Its probably cause I associate it with criminal charges. To acquit oneself you're proving you didn't do something wrong. For a player to show his quality it's not about showing he didn't do something wrong but more that he did something right. For me they don't need to show that they are not of the level but that they are of the level. It's a way of thinking I guess. You prove you can do something not that you can't. I suppose you can call me glass half full.
You know you're right. He just plays. He even plays well but kind of emotionless. So for me Brooks needs Cameron or Hedges. Hopefully Brooks starts taking control so he can be a leader and organizer so younger players can be opposite him.
CCV probably has the best organizer qualities out of the young bunch. He may be ideal alongside Brooks.
Im not surprised. But to obsess on a player like Zusi? Out of position! Bruce isnt stupid. Or maybe his talent evaluation is far less superior than I had previously given him credit for.
Why? We don't play a 3 cb defense with Chadler as WB. Chandler's best attribute is stepping up between the halfwayline and the attacking end. He doesn't defend well at all and would be picked on immediately if we played him against quality opponents. Without 3 cb's to back him up he would be in the defending end screwing up.
Anybody not placing Cameron as the 6, his best spot, where he's playing consistently in the Premier League and an asset, when he helps as protect the cb pairing pairing, which can be strong without him, and the experienced cm can't; put a BIG FAT X through your lineup. It's a major mistake.
Agree that Arena would do well to use Cameron like he's deployed at Stoke. Chandler seems to have been shifted to midfield as well by his German club, but I don't know exactly where he plays. Just as Arena envisaged Johnson at left mid before his injury, it would be better to keep players at the same position as they play for their clubs.
Eh, against better opposition he's pretty much going to need somebody next to him, again, much like the incumbent...
Not "much" better. And of course he comes with some glaring weaknesses at that position that will drive folks who bitc# about MB crazy...
Eh, he's much more positionally disciplined than Bradley, more mobile, and an actual ball-winner. Half the time with Stoke he's played with guys like Allen and Adam in front of him. The other half it's been Whelan or just in this last game it was Muniesa. He plays a pretty true 6 all the way up to an 8. He's versatile within cm like he is along the defense or in general. It just keeps being proven his best spot, like he said it was and we've seen over the years when he's played there. But keep sticking to your original opinion because that's what you originally thought and that's all that matters.
Geoff is by far the best DM out of our current group. Bradley is not even close. Give Geoff an offensive minded and he will do a fine job. He probably won't be what got you beat if you don't win.
Hard to take anything you say seriously when you clearly haven't been watching (or at least lack an understanding of what you are watching)... When you're on the opposite side of an argument from these two posters, you're usually in a pretty good place... In all seriousness, I'm not opposed to running Geoff out in CM, but the notion that he's a big upgrade or doesn't come with his own serious weaknesses is just ridiculous.
I haven't seen Geoff play for club this year. How about playing him in a 3cb line instead of the 6? Previously we've lacked wb's but there appear to be candidates in the pool now. Pulisic looked good at rf in a 343 with Durm at wb and Piscek at rcb which his club played in CL. Somebody said Arena actually used to coach a 3 cb back line. The problem with Cameron at 6 for me is lack of passing ability. HIs club may be able to accommodate it on a week to week basis after having all summer to make plans against league opponents but I don't think we could at the international level.
To be clear, I wasn't saying he was a poor man's Weigl or anything of that sort. His weaknesses are easy to mask, whereas Bradley's weaknesses have gotten us beat fairly regularly since the WC. At his club he is used to mask the weaknesses of others, I think a PL manager knows more about the position than internet keyboard warriors. He also plays at a signiificantly higher level than MB. Geoff now plays the spot for a midtable PL club, and it has long been his best spot. Passing is not his best attribute but his weaknesses are over played as I have seldom seen him commit poor touches or turnovers in midfield that lead to goals, yet it has become a meme with MB as DM. I have seen Geoff switch off at CB, but he seems more engaged playing as CDM and does not switch off nearly as much.
I would much rather he be in midfield to use his range to thwart counters before they reach our final third, start our own counter with his positive short passing and evasive actions off the dribble, and occasionally break into the attack with a marauding run off the dribble. Geoff's passing is actually solid until you ask him to swing his foot through the ball. Stoke looks to him plenty as a safety valve. That speaks to his coolness on the ball, dribbling, and decision-making, which Bradley doesn't possess right now. Just don't ask him to play too many long balls. But that's aggravated by playing in Stoke. You aren't going to find many windier places than that. For the national team, he actually played some wicked ones in his limited time at cm. He played a deft pass over the top to EJ for an assist in the WC qualifier against Panama. And the last time I recall him having a really bad turnover which could have realistically led to a goal was quite a while ago. Bradley is good for a few per game.
So you are saying Bradley has been good for us since the WC? I think outside of couple of three games he has been one wankfest after another. I used to think he was our most important player but his form has had me thinking he has been a big liability. Oh and if you are going to quote me, please don't purposefully misrepresent what I said like you did in your second quote.