Do any of these names sound familiar? Harkes, Fraser, Williams, CJ Brown, Balboa, McKeon, Bravo Wynalda, Brown, Fraser, Williams Fraser, Ramos, Kreis, Williams Agoos, Llamosa, Regis, Sanneh, Jones, Stewart, Moore These are names of field players who were past 30 (in some cases well past 30) in 2002. So your first thought is, "No shit, Sherlock." I find these groups of players interesting in light of Arena's latest roster called in for the US v Mexico "revancha" in Houston next week. These are the rosters these players made: Group 1 - 1999 Confederation's Cup Group 2 - 2000 Gold Cup Group 3 - 2000 WC Qualifiers Group 4 - 2002 World Cup All of these "older" players had a key part in the 2002 story. A few made an impact on the field. Most didn't. But all of them played some role in the major competitions before the World Cup. Their success and their mentorship of the younger players who debuted under Arena were absolutely critical to what transpired in Korea. And the cycle has come full turn. The reactionary thread, "why hedjuk, stewart, armas??" actually brings up a valid question. Why call in older players, most of whom will not see the field in Germany? I believe the following points comprise the jist of the answer: 1. Lack of leadership in younger players. Advanced apology to their fans, but Mathis, Donovan, Beasley, or Convey are not ready to lead a team yet. Mathis was given the Captain's band, and the team lacked direction. My guess is that this was a motivational tactic by Arena to get Clint to work harder in camp and on the field. I don't know what happened in camp, but it didn't happen on the field. 2. Lack of understanding of Arena's system The second Earnie stepped on the field against Venezuela, the US game started clicking. Is Earnie that much better than the younger candidates? I honestly don't think so. I think Arena needs the younger guys to see how his system works by watching up close and personal from players who have it down. 3. The bleed-in developmental system A lot of us would love to see Arena completely revamp the system. As fans, we're always wanting the "next big thing" sometimes at the expense of the here and now. Arena's approach is a more patient one. The younger players will be bled in at a painfully slow process, but that process will help Arena to retain the environment and atmosphere that he worked hard to achieve the previous 4 years. This environment is more important to Bruce than individual players in his camp. 4. Qualifiers Next year. Tough. Experience needed. 5. Some of these guys will make it to Germany As much as we drool over the young guns, some of these guys will hold their spots in camp and even play in 2006. Pope, if healthy, starts in Germany. If McBride somehow maintains his form, he starts in Germany. We have no other target forward ready to usurp him. Hejduk's youthful legs and endless endurance either starts at right back or provides depth to a very thin left or right back depth chart. Armas has played pretty well in Chicago, but will have a tough time competing with Mastroeni's class. - Hejduk, Pope, Armas, Klein, Stewart, Jones, McBride Keep an eye on the "old" guard against Mexico and beyond. Their roles will be critical, if not appreciated, in what happens to Arena's US squad in the next 3 years.
Part of the reason why the Mathis captaincy was flat is because he's never been a captain at a club level, at least I don't recall him as full-time captain for the Metro. The same can be said for all of the young guns. That is a worrisome problem for the future. Reyna, except for his days at BL and Rangers has pretty much been team captian. I know he captained Rangers several times and was a popular choice for the next captain if he had not been sold. I used think the captains armband wasn't a big deal. But after the qualifying campaign and the World Cup, I stand corrected. Sachin
And watch out for John O'Brien. He is a player who is definatly capable of taking over the Captain's Arm band and leading USA to glory. But I think your dead on with every thing you said. Very well put
This is the way Arena gets players used to the system. He has admitted that he is more open minded, so a player still has a chance even as late as six months before the WC tournament. Me personally, I think we should go more experimental and with younger players in the interim period before qualifying begins. However, let's not underestimate the pressure that USSF puts on to do well in higher profile tournaments. They will be keen to try and build up the team more leading up to 2006, so IMHO they are going to want Bruce to field the best available team for ConCup. Look at our last Confederations Cup roster in '99 and see how we saw a few guys we knew wouldn't make Japorea..... We're going to have to wait until 2004 to see more of the younger unproven guys IMHO. One minor point 'meg, CJ Brown won't be thirty until 2005--D 6-0 185 06/15/1975 http://www.mlsnet.com/teams/chi/roster.html
What we can do is that keeping what works and improve on what not works. 1) Offense. It works. We have Donovan and McBride on top most of games with Mathis and Wolff blend in. We almost scored every game so our offense is pretty good. If we can improve, fine. If we cann't then let us stick with it. 2) Midfield. It works. Even Stewart is old but as long as we cannot find a suitable replacement or an upgrade version then we have to keep him here. 3) Defense. It doesn't works. That's why we are stopped in Quater. We need to find replacement and upgrade for the whole defense line beside Eddie Pope.
Great post, Nutmeg. I particularly liked the piece above. Sometimes it's tough to be patient and let the man work -- myself included.
Good stuff as usual Nutmeg.. As to the point above.. One thing we all seem to forget mentioning when we say that qualifying begins next year is that in all likelyhood, the first round of qualifying for the US will be ridiculously pedestrian and don't expect the full US squad to be in attendance during our first round matchup at home against the mighty Montserrat or Aruba.. We're going to get drawn into a group with 2 donkey teams thanks to the new qualifying system that our U-20 teams should beat without any problem.. I do have to say however that I think Arena is going about this in the correct manner.. He feels that the bleeding in system is the best course of action and it seems to have worked for him at the highest of levels.. Do we really need to see Cobi, Earnie and assorted other 100 plus cap vets anymore? No.... But their experience is invaluable and something that can not be overlooked... Just look at Cobi for example.. We all know he can't put in an effective 90 minutes at the international level anymore, but is there a player who gets under Mexico's skin anymore than Mr. Jones? I don't think so... Arena alluded to this game nowadays being a young man's game right after their ouster in Korea.. I'm sure he believes that and wants to put these kids in matches (he's already done so with Convey).. It's just going to take some time...
I agree partially. Stewart in my mind showed exactly what you are talking about. Hejdude is one of the top three at a thin position so that is understandable. Armas is also worthy. But why Cobi? If we have Earnie showing as a veteran how the system works and how to play the position, why do we need two aging Right Midfielders. *Granted the position of these two is somewhat up for debate. I agree entirely with your post. I just think there is a point where you reach critical mass with the veteran mentor argument. I don't know where the critical mass is, but if we didn't have a Cobi and instead had a Martino for instance, are we going to lose so much veteran leadership that the new guys aren't going to be mentored properly. I don't think so, and we all want to see what Martino can do against top flight international competition.
Thanks, and to your point - I think Arena was very, very careful to not overdraw from any one MLS team in his selection for the Mexico friendly. So while Bruce could and maybe wanted to call in Martino, Buddle, Cunningham, McBride, Hejduk, and Dunseth for a game, I think he knows that it would place a tremendous burden on Andrulis and the Crew. In more important competitions, he may do exactly that.
Re: Re: Turnover - the painful process Thanks Cweedchop. Even though we will most likely get a joke grouping, I expect to see the best squad Arena can put together without causing a political fallout. So, if JOB is available and it doesn't cause a huge problem for Ajax, I'd bet he's there. We may get a joke grouping, but it'd be far from a joke if somehow we took things too easily and ended up jeopardizing our qualification. I think it might have been Italy who took a country like Andorra too lightly in 2002 qualification and almost ended up watching the cup on TV.
I agree with almost all of the original post. Nice work and thanks for laying out the thoughts of many of us who take the same position. I strongly agree with the points made, including your general point about leadership. However, in my opinion, you stretched the facts a bit to support your thesis when it wasn't necessary. "Mathis was given the Captain's band, and the team lacked direction" was a bit unfair given the roster makeup and results involved. Mathis was captain for just four games in which we went 3-1 with three comfortable wins. You're talking about a cold-and-rainy easy 2-0 win against a young El Salvador; a 4-0 mauling of a young Canada in which the captain scored a fairly nice goal; a 0-1 setback to a young Argentina side in which we started a guy (Olsen) in the middle who never plays the middle; and a comfortable (early two-goal lead) 2-1 win in The Office. I always thought the "Mathis is God" folks were nuts, but I think, given who was on our roster, who we played, and what the results were, Mathis deserves no heat for his four games with the armband. Except for the first half against Argentina (which was pretty ugly), I didn't see a team lacking in direction, but rather an abnormally young team half-filled with starters with very little experience (Howard, Convey, Califf, Bocanegra, Victorine, and Klein all got multiple starts; Cunningham, Twellman, Garcia also started). Overall, that was a superior post, Nutmeg.
Yeah but Cobi is there to piss off the Mexis. Bruce is a competitor and he loves beating mexico, just like the rest of us do. Cobi helps us do that.
McKeon was born September 24, 1974, and thus is still under 30 years old. CJ Brown was born June 15, 1975 and is also under 30.
Do we evolve? And it's a really good point, really good thread. I would take issue with some of these comments on Mathis and Jones. I would also raise the following larger question: To what extent does Bruce try to repeat his World Cup 2002 formula, and to what extent does his game plan evolve? Overall, I think he's pragmatic, and will be conservative. But when I first wanted him to take the job for two "terms", I looked at his history of growing in the job. I figured he'd shore up a program which lacked confidence by taking a no-nonsense, somewhat Spartan approach to his first World Cup. For 2006, I figured he and his team would have more swagger, play with a bit more style and risk. The talent that is coming up has already begun to play his hand for him. They forced their way into the first XI against Portugal. I think we will not open the 2006 World Cup by playing Route 1 balls to McBride. We'll have evolved.
Want more? Then I think, by 2006, we'll be looking for an Arena heir who is less iconic perhaps, but more flexible and sophisticated in his approach to the game. We'll bomb like the '98 team and go begging back to Bruce, who'll be crankier than ever and wearing a hairpiece that looks like a cross between Sam Donaldson's and Ronald Reagan's. This is mostly speculation, of course.
Funny, Noah. As to your question, "To what extent does Bruce try to repeat his World Cup 2002 formula, and to what extent does his game plan evolve?", I'd say that he repeats the formula as closely as possible. The guy has used the same formula wherever he's gone and has won wherever he's gone, so in his mind, why change a good thing? No one here at BS has ever given a good arguement for a change- and I'm not saying here that there aren't other succesful systems out there; we all know that and so does Arena I suspect. But he's gonna continue with what he's comfortable with. And, yes, that will include an important game or two where he doesn't have the right personnel and we lose and these boards will explode with demands for a change, just like in the last cycle. Great thread, Nut.
So where's that other great thread - I think it was called the Ursuline 100 or something...? I used the term "game plan" liberally, to represent both his campaign strategy and his game strategy. I think the campaign strategy will be very similar, with a bit of tweaking from what he's learned. As for the kind of soccer he attempts to put on the field, he grew a lot under the stress of the World Cup. In some ways he was much less conservative. We seemed to play three different kinds of soccer, pretty successfully, over five games. He'll probably go back to classic Arena ball to handle the simultaneous challenge of a qualifying while finding the right player mix. Continuity is key to the "bleeding in" process Nutmeg references. However, despite his 2002 success and the mass loyalty he enjoys, I think by 2004 people are going to be pretty sick of seeing guys like McBride and Sanneh out there. It seems like every year greater numbers of genuinely talented, exciting players are getting professional exposure. Those guys will force their way onto the team one way or another, the same way Mathis, Wolff, Donovan, Beasely and Mastroenni did, but I would suspect, by 2006, in greater numbers. Those guys change the kind of soccer we play. There's probably a great physics term for the kind of change I see happening, which assumes the changing rate of the accumulation of talent. Regardless, the tipping point was World Cup '02, whether Bruce acknowledges it or not.
I know I will be accused of being a revisionist historian when I make this claim, but I really believe the following is true. 2002 changed everything. In short, I agree with you Noah. Before that time, whenever Reyna and Armas were healthy and available, they were the de facto starting central midfield. When Earnie was available, he played, and so on. I believe that the only reason Arena significantly changed team tactics before 2002 was the loss of personnel. For example, Costa Rica WCQ in San Jose. I happen to believe the turning point came before the World Cup. Bruce has said that after the 2001 Jamaica WCQ, he realized that the US squad, as it was, was not good enough to advance past the group stage. From that point forward, Bruce began experimenting with using different players for different teams. He began changing tactics to suit his opponent. We saw it in the Gold Cup, where the US' style of play changed significantly, as did personnel, from one opponent to the next. We saw it against Mexico in Denver, when Bruce opened up the can and switched to a 3-5-2 at halftime, and the US responded by dominating the midfield in the 2nd half. We saw it on the tour of Europe, where to mixed reviews we saw the US change personnel and styles against Italy, Ireland, and Germany. And we saw it one more time when Uruguay, Jamaica, and Holland came to visit. Some of those changes were forced upon Arena - for example when Armas and later Reyna went down. But I think regardless of the reason, the lesson was learned. Going forward, I expect callups and styles of play to be largely determined based on who the next opponent(s) is/are. Having said all that, there will still be an emphasis on continuity. New players will be called into camp, but getting time in games will be the same methodical bleeding-in process we've seen in the past. That's where I agree with Skip, in that Bruce will stick with this part of his formula as closely as possible. Some players will simply be too good to sit, like Donovan and Mathis were in the last cycle. Some players will get rapidly injected out of necessity, like Cherundolo and Mastroeni. Some players will get into the games quicker because they provide attributes above and beyond others in the pool, like Beasley. Going forward, I believe style of play and who gets to play varies based on opponent. But turnover will continue to be a slow and at times a painful process.
To go along with the changing tactics theme for each opponent. Probably the most under rated component of the success of the team at WC 02 was the months of film work done by the assistant coaches in the build up. Scouting and film work is a truely American invention in sports and one that was exploided greatly by Bruce and his staff. In order to change tactics for each opponent, it is important to know that opponent. Proper scouting is essential to make this successful, and is an advantage the US will have going forward.
In light of the 18-man roster called up for Haiti, and much of the bitching to be read about that 18-man roster, I wanted to resurrect this thread. We knew this was coming, folks. EDIT: And another thread that deals with many of the same topics - A crowded field.
what's coming? We aren't turning over anything. Its the same guys as we wuld normally call in. With a few exceptions, and those guys don't even matter.