Does Beez need a spell at left back? After watching the embarrassment that was Bornstein and Pearce, do we need to give Beasley another go at left back as a viable backup to Bocanegra and Spector? The last time we saw him at LB was the horrendous Costa Rica match, which tactically, set everyone up to fail. You honestly have to believe at this point that neither Bornstein or Pearce should see the field (or the plane imo), and as such, we do need to see if, in a pinch, Beasley could fill that role with a competent game plan in place.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? I know what you are saying, but I just keep seeing a lost Eddie Lewis against Czech Republic...
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? I think it's just too late. Beaz has been tried there without real success. Beaz himself is already a question mark and moving him to LB woudl just compound the questions. Remember Eddie Lewis? At this point, it's Spector and Bocanegra at LB.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? that first touch of his would be his undoing back there.. if anyone pressed us high, he would be a turnover machine.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? those concerns are all valid, but we're still left with either spector or Bocanegra needing to play centrally at this point with Onyewu, and Demerit scaring the crap out of me through injury and vision issues. As this point, I truly feel a somewhat in form Beasley has to be thought of as a better option than Bornstein. Hell, Beasley was covering for him most of last night. I say give him a half against Turkey, and possibly Australia if needed... our backline is so screwed.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? Beasley is NOT a good fullback. He has proven that time and again. He plays good defense for an outside midfielder, which is not the same thing. His positioning as a FB is poor, and Dynamo Kev is spot on about his first touch and the attendant risk.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? Absolutely but which CB's does BB take if Gooch and Demerit can't go? Marshall? and...? BB has put himself in a hole without any true depth weeks before the WC. IF he doesn't take one of Pearce/Bornstein, that will make 7 defenders in South Africa.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? No - Beasley needs to play on the left wing so he can cover for our awful left backs. The only reason that Bornstein looked even the slightest bit better than the awful Pierce last night is because Beasley tracked back to play some team defence deep down the left side. Beasley and Boca on the left. Onyewu/Goodson/Demerit in the center.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? NO, It's one thing to move a holding mid like Edu to centerback, or a creative mid like Donovan and Dempsey up top, but moving attacking players to defense is not a good move. Beasley has absolutely no clue how to play left back, we've see it before, it was horrible. He can't mark, he's not physical enough, he won't win headers. You can't just put a fast guy back there hoping his makeup speed will be enough.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? With the defenders on this team...(Marshall probably not going but injured, Gooch, Boca, and Demerit all recovering; Two left back choices trying to prove they shouldn't start against England so they can be the guy that starts the next two games)...I would think Edu, Beasley, and anybody else might need to get some action on the back line. Seriously...its possible we take 2 underfit defenders and if we pick up a red or an injury at the cup... The defense is ultimately worrying and that is crazy considering our focal point striker scored 1 league goal this year. 8(
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? I think people are confusing "does beez need a spell at left back" with "DMB should start at left back against England". I'm hella worried that we are going to have injury/card issues sufficient that we are going to need depth and man we have no depth. Spector and Cherundolo are the ONLY players I'm feeling confident in right now.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? To be fair, Bradley didn't help Beaz (or Wynne) with the 4-3-3 he trotted out against costa rica. Honestly, it wouldn't be my #1 choice, but I really don't think Beaz would be any worse than Pornstein.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? IDK. The LBs we currently have aren't great, but putting Beasley back there won't improve things IMO. He's not a defender and I thought we saw that after BB's experiment with him at LB failed. I can't imagine him going through that again at the WC.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? Yeah I think we have to give Beasley 10-15 minutes at the end of the game against Turkey/Australia at LB. Just in case.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? No way. we've seen this movie and it won't multiple razzies.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? No. Beaz is not a fullback. He's somewhat afraid of the ball. If he thinks there's any chance that someone is going to kick the ball hard, he goes into a cocoon. He also gives too much space when playing man defense. On the other hand, he's very good at being the second defender, coming in from behind & nipping the ball away. At this point I could live with moving either Donovan or Dempsey up top and playing either Beaz or Holden in the midfield. They're games are almost completely different, though. It would be an interesting tactical decision.
Re: Does Beez need a spell at left back? spector at left back... that's more worth a look.. dmb at left mid FOR ENGLAND...his defense last night was real good.. really want donovan chasing walcott...put him on the right and hope to get more attack...lampard isn't a rabbit...now if lennon comes on late, maybe usa switches things up a bit... dmb defensive skills will get him playing time, BUT not at LB
Given how poorly our LBs played, and given that we might need Bocanegra in the middle, I see why Bob did it. I hope he isn't thinking about Beasley as a starter; his technique isn't good enough to justify that given his diminished speed. However, I, for one, hope to see alot of Beasley, because he'll be a great sub to protect a result. You can put him in at LW to protect the LB. I might have preferred Bedoya. (Of course, Bedoya could go instead of Findley, but I'm sure that'll be another thread.) But I see the logic in taking Beasley. Thoughts?
Beasley is more defensive, among other options. He not only helped JB out a lot last night, he also tracks back very well and cleans house when any of our backs are delaying. He also has a knack for reading passing lanes and is good in transition, which is what we'll be relying on against better opponents. I could see him starting against England and/or playing a significant role against bigger teams if we advance. In order for him to start, you have to assume either LD or CD starting up top. Then, he is probably in a battle with Holden and Feilhaber for the outside mid spot. You can shift Bease to the side that needs more defensive help. I don't think he should play against slovenia or algeria unless we are trying to hold a lead.
I would have preferred Bedoya ... you know, someone that can actually trap the ball, make a solid pass, dribble, defend, and make good decisions. If we have a lead with 20 minutes left ... would you rather have Beasley, who hasn't played more than a couple of games in 6 months, or Bedoya, who's been a starter all year? I'd go with the guy that is in match form - Bedoya. Pity he's not one of "Bob's boys."
In the World Cup? Beasley, no question. In those situations, experience counts double. And please, can we stop with the "Bob's boys" crap? I'm pretty sure the inclusion of Gomez and Buddle has put the lie to that particular slander.
I would have thought the most important case for Beasley is that he is amongst the most experienced and successful players we have. He's played in as many big games for club and country as anyone on the team, if not more. Simply put he is one of the teams most important leaders and a very tough competitor. In addition to having players at peak form, you have to have leaders, on and off the field.
I would consider trying Beasley out again at left back in one of the two upcoming friendlies. I realize, of course, that his form was absolutely terrible when tried at left back previously. However, his form was absolutely terrible during that time frame regardless of position. I'm given to thinking that perhaps he was simply in terrible form during that time frame and it was not the fact he was played at left back that caused his crappiness but rather the fact that he was playing crappy. With our lack of left back options right now I think its at least worth a shot and while I would not want to play him there against England a case could certainly be made that he could play there against Algeria (especially) or even Slovenia in the event we are tied or losing as I believe he may be our best attacking option from that position due to his improved crossing ability.
I'd rather have Beasley who is a very good defender on the wing for a midfielder because without defenders with ball skills (which we don't have), we aren't going to kill the game with possession anyway. I'm not sure how much we'll see of Beasley though. He clearly isn't on the top of BB's list since he was playing yesterday and I think his main role may end up being emergency LB sub, and Donovan's backup. I literally can not remember how long it's been since Bradley started Donovan on the right and Beasley on the left. I'm sure it's happened this cycle, but Bradley is pretty consistent on who he plays in midfield for the A-team. And based on recent lineups that will be Donovan---Bradley---Clark/Edu---Dempsey with Feilhaber and Holden being the first two off the bench. I hope Beasley shows us something and we surprise opponents by changing our typical strategy, but I don't expect it.