Why is the US so out of sync in the final third? (R)

They have the ability to combine, implement creative flicks, etc... but they just all seem not on the same page. As one article says, if Dempsey flicks it- his teammate read through, if bradley plays a through, someone reads shot, ... don't know what Jozy was thinking after that great penetration by Bradley to serve up what should have been the winning goal...

But its not just Jozy, - Gomez, Dempsey, Bradley, Donovan, Johnson, Jones, etc- none of them seem to be having the same ideas in the final third. The defense looked better with Cam and Johnson. The midfield did a good job (most of the time) of winning possession (if not keeping it enough). Then when they get into the final third, its not like they seem out of ideas- it just seems no one's ideas are the same.

Is this a growing pain of the creative attacking style that is being implementned? Is time in this style needed to read each other as well as well as the game- Or is it something else?

The answer is simple for me. We have too many central mids that are clones of each other and none of them are going to create much. Do we really need Bradley, Jones and Edu? Where's the offense going to come from? Johnson looks very good but Dolo looks finished to me.

You cant blame Herc or Jozy when the only time they see the ball is when they win it themselves or it takes a lucky bounce

But its coming from Dempsey and Gomez and LD as well. I agree and would like to see either Edu or Jones exchanged for a more creative midfielder- especially as Jones seems to be being used or is choosing to be more of an attacking player--
but I don't think the whole problem can be laid at the midfield's feet.

Partly the system, partly the personnel selection. Typically 3-4 central midfielders are in the starting lineup; none of these players is an attacking mid or forward at club level. The system is meant to be fluid with a lot of interchanging of positions. It has worked from an attacking standpoint against the teams--Slovenia, Brazil, and Scotland-- that played open games generating a good number of high quality opportunities.

Against teams that stay compact and let the US have the ball--Canada, Guatamala, A&B--the system hasn't worked as well. Hell, Guatamala actually put more shots on frame than the US did.

Straightforward prescription would be the use of 2 strikers and no more than 3 center-mids against non-elite teams.

Just choose 2 of Jones, Edu, Bradley, and Torres in 442 and 3 in a diamond.

The Guatamala game was quite open until the second half. I don't see how two fowards help. Its not as if we don't have players up, or that players aren't making correct runs or finding creative ways penetrate... its that they aren't doing it together.

Two forwards doesn't all of a sudden make Jozy make that run for the winner or tell Bradley take a little off that pass to Johnson, or tell Edu and Altidore to get out of each other's way or read that Dempsey is going to flick it over to Gomez instead of squeeze in that through.

The opportunities and thoughts are there. Even the passes and execution have been there for the most part- if the players read the same thing. Thats not a 2 forward- one forward issue.

It seems to me so many people dislike the 3 midfield set up- that every problem must be that.. rather than look for issues that are more connected.

The three midfield set up is fine for the most part. I would like a more creative midfielder than Jones and a more technically gifted Dmid than Edu. Where they hurt us was in maintaining possesion more often.... and that is another issue. The US should have had a lot more possesion-

but problems in the final third don't seem to be coming from the three man midfield, imo.

I disagree that Guatemala played an open game. And a diamond uses 4 players in the center of midfield.

If Lichaj plays at left back then a diamond of Dempsey, Johnson, Edu, and Jones would be fine. If Johnson stays at left back then I'd like to see Feilhaber get an opportunity.

We can't play Feilhaber on the left. He's a CM. Or so has been said many times on BS.

Look at these 2 passes from the Czechs (I think Rosicky did both). Just beautiful. That's how you play football. Why can't the US do that against Guatemala? We need more off the ball movement. We need players with great vision. Michael Bradley has demonstrated this kind of vision. Same for Landon. We need to see this kind of passing more often.

We can agree to disagree on that one. To me that attacked quickly and directly and then pressured fairly high... making Howard send it deep way too often. I wouldn't say they tried to possess the ball a lot, but they didnt bunker and counter much until they ran out of gass in the second half. Imo, anyway.

It sort of uses 4. Just like JK's three man midfield has five midfielders at times. Its either a 451 or a 433. Depends on how you want to talk about it. A diamond midfield can also look like a 4 3 3 if you look at the point of the dimond as more of a forward.

Actually against Guatamala, it seemed more of a diamond midfield offensively most of the time with Dempsey coming back as more of a withdrawn forward and Bradly moving up as more of a point of a dimond midfield. . Donovan and Jones played wide wide often and then pinched in for overlaps by the full backs. So you can describe it, in terms of numbers, how you want.

The complaint has been about the midfield trio- no so much the number configuration that you want to describe it.

We rarely had the space for that. When we did Jones or Edu tried it and either were not on the same page as the attackers or missed.

Maybe Jones and Edu's passing - in those circumstances are the problem. I can think of several times where Edu or Jones tried something similar and it not working. I was thinking about more when we have really good possession and keep missing on combinations... but it could be that some of the deeper passes are missing.

The problem with Feilhaber, Torres, Sacha, etc - I think, are that they don't have the bite that JK wants in the midfield. They are too one dimensional. If you look at the trio of cms that JK likes to use- Edu, MB, and Jones- he seems to want strong two way CMs with one assigned dmid duties.

If that is part of the system that he wants to create- then the problem is personnel. Edu as the Dmid and Bradley and Jones are the best two way cm's that the US has... What is needed may not be changing that system because it becomes a case of "grass is greener" in that you always want what you dont have on the field. With more attacking minded cms, we are going to want more defensive and ball winning ability. With more defensive minded cms, we are going to want more attacking ability.

What the US really seems to need are two things. Another 2 way CM to beat out Jones and a dmid with better technical ability than Edu. That means someone to beat out Edu or Edu needs to improve (which can happen).

I don't know of any other potential two way CMs that could beat out Jones except maybe Holden if he gets healthy and in form. Are there any up and coming mids that have that are like that?

If we get the space that was available for Rosicky to slot those balls through, we'll rip a team to pieces.

So far, both opponents have clogged the final third up, and it's shown. We need better wide play in general-Clint pinching in to the center is fine, but Jones isn't a wing player. Its been said elsewhere ad nausum-we need to stop playing the 3CM set against teams that are going to pack it in and give us the ball.

how many matches have donovan and dempsey played with these guys...

give them more time togetether and they'lll be fine

by the hex, and thru it, if these problems persist, then live with it

Feilhaber did play as a left midfielder with success in Denmark. You may know that, but I'll throw it out there anyway. We may need Feilhaber in the squad sooner rather than later.

I would like to see Feihaber and Sacha given a few games to see if they change the dynamic of our midfield. When we get near the 18 nobody has any idea what to do with the ball.

I disagree with that. There seems to be tons of ideas... just no one seems to have the same idea. But I agree that I would like to see Feilhaber or Sacha and see how the attack changes.

Two options
One: Move Dempsey to the middle as and attacking mid, and have guys like Shea and Donovan on the wings. Two Defensive mids with Jones and Brandley, they both can also help in the final third.. One lone striker, Gomez, Agudelo, Boyd and Altidore all have been good at times.

Two: If you are going to keep Dempsey and Donovan on the wings, then we need to try out more creative and attacking center mids. Guys like Adu, Corona, Feilhaber and Even Torres can play that role since they are very good with the ball in crowdede areas. I even try out Nguyen

If soccer really does reflect national character, wouldn't we expect this diversity of ideas from American players? (speculating...)

Answer: no width.

Even if you don't always use the width, you have to threaten it.

When was dempsey ever on the wing? I think everyone seems to be calling for a more attacking player in Jones' role.

Guatamala played a lot of long balls(it's on the chalkboards) and the forwards did a good job of running at the ball carriers. Otherwise they stayed compact and didn't commit numbers forward much.

In most of the english language writing on soccer 433 is just 3 center mids, 2 wing forwards and a center-forward. A diamond midfield with trequartista is usually referred to as 4312. I write this not to be pedantic but just to make sure we're talking about the same stuff.

The formation is listed on mlsscoccer as 4231 and imo(and as illustrated by the chalkboards) mostly played out that way with as you mentioned Bradly moving forward.

I'm not sure what most of the complaints are but my complaint is that it's a bit mental to play 2 defensive midfielders and 1 or 2 center mids against teams like Canada and Guatemala. You're essentially playing for scores of 0-0, 1-0, or 1-1. That's fine against a team like Italy or in the Confederations against a team like when Feilhaber was subbed into the game. Against lesser competition you risk letting teams hang around too long.

There isn't a single potential opponent in Concacaf that calls for that much bite throughout the squad.

I didn't see them playing 2 dmids in terms of roles on the field. They played 3 players with the dmid skillset but only 1 dmid role in the formation. I think that is where its less crazy and more strategy.

The question first is why. Why does JK want so many dmid skillsets in the middle and then play only dmid role?

1) It could be because he actualy seems those three as the best two way mids in teh pool, despite their best and popular skillset being dmid. This fits with wanting flexibility and a total football approach.

2) It could be that he wants a central midfield to dominate midfield and bully it. In such a way that it helps make up for lapses in ability to out possess by winning the ball back mroe with high pressure and a way to combat a weaknesses (technical ability compared to the Brazils) with a strength- fitness, hustle, strength,) think of it as slashing through finesses with brute strength

3) It coudl be that he sees th back line as that weak.

I tend to think its either 1 or 2 or both 1 and 2. I don't think its 3, because it seems only 1 cm has the primarly role of a 6. The others seem to be used as more two way mids.

So that informs my impression of the tactics and strategy and the formation. 1 central midfielder an two, two way midfielders in front of him. Then two attacking midfielders in LD and Dempsey.

The interesting thing from last game that throws me off is how LD stayed on the left and wide and dsmpsey stayed failry central. Jones was the wide midfielder playing to the right. This doesn't realy jive with reason 2 above and fits more with reason 1.

I say all that to say, that I think the strategy, roles, and personnel use are much more intricate and complicated than most are describing. I have a hard time determining when something is a weakness in tactics and a weakness in the US player pool to implement thos tactics. I don't think its as simple as JK playing too many dmids.

Much as your descrtiption of th system needed the depth for us to speak about it with a common framework... until i have a better idea of what JK is tryign to do and why- its hard to judge and analyze the mistakes and corresponding changes needed.

Quite possibly you are correct. So before saying it was wrong to use them- first figure out why it is being used.

Too often ppl want to say its just a stupid strategy or ignorance, etc. But most often a coach has a very very good reason for why they are doing it. this is a smart soccer man with several assistants that are going to challenge and put forth other ideas.

If the solution is obvious, then its a bit indulgent to think its not been presented and vetted by the coaches. There is a reason they are not going that obvious route and its likely a good reason. Being a highly vetted and good rationale doesn't make it teh correct decision... but until I understand what that rationale is... its hard to critique it.

The problem to me seems that Bradley is the only player on our team who is capable of playing through balls behind the other team's backline, and he's been positioned too far deep to do it consistently. Jones, Johnson, Donovan did an alright job finding Dempsey in the attacking third but it was almost always with his back to goal without immediate support from the CM's, so the attack becomes entirely reliant on his ability to turn and run at his defender. This makes it difficult for Gomez/Altidore to know where and when to run because at that time Dempsey doesn't even know where he'll be able to turn, not to mention that this kind of indirect build up takes a long time and allows the opposing defense to retain their shape and bunker down. Gomez's movement off the ball is quite good, we just need a midfielder to actually play some earlier through balls into space for him and nobody seems to want to do it at the moment.

The CM's need to improve their coordination when moving forward so that someone, preferably Bradley, can either receive a lay off from Dempsey or a pass from the wings and actually face forward while the rest of the attackers can make piercing runs. Right now our gameplan has a little too much of "just give it to Dempsey and hope he makes something happen".