The Bradley to Klinsmann transition is complete. (r)

More than any single game, I think I have been most intrigued by the macro-transition from Bradley to Klinsmann. I would say the transition was complete at the end of the Italy game, and we are now fully into the Klinsmann era. Here is my take on the transition phases:

• January 2011: Bradley is still in post-World Cup mode, trying to identify young players to augment the roster. Bielsa hustles a group of Chilean players together, many of whom have never seen time again. Bradley brings a largely MLS-based side after camp cupcake and sees his team struggle. Worries start to mount as to whether having Bradley for a second cycle was the right move.

• March 2011: Bradley is in Gold Cup preparation mode, with three difficult friendlies scheduled against Argentina, Paraguay, and Spain. While the US pulls out a tie against Argentina, the overall play is poor. Paraguay handles the US, and Spain embarrasses them heading into the US's most important off-cycle tournament. The US shows signs of serious concern, more so in terms of style than in results alone. Bradley tries to work 3 central midfielder formations together, but the team struggles to adopt the system.

• Gold Cup 2011: The wheels come off. The US loses for the first time in Gold Cup group play to Panama. Rumors circulate of a lost locker room. The defensive cracks that had been opening for a year break completely in the final. Mexico comes back from a 2 goal deficit to dominate the rest of the game en route to a 4-2 victory.

Over Bradley's last 10 games:

• 11 Goals Scored. 13 Goals Conceded. -2 Goal Differential.
• 4-4-2 (W-L-D). The US wins 47% of available points.
• Average current Elo ranking of opponent: 35

Around this time I started to wonder what effect a coaching change may have. I started this thread with that question in mind. The study I referenced, where thousands of Bundesliga games were analyzed over decades of play, indicated the effect would be minimal. At most, we could expect about a 15% improvement as measured by goal differential. As usual, the Germans were cold right in their mechanical analysis (I will take broad stereotypes for $2,000, Alex).

• Aug/Sep 2011: Klinsmann takes over. With little camp time, he assembles a team to replay Mexico. He introduces a few new players and tries to implement a new style. The team concedes less goals, but also struggles to score. The US loses to an experimental Costa Rica team, and struggles to create chances against Belgium.

• Oct/Nov 2011: Klinsmann gets his first win with the US against Honduras, in spite of some shaky US defense and thanks to some shakier Honduras finishing. Klinsmann loses two more times, failing to score against Ecuador, and failing to create much of anything against France. This is the low-point of the Klinsmann transition, with threads like these as evidence of how many fans felt about Klinsmann after the France game.

• Slovenia - Italy 2011: Slovenia represents a turning point. Klinsmann dials up the offense, and the US wins in Europe. The US wins the next 3 games. The transition completes when the US beats Italy, the Italians first home loss in a long time. Questions linger over style, but at least the fan base has more confidence in the US's ability to grind out results.

Over Klinsmann's first 10 games:

• 8 Goals Scored. 7 Goals Conceded. +1 Goal Differential.
• 5-4-1 (W-L-D). The US wins 53% of available points.
• Average current Elo ranking of opponent: 34

Like I said, those Germans are good. Actually, Klinsmann slightly outperformed their predictions, but not by enough to make a fuss over it. Their general point stands - you should not expect wildly different results as a team transitions from one coach to another (Sit down, Chelsea fans. Di Matteo is the textbook exception that proves the rule). Klinsmann inherited a team with problems, and working through those problems has taken time.

The obvious question is, "Where does the US go from here?" No idea. I will look up some more German studies. What we do know is that the US is about where it should be after a transition. This is now fully Klinsmann's team. The Scotland game was a good start. In his words, the experiments stop now and the results matter.

• Italy 2012 - Brazil 2012: Attacking style complete.

There were two camps. Those who though JK was nothing special and was no improvement over Bradley after the early struggles to create And those who knew it would take up to a year for JK to fully put his stamp on the team
I was/am in the latter camp. I still don't think JK is finished After Canada we will know how JK intends to tweak his base system to fit opponent the keys
1. Use of a true 6
2. Two center mids who can destroy and create
3 A somewhat free attacker ( against Scotland it was Donovan. Not Torres )
4. One post up forward

That is what I have seen throughout

What I want to see is the return of thè 4132 against the minnows
That way we see people like Gomez play most of thè game
I think JK has abandoned thè experiment of playing with real wingers
We don't have them .....if Shea was one he regressed
So expect to see the 433 4321 4231 a lot against good teams -- most of the time with Bradley and Torres as two points in thè center triangle There is really no need for Bradley and jones to be true 6 when JK is perfectly happy to leave edu and beckerman back there. Not to mention d Williams But that fact that ALL of them can be true stay at home 6 is what is fascinating

For all the grousing I've done about Klinsmann - and I still don't love his personnel choices - his decision to go with a true No. 6 alone has made it worth the switch.

I think this is an appropriate thread topic at this time. I agree that the transition is just about complete. We still need to see how JK uses both Donovan and Dempsey together, and the expected transition of the CBs to a younger group hasn't really begun yet. But these things are coming very soon.

Good opening post.

This thread is far too thoughtful and fair-minded.

I prefer gloating at all the stupid haters who wanted the Nats to lose in order to prove their point about JK being the anti-Christ.

We do the same as always; hope for more young players that are ready to step up, hope for no more injuries, hope no one ages too quickly.

Anyway, the overall organization into a modern midfield is here to stay I hope. We will beat the teams would should beat most of the time if our organization is right. That's the best you can ask for.

The age issue might be the most important question mark right now. Klinsmann's group is the oldest core by far since the 2006 World Cup, and we didn't really see much personnel rotation at the positions that needed personnel rotation during the Klinsmann friendlies. Bocanegra and Cherundolo, for example, are both already older than Agoos in 02 and Pope in 06. Combined, they've started all but 1 match under Klinsmann. What happens if Cherundolo fades by the time 2013 rolls around and Chandler remains flaky, for example?

I guess my point is that the transition isn't really complete, at least when it comes to personnel.

Klinsmann definitely deserves credit for being willing to return certain players to the starting lineup after rock bottom against France. The criticism after the France match was fully deserved, just like the praise he is getting now.

Two key questions that will be answered in the next 2 games:

Will JK still attempt high pressure against Brazil?

and...

When Dempsey and Altidore are both available, who sits from the 11 last night?

The answer to the first question will be answered Wednesday night, and it may well be the burned hand that teaches best.

Last night saw the tactic(s) I think we should use against everyone. How much of what happened last night was Scotland's "ineptitude," and how much was our pressure? The women's team has ridden many of the same tactics to the top of the world rankings. We have to learn to step away from the "oh, it's __________…they're supposedly better than we are, so we have to play defense-first." Put them on their f*cking heels and take the game to them, no matter who the hell they are.

Edit: I'm not attacking you particularly, Bigrose30. That's meant in general to everyone with that mindset. If you allow a team to intimidate you, you've already lost because you're just hoping for a draw (which seems to be the general mindset). That is what I think was one of the Bruce Arena teams' greatest assets: they weren't afraid of ANYONE, and pulled out a few huge results because of it.

USA looked about as good as I can remember seeing them play. Quick transitions and combination play looked great. Some questions I have:
Scotland - how poor are they - did the heat bother them? Did they give a damn?
The Pitch - hard to tell from TV but that was a smallish looking pitch which helped with the 4-3-3
and narrowness of Torres and LD.
The back four - they weren't pressured very hard. Will be interesting to see how Brazil plays the US.
I believe Fed Ex field is a bit on the smallish side as well???

Is there really much of a question as to who you sit in place of Clint Dempsey?

I guess it depends upon who you're thinking of. I think some might say Torres, while some will say Edu.

You sit Edu, 9 times out of 10. Bradley has matured to the point where he can screen the back four and sit deep, and Maurice Edu brings nothing to the table at all, ever.

I don't rate Torres as a starter, but if those two are your choices, sit the one who's redundant on the field.

There's much yet to do and see from JK- especially qualifying on the road in CONCACAF. Still, the last few results have been encouraging. However, there are some simple questions going forward:

[NOTE- I'm not that worried about what we will do to dominate teams we should. I'm focused on playing peer and superior competition]

The trade-off is obvious: JK will always play with a 6. Sometimes at the expense of a 2nd forward, sometimes at the expense of an attacking mid. Regardless, he's going to start with a stronger defense (record bears that out- significantly fewer goals conceded) and go from there. With a Beckerman (Mastroeni-redux) or Edu (Mastroeni v. 1.8 (he's not quite 2x the player Pablo was)), we will have times where we struggle to score goals. The defensive shape is there- is the offensive firepower?

So far, we've seen Landon and Clint score us goals, many created virtually by themselves. Here's where the JK Experience is taking us now- building an offensive system that can create goal-scoring opportunities for Landon and Clint when we have fewer bodies going forward. Also, a system that can create opportunities when these guys are absent and start to lose a step.

We'll see, but a major issue for the US over the next few years will be developing scoring talent other than Landon and Clint. Jozy is stepping up at his club, but we need more young goal-scoring talent (who doesn't??).

So: an approach where you don't press high is automatically defense first? I disagree.

Furthermore, there's intimidation and there is naivety. What risk do you take when you press high? The risk that the team you are pressing is able to pass their way out of it and get into the space behind.

That is basically Brazil's calling card Why would you play to a team's strengths? Pride?

No, there is more than one way to win, and I'm pretty sure JK knows this, regardless of the idealism he spews to the press. You can't play the same way against everyone - he will adjust the approach accordingly, not park the bus.

I think against Brazil, he may elect to slot Dempsey in for Boyd and keep Altidore out of the team.

Against Antigua I think he'll sit Edu, as he'll be bored.

Against Guatemala on the road, I'm betting he'll sit Torres and keep Edu as a backline screen.

JK won't. He really rates that shield in front of the back line. Perhaps we will see Dempsey takes Jones' place and Jones move back to the 6. I'm not so sure.

Who do you rate over Torres, then?

In what context? At the #10? I definitely think that if given the choice between playing Torres and Clint Dempsey at that spot, the choice is pretty damn obvious.

In general, I'm not moving off of my stance that Torres is an extremely useful role player, but isn't a lock starter. He's not a guy you have to "try and find a spot on the field for". He's the guy you play against certain opposition.

That's no knock on him, either. It's incredibly important that our coaching staff recognize that different opponents require different approaches, and adjust accordingly. Players like Torres are a sign we're improving in the pool.

In that scenario, its still the redundant and generally ineffective Edu that gets sat.

Which I'm 1000% fine with.

I suppose the issue I took was that you said you don't "rate him as a starter", which in my eyes meant rating him as someone who should start any games. While I certainly don't believe Torres should start every game, I think that any opponent who is CONCACAF-level (obviously not Mexico) or below should probably see him starting. He rarely wastes his time on the ball, and generally is a great outlet for pressure. He was one of the unsung heroes of last night's match. His trickery in midfield created quite a few of our chances.

Against Brazil? Who knows.

If Altidore won't be in camp until tomorrow, it's a good bet JK will think he needs more time before starting. In that case he'll leave the lineup unchanged from Scotland with the exception of Dempsey replacing Boyd. It's not his best forward position, but he can play it.

Why replace Boyd with Dempsey? Boyd has pace, workrate, can run at defenders and is actually a forward.

Dempsey should play underneath him in the free role. Which is why Edu needs to sit.

Against Brasil, I understand why you'd want a #6 shielding the backline, but I happen to think Bradley can accomplish this just fine, given his massive positional improvement over the past year.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a USMNT midfield play as well as Edu-Jones-Bradley did the other night. Edu played the exact role he's suited for, a ball winner who moves it up to an attack minded CM asap. Bradley and Jones both had phenomenal games, between the three midfielders it was rare that they took more the 2 touches to redistribute the ball, and often towards Scotland's goal.

I love Fabian Johnson in what was essentially a left sided version of Dani Alves's fullback style. He pushed super high up field and let Torres float inside while still covering his defensive duties. Torres really did pop up just about everywhere, check out his and Johnson's event maps from the game, starting from the LW and LB positions.

Torres: here
Johnson: here

This kind of movement took my by surprise, this was such a fantastic showing for Klinsmann... I realize these tactics may not work against better opponents, but knowing that we're at least capable of playing some effective and exciting attacking soccer is encouraging.