The more I think abou it, I'm really looking foward to seeing a Pat Noonan and EJ combo up front...especially when Eddie Lewis returns to the US lineup. I can imagine Lewis pumping in cross after cross with that magic left foot of his, with EJ rising high to slam them home, Noonan flicking then far post for Dempsey to finish off or knocking them down to the 18 for Donovan to drill shots toward the corners. Regardless of what happens in this tournament, this is the core of our offense for the time being. Ralston is an adequate crosser from the right too, but with Cherundolo behind him, he'll eventually give way to a more two-way player. For those who defend McBride...I couldn't agree more. He is still class...extremely smart, massive work rate, top-notch in the air, strong on the ball, and a decent finisher with both feet. He'd be in my starting line-up for sure... But... When he's in the line-up, we seem to play with a different strategy. I can only assume this is by design. We seem to be content to bypass the midfield and knock long balls to McBride all day. True, this is a strength, but I think BMB could fit in just fine with the short passing style we are playing in the GC or the knock-it-wide-and-cross style we play when Lewis is in the lineup. Ok, I must be bored again, I'm rambling on. The point is, I hope we don't change our focus when McBride is back in the lineup.
I'm somewhat cool on Noonan but have to agree that he has the right 2nd forward qualities of laying off, showing to the ball, and quick flicks, as well as enough ball skills and decent enough (at int'l level) shot accuracy to be able to take advantage of being left 1-on-1 if GAM draws all the attention. However, in games where Target + EJ isn't our striker pairing, I really think there will be either two others up there w/Eddie or no one else. Also, just to be consistent with thread topic, I side w/Appoo on the question of talent v. experience as principle criteria for deciding the issue: talent it is. That doesnt' automatically rule out McBride but I really think we'll see a young gun (emphasis on gun) on the WC06 roster for that reason.
Yes, on the current Gold Cup team, opponents could focus on Donovan and most of the other scoring options are not as impressive. Beasley and Dempsey seem the next best threats, but Donovan, Beasley and Dempsey have only been together on the field at the same time for relative few minutes (productive minutes, to be sure). I'll assume that as the games get tougher, those three will be on the field together more and more. But I wouldn't worry too much, yet, about the WC06 problem (as is bolded in the quote above) based on this Gold Cup team. Johnson and McBride will also be available, in addition to Donovan, Beasley and the improving Dempsey. In an ideal sense, having "only" 5 guys with a track record as finishers seems like a problem for the US. But when compared to the last two WC's, we'll be almost overloaded with scoring threats!!! Seriously. Just compare McBride, Donovan, Beasley, Johnson, and Dempsey with the past. Which of the following players was "mark-worthy"? WC98: Wynalda, Wegerle, Moore, McBride. NONE of these guys were mark-worthy by an opponent at that time. Wynalda was coming off an injury and was near the end of his career. Wegerle hardly belonged on a WC squad. Moore was fiesty as always, but never one to make opponents tremble. McBride was the relatively new guy and wasn't even starting all the time (but he did score the only goal). WC02: Mathis, McBride, Donovan, Wolff, and Moore. McBride and Donovan showed they could play and by the end of the Cup opponents had to pay some attention. But Mathis never really lived up to his billing, Wolff was just a solid reserve, and Moore was near the end of his career. Two players were borderline mark-worthy. A clear improvement, but still not scary to opponents. By comparison to the past two WC's, the US now has several attacking players that opponents need to pay attention to. Donovan is clearly mark-worthy now. If Johnson is healthy, opponents must treat him as mark-worthy or his combination of size, speed, and finishing will hurt them. Beasley, based on his Champions League and Dutch league scoring, is also mark-worthy; ignore him at your own risk. McBride may not be worthy of a full-time marker, but you have to respect his ability to score inside the 18, something he has done in 2 WC's now. Finally, Dempsey seems to be about to become a 5th scoring threat; the kind of player who could sneak up on opponents worried about the other US threats. The team is better off going into the 2006 WC than ever before (knock on wood).
This is a generic article. Landon complained about being grabbed by the Canadians. This must make him the first player ever to be so defended.
Unless Mcbride suddenly loses it in the next 11 months I think he has this spot all the way. I think its good to have someone with his experience playing with GAM who is very inexperienced still and has never played in a world cup. Plus, Landons best spot is attacking midfield not forward.
Landon had the fewest touches on Leverkusen too. Arena, for better or worse, plays a similar style to Augenthaler's squad. In any case, the fact that Landon was marked is largely irrelevant. A quality offensive player finds ways to beat his marker. In 1972, the late great Raymond Gotthäls was coaching the Belgian squad playing at home in the Euros semis against West Germany. "Whatever we do", promised Gotthäls, "we will stop Gerd Müller. You can count on that." The game ended 2:1 in the Papa Schön's boys favor ... with der Bomber scoring both German goals. Now, Appoo will say, "The 1972 Belgium isn't 2,005 Canada. Its defenders must be 60 years old now." PS. Oh, and the US moved the ball very well vs. Yallop's squad. With 'Dolo, Ralston, JOB and Vanney controlling the midfield, Donovan didn't have to do much in the midfield all game. But he still couldn't find the ball.
Somehow, he managed to score twice against Cuba and got our only goal against the Canadians. That we want more from him is quite telling about his talent and our expectations. And while I would agree that we moved the ball well against Canada, that was largely through the midfield and into the area. Once there, we often failed to make the extra pass to find the open man, and we had them all day. Noonan missed his opportunities, Wolff had few, and it wasn't until Beasley got behind the defense that we were able to finish. The finisher was Donovan. I'd prefer that any player who draws that kind of attention not try to be a super-hero, and instead involve his teammates. If LD can be faulted for anything, it would that he failed to read the defensive set and start the ball moving around the box to find the gap before the Canadians could adjust. As always, in soccer, it's about doing things quickly........we were a bit slow, and that allows an inferior team to hang around.
We shoud be playing with 3 forwards, LD, DMB and LD. I like LD in the midfield against lesser or non physical teams, but against the better teams I don't see him having an impact in central midfield. He's far more likely to find a favorable match up with a left back than a 6'3" defensive midfielder. If we are only playing 2 up front, I have no problem with McBride, Noonan or Ching partnering with Johnson, whoever is fit and in form.
... Mathis never really lived up to his billing... The team is better off going into the 2006 WC than ever before (knock on wood).[/QUOTE] i like the post except for the mathis part. mathis played in three games, IIRC. korea- scores the only goal poland- assists the only goal germany- comes on later than he should have, very dangerous for the time he was out there (better finishing and he would have had an assist in that game too) pretty tough for him to live up to his billing if da coach doesn't play him. i hope teams regard dempsey as not mark-worthy, all the better for him to come flying in and score on them. i think 2nd forward will be mcbride, but not all the time. probably start a game or two, sub in a game or two. if we play a big team like germany, i'm not sure we want mcbride. it seems counterintuitive since he's our best in the air, but i'd rather attack them with something they might not be well-prepared to handle, like crazy team speed.
And if memory serves me correctly, Landon did score, thus finding a way to beat his marker. But do go on with your insanity. I really dont' know what your problem is. But I'm going to try and go back to what was working for me for awhile....which was to ignore your posts.
Interesting as I have almost exactly the opposite viewpoint. Landon's strength is more making excellent passes and precise finished rather than taking on a defender one v. one. I like him much more utilizing his speed against the thuggish 6'3" defender you reference rather than a speedy left back. I also like the additional abilities he has to come back and get the ball from the AM and be more involved in the flow of our attack. However, against a less talented team, I think he may actually be more successful up top as he is probably the best finisher on our squad right now and someone else can handle ensuring good possession and passing against a mid-tier CONCACAF opponent. I think if we are playing Germany, France, Argentina, etc -- LD needs to be in the midfield to help start our counters with pace and possession. If he forward against such an opponent he may never see the ball.
Its not necessarily a thuggish 6'3" defender, its a 6'3" defensive midfielder who is athletic, but also physical. LD will just get muscled off the ball. Think of the worst game he has ever played against Liverpool. He was matched up against Gerrard, Biscan, and Hamman in the middle who are all 6'2' or bigger. No way he is going to win 50-50 battles against them. [/QUOTE=NBlue]I also like the additional abilities he has to come back and get the ball from the AM and be more involved in the flow of our attack. However, against a less talented team, I think he may actually be more successful up top as he is probably the best finisher on our squad right now and someone else can handle ensuring good possession and passing against a mid-tier CONCACAF opponent.[/QUOTE] He doesn't have the possession skills, ie strength on the ball, to be competitive against physical players. His game is quick passing and his skills are good enough to be productive in the middle against lesser teams, but better teams can neutralize him in the middle fairly easily, imo. [/QUOTE=NBLue] I think if we are playing Germany, France, Argentina, etc -- LD needs to be in the midfield to help start our counters with pace and possession. If he forward against such an opponent he may never see the ball. [/QUOTE] I disagree. His game is quick passes and runs off the ball. If we are trying to maintain possession, we are going to need Reyna, Lewis, JOB and Mastro to get it done. Certianly LD can help, but if the US is counting on LD to provide that role, we are going be disappointed. Think back to the second half of the CR qualifier, when they were pounding us for about 20 minutes. LD was no where to be found. He provided nothing in the middle of the field. I see an attacking 3 of LD, DMB and EJ to be pretty fluid with LD and DMB stretching the defense with their runs and feeding EJ for the finish. While we could go back and forth about where LD is best, I think the US is best with LD closer to goal.
I would like to see McBride playing at least 60-70 minutes of each game (assuming similar club performance to last year). I think his experience and physical presence are important up top. He gives protection to some of our smaller and more fragile boys in front of the goal. Also, BMB makes the US team much harder to defend because his style is so different than our other target men. I think that, in part, is why the other strikers seem to perform better while he is on the field. With McBride playing with his back to the goal, it opens many more runs for Donovan and DMB out of the midfield. That being said, I think he should be paired with a much younger guy who is hot at the moment. The educational value to a young hot striker either alternating games or operating as a super sub would be high.
There's lots of discussion about McBride, but I think his role in WC '06 will be fully dependent on getting regular minutes with Fulham and playing well. If I remember well, Fulham signed another quality forward in the off-season who was quoted that he fully expects to start for Fulham. If McBride doesn't get good, regular minutes with Fulham, we may not even see him at WC '06. There's plenty of time between now and then for other forwards like Twellman, Ching, Quaranta, Jaqua, and even someone we're not even considering, to step up and claim a spot on the roster. However, if McBride will be a regular with Fulham, there's no doubt in my mind he'll be at WC '06, most likely starting next to Johnson. In my opinion it all comes down to if he plays regulary for Fulham or not.
I certainly don't have the prescience to see who's gonna be where in The Nats attack 2006, but I beleive experience has to count for something. I am not a big BMB fan but Noonan has to step it up alot to be in consideration to bump BMB from the line up if it comes to that. Doing a lot of good things doesn't make up for poor finishing and finishing in The MLS is not the same as in The World Cup nor The EPL. The Nats tend to have finishing lapses at times ie outshooting Poland 17-8 but losing 3-1 and then having to "hope" for Korea to beat Portugal for the US to go through and outshooting Germany 11-6 but losing 1-0 and getting to go home. I beleive Wolff has lost his ability to finish and that Noonan and Dempsey will need to improve theirs before they will have a reg. spot in WC matches. Maybe experience is a contributing factor to talent?
Agreed.....McBride needs to find a regular slot with Fulham, as we saw his USMNT performance dip when he didn't, and we saw it rise once he did. At his age, form is a big factor. His fitness isn't an issue, as he's in stellar condition and I think the summer off was a wise move. Still, he needs to play to keep his form, and that's largely up to Chris Coleman. Fulham did sign Heidar Helguson, an Icelandic striker who will get minutes. They still have the aging Andy Cole, but Blackburn is after him, which would be good for McBride. The Canadian Radzinski is there, as is Collins John. Luis Boa Morte is still with Fulham as well, but Newcastle is pushing hard for him. The bigger issue is that Fulham often played with just one striker up top, while carrying a normal number of forwards. That switched late in the season, and they started playing well, with McBride getting more time. I think they'll start this season with 2 up top. My guess is that Brian is aware of these issues, and would talk with the club if he's not seeing the pitch on a regular basis. He doesn't need to be a regular starter, but he does need significant minutes. That'd be much easier with a 4-man rotation, and since my main interest is the USMNT, I'm hoping to see Cole and Boa Morte get moved to open up time for Brian.....
I gave him credit for getting off a great shot on that free kick, so I think I exhibit more fairness here than most posters, especially those taking the pro-Landon stance without a critical eye. And he did score all three goals as a forward, not a midfielder. Now, do you want him where? Pat was far more visible than Landon throughout the game, winning several headers for his team mates - including Landycakes who blew two early goal scoring chances - and creating havoc in the box as a target forward, which is not his natural position with the Revs. The highlighted sentence shows his failure as a playmaker, a position he played for the bulk of the game. IMO, Bruce has to create a position where LD is not a playmaking #10 but a some sort of a hybrid mid-forward. That's his strength ... however he has to produce and not back down a la Kyle Martino from a physical challenge. This would require him to take the first post in any cross and win a portion of them. But I don't see him doing that against quality competition. As a side (foot) note: Cuba is rated #64th and Canada 75th by ELo. Cuba is probably a tad overrated and Canada was playing a B-squad. All accomplishments are welcome obviously but let's not go ga-ga over this feat. PS. I agree with "DCC134" about Landon's game. This is where Arena has to prove his coaching acumen. He can't build the team around LD but he has to fit LD into the team and this is not going to be easy.
I'm not the one jumping on you for being anti-Landon, but it's hard to say he's struggling when he's been the main offensive weapon so far in the Gold Cup. Again, that we feel he could be doing more and playing better only speaks to his potential as what he's doing now is darn good, and he's arguably playing the best soccer of anyone on our team (you can make the argument for Keller and I'll agree to his level as well). I think the hybrid role is the right one for Landon as well. He needs some space to create, isn't quite physical enough for the midfield, isn't quite the classic striker as he often looks to distribute rather than shoot, and isn't quite effective as a target or runner. Canada played him effectively for 90+ minutes, and the team needs to learn how to play when an opponent is focused on one individual. And I agree, Noonan played well. Had he put his two excellent chances in the net against Canada, BS would be falling over itself with praise. Watching in person in Seattle, Cuba wasn't over-rated at all. They faded in both games, which speaks to their fitness and form, not having a domestic league. They earned a lot of respect from the fans watching, and they played some smart football. I walked away impressed, and wouldn't recommend that anyone take them lightly. They could become a regional factor fairly quickly. Canada had an excellent game-plan for hanging close, and that was based on maximizing the chances for the roster they put out there. Once upon a time, the US used to do the same crap.....bunker-down, keep it close, man-mark someone dangerous, and hope for a respectable score. B-team is accurate, but isn't the right word - it was a young team. Had we finished our chances, the scoreline would've looked like it should have (3-0 or 4-0), but I put that more on Noonan for not finishing........
It's fascinating to compare Dempsey and Donovan. Landon is a far more accomplished player with superior physical gifts. Clint has plenty of limitations ... but they don't seem to bother him. Tonight was almost a perfect example of their styles. Clint squandered a few chances because of his technical skills being still in "development". Landon barely showed up. In his 27 minutes, I counted him with 6 touches on the ball and 2 completed passes. This ain't gonna cut it. They were OK on the field. Their GK cost them several goals. The field players are decent enough athletes but marginal tactically and commit some silly fouls. I agree on Canada.
Not a good showing for either player, and if you're suggesting that what makes Landon annoying for many fans is his potential but inconsistency in overcoming his weaknesses, I've no problem with that, and I believe that Arena has even convinced LD that it's true. As for Cuba, agreed. The GK was cramping badly in the US game. It was Seattle....evening, upper 60's. It's not like he was out there running for 90 minutes in the tropics. Kind of odd and indicative of their conditioning issues. The had good speed, more than the US thought. Tactically, you're right, they had little in regard to a game plan. As they tired, they got sloppy with some tackles. Still, most of their issues are things you can address, and if they do, they might at least get to the semi-final round in CONCACAF.....