Rimando Namoff Petke Nelsen Alegria Stewart Etch Convey Olsen Tino Kovalenko Keys No D midfielder Petke Nelsen do not venture up enough to really need a dedicated defensive midfiedler. Stewart starts on the right but plays anywhere -- sort of his role on the nat'l side. Right Mid and D-Mid are done by committe R Mid - Namoff/Stewart D-Mid - Nelsen/Petke/Etch/Convey/Stewart FWD should be by committed untill we find our Ruiz/Twellman
Well, doesn't seem like we've got much choice re: Alegria right now. But I do agree with the idea of Stewart and Olsen on the outside rather than Convey. When healthy, I'd still like to see... ------Ivan Nelsen Petke -----Namoff--Dema Stewart----Convey----Olsen -------Tino------Esk Let's find out who can do what. We're not winning the Cup anyway and it'd be better to find out this year whether Convey and Eskandarian can play where we'll need them to.
Yes we do, David Stokes. Oh I'm sorry he only plays as a central defender, that's a BS excuse. Eddie Pope played as both a central and outside defender, Bocanegra, Califf, Garcia, Suarez, CJ Brown, I could go on, have at one point in time played centrally and on the outside with decent results. Stokes is a defender, so he knows what it takes whether on the inside or the outside he could get the job done better that Chino, who until Saturday, was never a defender and didn't have much of a clue out there. Stokes is a rookie but I don't hold it against him. There have been plenty of rookie defenders who have done well, let's find out how he would do, he couldn't do any worse than Chino.
There is a big difference between defending on the wing and playing in the center. Just ask Jeff Agoos. I have not seen Stokes play, but from what I have read it does not appear that he is ready to play on the outside. I won't go into the differences but there is reason why they are different positions and not just defenders.
Please go into the differences because I don't see that big a difference. I think it's actually easier defending on the wing. You have a much more limited and defined space to worry about, you have the sideline to help you out and if you get beaten there are 2 central defenders available to provide cover. Also you usually have the outside midfielder to help out because most teams don't play with 3 forwards so you're not man marking most of the time. Agoos played many a time as a left back in the early days of United. You honestly believe that Chino is a better outside defender than Stokes is?
In the modern game, there is a huge difference between the responsibilities of an outside and central defender in a four back scheme. In most such formations, the outside defenders have to get forward or at least distribute effectively in order to have an offense that is any more than a long ball attack. Now, some central defenders have the ability to play both inside and outside. Bocanegra is the best example of this; however, very few defenders have as sweet a foot as his. Agoos had the passing ability, though his lack of speed was a drawback when playing outside. Pope is 1 billion times better in the center, as is CJ Brown, Nick Garcia and apparently Suarez. I doubt very much whether Califf has ever played outside in a 4 back set-up. Now I don't know how good Chino is as a right back or if Stokes is more similar to Boca or Califf. But the idea that the roles of the outside and central defenders are interchangeable in a four back set is incredibly simplistic.
Interesting discussion. For the sake of arguing, I wouldn't qualify the difference between outside and inside backs to be huge, even in the modern game. Defenders are defenders-they learn to backtrack, guard man-to-man, anticipate moves, where the danger areas are, work with fellow defenders through communication and proper spacing, etc etc. Of course there are differences, like I said I just wouldn't call them huge You can say it's important for a side back to get forward and distribute, but in general defenders are NOT under great pressure when they try to distribute and get forward instead of just clearing the ball Pope is 1 billion times better in the center I don't buy it. I will buy center back is more important than side back, which is why the better defenders (in this case Pope) are asked to play center back Now I don't know how good Chino is as a right back or if Stokes is more similar to Boca or Califf If you want to talk about huge differences, the difference from a midfielder to a defender, or from a forward to a defender (it can happen-AJ Wood), to me is MUCH larger than from side back to central back or vice-versa. Alegria at back, or Convey at back, is ridiculous. I can't believe Bruce Arena or Hudson or Trask or whoever would do that. I think it's cruel to the youngsters to confuse the hell out of them like that and force them to play out of position and look bad. This putting Convey at center mid, where he played great, then putting him back to left wing, then the back for the national team is just a complete JOKE Regardless this is a great conversation to pass the work day with....
Originally posted by Martin Fischer In the modern game, there is a huge difference between the responsibilities of an outside and central defender in a four back scheme. In most such formations, the outside defenders have to get forward or at least distribute effectively in order to have an offense that is any more than a long ball attack. So central defenders never have to distribute the ball effectively? I guess you expect them to just whack it upfield when they win the ball. The only differences you have cited is outside backs have to get forward and distribute effectively. I would suggest central defenders also have to distribute effectively. So we are down to one difference, I wouldn't call that huge Now, some central defenders have the ability to play both inside and outside. Bocanegra is the best example of this; however, very few defenders have as sweet a foot as his. Agoos had the passing ability, though his lack of speed was a drawback when playing outside. Pope is 1 billion times better in the center, as is CJ Brown, Nick Garcia and apparently Suarez. I doubt very much whether Califf has ever played outside in a 4 back set-up. These players maybe better in the center, but in a pinch would you a) play one of these guys as an outside defender or b) someone who never has played defender is his entire career. Now I don't know how good Chino is as a right back or if Stokes is more similar to Boca or Califf. But the idea that the roles of the outside and central defenders are interchangeable in a four back set is incredibly simplistic. I never said the position were interchangeable, but they are similar enough. I said that we had a defensive player in Stokes who would do better as an outside defender than Chino would. Every time I say this all I get is "Stokes is only a central defender". That may be his best position but it doesn't convince me that he would be worse as an outside defender than Chino Alegria who has never played as an outside defender, let alone a defender, in his whole MLS career.
....we had a defensive player in Stokes who would do better as an outside defender than Chino would. Every time I say this all I get is "Stokes is only a central defender". That may be his best position but it doesn't convince me that he would be worse as an outside defender than Chino Alegria who has never played as an outside defender, let alone a defender, in his whole MLS career. Agree! Those who play on the field know-going from a center back position to an outside defender position in general is EASIER. You make a mistake, less likely to result in a goal or at least a shot, more likely to result in a cross or help. Not only that, as was said before, a side back has the sideline and the goal line. Plus there's less defending to do because play can be on the "other side" so you can take a break. Also in general there's less congestion on a side than there is in front of the goal-less room for confusion as to assignments. We should've put Stokes in there. I think reports were he played well. We drafted him as a defender-play him on defense. Wasted opportunity. From all accounts Alegria sucked at side back-easiest position on the field-and helped cost us the game
bottom line there is a difference ---They are two different positions --you can't compare apples to oranges. some folks can play both positions --C. Bocanegra, M. Petke, N. Garcia some can only play on the outside, F. Hejduk, S. cherundolo, m. Reyes some can only play on the center --A. lalas, M. Balboa, D. Califf IMO I think E. Pope has all the tools to play outside back in flat four, but I do not think he will be good at that position.
back to the question of the diferences between a centerback and an outsideback and if stokes or chino is a better player in that spot. First of all there are outsidebacks and wingbacks. Outsidebacks are expected to just defend, but on the wings instead of the center. Stokes would be the better alternative for this. He is a defender plain and simple. But i think hudson wants to play with wingbacks because our central defense is so stong. wingbacks attack first and defend later. Cafu and Roberto Carlos are the best example of this type of player. Chino and namoff are obviously not in these players league, but that is the style ray wanted. i don't think that either of them played that well, but if we did not have any injuries they would not be playing anyways. So stokes could have defended better, and might have been a safer option, but he could not attack out of the back like chino and namoff were supposed to do. I don't think that we should change our style of defending on the first game of the season. Prideaux should be back in about a week and that will really help out.
The only player we had who could play this role was Reyes, unfortunately his injury denied us tht ability. "So stokes could have defended better, and might have been a safer option, but he could not attack out of the back like chino and namoff were supposed to do" Well they didn't attack out of the back and seemed to be under pretty strict direction to not venture past midfield. People are missing the crux of the question here; Would Stokes have performed at least the same if not better than Chino? That's what started this whole thing and so far no one has said anything that convinces that Stokes couldn't have performed the same or better. We have debated central back v. outside back and roles and responsibilities but only one other person has answered the question.
I'm certainly no fan of playing Alegria these days, regardless of where--outside back, d-mid, keeper, or target forward--but who has seen Stokes play much, if at all? Maybe during the open practice? Charleston? Thus, I'm guessing very few on these boards can make much more of an argument for Stokes other than this: he's played his whole career (or maybe just his college career--I don't know) as a defender so he's just got to have some defender skills and we'll take it on faith that he's a better wing back than Alegria (who's never played defender in an MLS game and was mediocre there at best last Saturday), regardless of whether he's played primarily as a center back or a wing back. Dyson's seen Stokes a lot more this spring than I did (I saw only 45 minutes of one intrasquad scrimmage where I paid him little attention other than to identify who he was). In a discussion last night on the Soccer Show about whether United should go after another defender or not, Dyson made the comment that while Stokes handles his defending responsibilities well enough, his real problems arise in doing anything with the ball after he's won it or received it--he's just not MLS-ready yet with his ball skills or his thinking.
My answer is I don't have the slighest idea if Stokes would have played better than Chino. I thought the defense played well. 3 goals lets break em down. 1) someone over committs to preki and he lashes a bomb which i think was deflected causes rimando to go the wrong way. An error in the midfield led to a deflection that caused a goal. 2) Klein beats either Namoff or convey to goal. no problem defensive error written all over. Klein outhustled and wanted the ball more than namoff/convey 3)Rimando comes out and does not get the ball. goalkeeping error. I do not think Chino had a bad game. My problem is with the offense not the defense.
the whole point if this thread was to get Convey off the wing -- I think he will be more effective in the middle next M.Etch
I think BigRyan organizes defenders by type very good. OK, central defenders have to distribute effectively. But in general, a good central defender has the skill to control the ball in tight spaces, maybe carry it forward if there is a hole and make effective short passes on the ground, usually to a deep central midfielder who will really do the link work. On the outside, the distribution is more varied and constrained by the sideline. However, wide defenders have a lot more opportunity to make long passes and crosses than central defenders. These are significant differences. Of course you can use a central defender on the outside -- you just may have trouble generating offense if you do so. Look at the USMNT's outside backs -- on the right Hejduk has played defender, midfield and, in his first year in Germany, a type of wing forward positon, while Sanneh has played every position from central defender to forward. Look now at the Victorine experiment, he has played target forward for LA, in addition to a variety of midfield positions. Even Cherundolo has played some outside midfield. On the left, Arena has used Convy and Wade Barrett, a converted midfielder. Ajax uses John O'Brien, the USMNT playmaker, at left back. There are exceptions going the other way, such as Lilian Thuran, but it is a lot more common to find outside backs in the midfield than from a pure central defender. I have never seen Stokes play, but based on the little I have heard about him and the little I have seen of Alegria, I doubt it because Alegria most likely has better ball control and passing ability, when combined with decent defensive ability, is a better fit at an outside back position.
I have a different take on the 3rd goal because if Chino is actually anywhere near his man to contest the cross Rimando doesn't have to come out to try and get the ball ergo no fumbled cross potentially no goal scored. The reason I think Rimando goes for the ball is he see's a KC player standing wide open with the ball going straight for his head and an uncontested header. If Chino is goalside and in a position to contest this cross maybe Nick doesn't come for the ball but slides across the face of the goal. KC still may have scored, maybe they don't, but the defense, especially Chino left Rimando out to dry. Let's go back to last few minutes in regulation when Chino stood still as his man blew by him for a header that nailed Nick in the chest and Marco clears out of the area. Alegria made maybe 2 good passes out of the back often times giving away possesion very cheaply or just fouling the other team. He sould have received a yellow for the nasty tackle on the side of the box. I felt he played a terrible game. I had more problems with the defense overall. For this team to score twice against a pretty solid defensive team like KC was surprising.
Just one question. Forget what "coaches throughout the world" do/what you're "supposed" to do You're an experienced right side midfielder. You've got the ball a defender's in front of you or you're receiving a corner w/a defender guarding you. Which defender would you choose to go against? David Stokes, defender, 6"3, 195 http://www.mlsnet.com/bios/david_stokes.html OR Chino Alegria, midfielder, 5'8", 145 http://www.mlsnet.com/bios/chino_alegria.html
An extremely negative formulation of the problem. Who would you rather have supporting the offense? Or do you prefer to put four lugs in the back and just have them boot the ball aimlessly down the field?
Do you think David Stokes aimlessly boots the ball downfield? Do you think I prefer that the backline aimlessly kick the ball downfield? C'mon...... I take it the positive formulation for the left back is this: "You're Santino Quaranta and your team needs a goal. The left back has received the ball and is looking to pass. Who would you rather have back there-David Stokes or Chino Alegria?"
Is getting Convey off the wing the key to fame and fortune? I am not so sure it's as much where Convery plays as how much he can focus on offense. If DC were stronger defensively, Convey, as outside midfielder in a 4-4-2 or a 3-5-2, could focus more of his energies on offense. He could be a creative player in an outside position, much like Ralston is for New England. He might be able to do the same from an inside position, but again if he had to cover for others' defensive weaknesses, he might not get much of a chance to venture forward. On Saturday, part of Convey's responsibility was to help Namoff. In part, that's the conventional way to help a outside back guard a talented forward. Also, in part, it is testimony to the fact that DC cannot afford to have anyone else help out. DC has to let the two central defenders stay in the middle because the central midfielders are relatively weak defensively. If DC were stronger defensively down the middle, they could have other players help out an outside back and let Convey still push up. Another thought -- obviously no MLS team can protect itself against three defenders getting hurt. Nevertheless, DC's current situation should make everyone value players like Kamler, Talley and Armstrong a bit more --players that could play more than one position with relative ease. Any one of them would be better than Alegria on the outside; probably better than Namoff as well.