Ever since the Mexico friendly and his play this season in San Jose in the midfield, everyone has assumed that Donovan is permanently entrenched in an attacking midfield role for the US. Is this really the case? Bruce Arena's strongest point as a coach is his ability to custom-tailor game plans for specific opponents. Looking back on Donovan's career to date, we see that while he has enjoyed success as a midfielder, most of this success has come against Latin-style teams. On the other hand, he shone in the World Cup playing up top against Poland and Germany. While Donovan will likely play in midfield for most of the WCQ, I believe that Bruce is keeping his options open regarding using him up top, particularly given our lack of depth at striker and relative strength in numbers in central midfield. Even if Donovan plays midfield in every WCQ game, would anyone really be surprised if he lines up as a striker in a WC game against a team like England or Germany?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Donovan at forward, center mid, or right mid. Hell, even if left mid if we had a shortage of left mids. Depends upon who else Arena likes, as well as the matchups presented by the specific opponent. However, I do not believe that we will see Donovan at center back.
Donovan is a very capable player who must see a lot of the ball. If he does not, the US is in trouble. One way he can is by playing in midfield. BA has said, however, that LD is the best finisher on the US squad. So, something is lost by playing him in midfield. What should not happen, however, is what occurred in the Holland friendly when he seemingly went tens of minutes at a time without any opportunity on the ball. That can't happen. If someone, say Eddie Gaven, were to get some time as a playmaking midfielder, LD probably would move back to attack, depending on the game. Regardless, the US really needs someone clever in the central midfield who gets the ball a huge number of times, can hit great passes and occasionally runs at the goal. Right now, that person is Donovan. But, I agree that he could very well play every game in the next WC as a forward if BA finds the right midfield alternatives (e.g., Gaven or JOB, if he can walk).
Id rather have him at forward then right midfielder than like he has been in the last two games. But I think at this point Id rather have him in central midfield. If Bruce had a right midfielder he really liked Id expect that McBride/Donovan would have been the starting forward tandem. For the Quakes he has been moved tp central mid to accomodate Ching and DeRo, and to shore up central midfield depth which was thin. Its not like its new, its just how circumstances have played out of late.
i like him most as an attacking mid, but i do think there is always a likelihood of him playing a couple of other positions.
As others have said, LD is best with the ball running at people. That being said, I like him best at AM in the center of the park - like in the last Mexico match. I think playing him on the right because Claudio is in the center is a horrible, horrible move. Claudio is past his prime and plays too many back passes. My dream setup is with Claudio in the Armas role and Landon in the AM role. Why Bruce hasn't tried this yet is beyond me. Anyone else think that when Claudio plays he holds Landon back ?
I kind of agree with this...except for the claudio being terrible part... my thought in the Honduras match with Claudio and Landon in the Center of midfield was that one of them was active and that meant the other one disappeared. They were both trying to play same position and when claudio was trying to pull the strings from deeper Landon usually got bypassed. When Landon had the ball and was taking on defenders Claudio got left behind. Landon either needs to play the A-mid Claudio needs to play behind him, or Claudio needs to play the A-mid and Landon needs to play somewhere else. If they split time that means that our two best players are only seeing the ball 50% of the time. I had the same problem in the Poland match where Claudio and Clint were in the central midfield. Claudio (and Berhalter) kept playing early balls from deep positions that simply by passed clint mathis. Now Claudio is very capable in delivering quality balls from distance but the problem is that if he isn't playing the A-mid then his long balls are bypassing whoever is. Does this make sense?
If Gaven or someone will step up as a true right-side mid we could play Donovan in a 5-man midfield in front of JOB and Reyna. That's ideal, I think.
I don't see what the problem is in sticking Armas or Mastroeni in next to Reyna behind Donovan right now. We can't wait around forever for JOB to get healthy or for our youth players to be ready. Steve Cherundolo would do fine as a right wingback in a 3-5-2.
LD needs the same role that Scholes and Zidane and, simply, everyone who's anyone is getting these days: Right mid, freedom to create and run at people. Anyone thinking he can't influence a game sufficiently from there hasn't been watching Euro 04. When we have a dozen guys with his skill set, he's a forward. Until, he has a much greater influence on the game in the mid, and, to my mind, on the wing.
I think the US results with Donovan in midfield look like he's gonna be sticking mostly there for a while. It's unfortunate in a way that Donovan is our best forward and our best attacker from midfield. It forces Bruce to make a choice. Right now, I have to agree with the folks saying it's advantageous to have Landon playing in a spot where he touches the ball most. Sure, he's a good finisher up front, but if we end up with a less effective midfield and he only touches the ball a dozen times a game, mostly gathering passes in non-dangerous positions, we're not getting the most out of him and his finishing goes for naught. I only see him moving back up front if Bruce is experimenting, we stop getting good results as is, or we have more injuries and the forward pool dwindles to an unacceptable level.