But none are creative. Maybe Feilhaber at a minute level and absolutely unproven at the international level. Jones, Johnson, Dmpsey, Kljestan and Bradley are all great players and can send a ball in but none of them are going to straight create chances. They'll exploit space, not create.
No I don't ever remember Clint being "bad" for more than a game or two in a row.....before, during or after the 2009 CC.
No, but he had long stretches of uninspired play or just not playing on the same page as the rest of the team. I remember many a night in the play-by-play thread during matches the "Clint Dempsey Drinking Game". Oh look, Clint turns it over again 'Drink'.
The US team isn't and has never been built around Dempsey. Previous cycle he generally played on the flanks and had to defend. At Fulham he had cover along the flanks. This cycle he like Altidore has frequently been stuck playing with an over load of non-attacking cm type players who bring little creativity out of midfield. Unlike Altidore Dempsey has been able to score for the team. Dempsey is just an older, savvier player than Altidore. But I love the development Jozy has shown at AZ. With more creativity in midfield both will be considerably more productive.
So you are complaining that the lineup I proposed has no creative players and then when you list the creative players we have, 3 of them are in my starting 11 and a 4th is right there on the bench. Brilliant argument.
It is right now. Otherwise, JK doesn't play him in the September qualifiers. And the whole CC-WC system by Bradley was built to the strengths of both Demsey and Donovan. LD is a better player with defensive responsibilities (IMO). Dempsey was also moved up top for the final 20-30 minutes in this system to relieve him of defensive responsibility and move him closer to goal.
How does Dempsey's playing in the September qualifiers indicate the team is built around him? If there were better players available then reasonably his club situation could have seen him not called in. The run n gun of the previous cycle catered to the strengths of Donovan and Michael Bradley. Dempsey's physical tools and skills are anti run n gun.
I don't remember this downturn in Clint's form. Could you either list the opponents or approximate dates?
Yes, other than it being successfully employed at the world cup this tactic is the worst. This is just about exactly how Heerenveen lined up when Mike was there. They always looked to break early with their two fast wingers, JVH played the high target guy and Alves the slasher. Bradley played as an 8 in front of a 6. He was tasked with applying defensive pressure, playing simply in possession, looking for long outlets to the 4 more attacking players, and crashing the box as a late runner on counters. Almost all of his goals were the result of being the 2nd or 3rd runner on a counter. Their fullbacks also tended to play a bit conservatively. Before the Honduras game I called for a switch to something like this because then we could at least play natural wide players out wide, instead of CMs. Realistically I think Jones is undropable in Klinsmann's eyes, same probably goes for Bradley. JK has tried to solve this by either playing Bradley behind Jones or by swinging Jones out to the right. Of those two choices I prefer the former as the lesser of two evils. Under those assumptions If I was looking to play the run-n-gun style of Veen I'd go with: ------------------Altidore------------------------- ----------------Dempsey------------------------- --Shea---------------------------------Johnson-- ---------------------------Jones------------------- -----------------Bradley--------------------------- ----------------------------------------Chandler-- ----Cameron----Boca----Besler------------------ ----------------------Howard--------------------- Playing Cameron on the left hurts his offensive production but in this system he's there to cover for a swashbuckling winger. Jozy's and Clint's natural tendencies to slide to the left would counterbalance this more defensive alignment. It's also possible that having Geoff stay home would allow Mike to move forward without leaving us exposed. I put Johnson on the right over Gomez because I think he's a better set-up guy and will be more effective if we need him to stay wide. Diamond
Well I didn't find the same complaints, but we did complain about Dempsey. I remember before the Confed Cup he was always criticized for being too "lazy". Essentially Dempsey in his club is not what we find with the USMNT, similar comment I found some board comments here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/dempsey-output.990182/#post-17378949 https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/4-1-wcq-usa-vs-tnt-r.988946/page-4#post-17357506 https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/the-importance-of-clint-dempsey.986660/#post-17333433
Same general concept as my formation. We could quibble over who to plug in where, but I think the underlying point stands. We are best suited to play a 4-4-2, and we don't need world class wingers. Just players comfortable enough out there so that our fullbacks don't get run ragged. I see what you're doing with Jones. Bradley is more likely to be disciplined and stay home, but Bradley is far better at crashing the box. That's why I prefer Jones on the bench, but you're probably right. He's untouchable in JK's eyes. Also not a fan of playing with the LB spot. We've had a black whole there for so long. Fabian finally fills it. I'd be scared to move him out of that spot.
This is not my ideal formation but without LD it makes more sense than a lot of other options. I don't think it's the best solution to get the most out of Jozy but with more service and hopefully more Veen like counter attacks he and Dempsey will naturally work things out. Yeah, it's not the ideal division of labor. You always need a plan B. I like the dynamic of having one fullback be more attacking than the other (Cole/Lauren, Cafu/Kaladze, Roberto Carlos/Salgado, Alves/Abidal). Cameron is not going to be getting reps at CB for Stoke, he's not a great reader of the game but he is a shutdown 1v1 defender. We can change our shape to a 3-5-2 on the fly and hopefully it would allow Mike to make more forward runs than a typical 6.
I agree. I would probably adjust my formation as different pieces return to the team. One thing would remain constant for me...we should always play with two strikers.
Getting back to the main topic, I want to see Jozy play with a striker and the team not use a narrow formation.
I would love to see every attacker in the world play like this. It would mean more goals. But it's also hard to protect your CBs in this manner.
Why would two strikers and midfield width necessarily mean more goals everywhere? There are plenty of ways to score goals. I'm just referring to the particulars of the US team.