Comparison: US v Arg & US v Jamaica [R]

I agree with you completely about Convey, and about the pairing of Convey and Pablo. The difference was night and day between Jam and Arg. Sure, the level of competition was different too, but Convey filled a huge hole at attacking mid that existed during the Arg game. Considering it was his FIRST game there for the Nats really says something, especially since he rarely, if ever, even plays there for his club team (though he does often roam around in the center of the pitch for DC). Given all the circumstances, great game for Bobbie.

I thought Califf was largely crap v. Arg; certainly in his distribution he was definitely crap. I've never been a big supporter of his. But I thought his talent really came out v. Jam. He worked hard, he's strong, he played intelligent and he distributed better (maybe 'cause Convey and Pablo gave more outlets?). Had an excellent game.

A friend of mine who I didn't even know liked soccer told me not too long ago that he thought Donovan was a Frankie Lundberg type (I'm probably getting the name wrong; the Swedish winger for Arsenal; who paints his hair different for every game) - essentially a slasher with speed, vision, etc. You suggested Arena let him play a la Earnie Stewart, who is similar to Lundberg in a way. I guess you and my friend think along the same lines, and I'm not sure I disagree.

I won't comment on everyone else but I basically concur with most of your points.

 

Close. Its Freddie Ljungberg. And now that I think about, the two players are somehwat alike. I might add at this stage Ljungberg is probably the more dangerous player though, he is a superior crosser, and a very good finisher. Donovan, as usual, has more speed, with or without the ball.

 

good analysis, nutmeg, but you forgot Buddle as a possible big man for us. He probably is the best current option for a big man after mcbride. I'm hoping EJ starts for the burn this year and has a breakout year, but we'll see.

Second, Mathis is moving to the midfield when he gets fit: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/02/12/a_striking_pair/ its in their from Bruce. I like this move A LOT!!! I did analysis of before the world cup of why I thought Clint should be A-mid and why I thought he was better suited for that role and I'll stick with it. I'd much rather have donovan making the runs and clint doing the passing than vice versa. But thats only if Cleetus gets back to his old self. I've been the guys biggest supporter but he is reall stinking the joint up, lately.

 

About the central defenders, Nutmeg, you mention that Garcia gave up a bogus free kick to Lowe for the goal, but he also gave up a pretty clear penalty in the first half on a play that wasn't that dangerous. He played pretty well otherwise, but he did give up a pretty stupid penalty. Maybe it was because I was coming off seeing Marquez play, but I hope we get better at the central defense position before qualifying really starts. A big test of the central defense comes in distributing while facing pressure. I though Califf failed at that test against Argentina; Jamaica's low pressure in our back third didn't give us anything to see, really.

I thought Convey made a few nice runs from the central midfield down the left side, and Mastroeni did a good job defensively in the holding role. Convey and Mastroeni together couldn't change the pace of the game or bring composure to the team, which is important. That's one of the reasons we lost momentum in the beginning of the second half. I'm not sure Convey is ready for the middle, at least not yet, though he is showing great promise. I also think it's not fair to compare performances against Jamaica versus performances against Argentina. Jamaica gave away goals (I mean Bocanegra hit a nice ball for the second goal but where was the marking? it wasn't THAT nice) and repeatedly gave away possession. I'm not sure we've sorted out central midfield at all yet, not that we should expect to at this stage.

Also, I think the talent on this team favors a 3-5-2. We have a lot more great midfielders than defenders, and we have a few defenders who can excel in the marking back role.

 

FWIW, the bogus foul you are referring to was on Califf, not Garcia.

Nice analysis, Nutmeg, although my view of the games was severly hampered by seeing the Argie game on a washed out big screen at a bar, and missing the first half of the Jamaica game as Telemundo didn't broadcast when scheduled.

 

Exactly!!! I've been advocating this as well. Mathis was tearing up the field and providing great service to the forwards (and also providing a midfield threat) before his injury. I hope he gets fit again quickly so that we can put him back at the a-mid role. Arena also recognizes this -- I can't wait!!!

 

In both matches, the US did not do well when the play was rough. The stereotypes of S. American league play and of Jamaican style both feature speed and physical play. MLS does not, so our domestic players likely are not used to being bumped and banged so much. (Perhaps that is part of why LD, et al., seemed so upset during the ARG match?)

I am not advocating that MLS become more of a hacking league. And I am not sure how to prepare a team in practice for this style of play, because you surely do not want the injury risk. However, USMNT needs to show it can be effective against teams that employ this style of play, or else a lot of weaker opponents (e.g., many of the teams we face in WC qualifying) will employ a search-and-destroy approach when playing the US.

The match v. Cameroon this summer will be a good test of how our A-team handles fast, rough opposition.

 

1. I think part of the reason people were critical of Convey for not controlling play more against Jamaica is folks still don't get how weak we are (comparatively) technically. When we don't have a strong target man, we have no outlet and have trouble controling and posessing against pressure or skilled teams. When we start Califf and Garcia, our technical ability goes down again. I'm not saying we're inept. But unless we put a team with JOB at left back, Pope somewhere in the center, Reyna or Sanneh at right back, we've got some players on the field who don't react well with the ball when pressured. And the tendency to just boot it downfield is too great. thus, too much pressure (on reyna in WCQ, on Convey in this match) to "control" the match on a side that has a couple of players who aren't strong technically or with vision.

2. While Califf had a fine match, the criticism of him is that under pressure, he makes terrible decisions when pressured. And that's the big question he's got to answer. Until he has a match where he faces a lot of that pressure (and handles that well), he hasn't shown he deserves to be in the mix. I think Garcia has to answer that question to a certain extent as well.

3. Mathis at A-mid: I read that SI article (and Arena quote) as well and I didn't take it to mean that he's going to be slotted into the A-mid role. I took Arena's comment to mean that he'd like to have both Donovan and Mathis on the field and he's not sure that tandem (Donovan and Mathis) works on the frontline. That's not the same as saying "Mathis is our A-mid of the future." Plus, the caveat--he's got to get better. Arena implicitly admits with that statement that Mathis can't handle A-mid (at the level he expects) right now. I hope (as a USMNT fan) that Mathis gets healthy, fit, and in-form. But he's not there yet and isn't even close to it yet. Maybe he'll get there. Or maybe we'll remember how 2001 was his best year--the top of his career. Mathis is capable of being a fine A-mid in many ways--he's creative and takes risks. But his success as an A-mid for the USA is limited to a few games--we're being way to premature to assume he's going to be better there than O'Brien (who I think is probably our a-mid of the near future), Convey, Martino by 2004-5 or even Memo Gonzalez in 4 years.

4. I disagree with the characterization of S.American and Carribean play. Central American play is very chippy. Because the leagues and refereeing in the Carribean is semi-pro, the play is wildly inconsistent. S. American--not nearly as physical (if by that, we mean contact, tackling) as Europe. We had trouble against Argentina (in part) b/c of their technical ability and pressure. Against Jamaica, we had some outright professional fouls (the "tackle" on DMB, the punch to Donovan's head, the kick to Howard's stomach) that isn't about a style of play, it's a bout a frustrated team, being at home, and incompetent referees. I do agree that with a young (in experience, not age) team, it is easy for the team to lose their focus. But that isn't just from physical play, it could mean letting down at the end of the half, being frustrated by a dive that is called against you, losing focus on quick restarts, not watching the ball as you trot back to your position from a long run forward--all things that sloppy club play can tolerate but get punished at the international level.

 

Agreed. And one of the main reasons is that they can never win the ball in the air. Califf's constant long boots down the center were never going to come to fruition with two forwards that both stand under 5'9".

The problem is that both of them do well when they are allowed to play deep. Both excell when surging forward and slipping incisive passes through the gaps in the opposition's defense. But they were both too far forward in those games and had no one behind them to do that kind of work. In fact, one of them should be doing it themselves.

 

Mathis is listed at 5'10"

http://www.soccertimes.com/usteams/roster/men.htm

 

I'll let you in on a little secret: many of the US soccer players are not as tall as they are listed as.

I know this from meeting them face to face. I am 5'10". Yet I found myself standing taller than John Harkes (who is listed at 5'11") and towering over Reyna (listed at 5'9"). Eric Wynalda is listed at 6'1" but he had, at the most, one inch over me.

I have yet to meet Mathis in person. But I would be shocked if he were truly as tall as he is listed at.

 

I met Mathis last year. I'm a legitimate 5'9" and he seemed a bit taller than me.

 

Great analysis, Nutmeg. Thanks.

However, I should point out: The option of playing Donvan in the Stewart role would disrupt your combination of Klein and Cherundolo, which worked so well. I think it's important to have players who actually know the fine details of the position they're being asked to play. In one of his best games with the National team, Regis was paired with JOB in midfield. These two had the same kind of understanding of each other's duties which you rightly attribute to the Klein/Cherundolo combination.

In the same vein, Mathis at A-mid would upset that combination of Mastro./Convey. Even when healthy, I don't remember Mathis tracking back too far to help with defensive responsibilities.

 

I've meet Mathis once (at a Silverbacks game), and I'd say he's definitely 5'10".

 

I've thought this as well. Ljungberg had always played right behind the strikers until he arrived at Arsenal. Wenger thought that type of player does not succeed in England so he forced him to learn how to play out wide in the midfield. It took a while to adjust to tracking back more and playing solid defensively, but he did adjust and carried Arsenal to the double in the final few months.

Ljungberg's runs into the middle are a great fit with a player like Dennis Bergkamp, a forward but not a true striker. Bergkamp will play a little deeper than Henry, draw defenders towards him and lock defenses with brilliant passes to either Henry or Ljungberg running through the middle. I think Mathis could provide similar service to Donovan.

 

I think the debate about height and Mathis is becoming tangential. Mathis could be 5'7" or 6'1"--I think we can all agree that the strength of his game isn't in the air can't we? And that's the point of the initial post on that--a pairing of Mathis and Donovan involves 2 players who would much rather have the ball at their feet, come back to midfield, and look to pass or create instead of...
--playing with their back to goal;
--chase 50-50 balls in the air (and win more than 50% of them!);
--be an outlet for keeper's goal kicks and punts (even when closely marked);
--be an obvious target on corners and restarts near the box.

Instead, we'd much rather have either of these players with the ball playing it to a target man or some big man or poacher in the box wouldn't we? That's their strength: their vision, technical ability, willingness to take risks, passing ability, and unselfishness with the ball (those aren't the only things they're good at, only some of the things they share).

 

I can't comment too much since I wasn't able to see the Jamaica game. However, I do think we can't put too much into performances of players against Argentina and Jaimaca. That players loked better against a much lesser opponent isn't particularly surprising. It doesn't give a meaningful point of comparison. It's apples and oranges.

I do agree that Mathis and Donovan didn't look good together against Argentina and it doesn't sound like anything changed against Jamaica. And, if they aren't effective against Jamaica, that's not the best news. I'm also all for Mathis in midfield if he can do the running. He's got more bite in his game than Donovan, which can come in handy in the middle more so than up front. Although they're gonna switch off and on during play anyway.

I think our best attacking trio is Mathis in midfield behind Donovan and McBride for the foreseeable future. If we're all MLS, I'd like to see Wolf and Mathis up front with Donovan behind them. Convey or someone else may start to figure in as the next few years go on.

The biggest offensive problem I see is that I hate the idea of playing a target man style when we don't have a decent target forward to fill the spot. Without McBride, relying on a target forward is just silly for the US since no other player can fill the spot with any decent success.

 

I think part of the problem is that we continue to play the long ball style of play even when the personnel doesn't warrant such an attack.

The US does not do enough short passing working the ball up from the defenders, through midfield and to the strikers. In such an attack, I think a Mathis and Donovan forward pair could be brutally effective, with Mathis beating double teams through quick, creative passes to Donovan, and Donovan beating his marker off the dribble, forcing a switch and leaving Mathis open for the finish.

The problem is that neither Howard, nor really any of our young defenders do anything with the ball other than whacking it 40 yards up the field.

If you have McBride or a player of this type, this can work at times, but you have to abandon it when the personnel isn't there.

So that we're still not using short passing while McBride isn't around means either:

a) We're simply incapable of doing so, meaning we should get to work at developing players that can, or

b) We're choosing not to, which brings into question why not.

There's more than one way to skin this cat and there are plenty of very successful teams who do not generally play long balls into a typical target forward. Creative forwards like Donovan, Mathis, Wolff and Cunningham can work well in pairs, but not in the style of game the US has been playing.

Should we change the style or change the players?

I have my preferences...

Nevertheless, the USA record in the four post-WC friendlies is still quite solid with 8 for and only 2 against during the offseason.

 

Exactly! Though that has less to do with tactics and style and more with capability. We're not the most technically gifted team in the world (even with our first 11 on the field). When you look at the pace and pressure of a topflite international match (ie: not a friendly and not against Jamaica), the number of guys on our backline who have technical ability, composure and some quick thinking...well, it's a very short list. Sanneh? And, um....well....er....maybe if Reyna plays right back and O'Brien plays left back?

Regis has technical ability but lacks composure and drifts in and out of matches. Bocanegra seems to have gained composure but still isn't the most technically gifted of players (which is why his assist to Klein is reason for hope). Pope is composed and one of our more technically solid defenders. Berhalter is composed (but technically not much to write home about). Cherundolo has technical ability but Arena dropped him when he got the "deer in the headlights" look in his eyes in WCQ.

People were quick to condemn the Convey and Victorine experiments. I agree that Convey is a better mid than defender. And he'll never be Roberto Carlos (but then, who will other than RC?). But unless Corey Gibbs or Greg Vanney is going to make some big strides or Chris Gbandi, as an MLS rookie is going to show he better than anyone else RIGHT NOW, we're either going to have to tolerate "kickball" from our backline (which makes a target man essential if any of those "50-50" clearances and distributions will end up in American "hands") or experiment by moving more skilled players to the backline (and remember, Sanneh was a striker in the A-league and even occassionally with DCU, Hejduk was a midfielder in MLS and our best attacker against Germany in WC "98). Our current talent pool of backline players doesn't have the technical ability, vision and composure to do anything other than "kickball" unless we add some aging players (Sanneh) or shift some guys to the backline.

 

I disagree. I think one of the reasons teams apply so much pressure to our defenders is that we appear unwilling to make safe passes back and forth to our defenders ad infinitum until the other team gets the picture and tells its forwards to cut it out.

I think if we started to show that we were willing to hang back there and hold the ball until the other team's forwards collapse of exhaustion, you'd see a lot less helter skelter pressure on our defenders and we'd be able to start a more controlled game through the center of the field.

All it really takes is having our players positioned correctly (full backs hang back until ball goes forward and stay wide, center backs give each other space and communicate, keeper ready for back passes to quickly distribute wide to full backs) and some basic training and with numerical superiority there's no way we shouldn't be able to hold possession indefinitely back there 99 times out of 100.

Let them tire their attackers out in a futile attempt to create a turnover if that's what they want to do.

I think we play long ball because we want to (it's perceived to be "safer"), not because we necessarily have to.

We certainly should begin to work on a style in which we can do either as circumstances dictate.

 

Upon watching the game again last night, I'd like to add a comment:

It was Steve Cherundolo, our skill defender, that was the primary source for most of those aimless longballs. Probably because he hadn't played with most of these guys before. Garcia and Califf tended to play safe, short balls to Pablo, Bobby, or Beasley.

I bring this up because it seems to contradict the idea that if we had more technical players in the back, we'd play fewer aimless longballs.

 

Cherundolo is a technically solid defender. But Arena dropped him when he started to lock up in WCQ. Thus, the situation where with the replacement of Cherundolo and Regis, the USA was going into the WC with 2 outside defenders who hadn't been the "go-to" guys for a lot of the WCQ (Sanneh--who played, but some of it was at outside mid, and Hejduk).

I think the point is not that we should do anything to get technical ability there (outside back or backline) but we also need composure. Pope probably doesn't have the technical ability of Cherundolo but Eddie is pretty composed on the ball and doesn't give it away or make dump passes.

I'd argue we're looking to upgrade at least 3 things on our backline (maybe four if you included speed): technical ability, composure on the ball, and quickness of thought. We've already got guys who aren't bad individual defenders, will run all day, can head and are tough. That's fine for club play but internationally Arena wants more.

 

Great thread idea, nutmeg, and you are on the money with Convey.

I just got the US-ARG match in the mail and there are a few things that standout, Convey being one of them.

First of all, I don't think he had the horrible game that everyone said he did. One thing that people forget about our outside backs is that BRUCE wants them to push forward. Sure Convey got caught a couple of times, but he was awesome at times as well, and made quite a few defensive stops. He did not suck, as I have read some people claim. He did not play ANY worse on defense than any of our back line, and there were times when the entire defense screwed up Even BS's new favorite son, Boca made a couple of boneheaded plays, and Maestro got caught WAY out of position on that goal, flying across the field AT the Argie with the ball - he never had a chance. (People are blaming Olson, but go look at the goal and tell me exactly what PM was trying to accomplish on defense)

The second thing is the comparison in demeanor between him and Donovan. While Donovan cried to the ref every single time he got fouled, Convey had his game face on at all times, AND decked the crap out of some Argentinian guy with that same killer look. Looking at his face reminded me of that mean mother, Roy Keane (Ireland discussion on another board).

If anything, he played awesome for his, what, second game at left back against Argentina's B-team - which is certainly just as talented as their A team, and in the middle of their season.

This kid, barring injury, is a major part of our team of the future. You can count on that.