The other thread made me think about our playmaking options to control the middle come 2006, and then the thought hit me like flatulence, do we need a true number ten? I am going to assume that John O'Brien or Reyna, one of the two of them, will be unavailable come 2006. One will play, one won't be able to. We'll just term this one player O'Breyna, shall we? Lets say we slide him into the DM along with Ricardo Clark. On the left wing, we have a lock in Beasley. On the right wing, we play the young Gaven. Centrally, woulb Mathis. This would be a side with no true playmaker in the classic sense, but have five midfielders who all have good/excellent passing skills and are overall dangerous on the dribble. I think that with a core like this, our national side would be more fluid then mnay sides who run the midfield through one player. While non standout as a true number ten, all can certainly add that special dimension on the field.
Don't even ask this question. I've tried. The thought of playing without a number 10 is as well accepted in this hemisphere today as freedom of religion was 300 years ago across the pond.
Actually we would fall in line more with the rest of the world's teams. If you look at other NT's they all have players with ball skills in the Midfield. France: Zizou, Pires, Petit, Vieira Italy: Pirlo, Fiore, Camaronessi, Totti Czech Rep: Rosicky, Nedved, Smicer, Poborsky you get the point. I would love for the US to have that flexibility. Sorry for the long post.
We don't need one. It is merely one way to achieve the necessary goal of midfield predominance. The effort and skills of a Zidane could be spread across two other players such as O'brien and Gaven. That might even be better than relying on only one such player. The point is, however, whoever plays in the midfield has to win a ton of balls and distribute well in all parts of the field. That is why I have my doubts about Mathis as any form of midfielder. He doesn't have the mental set to win tons of balls. With McB and Donovan on the field, this could be OK because they both track back a lot to help out at midfield. If the team emphasizes the need to keep two attackers up front, Mathis becomes a liability. If O'Brien is healthy, then the US can field a strong central midfielder capable of running the attack. Without O'Brien, there is presently nobody else who can fill that role. There needs to be an organizer. Reyna has all the tools and does it to some degree, but as stated many times on these boards, he seems to prefer operating from a deeper position. That hurts by making it more difficult to link midfield and attack. Witness the Holland game. In the first half, the ball simply never went to Donovan and seldom made it to McB, despite Reyna playing really well. Until we have O'Brien playing all the time or some other person such as Gaven filling the central midfield slot, the US will have to rely on the counterattack for scoring in the absence of consistent ball possession by the midfielders. At least against the better teams.
I think your basic thesis makes a lot of sense. I think the team that you propose is dangerous enough to set up goals even at the World Cup level. I think fans' desperation for a "true #10" is based on the fact that many of the finest World Cup champions featured some of the best all-time playmakers: Pele, Maradonna, Zidane; or one or more of the world's best playmakers at the time: Rivaldo/Ronaldinho, etc. The desire to have somebody so good as a playmaker or playmaking striker that the whole world can't help but fear the US offense is behind it. I don't think it's really "we need to play Martino just so we have someone who plays like an attacking midfielder on the field." I think it's "wouldn't in be awesome if Mathis/Donovan/Martino/Convey/Gaven/Adu/Memo/(insert your favorite here) got so good as an attacking midfielder that we started to look like a World Cup champion."
But the clamouring for a #10 ignores the fact that those teams posses other playes capable of making plays.
Great thread. I was watching Arsenal the other day, and it occured to me that Arsenal really doesn't have a specific playmaker like we're talking about in the center of the midfield. Pires creates. Ljungberg creates. Bergkamp creates. Henry creates. Cole and Lauren create. Sure Edu and Viera create as well, but no one ever talks about them as "the playmaker for Arsenal." I enjoy following Arsenal partly for that reason. You never know where the attack will come from. Of course we don't have Arsenal's personnel, but should we be putting so much weight on the shoulders of one playmaker in the center of the midfield? Other players/positions can take the pressure off of the "attacking mid"? Donovan. Beasley. Wolff has impressed lately. Mathis might be back in form soon. Convey is coming along. We've come a long way since Reyna '98. I think the notion of one playmaker as the central "midfield general" is a question of lesser importance today. Says a lot about progress since 98.
SamsArmySam, Imvho you just have to have playmakers period. YOu should have them all over the park. You should have a player who's capable of providing that incisive ball at all positions. Now that is easier said then done, but I think it can happen. I would like to see less of a mechanical, physical approach to Futbol by the US however I like what I"m seeing so far. As you've said good progress since '98. Speaking of progress, it's possible that the US does worse in 2006 but has a better team and better players. I would hope that the cognescenti would realize this, as for the general public who knows.
I see Donovan becoming the number 10. With young strikers like Buddle and Eddie Johnson coming up (not to mention that young kid from DC) LD seems ideally suited for the job.
How you make the connections you do The source of your humor is so recondite and abstruse that it's almost frightening.
A lot of good points in this thread. Perhaps we don't need a single focal point (player) that the other team might mark out of the match. In fact, it would be fantastic if we had several players that could create plays -- and we do. Maybe not as consistently as we'd like -- there's a lot of room for improvement -- but some of the guys are starting to create some good stuff out on the field. But we need a higher level and more consistency. I think the real question is ... where is our leader?! You know, the go-to guy. The one that leads the team through adversity or picks up the team and carries it on his shoulders when we need it most. THAT, IMO, is what we're lacking. We need someone with great skill, character, and FIRE to emerge and take control of the team -- to be that guy. Reyna has proven that he isn't up to that particular task, and has stated so on numerous occassions. O'Brien has been injured too much to be a permanent fixture as our leader. I don't think Armas is the one -- and besides, I see his role as a defensive midfielder being taken by Reyna, very soon -- and Donovan doesn't seem to want it either. If I had to pick one player on the team right now for that role, it would be Mathis. However, his form seems to be too inconsistent right now -- a very good game, and then an invisible game. If we could have the Mathis of 2002 qualification back, the Mathis with fire in his eyes, back when he really WAS in fact emerging as the leader and the go-to guy before his injury, I'd take him in a heartbeat!!! Just think back to how we tanked when we lost him. The team struggled and limped through the rest of qualifying. Coincidence? Personally, I don't think so. The problem is that he was really leading us, and no one picked up the slack when he was gone. And SOMEONE has to do that. The coach can't appoint a leader -- they have to emerge. But it's really up to the players. They're the ones on the field, and THEY are the ones that need to STEP UP! And I think the sooner, the better. Playmakers? Sure, I'd like one -- we can improve our playmaking and I think it would improve the team a lot. But what we really need, is a leader ... anyone up for it?