So after six games what have we learned about Klinsmann?

Jozy's knockdown for the Bradley goal is the exception to the rule. Ask yourself how many times have you seen him do that? It is not his strenght and asking him to be an aerial target striker in a direct attack system is not the best use of his abilities.

You seem to be implying that the possession system is not about speed which is the direct opposite of the system. Possession soccer is all about the speed of getting the ball off your feet to your teammate in order to unbalance the opponent. That is why 1 touch and precision passing is so critical. Have you not seen the speed at which Barca moves the ball, in and out and side to side.

Klinsman always talks about one thing we currently need to improve is to increase the speed and tempo of ball movement as we move up the field from the backline forward.

You seem to be describing a caricature of possession ball which no advocate would recognize, not Klinsman, Porter, or Guardiola. A discussion about real direct attack vs real possession ball has merit. A debate about a style where people slowly pass the ball around is just a strawman similar to describing direct attack as booting the long ball to no one.

 

First - You seem to be intentionally perverting the notion of speed. Cleansheet isn't referring to one-two passing. He's referring to the speed with which we transition from the defensive third, to the middle third, and finally into the attacking third.

We can play 5 v 2 in our final third, and move the ball quickly off of our feet. It doesn't mean shit when it comes to scoring goals though.

We have been deliberately slow in our transition, allowing defenses to organize, which is why we have had a dearth of scoring chances so far under Klinsmann.

Once we get it to the final third, we lack the players required to break down an organized defense.

People really need to stop using Barcelona as a basis of comparison. This Barcelona team is a once in a lifetime team.

No other team on earth can play the way that they do. No other team can emulate the way that they play.

It is beyond stupid to use Barcelona as some comparison to how the US should try to play. There really isn't a strong enough word in any language that I know of the describe how ridiculous it is to use Barcelona as a basis of comparison or a benchmark.

 

whoops

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSGIUj2SDHg"]USMNT passing move vs. Slovenia (all field players get a touch) - YouTube[/ame]

 

I responded to TheNearPost, what is Cleansheet is that an alias?

We need to do better. Klinsman has stated we need to increase our speed and tempo as we move up the field.

This Barca or Ibra's Barca or Eto'o's, or Henri's or even back to when Guardiola was playing just describes an ideal possession team. I could have easily said Bayern or even at times Schalke. I could have said Arsenal or Man City. I could have even said Jozy's AZ.

I used Barca as an example of the speed at which the ball could me moved. I could have use Bayer or Madrid or AJAX or any of 100 other clubs.

In any event since I am beyond stupid no sense in you and I having a discussion.

 

This I think can be a preview of what we will see in time.

ALthough Bradely (that lay off to dempsey) should have lost it, but that play is a peek into what could be in the future....


We'll see....

 

Yes, as I was always told as a child growing up, the ball always moves faster than your marker, moving the ball around fast makes it hard for someone to get it from you.

 

I guess that does not count. That play has been discussed in this very thread. That clip actually cuts off the first 3 passes

 

I stand corrected. We've created 1 scoring chance in 630 minutes of play.

Clearly deliberate possession has been a roaring success.

 

And to be perfectly honest, Slovenia's right fullback was way out of position, and created space between himself and his nearest centerback for Fabian Johnson to exploit.

 

But that’s the whole point of the 1 touch passing possession game, to create space by moving the defense around so that they lose shape and become open. Combine with good movement along the line, which Johnson did superbly all game and you create great chances.

FYI the right back was in good shape, the same place he was for the first cycle. His job is to defend Chandler against the outside run and cross. #15 and #19 got compressed because of the ball movement and distances they had to move to maintain shape. They were not able to get back in position when Dempsey swung the ball back to Chandler.

 

Why are so many posters so violently against sticking to different types of attacking formations.

Here's how everyone sees it: we have not gotten better for 5 years. We plateaued and find ourselves losing ground to teams willing to work to get better.

If we don't start changing now to a system capable of making us better, then we will get worse.

Why so violently myopic?

It is clear that any team from 5 years up can play counter-attacking football. It's not hard to play. It is the algebra of soccer formations. Because it is so easy to play it is also easy to play against, hence the US going down a goal early in virtually all off their final 15 matches.

We all get Bob's virtue here, a team built to put the opposition to it's physical extreme and push them late-on to capitalize. Defensive backs getting wide, mids going narrow, center mids applying zone pressure, strikers making runs into space or waiting for the cross.

I think the logical conclusion to this formation was reached. The US lost in the break-out round to a team playing possession football with a 5 man midfield. Gee, I wonder why Klinsie is playing a 5 man midfield.

 

First off, why use the term "violent"? It has no logical application to this situation at all.

Next, "have not gotten better for 5 years"? We bombed (badly) out of World Cup 06, and within 3 years we were runners-up in a FIFA tournament and finished first in our group in South Africa. We were one of the world's highest scoring teams in 2010 WC qualifying.

Then, if the 5-man midfield is such a no-brainer, how come Klinsmann only won 1 out of 6 games when using it?

The chickpea is neither a chick nor a pea. Discuss.

 

I just finished the worst week of work in my life.

Over 25 years and 15 years in upper management.



Sam just made me smile again. BS, where the absurd makes sense.


Wait! I'm saying it VIQOLENTLY!!! Grrr!!!

 

Not a single person is opposed to change.

But you can completely change the culture of the US program without blowing up the senior side in the process.

If you honestly believe that we did not improve as a national team under Bob Bradley, then you are biased beyond the capability of being able to have an intelligent conversation.

I'm not so sure that this system is going to make us better in the short term (next 3 years), and is better suited as a long term vision, which should be implemented at the youth levels.

Quite frankly, I think that this new system will make us decidedly worse in the short term, and could jeopardize our chances of qualifying for Brazil. And I am not willing to sacrifice that, when the same long term vision can be accomplished in a less destructive way.

I assume you're counting the 5 of Klinnsman's 7 games, where we went down a goal too?

And the counter attacking game can be the algebra of soccer, or it can be the calculus of soccer. Depends on how disciplined you are defensively, while pushing numbers forward.

Teams like Italy and Germany play the counterattack to perfection. What the US lacked was the defensive discipline required to keep things tidy at the back when pushing numbers forward.

And Italy has won multiple World Cups playing a counter attacking style. What's your point?

There is no one end all be all style of play for success. There are multiple ways that a team can be successful. The trick is figuring out which style suits your player pool the best and then tweaking and adjusting that style of play so as to make it work on both sides of the ball.

And on some days, no matter what style of soccer you play, the better, more talented team will beat you.

Ghana is a better, more talented team than the US. I know it sucks to hear that...but its true.

Ghana has produced regular starters for clubs like AC Milan, Chelsea, Olympic Lyon, and Inter in recent years.

They have superstar players in their squad. We don't. They were a better, more talented team than we were, and we actually outplayed them in that game, but just didn't finish our chances.

Bob Bradley's system put us in a position to win that game. But Bob can't run onto the field and kick the ball into the goal for his players.

 

Most of the card carrying members of the Fire Bob Mob genuinely believe that our talent is amongst the top 10-15 in the world and we should have run roughshod over Ghana.

Sam Hamwich's recent post suggest that he feels the same way. We lost because of tactics, not because of poor finishing, and being the less talented team. According to Sam

 

Ive now learned that Klinsmann does have some damn sense.

Having a strong defense is key to our success and his call-ups of young stud CB's is just the start of the sweeping changes we'll see on the backline over the next year.

 

I don't think Klinsmann called up the young CBs because of some sort of epiphany.

These friendlies aren't on FIFA dates, so the only players available to him for these friendlies are the MLS based guys, with a couple Scandinavians sprinkled in.

If Klinsmann had his choice of players from Europe, I don't most, if any, of the young CBs get called in.

 

I think its important to also point out that the US actually had a possession advantage over Ghana in that game. It was close, but the edge went to the US. We also had more shots, and equal number of shots on goal, more corner kicks, and Ghana committed almost a 2:1 foul ratio in that game.

We outplayed Ghana in that game. The difference was that their superstars had moments of individual brilliance that we couldn't overcome. That's what happens sometimes when you play a more talented team.

 

About as much sense as paying $2.5 million, 4 times the previous wage, to a guy with less then 3 years of experience managing, an indifferent record while doing so, and 0 experience working in youth development to turn our system into one resembling Barcelona. Honestly, if you really believe that Barcelona-ball is the best option for the US then why didn't you hire someone with experience in that system, or at least a related system? Oh yeah, and we're still paying 1/2 million to his predecessor. For $3 million a year, we could have hired a professional coach.

 

Ironically while some argue that we don’t have the player pool to play an effective possession style, it is also clear that we lack the type of players to be an internationally successful direct attack team. There is a reason Bob Bradley experimented with 4-3-3s, 4-5-1s and 4-2-3-1 post-WC2010. We don’t have an effective aerial target man like a McBride or even a Ching anywhere in sight, even in the upcoming player pool. We don’t have skilled pace on the wings and LD is getting older. We don’t have that speed 2nd striker that can play of the target man and stretch the opposition.

Without those assets we were not going to be very successful even if we had continued our old direct attack style.

 

Not sure what you mean by direct attack, as that is not the same thing as a counter attack.

As has already been pointed out by others in this thread, you don't need speedy wingers to play a counter attacking style.

You definitely don't need a target striker to play a counter attacking team.

You seem to be hung up on the notion that all we ever did under Bob Bradley was play boom ball and hope for a speedy second striker to run off of a target striker.

That just simply isn't true.

 

It is in some people's worlds.

They have their agenda and their sticking to it.

Remember, Mo Edu is easily more skilled, a better passer and better offensive player than Mike Bradley could ever be...until he got his chance to show reality. One that was there for all to see for years. Didn't change the agenda/bias.

The new line among the zealots, guys with old handles who changed to new, etc...is that BB only played boom ball.

A lie at worst and delusion at best. Always a new catch phrase to hammer home regardless of the facts for the ones who need it.


Does Supercooper really think that posting every once in a while under one of his old, many handles, is gonna fool anyone with any sort of brain?

I know the kiddies won't know but talk about transparent and desperate.