I would have to disagree. I do not think Sasha had a spectacularly bad game. He was trying to play Bradley's position as well as Adu's, hustled like a maniac and linked up well many, many times. That said, he did seem a little frantic in this game (understandably). His passing instincts are not quite there yet. He usually needs a little more time to make a good pass than one is generally given in international play. He has improved drastically, and I think with the experience of this tournament behind him, will improve even more, especially if he can transfer to a good Dutch, Norwegian, or Belgian team sometime soon. Overall, though, I was pleased with his play. The midfield is too full of options to see him on the full national side right now, but if he can continue his development and the good play we saw out of him here, I would expect him to ride the plane to South Africa as a sub.
I know and agree. But I'll add that part of "being there" is catching the breaks and having a little luck.
Agreed but that isn't due to talent that is due in large part to our players being in MLS in my opinion. It is a strong league and great for our young talent but they just aren't used to grinding out results late in games like in Europe.
Disagree with this. But for a few crucial mistakes, we would be firmly in the next round. The difference perhaps is the big game experience. Mental errors by our players blew the game at crucial moments-- not our overall play. It must not be forgotten that we matched up with Holland and Nigeria both tactically and physically despite difficult circumstances. In this way, we have made great progress.
In a game like today, absolutely. Sascha needed to come up big today; because Nowak left him in the game when more possession was needed. Instead he turned the ball over repeatedly and put the US under even more pressure through his many mistakes, and, in at least one case, inexplicable decision making. He is a risk taker by nature; but when down a man, you have to tighten up your game and take better care of the ball. The result was not going to be achieved through one brilliant play. Rather, it needed to be obtained with determination and constant focus. He's got talent. I would revise my earlier assessment of his skill level. He still makes some pretty sloppy plays at times. I just think the decision making part of his game is the area where he can improve the most, and will need to do so before he is going to be an impact player at a higher level. He had no business playing the way he did after the red card. This is going to be a learning experience for him, or I want him nowhere near the national team.
Great point. We usually bow out of tournaments with fewer points and without having played so well against much weaker opponents than the ones in this group. On form, we were the equal of the top teams in the toughest group. I hate moral victories, but we have to at least say that this crop of players is the first to really compete consistantly well at consecutive international tournaments (U-20's & Olympics). Yes I'm pissed, but I do feel good about things. And at least we'll have some of these guys available for WCQ...including Kljestan.
I meant to respond to this yesterday but didn't get around to it. This is an incredibly simplistic evaluation of each player. Yeah, Holden can be an a-mid, but he also proved in this tournament that he's very capable as a two-way central midfielder, and he's a solid defensive player. Yeah, Dempsey can be a support forward, but he's also shown aptitude at times on the right wing. I don't think you can pidgeon-hole Kljestan into a "support forward" descirption either. He plays the role well with Chivas, but he's also shown well as a bit of a hybrid right winger for the club, and at times played very well in this Olympic tournament as a "box-to-box" central midfielder. I don't really consider him merely as a support forward. Good assessment. Sacha needs to work on consistency and on limiting the give-aways, but if he can improve in those areas, he's going to be an animal. He and Landon Donovan probably have the two best "soccer brains" in our pool.
Based on the numbers passed along to me, his final passing and possession and possession percentages were similar to those of Holden and Bradley. And Kljestan takes far more risks. His opponent dispossession numbers surpass both. And his workrate in terms of total distance run outclasses every other US player by a country mile. Only McBride comes close. Like I've said for a while, US Soccer fan has been drinking from the bad Kool Aid bowl for far too long, where safe players = the best players. So an attacker, who looks awkward to begin with because we're used to our creative players being little Ramos/O'brien/Donovan types, is singled out on these boards because he doesn't play the same way people have been spoon fed to believe a midfielder should play. At the end of the day, what I hope is that some people who have consistently written off Sacha think about their bias the next time they watch him and rethink their opinions. Maybe he plays differently than other US players... Is that a bad thing? Do I think the guy doesn't have flaws? No way. He needs to work on consistency. He has to master some fundamentals, or all the tricks in his bag won't help him. But I know through multiple sources MLS has been approached by European teams looking to buy his rights, only to be shot down by MLS' ridiculous demands. I have also been told that his US Olympics performance - the same one being panned by many US "fans" on BS - raised Kljestan's market value. I don't give a shit that I've been pretty much a lone voice in a wilderness of despair about Sacha since qualification. I've spent the past 10 years being that person on BS on a number of people, both players and otherwise. What irks me in particular about Sacha and drives me to point this stuff out is that the US Soccer community, both fans and people inside the game, really need to rethink what good soccer is and what it requires. I happen to think that Sacha is many of those things. Highly skilled. Great awareness of space and how to use it. Great vision. An iron will. A never say die attitude. A fearlessness to try things, even if they don't work out. I want US Soccer to embrace what is good about this young kid and quit knocking him for what he isn't. Because conservative, play-it-safe guys aren't what the game in this country needs. We have plenty, from our administrators to our coaches to our players on the field.
No. The post was a projection of the position each player needs to play in order to maximize his impact at the next level of club play or with the national team. It's nice and I'm fully aware that guys can play multiple positions to cover team deficiencies though. Dempsey for example will ride pine in the EPL as a true wide player. If he makes the transition to central midfield he'll be able to take that next step.
The poster, oldguyfc, stated that Monaco approached MLS about Kljestan. This is his third year, so he'll get a shot soon enough if he's good enough. Is there an compilation of how distance each player cover in the matches? I'd like to hear more than anecdotal hand waving.
Yes, there is. I'm guessing the people who put that kind of stuff together will ask you to pay for it. Good luck.
The nice thing about soccer being part of a fairly efficient global market is that most of our better young central mids will eventually get a chance with a pretty good team overseas. And what they do with that opportunity will have nothing to do with how Nowak, Bradley or any of us rates them. I look forward to seeing how it all plays out. Assuming that injury does not derail them this is the order I expect when all the noise and shouting has died down: 1) Edu 2) Szetela 3) Holden 4) Bradley 5) Feilhaber 6) Kljestan 7) McCarty It is an interesting generation that has generated a lot of disagreement on these boards. Perhaps I should have thrown Spector into the mix because I have always thought central mid would be a good position for him and his club started to play him there some last season.
This sums up much of what I have come to think of Sacha, starting during Olympic qualification and through the Olympics. I called him nifty this morning in another thread. And I guess at 530 am it seemed like the best way to describe him. He can be frustrating, what with the give aways and risks. But boy, those are frustrations and risks I am willing to endure because the end product is a brilliant exchange [with Freddy], run and finish against the Netherlands that we don't see that often. good post
The first time I saw him was the match where he had an own goal in the U20 cup as a sub. The OG was brutal but I remember he ripped a nice 30yd shot and looked very comfortable on the ball. He's grown into quite a player. I was proud of the boys despite the loss and I thought Kljestan played a great game. He was orchestrating brilliant short ball combinations out of pressure in the back. Sometimes the final pass was picked off but he generated most of our possession in Nigeria's half - you've got to risk some attacking/positive play a man down. I think people underrate his defense because he's not the most athletic dude but he's smart and gets into good positions. And he shoots! Best goal for us in the Olympics against the Dutch and he's scored some magnificent goals with Chivas this year. I'm with Nutmeg. For anyone who wants to see the US play attractive attacking soccer, Kljestan is the future.
I'd like to see the US play winning soccer. Kljestan a good player with a nice short passing game and an excellent shot. He'll make a good support forward. He didn't play the same position as the other mids so making comparisons of passing stats therein would be dicey. A more apt comparison would be to the other attack oriented mids in the tourney.
It's clear that US Soccer has embraced Kljestan. Did he even miss a minute of play in these games? You always seem baffled by difference of opinion on these boards. Some people don't like Sacha's game. In particular, many think that his propensity for costly turnovers outweighs his creativity. (BTW, he may complete the same percentage of passes as others, but his turnovers tend to be really bad give aways that often lead to counter attacks.) You're just going to have to get used to others who are not of a like mind with you. You are not a "lone voice in a wilderness" on Kljestan. He has featured prominently for many US youth teams, has been capped more than a few times by the senior team, and is an MLS all-star. The vast majority, even on these wacky boards, called for him to start against Nigeria (even you, by the way, called for him to be benched after the Japan game, ya know). You act like he's some guy on the outside looking in, but he's simply not. He's a nice player. I like him and happen to think that his positives outweigh his negatives. Right now, he would make my roster for 2010, by a hair, and I think he has a chance to play himself onto the starting lineup. He has progressed a ton since the 2005 WYC, and I see no reason why he can't continue that same progression. So relax a little. The minority view is always the loudest one on these boards (and in life in general). (P.S. You have a tendency to pick a player and become obsessed. I recall when it was Edu you were pimping. I'm fine with that, but you also tend to slag the guy's competition, which I don't get. With Edu, you found it necessary to slam Bradley in order to make your case. With Kljestan, you slammed Holden pretty hard in qualifying and seem to be continuing those comparisons now. Yet you criticize others for slamming Kljestan and imply that they are not true US Soccer supporters as a result. If that's true, then you are not one either.)
I've ripped Kljestan a bit on these boards and have to say he played very well in the Holland and Nigeria games. He needs to make a move now though otherwise I'm fearful that these types of performances will be few and far between. I've never been a fan of Marvell Wynne either and he had a good overall tournament. Same applies to him though. He's gotta move and improve his entire overall game.
I haven't ripped Kljestan but I have openly questioned whether his skill set and particular talents will translate to the higher levels. So far his uneven performances in international play have done nothing to to convince me they will. I'm rooting for him. I love the type of player he is. But until he starts showing he can do what he does for Chivas at the international level or in a better league I'm going to continue to have questions. Dominating MLS, and he does dominate it in his way, is nice but it's not enough if we want to put him in the category of "special" players.
Untrue. Not moreso than Bradley or Holden. Others who disagree with me are going to have to get used to getting called out when they make bad arguments. That's just the type of bullshit, lazy ass thinking I despise. I didn't slag Holden. I used Holden as a measuring stick because while his play in qualification was getting near universal praise, the reality was Kljestan was playing just about as well and getting panned. A comparison between players does not have to be black and white, one good, one bad. You seem to be tracking me pretty closely. Why don't you do a search on my username with Holden and show me where I said he was a bad player. I happen to know there are many posts where I say he's a very good player. Find me one where I say he's bad. Otherwise, bring better stuff the next time you try to call me out.
That may be a true assessment. I wouldn't call him special. Different from the rest seems like a better description. Is Superliga in MLS. He seemed to adapt his game to the different competition very well. I don't think the Mexican teams are as defensive as MLS teams are. Better onthe otherside though. Just to look at it from a different angle, which player in the group does or would be as influential in MLS? Some of these guys are still waiting to show they can do for their club team what they do for this team inside or outside of MLS. In my view we have a collection of players that have different strengths and weaknesses. None of them are quite complete, or clearly top of the heap. It's a matter of choosing what one wants out of the midfield. In general I think the tendency towards a slower paced cautious approach means Klestjen will be second choice. That's a coaches decision though. A different coach may want a different approach.