding the ball better. Also, Johnson’s game against Latvia made a positive impression on me. He almost had two or three one-on-ones with the goalie. I think the assistant referee blew those offside calls, as the assistant referees often do in favor of the defense.

As forwards, both Johnson and Donovan are good at pressing. Both usually create goal scoring chances when playing forward. Donovan is a good finisher. Johnson had a string of games in which he was an excellent finisher, albeit against weaker competition.

 

Switch Reyna and Donovan and you've got it.

 

This was my lineup about 2 weeks ago. Personally, I like it. Puts our best passers on the field.

 

[White Goodman] Oh, I don't think I'm a lot dumber than you
thought I'd think that I thought I was once
[/White Goodman]

 

Are you kidding? All Mcbride has to do is hold the ball up for a little bit and wait for all hell to break loose from midfield...ball up to McBride, LD, DMB, and Convey make runs, 1. ball into space for quick combo work amongst the young 'uns, or 2. back to Reyna who plays it into space (see 1. above), or 2. out wide to Lewis or Cherundolo, Czech defense scrambling to cover guys faster than they are, McBride ghosts into position, cross, header...

It's so easy on paper

 

I don't mind that lineup at all. Everyone thinks we should be very attack minded against the Czechs, but I think that's a sure fire recipe for disaster. If we get too many folks forward forcing the attack, we'll end up getting Morrocoed in the first 20 minutes.

During the first 70 minutes, BA is looking to deny goals to the Czechs and score on either a set piece or a counter. In the last 20 minutes, when perhaps the older Czechs are a little worn down, he may bring on EJ for one of the defensive mids, possibly Maestro if he starts and bring on a fresh attacking mid like Dempsey for Beasley and switch to a 4-4-2 looking for the winner.

Make no mistake, giving up an early or first goal to the Czechs will be the end of the tournament for the US. We'll lose the game and then be in a situation where we must get a result from the Italians. Not a good position to be in.

 

Well those two lineups ain't exactly Woodward & Bernstein, lineup speculation is all about where Landon plays and how it affect EJ or Convey

So now I'm sure it'll be a 4-3-3

 

But one-forward formations haven't worked particularly well for the US in the past. And they generally haven't seemed to work that well for other teams. I'm talking almost entirely about results.

 

I'm sure that somewhere Eric Wynalda is nodding his head vigorously in agreement. He must still be having nightmares over Sampson playing him as the lone striker in the 3-6-1 formation against Germany in 1998. To this day, anytime anyone mentions a lone striker formation he practically has an aneurysm.

 

The most important thing should be to put out the line-up that gives us the best chance of getting a good result. If we were to lose 5-4, that would not be a good result. It would be a significantly better result than losing 1-0, largely because the four goals would help us in terms of goal-differential for tie-breakers. But a 0-0 draw would be hugely better than a 5-4 loss.

One concern I have with a one-forward formation is actually related to defending. Playing a one-forward formation tends to make it harder for teams to press well than does playing a two-forward formation. And pressing has been an important part of our game under Arena.

It is also important for the US to have enough players in the box for crosses. And playing with two forwards tends to make that a lot easier than does playing with only one forward.