Even though they are at a different level from the US, I couldn't help but think that the tactical choices made by Spain and Italy had some lessons for JK and company. Italy was helped by the decision to play two forwards. Spain was hurt by the decision to go with a starting lineup with no real forwards. Even with the poor performance by Fernando Torres, I thought they became a much more dangerous and dynamic team once he was subbed into the game. Spain faced a choice similar to what we face. Play a bunch of center-mid types rather than less accomplished or less in-form forwards. Or sacrifice one or two of the center mids for one or two of those forwards. I know Altidore might not be ready to start. But when he is I think we would be much better off starting both him and Gomez and leaving one of the center mids on the bench.
I tend to agree. Spain hurt themselves by not playing a striker and by having only one effective attacking fullback, but having too many holding midfielders also limited their performance on the attacking end.
Important lesson #1 is Italy had 34% of the possession and if Ballotelli isn't starting would have won the game. Of course US beat Italy with 39% of the possession and Spain with a little less(I believe) Possession can be an excellent tool in a team's arsenal but shouldn't be forced at the expense of other aspects. US equaled Brazil in possession and surpassed them in a number of stats but gave up a little too much defensively. Important lesson #2 is maintain a cutting edge appropriate to the level of competition. In the case of the US using 3 or more non-attacking center mids against middle-ranking comp is too conservative. In the case of Spain even using a flawed line leading striker is better than going with a 4-6-0. Important lesson #3. Cagey veterans who perform over young guns with reps who don't. Di Natale > Ballotelli; Herc > Altidore.
WARNING: Referring very, very, very generally to Ireland-Croatia as well, so don't read beyond the break if you're waiting to see it. . . . . . . . . . . . Today was a day where real strikers proved their worth. The 4-6-0 with a 'false 9' isn't going to be the way to go for most teams in general in the future, I don't think. It very specifically suits Barca with Messi but few others. You still need somebody up top opening things up for others, and capitalizing on wide play. Barca don't emphasize it, Spain generally don't emphasize width either, but I think this tournament is going to prove that Barca found a way, and a somewhat anomalous way. Not the way. In general, teams using width effectively are looking good in this tournament.
For the record, Italy played 3-5-2, not 4-4-2, and used wingbacks. So while there were 2 forwards, they also had enough bodies to clog the middle with 5 midfielders. And Cassano did move around a lot (he was fantastic). Personally, I've thought for a while that we should consider going 3-5-2, with the lack of real wingers beyond LD and Deuce, and a bunch of guys who could play wingback pretty effectively (Johnson, Dolo, Chandler, Lichaj, Castillo). Plus, you could move BOTH LD and Dempsey inside to save their legs. Spain, did manage to bag a goal with those 6 midfielders. Though I must admit: Busquets + Xavi, Alonso, Iniesta, Sliva, and Fabergas is still pretty impressive. I wish we had those kind of problems. And I'd also say that I think the game actually began to open up a bit because: 1) After Fabergas scored, Italy wanted to try to win the game and pressed up more than they would have up 1-0; and 2) The game got late and the Italians got a bit tired. Still, it was more open. Balotelli and Torres were both very wasteful, that game should have been 2-2 at a minimum.
From your post and the ones before it you'd think they failed to score until Navas and Torres came on, but it was the opposite. If anything if Torres had started he wouldn't have finished like Fabregas did and they would have lost.
Unless Klinsmann is considering starting THIS Torres in the next match, I'm not sure there's much of a lesson to be learned other than the platitudinal "don't suck".
True. The midfielder (Fabregas) subbed off was the man who scored, but honestly that was a case of a great moment of skill taking advantage of a rare Italian defensive miscue and they punished it clinically. There was very little danger or incisiveness to Spain before that. After the switch, even with the score again level, Spain had a much better cutting edge and I honestly thought Spain was the more likely to walk away with 3 points.
Yep Spain did a better job of creating opportunities with Torres on the field. Either way they would have lost if Di Natale had started.
I don't know. Torres was like a Spanish version of 2010 Altidore today. Spain's attack finally became consistent with him on the field, but Torres was inept at finishing.
The 3-5-2 will work against narrow teams like Spain, but will get ripped to shreds against teams with wingers like Holland and Germany. Guatemala plays quite narrow, so a 3-5-2 might work, but you can't make that your "system." The 3-5-2 is special scenario formation only. I guarantee Italy deploys a different formation in their other games.
I think the main lesson here is Italy still has the best defense in the world. The best defense in the world is still the most important thing for any team. Passing out of the back is good and all but I want my defenders to be defenders first....not midfielders who play defense like the Spanish teams. On top of that Italy knows how to play the long ball. It is amazing how accurate they can place a long ball and how well they one touch a 30 yard ball to another player. Spain will connect 30 passes and not go anywhere. Italy will put 1 pass 50 yards up the field and create a chance.
A good team can do both. Saying one style is better than the other is like saying apples are better than oranges. They're both beneficial.
I would have thought that Canada would have put the 2 striker talk to rest. If a team has 2 very good big strikers who are good in the air, 2 wingers who have pace and can cross, and 2 very good CBs who can make plays when their team is outnumbered in the midfield then by all means play a 4-4-2. Seeing Bradley and Jones trying to execute a pulley against Canada and the resulting impotent attack and defense brought back bad memories. We should stay a 4-3-X-X team. The only 2 forward formation we should consider is the 4-3-1-2 v Slovenia. If we have Johnson providing attacking width on the left and Dolo chipping in from the right, the 4-3-2-1/4-3-3 with Dempsey and Donovan behind a CF is the best formation for our current pool. In fact moving forward I think you will see the MNT morphing the front 3 between a 2-1, 1-2, and flat 3 during the match.
Spain played one defence first team in the 2010 WC in Switzerland, they lost. Today they played the master of defence and decided to go with 1 striker. The flaw in their system seems to be defeating those quality defence first sides.
We learned subbing off Silva was stupid. You put Mata, Iniesta, Silva and a forward on the field at the same time and nobody's touching this Spanish team. Sadly we may not find out. Del Boring has a case of the Klinsmann's.
If it's any consolation, it seems Del Bosque's learned his lesson: http://www.soccerway.com/news/2012/June/10/del-bosque-defends-fabregas-role/
Spain is missing Villa. He's that mobile, deadly finisher that Torres used to be. He can drop into mid and play that game, but he's also as good a finisher as there is. I'd also like to see how a real target man like Llorente could knock down balls for Iniesta, Silva, etc to run onto. Lots of options for Spain with all that talent.
Man, most of you are trying to draw a lesson that you had ready before this game. Like, possession doesn't win games. And you're trying to draw this from Spain of all teams. They are already off to a better start than the World Cup, which they won. Their equalizing goal was scored by the "mistake," Fabregas, and Torres showed why he was left off. Throughout the world cup they were called toothless and boring. They usually won their games 1-0. They only got to the final because of a Puyol header on a set piece, and they only won the final because of a Fabregas to Iniesta combination. Villa scored some goals in the world cup, but none in the crucial late matches. They won the world cup by keeping other teams away from their goal with possession by all those mids, and if they are the first team in history to repeat at the Euros, they're not going to do it by resembling a conventional team with their top striker out anyway.
italy worked extremely hard to get that draw. and with quick one touch passing and hard running defending.
I do agree to being well rounded but when Spain puts a team out with no target man or aerial threat whatsoever....they are completely giving up on that game and going with passing it into the goal. This does not work against solid defense. Barcelona learned it the hard way against Chelsea. You need to be able to play the long ball and score in the air against organized defense. This recent obsession with non stop passing, fielding only small quick players is only a phase. It is not the be all end all of soccer like many make it out to be after Spain and Barcelona of the past few years. Teams have figured it out. Italy in particular, who Spain can never beat. Chelsea figured it out. Barcelona was literally out of ideas in the Champion's League semi's. They just passed around the edge of the box unable to do anything at all except try to dive and get a PK. If you have no ranged threat or no aerial threat, you are one dimensional and easy to defend. Putting 10 holding midfielders on the field does not work even if they are all Iniesta or Xavi. All of that aside I stand by my point that this game proved to me that great defense can never be overestimated.
The Dutch v. Danish match was more instructive I felt. Ghost of christmas pass meets ghost of christmas present. We are completely unlike spain and italy. Neither very skillful nor very strategic.
If Chelsea figured out Barcelona, the US figured out Spain at the CC. Chelsea won because Barcelona missed chance after chance after chance, including a Messi penalty. Chelsea beat Bayern because they had one corner all game and Drogba headed it in, in injury time. And what did Chelsea do right after winning the CL? Spent a load of money trying to become more like Bayern and Barcelona. Including trying their damnedest to hire Barcelona's coach, who is now the most in demand coach in the world despite teams having to wait until after his one year vacation.
Which is why we'd be better modeling ourselves after Germany, a team that attempts to combine the best of both worlds. Italy don't have enough quick skillful players in the middle. A good team with a good game plan will dominate them. Spain and Italy are the two extremes. A more logical approach is aiming somewhere in the middle.
A lesson for del Bosque - if you have a 27 goal striker and a 12 goal striker, you may want to choose a 27-goal striker because, while he may miss a few chances too, the odds of a 12-goal striker missing his chances are a lot higher. A lesson from Prandelli - a defensive midfielder can play in central defense too and some can even anchor it. Another lesson from Prandelli - adopt to your opponent and make changes as warranted. Another lesson from Prandelli - use a set-up/formation/style/tactics that benefits your best player. Build your team around him. A lesson for Gulati - sometimes you might want to give a psychological profile test to your hire.