Landon the Donovan

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,699
lars10 said:
I'm interested...what in there do you think is incorrect?
 
First of all, you've been somewhat anti-Klinsmann and were incensed about the Donovan omission, so please don't pretend like you're just curiously interested. The problem with what he said is that he's pretending that Jozy didn't get hurt. He's acting like it's a big mystery why they had to change the way they played instead of it being an unfortunate result of Jozy going down. He's also implying that it's Klinsmann's fault that they didn't do better which is, in my opinion, a shitty thing to do. No one has ever admired Landon Donovan for his strength of character and apparently that isn't about to change, and I'd be stunned if he ever plays for the national team again.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
cromulence said:
 
First of all, you've been somewhat anti-Klinsmann and were incensed about the Donovan omission, so please don't pretend like you're just curiously interested. The problem with what he said is that he's pretending that Jozy didn't get hurt. He's acting like it's a big mystery why they had to change the way they played instead of it being an unfortunate result of Jozy going down. He's also implying that it's Klinsmann's fault that they didn't do better which is, in my opinion, a shitty thing to do. No one has ever admired Landon Donovan for his strength of character and apparently that isn't about to change, and I'd be stunned if he ever plays for the national team again.
 
Well duh. And it's hard to not have sympathy for Donovan. He could have helped that team. Say what you will about him, he knows how to put a ball into the net.
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,699
johnmd20 said:
 
Well duh. And it's hard to not have sympathy for Donovan. He could have helped that team. Say what you will about him, he knows how to put a ball into the net.
 
He blew any sympathy by acting the way he has - I don't feel any for him whatsoever. And I don't know why you think it was always obvious he'd never play for the team again. That was absolutely not a foregone conclusion until he burned the bridge on his way out. Obviously Landon decided he didn't care to play for the team any more, but he still could have been a mature adult about it. At heart, he's still got some Landycakes in him.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
cromulence said:
 
He blew any sympathy by acting the way he has - I don't feel any for him whatsoever. And I don't know why you think it was always obvious he'd never play for the team again. That was absolutely not a foregone conclusion until he burned the bridge on his way out. Obviously Landon decided he didn't care to play for the team any more, but he still could have been a mature adult about it. At heart, he's still got some Landycakes in him.
 
I maintain that he has every right to be pissed. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be world class to begin with. And why would he keep playing for the USMNT after he was cut from the World Cup? It was a foregone conclusion, it's not like he's getting younger and JK made it clear that he thought the team was better without him.
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
6,699
johnmd20 said:
 
I maintain that he has every right to be pissed. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be world class to begin with. And why would he keep playing for the USMNT after he was cut from the World Cup? It was a foregone conclusion, it's not like he's getting younger and JK made it clear that he thought the team was better without him.
 
No one said he had to be happy about it, but he's acted like a petulant child about it, which is his MO. As for why he could keep playing, maybe because there's more to the national team than the World Cup? If Donovan had been willing to play at the Gold Cup next year, I wouldn't have been surprised if Klinsmann would have taken him. And, honestly, are you a bigger fan of the USMNT or Landon Donovan? Seems more like the latter.
 

Homa

New Member
Jun 28, 2006
59
Donovan was never world class. He had the potential to become a world class player but he didn't realize it.
 

Zomp

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Aug 28, 2006
13,942
The Slums of Shaolin
johnmd20 said:
 
I maintain that he has every right to be pissed. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be world class to begin with. And why would he keep playing for the USMNT after he was cut from the World Cup? It was a foregone conclusion, it's not like he's getting younger and JK made it clear that he thought the team was better without him.
:blink:
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
cromulence said:
 
No one said he had to be happy about it, but he's acted like a petulant child about it, which is his MO. As for why he could keep playing, maybe because there's more to the national team than the World Cup? If Donovan had been willing to play at the Gold Cup next year, I wouldn't have been surprised if Klinsmann would have taken him. And, honestly, are you a bigger fan of the USMNT or Landon Donovan? Seems more like the latter.
 
Because I said I understand why Donovan is pissed, it makes me the President of his fan club? That's a leap in logic. And your comment that he could have played in the Gold Cup is also a leap in logic. He was cut from the team. He was told he wasn't good enough and JK was clear that he was planning for the future. Why, a year later, would JK think differently?
 
I am a fan of Donovan but that doesn't mean I didn't root my ass and heart off for the USMNT. I'm still depressed they lost. I can be fans of both.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
cromulence said:
 
No one said he had to be happy about it, but he's acted like a petulant child about it, which is his MO. As for why he could keep playing, maybe because there's more to the national team than the World Cup? If Donovan had been willing to play at the Gold Cup next year, I wouldn't have been surprised if Klinsmann would have taken him. And, honestly, are you a bigger fan of the USMNT or Landon Donovan? Seems more like the latter.
This is silly. You're the only one making it an either/or proposition. One can dislike JK's decisions and still like JK. One can disagree with Donovan getting cut and not be "anti-Klinsmann."

And no one has any idea if Jk offered any gold cup type deal to get donovan into the WC. It wouldn't make sense anyway: he'd be a year older, it's a new cycle, there are younger guys who should be brought in. And excelling in last year's GC apparently meant squat.

And if your boss at a temp job fired you after bringing you along all the way to the precipice of a big project, you'd probably be hesitant if he asked for your help on a smaller project a year later.

Donovan at the USMNT is over. For some reason those who were against the move have moved on, and one person who liked the move keeps pointlessly bringing it up again.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
 
So you never know. ... But my feeling as a player, if I'm in that locker room before that game – before the Germany game, before the Belgium game – and the coach walked in and said we're playing a 4-5-1 and Clint [Dempsey] is up top by himself, I would have been disappointed.
...
"Michael was put in the wrong position," he said. "He was put in a position that he's not used to playing. He does a better job, as you saw with Julian Green's goal, being in a deeper position. And having someone in a front of him, someone to help Clint also, makes him that much better because he's got more opportunity to pick out different passes, more attacking options ahead of him. I think that was clearly an error."
He said it was "tough to watch " because "as athletes, we all feel that we can help."
 
Donovan's a little biased of course, but is he correct on tactics?
Once Altidore was out, would the US have been better off with Bradley at the base of the diamond, Donovan at the tip and Dempsey forward?  The Altidore injury hurt.  
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
I hope players in the locker room were concentrating more on who was in the locker room and not thinking back about who was cut and bemoaning their fate.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,016
Chelmsford, MA
And Donovan wasn't going to hold the ball up, nor do I think Bradley as a pure DM would have helped. If you wanted to keep the shape we needed a large striker, not landycakes
 

mgoblue2

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2010
652
LD was never world class to me. For a pretty long stretch he was the best American outfield player out there. Now? Obviously not. No permanent transfer to Everton would have made him world class. When I think world class, I think of someone like Podolski at the top of his game, and that's just a baseline. Donovan was very good and knew (or knows) how to score goals, and sometimes they were crucial. I just don't know what he wanted Jurgen to do, he can't play the lone forward role yet on the wings against Germany Brad Davis turned in probably the worst 60 minutes I've seen from a US player in a World Cup match. In most cases I think Jurgen got the lineup right but Davis should have made way for LD.
 

Homa

New Member
Jun 28, 2006
59
He is right in that the US played too defensively against Germany and Belgium. There is nothing wrong with sitting deep but you have to present more of a threat on counterattacks which are a specialty of Donovan. 
 
Playing Donovan alongside Dempsey up front might have been a good idea, if the US has a good passer you can play the playmaker behind them. Bradley can't fill that role, you would move him a step back taking up Bedoya's position. Jones and Bradley would have been the shuttlers in front of Beckerman but playing behind the playmaker. If you don't trust anybody of the remaining players to fill the 10, you could move Donovan there and put Johansson upfront besides Dempsey. Playing counterattacking football doesn't require a targetman like Altidore, especially as the US wanted to play less longballs.
 
I have no idea if that system would work well but there were other options out there. In the end the US played a good tournament. There is no real need to go into the abyss of what ifs.
 

triniSox

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,255
crystalline said:
Donovan's a little biased of course, but is he correct on tactics?
Once Altidore was out, would the US have been better off with Bradley at the base of the diamond, Donovan at the tip and Dempsey forward?  The Altidore injury hurt.  
I'm not going to get into whether Donovan should have said it but I think his points on tactics are right. Klinsmann does quite a few things well but I think he did play somewhat negatively and also some key players like Bradley and Dempsey out of position.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Homa said:
Donovan was never world class. He had the potential to become a world class player but he didn't realize it.
 
One thousand times, THIS.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,684
Amstredam
triniSox said:
I'm not going to get into whether Donovan should have said it but I think his points on tactics are right. Klinsmann does quite a few things well but I think he did play somewhat negatively and also some key players like Bradley and Dempsey out of position.
They were played out of position due injury. Go watch the Nigeria game and tell me they looked out of position.
Donovan does not solve the out of position issue and was a player who could not train hard for many days in a row. How would he have dealt with the heat in Manaus? Bradley has one bad touch in 95th and gets killed for it, Donovan would have had to have been subbed in the 60th min of that game.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Silverdude2167 said:
Give Dempsey Donovan's talent and we have our world class player.
 
Probably. Dempsey is unquestionably less naturally gifted but undoubtedly works harder and smarter, so giving Dempsey the natural gifts Donovan has probably would have resulted in an excellent, possibly world class player. 
 

URI

stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of li
Moderator
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2001
10,329
johnmd20 said:
I maintain that he has every right to be pissed.
Given his history of quitting stuff, I maintain that expecting to be named to the team based on name is foolish.
 
johnmd20 said:
If he wasn't, he wouldn't be world class to begin with.


johnmd20 said:
And why would he keep playing for the USMNT after he was cut from the World Cup?
After quitting on the team, saying that he wasn't motivated anymore, why would he expect to keep playing through the World Cup. Other guys didn't act like this.

johnmd20 said:
It was a foregone conclusion, it's not like he's getting younger and JK made it clear that he thought the team was better without him.
Klinesman also recalled him before after he quit on the team...there isn't any evidence he wouldn't do it again for the Gold Cup or the Copa America.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,394
Philly
Donovan also might have been (might be?) a candidate for one of the over-age spots on the Olympic roster.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
Adam Fucking Lallana is a better player right now than Landon Donovan has ever been in his life.  Let's not pretend he's a magical talisman.
 
Also, Landycakes can suck it.  He's always put his off-the-field life ahead of his talent.  That's fine if that's his choice, but he owes the maniacal competitors who would cut off their arms to play in the national team something more than this passive-aggressive bullshit.
 

nickandemmasuncle

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
196
DLew On Roids said:
Also, Landycakes can suck it.  He's always put his off-the-field life ahead of his talent.  That's fine if that's his choice, but he owes the maniacal competitors who would cut off their arms to play in the national team something more than this passive-aggressive bullshit.
 
You guys must love David Eckstein, too.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
Because saying that someone who didn't put his career first for the 12-15 years he had a chance to do it should keep his yap shut is exactly like overpraising a mediocre player.   :fap:
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
It's important to remember that nickandemmasuncle's second choice of handles was landonsdad.
 

nickandemmasuncle

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
196
DLew On Roids said:
Because saying that someone who didn't put his career first for the 12-15 years he had a chance to do it should keep his yap shut is exactly like overpraising a mediocre player.   :fap:
 
Yes, I'm sure your scathing critique of "Landycakes'" perceived commitment level, juxtaposed with your glowing praise for the "maniacal competitors who would cut their arms off to play in the national team", is strictly a comment on how Donovan is dealing with the media, and is not at all reflective of some broader Dirt Dog/gritty/Eckstein/Rudy Ruettiger-type argument that would get someone laughed off the main board.
 
Also, Donovan's comments about how our approach against Belgium wasn't the greatest are really pretty mild stuff. Contrast that with the way Harkes (deservedly) got cut and then more or less publicly led an insurrection that ripped apart the squad while they were still in the middle of the '98 tournament. What Donovan said post-elimination is ultimately harmless, not to mention true on some level.
 
DrewDawg said:
It's important to remember that nickandemmasuncle's second choice of handles was landonsdad.
 
Heh, my third choice was guywhodidntwanttoseebraddavisandchriswondolowskifailmiserablyinkeysituationswhenwehadamarkedlybetteralternativesittingonhiscouchinla
 
Seriously, I like Dempsey a lot more than I like Donovan, but Dempsey got a fair shake here.
 

URI

stands for life, liberty and the uturian way of li
Moderator
SoSH Member
Aug 18, 2001
10,329
nickandemmasuncle said:
Yes, I'm sure your scathing critique of "Landycakes'" perceived commitment level, juxtaposed with your glowing praise for the "maniacal competitors who would cut their arms off to play in the national team", is strictly a comment on how Donovan is dealing with the media, and is not at all reflective of some broader Dirt Dog/gritty/Eckstein/Rudy Ruettiger-type argument that would get someone laughed off the main board.
I don't get it. Is DLew agreeing with a media and "insider" created narrative that Donovan's value based on hardwork, grittiness, and inherent whiteness in the face of objective evidence to the contrary?

Or is he doing the reverse? Creative a narrative that Donovan has consistently put his off-field things above on-field, in the face of evidence to the contrary?

In my mind, he has done neither. If Landon Donovan wanted to develop into one of the greats, he would have moved to Europe. If he wanted to be a lock for his 4th World Cup, he wouldn't have quit on the national team during qualifying (like Beasley). If (and I don't know if this is true) he wants to be respected like Clint Dempsey, he should try and behave more like him.


He's not wrong to put his private life first, either, but to criticize the manager who cut you after the World Cup, it's going to look like sour grapes.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
"They were set up in a way that was opposite from what they've been the past couple years, which is opening up, passing, attacking – trying to do that. And the team's been successful that way. Why they decided to switch that in the World Cup, none of us will know. From a playing standpoint, I think the guys will probably be disappointed in the way things went."
 
This is true regardless of whether or not Altidore was playing.  JK chose a formation really late in qualifying that the team hadn't been playing in for the last few games prior.  I think it makes sense to play defensive minded in the group that the US was in....but I do feel like players were playing out of position based on the formation that JK decided to go with.  I don't think they played this formation the entire WC, but it seemed forced (to me) when the implemented it over the last few months.
 
"Asked whether it would have been wise to try to match up with a Belgian team that has so many talented attacking players, Donovan acknowledged that "everybody's an expert when they're watching at home" and that he "could pretend like I know what I'm talking about and what we should have done." "Hindsight is 20/20, so in hindsight you would say we should've been more attacking," he said. "Maybe if we had been more attacking, we would have gotten four counterattack goals scored against us. So you never know. ... But my feeling as a player, if I'm in that locker room before that game – before the Germany game, before the Belgium game – and the coach walked in and said we're playing a 4-5-1 and Clint [Dempsey] is up top by himself, I would have been disappointed. Because I would have said let's go for it. I want a chance to go for it and try to win the game."
He also asserted that Kyle Beckerman's presence would have helped the US be a better attacking side, and that the team deserves praise for fighting valiantly in difficult circumstances."
 
The quote about the locker room is probably the only 'controversial' quote in the entire article.  I think he's also right about Beckerman... who was a very nice surprise.  I'm not sure why he didn't start...or play at all for that matter.
 
"Donovan did not address how things might have been different had he been part of the team in Brazil, but he noted that Michael Bradley played in an "unnatural position" at attacking midfield and he would have been more effective in a deeper role with another player in front of him.
Donovan's best position arguably is in such a slot."  "Michael was put in the wrong position," he said. "He was put in a position that he's not used to playing. He does a better job, as you saw with Julian Green's goal, being in a deeper position. And having someone in a front of him, someone to help Clint also, makes him that much better because he's got more opportunity to pick out different passes, more attacking options ahead of him. I think that was clearly an error."
 
I think this is spot on regarding Bradley.  He is not an attacking mid, but plays far better slightly farther back.  He was asked to run far more because he was farther up field, but still had to get back.  I don't know why (especially after Jozy's injury) that they didn't play MB more where he usually plays and didn't change the formation a bit more..maybe bring in Mix...who didn't play at all for some reason?  Or bring Jones up maybe?  (I also think that putting Jones on the left against Belgium was really strange).
 
"The US nearly pulled out a victory at the end of regulation, when Chris Wondolowski sent an open shot in front of the net over the crossbar, and nearly forced penalty kicks with a late thrust in overtime. Donovan said he hoped Wondolowski would not let the miss "define him."
"If that chance fell 10 more times, you want Wondo to be on the end of it," he said. "That's a perfect Wondo goal. You would have expected that that went in, and maybe the one out of 10 times happened that he didn't score. It's disappointing."
 
 
Donovan the a**hole that he is even went so crazy as to be ultra supportive of Wondolowski.
 
I do think it was a mistake to leave Donovan behind, but I also think JK made several key errors on the lineup he chose.  I was wrong about Beckerman, Yedlin and also Gonzalez who ended up being a pleasant surprise as well (given his injury so close to the WC)..although I think he should never have been upfield on the Portugal goal given the circumstances...he made up for it against Germany and Belgium.  I think Davis, Wondolowski and Zusi were exactly who we think they were before the Cup started.  The US was set up to be very thin at mid and forward if anyone got injured.  Regardless of that fact Dempsey should never have been left up front alone.  Problem was we had no other player with Jozy's skill of holding the ball (which is understandable...he's pretty unique)..but I think you have to try and play one of the other forwards you brought with Dempsey. 
 
My whole problem with JK's 23 is that it was neither looking to the future or looking to win now.  If you're going with youth you should bring more...and if your criticism of LD is that he's out of shape or too old..well then you don't bring players that are as old, slower and most likely less in shape than LD. This is one of the oldest teams the US has brought to the world cup I believe.
 
I think JK has done well with the cycle and the WC in general, I guess we'll see what the next four years bring.  I'd like him to settle the team far more over the next cycle and play the tactics they're going to play for the next world cup far earlier than they did going into this one.  I think this cycle was all about finding out what players he had over the entire breadth of the system, but I also am not sure what he learned because I feel his final selections were fairly random...and too old to really give experience to players that will be there next go around.
 
I understand the reasons for leaving LD behind (I just disagree with most of them) and I think that he would have been a better starter or sub than several of the players JK brought.  And I would have liked to see the attack with him MB, CD, Jones, and Johnson because he's shown time and time again in big moments that he has moments of brilliance with through balls and/ or finishing in front of net, but obviously some here disagree.  I just think there's a lot of history being rewritten, but I guess I'm just biased.  I just think LD would have made the USMNT and their chances better in Brazil and that's all I was hoping to see. 
 
All in all it was a fun run, I just wanted to see the US make the next step...I'm excited to see what the next four years bring.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
cromulence said:
 
First of all, you've been somewhat anti-Klinsmann and were incensed about the Donovan omission, so please don't pretend like you're just curiously interested. The problem with what he said is that he's pretending that Jozy didn't get hurt. He's acting like it's a big mystery why they had to change the way they played instead of it being an unfortunate result of Jozy going down. He's also implying that it's Klinsmann's fault that they didn't do better which is, in my opinion, a shitty thing to do. No one has ever admired Landon Donovan for his strength of character and apparently that isn't about to change, and I'd be stunned if he ever plays for the national team again.
I was interested...and was not 'incensed' I don't think...I'm not sure why you try to guess what I'm thinking though.  My opinion of LD's omission was shared by a lot of people and soccer pundits...I wasn't alone..so I don't think that makes me a 'LD fanboy'.  I just wanted the best US team possible.  You disagree that he should have been there...that's fine.
My interpretation of what LD said are different than yours.  JK brought this set of forwards..so given JA's injury you have to shift tactics, no?  Or just because Jozy is hurt we're now going to go less counter attack..or play Dempsey alone?
JK had a pretty huge impact on the cup...he chose an odd lineup, chose tactics late, etc.   I think a lot of LD's points are also fair (he was an analyst for the whole WC..it's not like he just gave his opinion without being asked.  Should he have just said nothing I guess?).  I think Bradley's poor WC had a lot to do with playing where JK wanted him...and I feel his play was related to him feeling uncomfortable..but I don't know.  I think his change in position was equivalent to moving from SS to 3rd or something...  All of the angles on his passes were different and tighter because of where he was on the field.
 
And of course he won't play for the USMNT as long as JK is there.  I think both of them share the blame though for LD's omission at this point...JK made his decision and LD chose not to keep his mouth shut about it.  (I'm not sure where your opinion of 'no one has ever admired LD for his strength of character' comes from...He's seemed to have been a pretty supportive teammate and player for the USMNT as far as I can tell, but maybe you know events that I haven't heard about.)
 
Dec 10, 2012
6,943
So people are protecting JK because he willingly composed a team that had no backup at striker?
 
I don't get it.
 
Nothing Landon said was really wrong,and I admire passion in my players. In my mind it would worse if Landon gave the appearance that he didn't care. In most parts of life sour grapes is bitter; not in this context.
 
I do like what he did from the standpoint of 2018 and the future though, and it made sense that way.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
So people are protecting JK because he willingly composed a team that had no backup at striker?
 
I don't get it.
 
Nothing Landon said was really wrong,and I admire passion in my players. In my mind it would worse if Landon gave the appearance that he didn't care. In most parts of life sour grapes is bitter; not in this context.
 
I do like what he did from the standpoint of 2018 and the future though, and it made sense that way.
He didn't create the player pool. We have no backups at striker who can do what Jozy does.
 
Dec 10, 2012
6,943
Cellar-Door said:
He didn't create the player pool. We have no backups at striker who can do what Jozy does.
Then he should have kept other players that could have provided flexibility for another style of play / formation etc. in case Jozy got hurt.
 
I can see building around Messi, Neymar, even Balotelli, but Jozy isn't good enough to build around to be irreplaceable.   
 
Boyd was available, too, if he was hellbent on having a single holding striker.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Then he should have kept other players that could have provided flexibility for another style of play / formation etc. in case Jozy got hurt.
 
I can see building around Messi, Neymar, even Balotelli, but Jozy isn't good enough to build around to be irreplaceable.   
 
Boyd was available, too, if he was hellbent on having a single holding striker.
This is where I think JK failed. He picked players to fit a formation and strategy and left no room for a change in strategy or injuries. I know you can't plan for injuries, but JK's choices left us super thin at very key positions...especially at mid if your intent is to have two wingers running the sideline where he chose either a 32 year old Davis or players like Zusi that are just too slow to play that style at this level. I think it was fairly telling that two of our best attacking players were defensemen or placed defensively. I would have been interested to have seen jones or Johnson play more of an attacking mid. Or to have seen Mix play at all..JK's change to bring MB forward seemed to make him obsolete.

On a positive side Yedlin showed he may be ready as did Green and Brooks possibly.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
lars10 said:
This is where I think JK failed. He picked players to fit a formation and strategy and left no room for a change in strategy or injuries. I know you can't plan for injuries, but JK's choices left us super thin at very key positions...especially at mid if your intent is to have two wingers running the sideline where he chose either a 32 year old Davis or players like Zusi that are just too slow to play that style at this level. I think it was fairly telling that two of our best attacking players were defensemen or placed defensively. I would have been interested to have seen jones or Johnson play more of an attacking mid. Or to have seen Mix play at all..JK's change to bring MB forward seemed to make him obsolete.

On a positive side Yedlin showed he may be ready as did Green and Brooks possibly.
Well in that formation the outside backs are supposed to be a major part of your offense (more so than the "outside" midfielders who are covering for the fullbacks' runs). The formation is the one that I think is best for almost all of our players. It takes advantage of what Johnson, Beasley and Yedlin do best which is bomb forward with pace. It let us play 2 DM (we have about 5 of them), to protect Besler and Cameron/Gonzo. The problem of course is that we only have 1 striker who can hold up the ball and let Dempsey play under him and that we don't really have a player who can keep possession and create in midfield so Bradley gets it. Moving Dempsey up top worked decently against Portugal I thought, it wasn't great against Belgium and Germany, but we lost those because our possession is shit.
I don't know what other formation people think we should have gone to? We've looked pretty bad in most others. This formation created a decent amount of chances against Portugal and some good counters against Belgium.
The real problem is that we can't control possession, and no formation is going to do much for that, it is a player pool problem more than anything.
 

BoredViewer

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,092
Johannsson was also injured in the first match and lost for the tournament.
 
Who do you bring?  A guy (Boyd) that's a pretty poor man's version of Jozy and that would likely never play unless multiple injuries hit... or a guy (Wondo) that has shown a knack for taking loose balls and sticking the ball in the back of the net - and that you could actually see a role for late in games?
 

Homa

New Member
Jun 28, 2006
59
Isn't this whole critic of Klinsmann overblown? When I read "failed" or "key mistakes" I wonder what expectations someone had for the team. Reaching at least the quarters? Semis?  
 
As far as I can see Klinsmann got pretty good results with a rather mediocre side. Small changes at the margins, and that is all that gets discussed here, wouldn't have turned the US into a vastly better team with a much better outlook. 
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
We're US fans, we gotta find something to bitch about.

And at this point it's that the US team didn't make the quarters. That's progress I guess.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
Cellar-Door said:
Well in that formation the outside backs are supposed to be a major part of your offense (more so than the "outside" midfielders who are covering for the fullbacks' runs). The formation is the one that I think is best for almost all of our players. It takes advantage of what Johnson, Beasley and Yedlin do best which is bomb forward with pace. It let us play 2 DM (we have about 5 of them), to protect Besler and Cameron/Gonzo. The problem of course is that we only have 1 striker who can hold up the ball and let Dempsey play under him and that we don't really have a player who can keep possession and create in midfield so Bradley gets it. Moving Dempsey up top worked decently against Portugal I thought, it wasn't great against Belgium and Germany, but we lost those because our possession is shit.
I don't know what other formation people think we should have gone to? We've looked pretty bad in most others. This formation created a decent amount of chances against Portugal and some good counters against Belgium.
The real problem is that we can't control possession, and no formation is going to do much for that, it is a player pool problem more than anything.
 
Ok. I thought the mids played wide, but that makes sense that our D was that far upfield then.  I thought the mids were supposed to make those runs, but I guess I'm mistaken.  Didn't they play more of a 4-4-2 (without the diamond in the middle) in qualifying?
I think the major problem was Bradley's positioning. He could just have been off the whole WC, but I've never seen him play that poorly...it seemed to me that he was pressing to try and create chances (which maybe he was because Jozy was hurt).  It just seems to me that JK was trying to make this change on MB.  Again I could be wrong.
 
Re: possession...we were never going to control against Germany or Belgium, but the US has gotten far better at possessing the ball over the last 12 years.  There were some great passing sequences in this cup and I hope that continues going forward.
 
I think the player pool is deeper than needing to take players like Davis, Wondo and maybe even Zusi.  They've shown they (so far) can't play at the international level and don't really add to anything going forward.
 
BoredViewer said:
Johannsson was also injured in the first match and lost for the tournament.
 
Who do you bring?  A guy (Boyd) that's a pretty poor man's version of Jozy and that would likely never play unless multiple injuries hit... or a guy (Wondo) that has shown a knack for taking loose balls and sticking the ball in the back of the net - and that you could actually see a role for late in games?
I didn't realize AJ got hurt vs. Ghana...so my failing on that.  I thought AJ was an interesting choice and I'm interested to see what he does going forward.  I like what I've seen in our young guys.
 
Homa said:
Isn't this whole critic of Klinsmann overblown? When I read "failed" or "key mistakes" I wonder what expectations someone had for the team. Reaching at least the quarters? Semis?  
 
As far as I can see Klinsmann got pretty good results with a rather mediocre side. Small changes at the margins, and that is all that gets discussed here, wouldn't have turned the US into a vastly better team with a much better outlook. 
I almost edited 'failed' or whatever... I never expected the US to get farther than they did and was pleasantly surprised at how well they did.  But, if the entire point is to progress in 2018, I think JK made some weird decisions if that was his ultimate goal.