I understand that Rogers has taken a lot of criticism lately, for both this game and the last, but keep in mind he's 22. He's very talented though right now he's lacking that finishing touch and sometimes his decision-making is suspect. I don't have him for South Africa, but I think he will be a presence for us in the future. There's just a lot he's got to work on until then. I think we need to be patient with him before saying "he sucks" or "he belongs at the World Cup."
I actually think that would describe my feelings on his match. not up on him. Not down on him. Some good things. Some bad things. I'd put him at 5-6. Average to just below. But that is considering that I don't mind the attempt at the upper 90. It wasn't the safest option, but I get the thinking and I appreciate the audacity. The defender was actually in decent position on Gaven at the far post. Rogers could have gotten a ball through, but it would have had to be pretty precise. Ching would have been the best option but he was trailing the play enough that Rogers may have had no idea he was there. A shot is not a bad idea in general. Conventional wisdom says shoot hard and low to the far post. But goalkeepers know the conventional wisdom as well, so it's not uncommon to catch them leaning. So like I said, I get it. If it works he's a hero, if he doesn't he's a goat. I appreciate a player who isn't afraid of making those decisions. Otherwise, a few great opportunities created. A few bungled. A few good cross. A few bad ones. He was certainly more involved and active than we generally see out of outside midfielders not named Donovan, but the quality of competition likely had a lot to do with that. So, overall, meh. Nothing to get too up or down about.
Ching goes to SA, not because he scored or assisted or generally had a good game, but because he's smart and he's a leader. OTH or not. Showed it last night in spades. Kjellyscan. You're killing me. Suck or don't. I'm not trying to be clever with the name, I just honestly can never spell it right, so I've given up. Rogers. Way not to fall down repeatedly and lose posession, while showing good pace and some promising interchanges and taking a dangerous outside shot! That's two friendlies in a row. Remain in consideration. Pearce. See Kjellyscan, except you were unremittingly excellent for an entire game. Beckerman. Is it the first touch, or the pace of play? I dunno, but whichever, you've got to sort it out before you get a place on the plane. Evans. Gavin. Had a great game running at people. Still need to prove that you can play with your head up. Goodson, Bornstein, Davis. Solid. Casey. You're a good player. Welcome to the midfield, where your services are sadly not needed. Rimando. See Casey, re: goalkeeping pool. Findley. Hard work, worried the defense. Little to show for it. Cunningham. No meaningful contribution. Again, sadly. Bob. Showed some of what he must have seen in practice prior to creating the lineup for Honduras. Sometimes, you feel like a nut. Rogers has generally gotten panned in this thread. I'm not sure why. I mean yeah, a few bad decisions, and some unnecessarily negative play, but he wasn't giving it away like John Terry was in town.
Rogers PR/spin control in full effect!! (p.s., Gumby, there are quite a few post in this thread and others if you want to understand why so many people believe that Rogers turned in a real stinker yesterday and may have played himself off the WC2010 squad, while still acknowledging that he shows some promise and could be helpful in the next cycle.)
I forgot one player rating. El Salvador goalie: 9 Dude was awesome last night. We could easily have won this match by 3 or more goals.
As a coach, I could totally use Rogers to unbalance a defense that probably hasn't thoroughly scouted his limitations in the last 10-15 minutes of a game as a scare/diversion tactic. . . if I had a 30-man roster and could bring guys who I'd only play for 10-15 minutes.
I'll concede invisibility for a stretch in the first half and much of the second half. However, unlike some posters, I thought he was pretty good on the ball. Maybe I'm just thinking in comparison to some of his previous outings, maybe I'm just a pie-eyed optimist. Except for the time he put his head down like a short yardage running back on that attempt to the _near_ post. Good Lord. Anyway... I, too, believe we have better options in the playing pool this go-round, especially if we're not tied to lefties out there, but given we seem to have an attrition rate that compares favorably with American Idol, I don't think you can count him out entirely for this cycle, foibles and all.
I think if we charted every touch Rogers had yesterday, there would be even fewer people trying to look on the bright side (if not completely supporting him, as at least one person has done) with regard to his play in this particular match. Supporting him in terms of his long term potential is one thing, but I think some are cutting him way too much slack with regard to this match. He was really pretty bad.
Rimando (6): Uneventful, but solid except for the goal, which he didn't have much of a chance on. Pearce (8): Very interesting prospect as a Bornstein replacement. Better touch, more dangerous offensively but probably not as fast, hard to gauge defending as EL was awful. Evans (4): Thought he was disappointing long before the blunder. Almost got a goal back on a great header attempt. Goodson (7): Not much to do but was solid and composed when called upon. Had a couple of great tackles and distributed well. Looks good on the ball for such a big player. Bornstein (6): solid. Davis (5): Good set pieces, had some good ideas but execution was lacking at times . Kljestan (6): made some good runs out of the midfield to create some chances, should have finished one in the first half, had some rough spots but props for a well taken goal. Beckerman (5): Was aggresive throughout and is a good player but he's not going to get any time in SA with our depth here. Solid MLS player, nothing more at the moment in my opinion. Rogers (5): Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Would be much more dangerous if he was more creative in 1v1 situations. Would be more useful as a late sub to utilize speed on tired defenders. Nice set-pieces though. Casey (5): ehhh, decent for him. It is painful that we don't have better options than this guy. He tries, but he just has so many limitations as a player. Findley (5): Obviously has great speed and worked hard, but needs to be more dangerous. Had a great touch to beat a man on the touchline in the first half and then basically waited for him and then played a backpass leading to nothing. Ching (7): Not a big Ching fan but he impressed me. Some good runs, a solid finish for the first goal, a good touch back to Kljesten for the 2nd. Curious to see him paired with Jozy. Gaven (6): Was lively and caused havoc but the final ball/shot was severely lacking. Hope he keeps improving. Cunningham (5): Not much service, not much to note. El Salvador was bad, but we definitely dominated much of this match. I can't really even remember any chances for them other than the gift of a goal. We obviously could have played better, but much improved from Guatemala game. Onward and upward. Excited to see some of our big guns against Netherlands.
I think those of you wondering why Pearce looked so good forget he finally got consistent playing time again last year. He was very good down the stretch for Dallas even playing right back instead of his preferred left. MLS is better than being on a bench in Germany. Just ask Landon.
Rimando (5): Not really tested except on the goal where he was slow off his line. Pearce (8): Maybe MOTM. Certainly no one played harder. I agree Dangerous going forward. Some excellent crosses. Shut down the ES attack on his side. Evans (3): I also agree. Bad mistake on ES goal. Even before then was getting beat and giving up some bad fouls. Started playing better after the bad play on the goal. If I were coach, he’d be done. Goodson (7): Ditto. Solid. Composed. Covered for some of Evans' mistakes. Playing overseas has been good for Clarence. Bornstein (6): Solid vs ES. Not big enough to play central in the WC. Davis (6): Some nice passes, but played a touch too slow at times. Kljestan (6): Active, generated (and missed) numerous scoring chances. Nice goal. Could easily have had three. His goal is the only reason I scored him as well as Beckerman. Beckerman (6): Played harder than anyone but Pierce. Always around the ball – Kind of like the coach’s son used to be. Rogers (5): I agree. Good service on set pieces. Otherwise ineffective. Blew some good opportunities. He’s young. I’m not ready to give up on Robbie yet. Casey (5): Mostly agree. Held the ball well in the midfield against light pressure. Showed his limitations in the offensive third. MLS is probably his limit. Findley (0): Invisible to me after the National Anthem when he put is hands behind his back and his head down. Maybe he should go and play someplace he can be proud of. Sorry, that’s more important than soccer. Ching (7): Best we’ve seen him in a while. But with only 11 goals in all those games (most were against ES caliber opponents, and some were on rebounds with the keeper on the ground), He’s not likely to be a factor in SA. He’d be another one done if I were coach. Gaven (7): Aggressive in taking on the ES defense. Caused them some problems. Seemed to attract a lot of ES defenders on the attack. Cunningham (4): Did he get in the game? LOL. MLS golden boot should have done better. We were clearly the better team. The score didn’t really show that. We played the majority of the game in El Salvador’s end. We probably had more corners in the first 20 minutes that ES had all game. As always, finishing was not our long suit. I just hope Jozy shows up in SA ready to play, and Charlie heals quickly.
You saw a different game. He had 4 direct kicks that should have resulted in goals. Also as compared to the Honduras game he was very involved with the center mids and brought pace from back to front. As a late sub to take on tired defendants he is the USMNT best option (example Costa Rica game). I thougt this was perhaps his best game with the USMNT and clearly weas one of the better players on the picth last night.
This, is by far Robbie's biggest downside. I think this can be attributed to many of his errors. He would be an excellent player otherwise because all of his decision making would improve most likely. Waste of an athlete if he can't fix it.
Oh, please. "Could have", well okay, but "should have"? Why? You're basically saying that his service was so good that it was indefensible, and that his teammates failed him. Sorry, but that's just absurd. Unbelieveable. Literally. It's nearly unanimous (except among Crew supporters, which I understand to some degree) that he was one of the worst. Do I hate the kid? No. Have I ever said anything negative about him around here? I don't think I ever have. I'm just being real. He was up and down, mostly down if you ask me (and most seem to agree), and we all hope that he'll be better next time out.
There is a Big Soccer Theory that Pastor and Missionary are the same poster. To me even some of the grammatical mistakes look eerily similar.
Well, to be fair, Rogers' free kicks were very good on Wednesday. But even a perfect free kick is only going to result in a goal about 1 in 5 times (except if it's a shot, then a perfect free kick is going in about 100% of the time). He had a couple that required really good saves after someone got on the end of them. He had another where no one got on the end of it, and it deflected off of one of our players for a goal kick. One of those should have been converted. This is an area where Rogers was very effective, even if he was off in other areas. (I don't think he sucked...I'd give him a 5/10--did some good things, and some things that made me shake my head.)