If Klinsmann intended him to have a different role than the one he's shown, then he wouldn't have patted Danny on the ass and sent him back out with the rest of the starting lineup for two more games playing the exact same role.
Williams is garbage playing on the wing. I still don't get how Klinsmann calls in like 6 d-mids, (Bradley, Beckerman, Jones, Edu, Williams, Johnson) then claims he wants to play an attacking style. Rogers, as sad as it may be, would have fared better on the right wing.
Doesn't surprise me that would be Klinsi's idea behind the scheme. But 1) he's staying wide and playing wide in both attack and defense, and 2) it's not working out that well, particularly in attack.
Anyone who has ever played and/or coached should know that without much more detail we don't know what that flip chart is trying to convey. It is certainly much more than a simple lineup chart. I would guess that it is instructions for a specific scenario. The Ecuador game is still available for replay on ESPN3.com. Anyone can go and rewatch the game to verify where Williams spent the majority of his 65 minutes.
Like the scenario where we are winning the game...and then that scenario hasn't happened...in a long time. The tied game scenario didn't have any arrows at all.
I wasn't ranting, just laughing at the importance placed on the whiteboard in this thread. Not against you at all, I'd say you were spot-on.
Rewind. "Versus France, Williams was played as a right winger." Me: "He wasn't played as a right winger by Jurgen Klinsmann." His role is different from that of a right winger. Take a look at the white board from the Honduras game. He played the same role vs. Honduras and Ecuador. I don't see why Klinsmann would change Williams' role for the France game.
Uh whatever idea the is. We should not depending on our RB for our right side attack. Sadly, Dolo is not that good.... Just put Johnson in there and let him play as a pure winger.
W/re to Rastaman I agree. He really found a home in RSL's system and went from being an average MLS mid who wasn't quite up to Mastroeni's level to running one of the top teams in MLS. That has translated well to what Klinsmann is trying to do with the US. I'm not so sure about Shea. He's a tall flanker with the physical attributes one would expect of a player who can capably man the position. Beckerman could never have excelled in Bob's system but Shea would have been fine imo. Michael Bradley is an 8, and Jones played as an 8 with Blackburn. The latter played well enough that Blackburn wanted to keep him. For clarification my vision of an 8 is someone who can play box-to-box. Edu has played as an 8 for most of his club career though I think of him as a natural 6. Each player brings something different to the position. Bradley covers every blade of grass on the field and excels at making diving runs into the area. Jones has a robust game and of the three is most capable of making a telling attacking pass. Edu is the most positionally sound of the three and is the tidiest passer in tight spaces. With Orozco, Edu, and Beckerman it's obvious Klinsmann is emphasizing positional awareness and also tidiness on the ball. Even Williams is strong positionally. He simply lacks the skills and experience needed to really be a consistent attacking threat in that right mid position.
I think you're trying a bit to hard to justify the unjustifiable (that is Mo Edu's continued inclusion in the team ahead of other clearly superior options). Both MB and JJ are better passers than Mo Edu (and yes, that includes passing in tight spaces).
while i dont disagree, there arent really any "clearly superior options" anywhere on this team not named Landon, Clint or Tim...maybe Steve.
I completely agree, but I believe Mo Edu would be a better player to bring on as the game wears on and the team is trying to protect the lead or go on an all out attack, where he would be comfortable staying back.
I don't understand 'trying too hard' in whatever context you're thinking. I stated that Jones is a better attacking passer. As for Bradley his lack of attacking nous was one the more consistent criticisms leveled by the local paper during the Gladbach days. It's no secret the man's not much of a passer. If he were he wouldn't have had to move down in quality to Chievo where even there he's not even used centrally.
This may all be true, but that doesn't change the fact he's still a considerably better passer (and more of an attacking threat) than Mo Edu.
If this was true it would have shown up in the games played so far. It is clearly not been seen on the training grounds by the coaching staff. MB played against Mexico, Honduras and Ecuador. Edu against Costa Rica, Belgium, Honduras, Ecuador, and France. Most of those games are still available on ESPN3.com. What you will find is that Edu v Bradley has been pretty much a wash! Where is the incisive passing or attacking threat?
It's been shown over the course of the 3 players respective careers. It's why Mo Edu is still playing in England's League 1...oops, I mean the SPL. And forgive me if I'm not convinced right now that Klinsmann and Vasquez know what they should be looking for on the training ground. Results thus far certainly call their judgment into some question.
Torres, Edu, Kljestan, Bradley. Not much career-wise and club performance wise to elevate one above the rest. Each has unique to the others strengths and weaknesses. Holden was of course on another level as a performer in the Prem. Jones is as well in the B1. His positional discipline may or may not be to Klinsmann's liking however.
If that is your benchmark then I guess MB should never see the field over Jones. What about the games Edu and MB have both played for JK so far?
Edu is on his first European contract. No shame in being a consistent starter and medal winner with quality CL performances on your first European contract. There's nothing in Mike's career to support the better passer argument. I agree he presents a better threat through his diving runs into the area.
I simply don't understand how anyone who has watched Mo and Mike play with any regularity can make this statement.