I really don't pencil those two in. I'm sorry, but if we have a typical three man central midfield, we have the #6 defensive midfielder who anchors, the #8 who is a more box-to-box, organizing type who helps control tempo, and the #10(ish) midfielder who is expected to be the first forward in support and to deliver incisive passes. Bradley and Jones are both incredibly well qualified for the role of #8. But we need an actual attacking specialist in that #10 role. I'm not saying we're gushing with talent in that position, but I think we should at least attempt to give other guys chances there. Diskerud looks like one who should. I've been calling for Kljestan for a while. I suggested Donovan could be good there (I thought he was for a good 40-45 minutes against Costa Rica), but he's got to have the right supporting cast around him. Graham Zusi is a possibility as well. I dunno. I just think having both of those guys as 8s bogs down the attack too much.
I think you didn't understand what I said. I wasn't advocating for a 4-1-4-1 with dual 8s ahead of a 6. I was just stating that IF that is the formation we employ, THEN Bradley and Jones are going to be the dual 8s, because they are the best we have as #8s. And it seems to be JKs preferred setup, though he hasn't used it exclusively. Now, IF we change to a formation with a #10/supporting striker type, I'd be delighted. But Dempsey or Donovan seem more likely to snag that role in that instance, pushing Jones to the bench or to the #6. Kljestan and Zusi and Diskerud have a long way to go before they prove themselves at the top level. Kljestan is closest.
If we're playing a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, it has to be Dempsey in the "10" role. He just doesn't provide enough width or work to play on the wing at this point. He's done well for Klinsmann in this role, I don't see any reason to move him. I think Dempsey's best position is second striker, but obviously Klinsmann doesn't use one very often. There's a reason a guy like Diskerud, who has technical ability and vision, hasn't been seriously courted by a bigger league. He's like a flower. The play is pretty but he's awful delicate. But yeah, I don't know how Klinsmann figures how giving Jermaine Jones touches in attacking positions is in any way optimal.
It's not actually getting pushed back further and further. It's just didn't dates for timelines. I think this week was the first time they've really talked about him getting on the pitch. Bolton's coach isn't in any rush to get him back out there either because he wants a healthy Stu more than anything else.
I think he understood what you were saying. He even mentioned alternatives (Klejstan, Diskerud) to Jones in a 4-1-4-1, if we were to line up that way.
I got to say, if you retire Edu based on that error, you send 10 or 11 guys with him. It was unfortunate and no doubt Edu was the culprit, but Goodson is the one stepping and he is behind Edu - there needs to be very good communication to work a trap in that situation. I was actually very positively surprised by Edu's minutes. He nearly got punished for a bit of random dribbling on the right side just outside out box when he got pursued, turned and stripped. That was poor, but to me he was surprisingly sharp given his club layoff. And you can't say Williams was a cut above today. Edu kept himself in the mix with his minutes, is my guess.
I have seen two matches and I watched the qualifiers. The qualifiers were very interesting. It was like hearing the best, most rousing pre-match speech and thinking the matches had already been won. Disk was very good in the first friendly against mexico, then was progressively worse as the matches wore on mainly due to an inability to win back possession and set the tone in the midfield. I believe it was Morales in the friendly who impressed me the most as a player willing to set the tone for the team in the defensive midfield. Of course Freddy Adu was the most impressive midfielder of them all and well...he's nowhere.
No, I understood full well what you meant. I'm saying that in a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 where we have a defensive midfielders and then two guys fairly flat in front of him, we can't afford to have Michael Bradley and Jermaine Jones as the two #8's because that's really not enough creativity in that central midfield. All that said, I don't really want to see a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 because we don't seem to have the correct personnel for it at the moment. When we've played the 4-2-3-1 and the diamond, we've actually looked pretty good. We immediately looked better, for instance, against Russia when we had Kljestan, Bradley, Edu and Jones in a narrow diamond shape midfield, because it gave us better possession through the middle and two strikers up top that could occupy and drag around the centerbacks of the opposing team. I think I kind of mis-spoke when I called that role the #10. In a 4-1-4-1/4-3-3, there isn't really a #10. Not in the traditional sense anyways. It's more like the player that is first forward from the central midfield into the final third in support of the front three. There are different ways that the central midfield can be interpreted and used of course, so there doesn't always have to be an attacking midfielder there, but if we're really trying to be a squad that is based more in possession and patient passing play, we can't have two box-to-box midfielders. One of them has to be a more silky, savvy attacking specialist that can unlock defenses when he gets forward.
Overall, I don't really think the 4-3-3 works all that well for us right now, especially if we throw Donovan and Dempsey in the final third with only one other actual striker. As Twellman says, you saw how much better we looked when we had two men up top getting direct and running the channels. Even when that second man was Eddie Johnson in a wide position, we looked worlds better against Guatemala. Against Slovenia, we had two strikers and we looked quite dominant in that game for a good 45 minutes. In those two systems, we had good control of the midfield, at least for a while, as well as numbers/movement in the final third that allowed for combinations and space to be created. I would probably use anything like the following: The Guatemala lineup, for the most part. 4-2-3-1, Johnson and Gomez looking to really run the channels and stretch the backline vertically and horizantally, creating some space for Donovan and Dempsey. Again, the diamond shape seems to work well for the U.S., and it was in that shape that we got the marvelous first goal against Russia. Donovan in central midfield might scare some people, but I honestly think he could do well there with the right supporting cast. If we were going to run a 4-3-3, this is the only way I think it would work. You can squabble at which forward, but I think this is the only way it works.
1. Look around when you decide to take a quick restart to make sure you don't have a teammate running into you. 2. Look around when you get up after you are fouled so that you don't run into the guy taking a quick restart. 3. Don't push an attacker in the back when it appears likely your goalkeeper has a play on the ball. (the above 1-3 should be Soccer 101). 4. A bit more evidence that Jones and Bradley have difficulty playing together. 5. A bit more mystery around why Jones is not playing the 6 (and I think he would be great at it, despite his eagerness to roam higher up). 6. We need a look at a new flavor of central defender. 7. We still don't know if the bipolar Tim Chandler is on board. 8. We appear to have a few more options, Mix, Agudelo, Kljestan, Gatt. 9. I can remember when we were horrible playing in Europe. Things have changed. 10. All things considered, it was a good year. Let's hope Concacaf qualifying smoothes out.
This. We played two games in Europe this year- in Italy and in Russia. Both teams ranked in the top 10 in the world. We were undefeated. That, my friends, was unthinkable until recently.
We're addicted to continuous improvement. Ups and downs are unacceptable. Our team reaches a new high every once in awhile and then we fans immediately turn it into the minimum acceptable outcome. So now tying Russia in Russia is ho hum.
Nailed it. Always say the same about players. Take their highest high or lowest low and make that the norm depending on agenda.
Why are guys freaking out about this game? Russia is a damn good team and they haven't given up a goal in WC qualifying. And we score 2 good goals from the run of play. The game wasn't perfect. Our CB position is weak, but what did people think was going to happen? Positives: young guys involved in both goals, young guys brought in played well- Gatt, Diskerud, Agudelo, Boyd. Negatives: CB is our weakest position. Russia took it to us in the first 20. Who didn't expect that? Jozy busted his ass while he was in. It's hard for him to do anything when we are pinned in our end and can't keep possession of the ball at all. We hustled, didn't give up and came back to tie against a very good team in a tough environment. If before the game we would have been told we would tie 2-2 with both goals from the run of play and our young guys playing well we all would have been happy.
I'm still fine with D. Williams as the DM. Jones is not even playing that role any more in his club. So he's fine as the link between the ball-recovering DM and the attack-organizing CM (Bradley). He did a very good job, considering he was facing the strongest Russian players in the middle (Denisov + Shirokov). I don't see any obvious way to improve the starting 11 through the middle. DM = Williams; CM = Jones; B2B CM = Bradley. Whoever is put on the side or up front should learn to work with those three. An AM could be used, and one of Williams/Jones removed, against weaker teams. Or at home, against an even matched rival. But to play stronger teams away, those three are a must, IMO.
In other words, after tying Russia in Krasnodar while missing three starters, it's going to be hard to take losing to Honduras 2-1 or so in Frebruary with the full team. People tend to forget, though, that friendlies are an entirely different animal. Russia was also experimenting with green, previously uncapped attackers (Smolov, Grygoriev, Cheryshev), and the rather inexperienced Kombarov on their left. Even when they had most starters, they also were playing in an experimental way, using Kokorin more centrally behind their striker. So a dose of realism is always needed. Friendlies are to experiment. And the other side is also experimenting. Still, a very positive result. But don't get all mad if the next 'serious' game looks much worse.
I agree with pretty much all of this. I would much rather lose 4-1 and come out and look like we want to play than to start off in such a defensive posture for the first 45-60 minutes. That bunker in mentality carries over to our qualifiers when we play "lesser" opposition as well. And given how good we have generally looked when we do go to more offensive lineups, I just don't understand why this is the exception rather than the rule. As far as the Jones/Bradley pairing. I don't necessarily agree that Jones was the 2nd best player on the field for us last night. My biggest issue is that JJ and Bradley are completely redundant parts and do not compliment each other at all. We really only need one of the two on the field in that role. One extremely valuable asset that Jones has is his long diagonal distribution. He's great at it and has really good vision. It would be absolutely deadly to be able to get that out of a #6. I would at least like to see him tried out there, rather than in such an advanced position. I doubt it will happen though.
I wanted to expand upon my thoughts on Jones as a #6. I think that everyone on these forums would agree that Jones has the ability to play the #6 extremely well for us. His biggest issue is a lack of discipline staying home. I'm not so sure that's a fair assessment though as he really has never been asked to play that role under JK, so who is to say if he would roam around if he was specifically instructed to be a stay at home #6. And his distribution from that position would be deadly on counter attacks, which no matter what HoustonHoya tries to trick you into believing, the counter attack is still where this team is at its best. And if the counter attack isn't on, you have MB cycling in the midfield as a short option for Jones, and you let MB dictate the possession as needed. Danny Williams has been great for us, but we also saw his inconsistency last night. D-Will is definitely next in line, but I think that Jones would be a better option at the #6. I also think that with every passing game, it becomes more and more obvious that our player pool is designed to play a 4-4-2. We need to have two strikers in there.
I agree that we need two strikers, but not necessarily play a 4-4-2. Not a flat 4-4-2. I think we've looked good when we've played the 4-4-2 diamond under Juergen. We switched into it against Russia and it led to a goal. We also did very well against Guatemala in a 4-2-3-1 with one striker starting wide and then making diagonal runs into the channel ( Johnson) and the other striker starting central and peeling wide (Gomez), splitting the central defense and allowing Dempsey to push straight up the middle. Spain used David Villa in a very similar role wide on the left cutting inside into his stronger foot ( check his amazing goal against Honduras).
I'm not suggesting a flat 4 in the midfield. I like the idea of having a dedicated 6 in front of the back 4. I also liked what Bradley did with Dempsey and Donovan using them more pinched in, and getting our width from our fullbacks. And I think that tactic would work especially well now that we have a competent LB to go along with what we've always had at the RB position.