What part of post #115 do you not understand? You do realize changes can be made without a substitution or halftime break right? You do realize it's probably not smart to keep pushing fullbacks forward when we are getting hammered and completely lacking confidence right? You have offered absolutely nothing of your own other than "I disagreed with the sub, see I'm smart". Curious how would you reset a team that has lost it's rhythm and is getting hammered? Keep pushing fullbacks forward? Nitwit.
What I don't understand is how someone can specifically say to bunker and knock it around, and then adamantly says that they never suggested to bunker and play possession. You're a genius.
Here is just one of the better examples of your lack of comprehension. Here is what I actually said. There is a huge difference between "playing possession football against the best possession team" and what I actually said. There is real value in trying to slow things down (knock the ball around a bit) in situations where your back line is getting hammered and your players look shell shocked. It can help your team relax and regain some confidence while taking away some of the momentum the other team has established. Bob did absolutely nothing to settle the game. Again, what was your suggestion? Oh nothing, that's right.
Pretty simple. I think that coming out and attacking Mexico was absolutely the right decision. I think that continuing to attack after scoring the first goal was absolutely the right decision. I think that once Mexico scored, we probably could have done a better job of protecting Bornstein's side of the field. But I don't think that wholesale changes to our formation or tactics was in order. What I don't think would have worked (what would have actually exacerbated the situation would have been to try and "knock the ball around" (which is lazy talk for play possession) against the best possession team in our region. Bunkering would have invited even more pressure, and we didn't exactly have a defense minded midfield out there. Adu wouldn't have done anything to help defensively. Neither would Bedoya or Donovan really. The only way to slow down Mexico would have been for Bob to sub on Edu for Adu, which would have required a 2nd first half sub and would have taken off a player that had been up to that point playing great. And while you like to say that Mexico "never looked back", that simply isn't a true statement. Bob adjusted and we were very much in the game and pressing for an equalizer right up to the point that Dos Santos scored #4. Could we have made wholesale changes? Sure. And its really easy 18 months later to play arm chair quarterback and pretend that you knew all the answers as things were happening. But the fact remains, that when Dolo went down, we were officially f*cked, and the best course of action wasn't to completely abandon the game plan that had been working and hope that bunkering was going to work.
This is a good post to jump start the style builds identity theory. Chandler is getting beat by an ancient costly on the right, he is adding almost nothing ot the attack and is clearly mentally undone. JK brings him out for any number of scenarios, boca, cameron moves over, Parkhurst comes in as direct swap, hell play Brad Evans. Chooses to do nothing for a time, then decides EJ was running too much so he replaces him with mr. milk toast himself, the man most likely to backpass to himself, sascha kleftchin as LM. Then brings in Zusi, a man smuggling cheeseburgers in his socks. Then the only sub that made sense, 1 for 1 Edu for Williams. This was supposed to bring us composure and I suspect some sort of ability to cross into a packed penalty area with only Clint and Altidore against 5 players. SK cant cross. Zusi cant run. Bradley had a terrible time finding the metronome beat to the match. No formation, no direction, no style, leads to lack of confidence and failure. The sporting equivalent to getting muscled off the girl at the bar and ordering another schnapps.
So you drink schnapps and are lousy with women....makes sense. Crazily enough, I agree with your assessment of JK and the overall lack of an identity under him. He is completely lost tactically pre-game, in-game and post game. I am curious though. What identity do you think this team should take on?
No, I think he made an educated gamble on the backline. He wanted to cap tie Timmy. He wanted to force Cameron and Gonzo to 'figure it out.' At halftime he should have pulled the plug and brought in boca to shut shit down. I am not against a 3 dmid formation. Jones, Edu and Bradley, Dempsey and gatt to the side, gomez or altidore up top. It means those backs are going to have to run though. It also implies that our lone striker can finish one of his 3 chances per match and that our boys can effectively counter. This formation would almost guarantee we become a bruising, physical, half court team. It would also keep us fresh deep into the tournament and allow us to finish games strong as we are comfortable ceding possession and slogging through the midfield. I am also not against a 4-1-3-2 with that dedicated dmid. It gives us some width and with two big strikers we can pound teams physically. This theoretically allows us to pressure up field and get some shots on goal. this assumes a tight back 4 that can defend with little support. This would create a more dynamic, flowing identity giving us confidence to attack. I fear we would lose on the transition defense game though. Also, without any mature speed on the team out wide it might be a gamble. Everyone gets big tactical boners from the 4-2-3-1, but Italy out scored Germany playing 2 strikers all tournament and Spain out possessed and out countered everyone with their swarm of midgets 4-6 attack.
I'm a bit closer to this personally. The 3 D-mid alignment allows us to stay close with teams like France, but it is also what allows teams like Antigua and Barbuda to stick with us. We simply don't score goals with the 3 d-mid alignment. I'm willing to sacrifice a few goals to score a few goals. The dedicated D-mid was something that Bradley went away from. Of course, we didn't have a Pablo Mastroeni waiting in the wings either. I'm not at all opposed to going back in that direction, just not really convinced that Danny Williams or Maurice Edu is the answer.
Where do I sign the petition? I would feel a lot better about the program on the whole if we were actually grooming talented MLS coaches in the deep end of national team exposure for a time as assistants. Dominic would definitely be my next in line.
There is nothing at all even remotely similar to the way Klinsmann has his teams play and how Kreis has his teams play. Lets not drag Jason Kreis through the mud. He's a great coach.
You sure about that? You do nothing but misquote, misrepresent or fail to comprehend everything I say. I never advocated "wholesale changes" in any of my posts yet here you are again misrepresenting what I said. It makes me believe you don't fully understand the subtleties of the game and how shifts in shape and tempo can help in various situations. Anyway, nice talking with ya. The Honduras performance had me dumbfounded. I'm not so sure I buy in to this whole identity thing in the first place. Much like a formation, shouldn't the identity fit the players? If that's true, our identity should naturally develop if we aren't putting square pegs in round holes. You're wrong about the Honduras match, our identity was clear for all to see. Confused and incapable are words that come to mind.
Dude, just stop. Trust me... the more sense you make... the less he will even try to read what you write. You're just wasting your time.
Grog...if Bolivian Fuego thinks you make sense, then you are clearly wrong. We're talking about a guy who thinks the reason US players aren't playing for Manchester United and Barcelona is because the US doesn't use the metric system.
Mexico was creating chances from the early moments. The Mexicans were making too many unchecked runs into the gaps. The formation and the strategy mattered but this would have been a high scoring game regardless.
It's sad for me to watch that video because it ended my brother's time as coach (probably inevitable given that Sunil and Jurgen had been dating for five years). But it was one hell of a final, when you consider the way most finals look. I've gotten slammed by fans (never to my face, which would be better, which I'd relish) for that game and I get it, no one likes losing. Still, after listening to all the Boring Bunker Banality Bob comments for years, that game was a rip-roaring affair. Maybe starting four attacking players was a mistake, but he went down swinging. The U.S. had two great chances to make that game 3-0 that didn't make that highlight reel. One with Landon leading the break and trying to play Michael through. The other on the left foot of Freddy, and he hit it just wide. In the end, however, all that matters are the results. As it should be.
Isn't that always the case Jeff? of course they can't do it to your face. The Internet is truly the place for the gutless, cowardly, and frustrated with life and their minimal place in it to come out and be tough and brilliant. It's why I never last long here, but it's rip roaring fun to watch the cowards/frustrated in action. A place to make the weak feel strong and smart....behind your back of course.
I still can't believe how wide-open that game was and watching that Dos Santos goal with how ridiculous he made our inept defense and Tim Howard look.......................g-damn. That game still feels like a continuation of the 2010 World Cup with our defense simply not being up to the task and unable to put together a complete game to help out the offense. Didn't get to see the Honduras match because of the bizarre time (and channel) but I have watched all of the qualifying matches and the games with the a-team guys in them and it certainly feels like the loss of an identity and a team trying to figure out what it is. What was also funny was that Mexico looked the same way against Jamaica that we did against Honduras only Jamaica failed to seal the deal like Honduras did. If we can manage to qualify this may be an ugly World Cup (circa 1998) and a whole new appreciation from the knuckle-head crowd for your brother (Bob Bradley) and exactly what he supplied to this team. Sunil Gulati will learn that it's not always that great when you date/marry the stripper.
Honestly, if people say ignorant things about Bob Bradley's tenure what's pretty clear is that they simply do not "get it". You've gotta gameplan with what you have on the field not some farfetched ridiclous ideal that you're going to just go out and in four years play some style alien to U.S Soccer. A style that I just don't think is a good fit for the players that we have available. I'm certainly not "done" with Klinsmann just like I never believed in selling Bob Bradley down the river. I love Klinsmann's ambition and testicular-fortitude to try something so different but now is the time to start alligning those ambitions with some realistic tactical choices and we may be able to do some nice things, top of the list is qualifying for Brazil.
I think Jurgen and the players will get it figured out. There is hopefully a huge sense of pride within the team that the U.S. has only lost one home qualifier since 1985. Don't overreact to a loss at Honduras.
I blame Jones (more than anyone else) for dos Santos' goal. #13 is pitiful here......and he is supposed to be a defensive stalwart? Heavy sigh.
True. If there is anything I like about Jeurgen, it's that we're seeing different shapes and formations and players in different positions, even if they may be the wrong ones.
Yeah can't argue with the Jones criticism there, he looked gassed at that point to be honest. And then to have to chase down a jittery Dos Santos.........................recipe for disaster.