And how many WC MVP's did Parkhurst win? Yes lack of size can be overcome but you need to be a VERY good player, Parkhurst is no where near that level. Its seems that everyone who thought Parkhurst had a good game are Revs fans, everyone else thinks he was subpar. I don't know what match you all saw but his distribution out the back was the worst of all the four backs, some of his passes were just terrible.
Simek-A definite contender for the spot. Exemplary. Parkhurst-The weak link? Showed glimpses of his ability on the ball but let himself down with a few fouls. Didn't look entirely comfortable in his partnership. Demerit-Solid and strong in the challenge; would like to see him back in with Bocanegra. Spector- Cool and collected although his output going forward could be increased (although he did play a part in the goal). Solid in his defensive responsibilities. Keller-why?
Hard to give 'em too much credit considering T&T offered little to nothing going forward. But, for what they had to do, they did it very well back there. And, really, is Guat playing a single forward formation with Ruiz that much better on attack that the difference should be so dramatic, especially in regard to the level of organization back there? The center backs were much safer than what either Gooch or Boca have been of late; nice to see a couple guys trying to play soccer out there instead of just hitting anything that gets in front of them. Simek played very well on the right, even coming forward to good effect. Spector was the weakest of the bunch to me, but he wasn't getting beat and having to scramble constantly like Borenstein has been the last couple times out. The whole unit looked good. Just hard to say if it was their strong play or the weak attack of T&T that was the key. Oddly enough, Keller was not on his game at all. He looked really shakey back there, despite not having much to do. The spot belongs to Howard any time anything's on the line.
A Revs fan's comment: Parkhurst - first half not very good, second half quite a lot better. Playing his first ever international match (yes against weak T&T) and paired with another very inexperienced central defender (who plays for Watford for god's sake), I don't know what else you would expect. I can guarantee, however, that if he had been facing that crap Ruiz on Thursday night we wouldn't have seen 1 yellow, must less 2.
That isn't really relevant. Is Parkhurst playing at a higher level because he certainly doesn't have more experience? He was shaky in his first match although I don't think anyone is ready to close the door on him.
Let me stick up for Parkhurst because a lot of you are writing him off cause he's too small. Parkhurst was told he was too small to play defense at Wake. He did just fine there, got him to be a first round pick. Parkhurst was told he was too small to play center back in MLS. He won Rookie of the Year. Parkhurst is now being told he is too small to play center back at the international level. Do you see the trend? I'll take a well positioned Parkhurst over a bruiser Gooch every day of the week.
Not a Revs fan, not a fan of any MLS team. Again this attitude today of the over rating of size. Small defenders can work. Also can we stop believing that are players to measure up have to be: <insert superstar here> It doesnt matter how good Cannavaro is or how many awards and trophies he has won(none of our defenders have won any either). Parkhurst doesn thave to be as good as Fabio, he has to be as good or better than the USMNT's other defenders. It was his first cap, I like his skill and reading of the game. Im not saying he deserves to start every match ot anything, but a further look would be reasonable. Certainly when BS's favorite physical disaster Oyewu seems to regress. We could use a player who is less physical and more skillful and about posiitoning and reading if you ask me. Do any of our defenders consistently play matches against decent competition without making mistakes? Bocanegra and Onyewu are both error prone, I also think both would be better off partnered with someone else, than eachother.
I understand not liking the vague assessments of player performance around here, but citing one specific play is really no better. Every player in the world makes both good and bad plays every single match. I could just as easily cite one good play he made, and that would by your method would make it like he played well.
The only legitimate yellow from the center half position on Thursday was Onyewu's second, and that one had nothing to do with Ruiz. Parkhurst would've probably gotten one, too, with that reffing.
Just a quick specific observation on Keller's poor distribution... I don't believe those of you watching FSC at home were able to actually see Keller almost repeat an act very similar to his "Hermosillo-incident" in the 1997 WCQ vs. Mexico @ Foxboro. I believe it occured in the 2nd half after the US was granted a FK in their own penalty area. Keller rushed a bit to take it and managed to bang it off a lingering T&T attacker, who really wasn't trying to block it. Thankfully, it ricocheted out to the side and Keller was able to classically lumber out to it and perform one of his trademark desperate right-footed clearances to the side before a T&T attacker could get to it. I think FSC was showing a replay while this occured and Bretos was only able to allude to it...when FSC finally cut back to the action, Keller was back in the area getting ready to defend the impending T&T throw in.
Regardless of how you think Parkhurst played yesterday (I thought he showed some first cap jitters on the ball but looked fine otherwise), this game isn't going to tell you anything about his international potential, since Parkhurst faces stronger and overall better opposition weekly in MLS play. Remember that wasn't T&T's first or even second choice lineup; that was basically a USL calibre squad that they were fielding yesterday.
Parkhurst played solid defense and appeared to be the favored distributor of the two center backs. Thought his simple balls on the ground were generally effective and occassionally incisive. Hard to see what his options were most of the time due to FSC not having a d@mn clue about how to present a soccer match (doesn't that middle initial stand for soccer?) but I thought he lumped the ball to no one quite a bit more than necessary. Spector didn't get a chance to display his ball skills the way he did against China and had a poor strike on what appeared to be a very nice piece of service by Mapp. I really like his deep crossing. He curls the ball very nicely. That type of service tends to pull the keeper out. Hard for a keeper to take his eye off that ball to see what else is happening because it just keeps on bending so you have to continually adjust your positioning. Simek looked very good. Showed very nice ball skills and I really liked the attempted chip. Demerit played the best of any of the CBs in these first two matches. Very impressive at winning headers. Keller looked adequate. Good organization. Hands were mediocre. Positioning was good but he's really lost a lot of quickness. Distribution was generally good but that quick free kick appeared very dangerous by the time the FSC (Freaking Screwed-up Cr@p) coverage let the viewers see the action. I realize T&T didn't present the most challenging offensive display but it's a lot of fun to be talking about our backline's contribution to the attack. That, to me, is one of the true indicators of the USMNT's growth. BTW, I finally gave up and went to the Galavision feed. Not only was the coverage better, I found the commentary more insightful (y no hablo Espanol)
I thought Parkhust, while shaky at first, had a solid first cap. Played a better game than Demerit IMO. Even bailing the Watford defender out on at least one occasion.
I probably wasn't clear enough. I wasn't trying to prove that Spector had a bad game by describing that one play. I said I thought he had the weakest performance among the back four, and I thought I should cite at least one example where I thought he looked bad. That play was really bad, in my opinion. Looking for an offside call when there are a bunch of players 10 or 15 yards behind you is kind of strange, isn't it? Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it looked to me. I'll give him credit for sprinting back, but again- that slide tackle was poor. Looked like a bull charging a red cape. I know it was just one play (though kind of a two-parter). I just think it was particularly glaring in its lack of quality. I also mentioned his muff of Mapp's pass in the T&T area as another weak moment. He also had that shot over the bar (not an easy shot to keep low with the ball rolling at him, but still). Another play that I recall was a long pass he attempted in the opening minutes of the match, where I couldn't figure out what he was trying to accomplish (the ball went to their keeper... not close to connecting with a teammate, but there's no way he was taking a shot). Just a wasted ball. I also recall that he wasted a throw-in (toward Ching, but well short). I guess he seemed a bit clumsy and inefficient to me (at least moreso than the other defenders). Is that fair?
I think the point is you can pick apart any player like this for minor mistakes. Missed shots and passes especially
No, it is not fair. You completely over generalize and fail to take into account other factors that may have led to what you percieve to be your conclusion. Also define your arguement. What is being efficient in this case? So he seem's something? Check your inferences.
You can't really judge if any of the defenders are really ready for primetime, as the team they beat is basically a TandT "C" team. It's like judging defenders based on the China (bringing even crappier players than their usual crappy team) game.
"Over-generalize"??? I gave specific examples. It's not fair to criticize him by citing specific plays? I think there's a general hypersensitivity here to simple, constructive criticism. I didn't resort to "he sucks" or any of that. As far as using the word "seems"... hey, that's me giving a general impression. I could watch the tape again and examine every move Spector made, but nobody (including me) has time for that. All I'm saying (again) is that relatively speaking, I thought Spector had the weakest performance of the back line. I don't want him banned from the team. I don't think he's horrible.
The POINT is that we're here to discuss the performances of our players. We can be vague and criticize players without giving reasons, or we can try to stand behind our opinions by giving examples. Sure every player makes errors. I thought Spector made the most in THIS game.
I saw the same play. I wrote it off as nothing more than a lack of communication between the back 4, who between them have less than 20 caps and have never played together as a unit before. Spector apparently thought they were playing an offside trap and when he turned and saw that at least one defender wasn't he tried to close the gap. I don't know who was responsible for a breakdown in communication, but it usually has to come from the center backs. By the way, I don't believe there were "several" defenders deeper than Spector. At least one was parallel with him. I also don't think the deeper defender was marking anyone.
I love constructive criticism when it is valid. The intances you cite and the reasons you give as causal to them are specious at best. I said you failed to take into account all the other factors, such as the lack of communication as posted above. I do not care if you point out flaws, I am just a into Logic, so I get nitpicky when it is flawed. My point is you did not account for everything, which when making an arguement, you need to do.
On the play I'm talking about, there were several players in deeper positions, including at least one T&T attacker. Spector was near the midfield line. If he thought a trap was on, he was WAY late in his thinking process. The only excuse I can come up with without watching it again (which I'll try to do) is that he was in the process of retreating from an attack where the rest of the defense was still back. But that doesn't excuse his foolish attempt to play the wing attacker offside.
I've already responded the play you site in the 49th minute. As for the rest: 1) A defender muffs a shot. I don't think that's ever happened before Thats why they're defenders and not forwards. 2) How many shots do our forwards and midfielders put over the top. You also praise Simek's attempted chip which went a little high and a little wide, but you site this as evidence of poor play?? 3) Passes that don't connect with anyone. I'll bet everyone of our defenders had at least one in that game. For the most part Spector's passing was very good in this game. He combined with Mapp on several occassions and it was his pass that sprung Mapp allowing him to deliver the cross for the first goal.