Back to the US game. I read that Beasly and Adu spent time alternating a the lone forward up top. I realize this was a throw away game, but why even put either of those players up there? There is zero chance of Beasly or Adu playing forward in a competive game right? Why fool around like this instead of playing players in the positions you intend to use them in?
Because it forces them out of their comfort zone and requires them to actually think about what they're doing. It also allows them to see the game through the eyes of the guys who they're supposed to be feeding the ball to. It will help them in the long run.
Respectively disagree with all of that.
I don't really think I do either. How does having Adu play completely out of position give him a better understanding of the game? He is way to small to ever be an effective striker. Would you recommend he get playing time at fullback also to better see how to defend? It still doesn't make any sense to me. I guess its kind of like with Dempsey. The guy needs to be played either exclusively in the midfield or up top, quit jerking him around and let him concentrate on developing at a singular position.
I don't believe it works at the pro level, but the theory used for decades in Holland (and developed in part through the Ajax system) is that every player is chosen to play every single field position as he is working his way up through the ranks. They believe it makes the player a significantly more complete player (and looking at the technical ability of the average Dutch player, its hard to argue).John O'Brien (arguably the US's best midfielder ever when he was healthy), said that this philosophy helped him grow as a player tremendously when he moved to the Ajax system at age 16.
I can understand that for developing players as you mention their system does, but I don't think that World Cup Qualifiers is the place to do this. While Adu is still young, Beasly has been around the block, so what is the point for him to be up there? There is a time and a place for ideas like this, but I don't don't think it should be in Qualifiers.I just feel like it is more important at this point for the US to start developing some real chemistry between players at the positions they are best suited. The US isn't going to be the most talented team at the WC (assuming they qualify), so they should look to being one of the best
teams. Just my thoughts.
While I agree with your point as a whole, you have to realize that this was a throw away game. US would have needed to lose 9-0 for this to cause problems. Why not see what you got and play a few others up top in a game like this? Its not bad to see a few people out of position and see if they can handle it in case of suspensions, injuries, in game management.I do agree that we should be building chemistry and a TEAM, but after England, Spain and Argentina, then a crushing of Barbados in the 1st leg, alittle bit of fun and a challenge in a meaningless game is not a bad idea. Keeps players minds on the game at hand.
... let alone the bizarro calls Andy alluded to earlier (and batteries/ misc. projectiles bombarding the players' heads all game).
some nice goals in this one. I may have to try the bowling alley goal
:X
thanks. Got it just in time to see Podolski kill one over the cross bar
