we were already down 2 men. what happens if he takes out McBride and 2 minutes later donovan breaks a leg? what happens is we play with 8 men and most liekly dont get the draw with 8 vs 10 against Italy.
this happened during the game for Italy. they used all their subs and a man went down and was out for a few minutes. it was 9v9 during that span. if he couldnt come back on, it would have stayed 9v9 for the rest of the game
Not using the last sub was the safe call. in hindsight, maybe too safe, but if it did happen and we lost, Bruce would have been blasted for usign all his subs too early!
yes i would have liked to see eddie come in for a gassed McBride, but i totaly respect Bruces thinking in this

Plus the fact that McBride is a much much better defender than EJ.

mcbride was playing defense at the end. you have to put ej in at 80 minutes. you cant coach thinking there will be an injury or you will never sub and get beat. that is the worst arguement for not subbing at the 80 minute mark.

What was wrong with McBride playing defense at the end? He is our best header of the ball and seemed capable of defending. He just wasn't getting to balls. At that point in the game, we probably weren't going to win it. It was definitely time to pack it in and play for the draw which Arena acheived. I don't see how you can complain.

if we were only one man down, then i would say absoultly. bring in EJ, but 2 men down? does anyone really think we could have got the draw 3 men down?
it was a rough game, an injury was a very real possibility. Bruce played it safe and wasnt as aggressive as the fans want.
without the draw our Cup is over, with it we can still advance.
yes EJ MIGHT have scored and got the W, but Italy might also have intentionally hurt a guy to put us down another man and got the W and end our trip.
Not subbing is a 'no-call' could go either way and Bruce played it on the safe side

the us wont ever win anything in soccer if they play it safe

sub as injury time starts to kill of time? Lewis comes in? JOB comes in? there were options, in every game that a manager uses all 3 subs there is a possibility of injury but you don't play timid in the world cup. you have 3 games and you either go home or you celebrate, you have to try everything you can to ensure victory. I'm pretty sure that the minute it would've taken to sub would have been a lot less dangerous than the 3 lobs in a minute to Buffon to setup another Italy charge.

i dont agree with that riley. at that point it is pointless. i wouldve put ej in at 80 or so to give him a chance

I'm just pointing out why it is stupid not to use a sub. go check on the football other board and check out the thread about this. I think that a sub should have been used at 77'. Its not as if McBride touched the ball after this, considering our game plan was to give the ball back to the Azurri everytime KK got his hands on it.

agreed i think arena has not down a good job at all so far. afraid to make any major changes in game or after games.

well I liked that he switched up to the 4-1-4-1, and brought boca in but I still don't understand his dislike of EJ. I understand that he hasn't scored lately for us but as of now nobody on the team has scored for us. I think that we have to be more aggressive and believe we can win these games instead of playing to tie and stealing it if we can.

The mexico game is probably the last time I've really seen us come out and decide that we were going to try and put it on somebody, now we look content to survive through a game and possibly catch someone napping to steal a win.

i cant stand playing for a tie. we arent even close to being good enough to play for ties and think we can win the next one. we cant play safe and move on. but i dont think arena has it in him. ej was the only one that showed any energy against czech.

The US did not play for a tie in the game against Italy...until they were down to 9 men. Arena's tactics for the Czech game were questionable, but against Italy the US looked the better side and were unlucky not to get a win.

To be down to 9 men for a full half is really difficuly. Donovan, Beasley and Reyna created some great chances in the second half, so I don't think you can question the tactics.

I'm pretty sure that I am questioning the tactics. Why not play two forwards when obviously one will not do? We've tried that before (re: 4-0 Germany over US), also in our loss to Mexico we played the same way. It isn't a coincidence that our few losses in the last year have seen the team come out and play to absorb pressure and then float the ball to our single forward.

The US offense before the two send offs was very good against Italy. If you put on another forward you must then take off a midfielder, who would you have taken off?

Mastroeni- No way, he defensive work allowed Reyna and Donovan freedom to create.

Reyna- good lord no!

Donovan- Landon looked lost in the Czech game but as an aggressive midfielder he created good opportunies against Italy.

Dempsey- Dempsey was phenomenal on the side, he and Convey making runs is the type of offense we need.

Convey- See Dempsey.

The US is at its best when it can make runs with the bal through midfield. Possession and passes inside do not key good opportunities.

The US strength is in its midfielders, so it makes since to have 5 out there and give Donovan free rein to roam.

I don't see how you could look at our control of the midfield against Italy and think the tactics did not work. A 1-1 draw with one of the top 3 teams in the world is never a bad result, especially when you play half the game a man down.

well when WE score a goal I'll agree, but as yet my prediction holds that with McBride as the lone forward we won't find the net.

Who would you have taken out? If you are going to put down a tactic then please explain the better one.

We played horribly in game one with two forwards and played well in game two with one.

because we played donovan as a forward, name one international game where he has excelled with his back to goal

would've used an offset 4 that has been succesful for us with mastro at the back, off shoulder to reyna, dempsey and donovan pushed forward of the triangle. EJ and McBride up top.

If our offense was so good against Italy then how did we not record a shot on goal (according to FIFA)?

[This message has been edited by riley290 (edited 6/19/2006 2:16p).]

quote:

---

If our offense was so good against Italy then how did we not record a shot on goal (according to FIFA)?

---

"Shot on goal" means a shot that was on-frame. We took shots, but they were all high or wide. The offensive development was good, but the last touch was still poor. From my recollection, we had 8-10 shots. I don't know what the official stats are. Not a bad number, though, considering we were a man down for half the game.

how bout just push donovan up top. he cant score but at least he is up there to help mcbride out. they played for a tie arena even admitted it. right now we need to score so i would even say play 3 in the back. i wouldnt be afraid to take reyna out. he hasnt created that much yet.

You think another forward would have converted shot to shots on goal?

You think our offensive build up was not good in the first 45 minutes?

So you would have taken out Convey for EJ? Convey made some great runs down the side, you would be asking Donovan to play the left side? I don't think that would be as successful as him roaming the middle.

EJ seems to be everyone's cure all, and I just don't see it. He is a good sub for offensive enrgy but I don't think his play has deserved a starting spot.

bbry

That is what they did against the Czechs, and Donovan plays better when he can run forward than with his back to the goal.

Saying Reyna has not created much makes me question your knowledge of the sport, Reyna has been superb in the first two games, and is the calming presence we must have in the midfield.

[This message has been edited by Aston94 (edited 6/19/2006 2:45p).]

nobody has played good enough for a starting job. he at least deserved to come in at the 80th minute mark. we are not good enough to play for ties. all ties get you is a ticket home

they didnt start that way. mcbride was up there by himself the whole time. i gave you three changes that i wouldve done at least one. that was an option if yo udidnt want to put ej in.

superb. not a single player on the us deserves the word superb in fromt of their name. give me a break

Convey's play in the first game deserved a starting spot? Beasley's play deserved a spot (although that was more a defensive and holding sub)?

I'm sorry we disagree but I can believe what I want and the scoreboard is on my side right now as 0 of the players you have listed have put the ball in the net (although strangely the whipping boy beasley did, too bad abou the offsides). I'm not saying it would be better but it would be different, and being different can't really hurt us since the status quo has given us 1 point.

Agree to disagree, but let me reiterate my point:

1. We played horribly against Czech Republic.

2. We played wonderfully against Italy and the 1-1 tie was a bit unfortunate given our better play.

3. I do not see how anyone can be disappointed with a 1-1 tie against one of the top 3 teams in the world given that we had 9 players on the pitch for essentially all of the second half.

4. Reyna has been superb (yes superb) so far, and if the US gets out of the pool play expect to see him on the all-tournament team, as he was in 2002.

5. Placing another forward on the pitch does not guarantee more offense, it means you will either be more vulennerable on defense or less dominant in the midfield.

6. Donovan playing between the mids and the forward makes the most sense.

7.Our best team for the Ghana game (in my opinion):

GK Keller

LDef Bocanegra
RDef Cherundolo
MDef Conrad
MDef Gooch

Mid (defensive) O'Brien
LefMid Convey
RightMid Dempsey
Mid Reyna
Mid (offensive) Donovan

Forward McBride

I like Beasley and EJ to come in for more offense if needed in the second half.

but bringing them in doesnt guarantee more offense. you just said that. i am disappointed in the tie becasue we had a great opportunity to beat them. they were dog tired for the last 20 minutes. we didnt take advantage. keller just punted it to the other keeper everytime. we are not good enough to play for a tie knowing we need a win in one out of two games. we have to play for a win both times. i still cant see how you can say he has been superb but whatever

[This message has been edited by bbry81 (edited 6/19/2006 3:57p).]

quote:

---

5. Placing another forward on the pitch does not guarantee more offense, it means you will either be more vulennerable on defense or less dominant in the midfield.

---

There is a reason most teams play the 4-4-2

Having an extra midfielder does not guarentee better defense, you compensate the lack of an extra midfielder by having your fowards pressure hard on the defenders who are distributing the ball. Unfortunately landon and mcbride did not work hard enough to pressure the defense versus the czechs and they could sit back and pick us apart. The 4-4-2 allows you to open up more space in the midfield to move the ball, and two forwards up top to create offensive combinations...

Only mexico and portugal run with only one foward and its due to the fact that they have extremely aggressive midfielders who attack from all angles. That has never been our style.

Right, they don't guarantee more offense, but with their speed and considering they would be fresh they would be good offensive subs.

I invite you to watch the first half of the Italy game again and say that we were playing for a tie, we were playing very offensive. But opening yourself up to one of the top teams in the world is silly.

You say we are not good enough to play defensive, well we are not good enough to play all out offense and not get burned (see first goal by Czech Republic where Eddie Lewis went forward and left a hole in the defense).

you just made my point why they should have brought in ej against italy

i dont get it. the first half we probably werent playing for a tie. but in the second we were. arena said as much. you just made the exact point i have arguing this whole time why bring in ej against italy. but now its ok to bring him in against ghana. make up your mind. bring him when the other team gets tired or not? you chose

Your point is that he should be starting, right? Isn't that what you said?

I think he should be a ub if you want offense, sure. He should not be in your starting 11.

It made no sense to bring him in against Italy, though, because we had 9 players on the field. If it were 11 v. 11 and was tied 1-1 then it would be a good move.

Who would you have taken out to put him in against Italy?

In a game where you have 9 guys on the pitch I think I prefer experience over his speed. there is no reason you should do more than defend and counter when you are tied and have 9 guys on the pitch.

quote:

---

there is no reason you should do more than defend and counter when you are tied and have 9 guys on the pitch.

---

Unless, of course, you believe it's worth a gamble to put your team in a position to control its own destiny re making it to the second round.

Playing for the tie is the conservative choice that paid off (barely) with one point, but it was by no means the only option.