Match Fit USA contributor Jason Kuenle breaks down the many possible roles for Landon Donovan in the United States National Team setup.
By Jason Kuenle
With the season over for most European leagues, and with at least five big matches in the month of June, the US national team is once again front and center in the minds of soccer following Americans. I started thinking about this post after seeing a posting on another blog including a starting XI for the upcoming qualifiers that did not include Landon Donovan in the lineup. The poster stated that he left out Donovan because he disappears in big matches. This is the most often cited reason that Donovan detractors state when claiming that Donovan is overrated. While Donovan may be overrated, I believe that he does belong on the pitch for every important national team game. The question is where? In what position does Donovan most greatly improve the US’ chances for success?
Finisher? Playmaker? Both? As the all-time US leader in both goals and assists, Donovan has proven the ability to score and create. In addition he can play both sides of the field. This combination allows him to slot into any of the following positions: front man, support striker, either wing forward, center attacking mid, or either side mid. Below is a short pro/con list for each of these positions as it relates to the national team. Please feel free to add pros and cons by commenting below.
Front Man
Pros: Dedicates the leading goal scorer to thinking only about scoring goals
Cons: Not physical enough to play a target striker; little advantage over Altidore; limits his space to create for others
Support Striker
Pros: Goal scoring position without the cons of being a front man
Cons: Requires a front man who is a scoring threat to keep central defenders honest
Wing Forward
Pros: Close enough to score but enough space to create; a 4-3-3 with Donovan, Altidore, and Dempsey up top could be lethal
Cons: US is not moving to this formation anytime soon and even if they did it would start looking like a 4-5-1 very quickly.
Central Attacking Mid
Pros: Optimal position to orchestrate attacks; too deep to be marked out by central defenders
Cons: Requires unlikely (or terrible) formations 3-5-2, 4-3-3, 4-1-2-1-2 (or the dreaded 4-5-1); congests the middle for Michael Bradley’s runs at goal
Side Mid
Pros: Space to run and create; widens the US attack; matches up against a fullback instead of a central defender
Cons: Limits goal scoring opportunities
During Donovan’s career with the national team, managers have viewed his versitility as his strongest asset. He has consistantly played wherever the US was the weakest at that time. If Altidore does not start against Costa Rica, I would not be surprised to see Donovan start in the hole and move to the left side when Altidore comes in.
When I sat down to write this, I was hoping for answers, but in doing so I’ve only come up with more questions; if a formation was built around Donovan instead of putting him wherever the US is weakest, would he disappear in big matches? If Altidore were the front man with Donovan as a support striker, would Donovan have space to work that pairing him with Ching doesn’t afford him? What would the national team look like in any of the formations (besides the 4-5-1) with Donovan as a central attacking mid? Would Donovan be content with a creator role if he’s permanently moved opposite Dempsey or would he constantly be sliding into the middle?
Jason Kuenle has been a guest columnist for Match Fit USA since winning the MFUSA writing contest. He can be e-mailed at secondhalfsub@gmail.com.
