Why have we gotten away from counter attacking football?

[RalleeMonkey]

The key to success in 2002 was to defend well, let the other team get their back line up close to midfield, and then hit 'em on the counter. We had speed on the outside: at various times Donovan, Beasley, Sanneh, Cobi, & Stewart provided attacking speed on the outside. We defended well. Why did we switch to this slowwwwww, methodical, possession build up game?

Seems like something like this would suit our skills more.


------------------Donovan------Jozy

-------------------------Dempsey

-------------------Bradley-------Benny

Bornstein---------------------------------------------Wynne
--------------------Boca---Gooch---Spector


But, instead of having the fullback getting way up field during a build up. They sit back more and only get up field on the counter. And anyway, if one of them is participating in the build up, the other one slides back, and you've got a back four: Either BornsteinBocaGoochSpector, or BocaGoochSpectorWynne.

If Hejduk & Cherundolo are fit, they could take Bornstiein & Wynne's places (Frankie on the left).

So, to clarify, we should never be exposed on the outside back, like we were against CR, because if one of the outside guys is getting upfield, the other stays back and the three slide over to cover. So, Boca & Spector would be the wide cover, in the back. Which wouldn't be a horrible thing, as both of them has been proposed as starting fullbacks, anyway.

[JcUSA]

I was thinking before the game that this was the perfect game to counter attack. We just had to weather storm in the first 10-20minutes and our opportunites would come. But we all know what happened. Bradley started 4 -3 -3.

[TrueCrew]

I'd say three reasons:

1) We are still in CONCACAF, and most games, we have the better talent, so we don't sit back and counter like we did in 2002.

2) We don't have the quality of ball distribution out of midfield that we did in '02 (Reyna, O'Brien, or both).

3) The backline isn't as athletic. Pope, Sanneh, and Frankie Hejduk six years ago could really get up and down, and were positionally solid at the same time (most of the time, anyway). We don't have either right now. When the other team possesses for long stretches, our backs get beaten by quick 1-2's too often. We give up open scoring opportunities too much.

Hence, we should try to possess the ball more.

[RalleeMonkey]

Great, thoughtful reply.

I agree with the points - not sure I agree with the conclusion. You're right, we wouldn't be as good at it as in 2002. But, we'd probably be better than we are now.

Since 2002, what wins have we gotten against another team's "A" squad? I'm not being a smartazz - I'm just curious. We've beaten Mex at home. But, what else?

Also, the same "the players were better" arguement can be used to say that we were better suited to possessing the ball then than we are now. Guys like Stewart, Reyna, Sanneh, Pope, Mathis, Wolff, McBride, O'Brien were much better at holding and distributing the ball than their counterparts on this squad.

[tubby_butter]

The biggest reason is 2006 WC. Czech and Ghana let us have majority possession and we had zero attacking ideas. We can't sneak up on good teams anymore, they know the best thing is to let us have the ball and make us beat them with offense.

That said, we generally had the right numbers behind the ball against CR. It's just the guys doing it didn't do a good enough job. Like I said in another thread, you can't blame tactics on the goals because we actually had a man advantage in each situation.

Goal 1 - 1v2 (twice actually)
Goal 2 - 2v3 on the play that made the goal
Goal 3 - 1v2 (3 if you count Boca)

[TrueCrew]

Great, thoughtful reply.

I agree with the points - not sure I agree with the conclusion. You're right, we wouldn't be as good at it as in 2002. But, we'd probably be better than we are now.

Since 2002, what wins have we gotten against another team's "A" squad? I'm not being a smartazz - I'm just curious. We've beaten Mex at home. But, what else?

Also, the same "the players were better" arguement can be used to say that we were better suited to possessing the ball then than we are now. Guys like Stewart, Reyna, Sanneh, Pope, Mathis, Wolff, McBride, O'Brien were much better at holding and distributing the ball than their counterparts on this squad.

Your are right, especially on that last point. I think the answer also lies in our mindset has changed. In 2002, we felt we were the underdog, and tactically, we played like it. Also, I think other teams underestimated us, and didn't devote a lot of time to scouting and preparation for us.

After 2002, the other teams took us more seriously, and don't leave as many gaps behind for Donovan and Beasley. They make us work for our goals. Also, after our success, we felt we wanted to take the next step, and start attacking the other team. And because of our personnel in midfield at the time (Reyna, O'Brien), and at the back (Pope, Sanneh) we could do it.

Other teams still take us seriously. But maybe we need to rethink our approach given our personnel. But some of the younger players (Torres, Adu, Feilhaber, even Kljestan) have the potential to distribute well, and Donovan can for certain.

We definitely need to avoid the suicidal 4-3-3 @Saprissa approach. I thought 4-5-1 with Altidore up top, Torres as a CAM, and LD at LM was the formation when I saw the personnel.

[RalleeMonkey]

The biggest reason is 2006 WC. Czech and Ghana let us have majority possession and we had zero attacking ideas. We can't sneak up on good teams anymore, they know the best thing is to let us have the ball and make us beat them with offense.

That said, we generally had the right numbers behind the ball against CR. It's just the guys doing it didn't do a good enough job. Like I said in another thread, you can't blame tactics on the goals because we actually had a man advantage in each situation.

Goal 1 - 1v2 (twice actually)
Goal 2 - 2v3 on the play that made the goal
Goal 3 - 1v2 (3 if you count Boca)


But, Arena didn't try to play counterattacking football against Cze & Ghana. We tried to knock it around, and it failed. We can argue about what would have happened if we'd laid back, but we didn't. We fell into their trap.

I don't even understand your arguement "the best thing to do is to let us have the ball and make us beat them with offense." Right. Make us play possession football and we'll lose. That's what I'm saying. We shouldn't take the bait. If the other team sits back, then it becomes a battle of patience. But, what we shouldn't do is get our fullbacks way up the field, and leave our 2 centerbacks stranded. Which brings me to:

You can say we had numbers back. But, the goals were all a result of our fullbacks being way upfield and, either providing no defensive support in the back, or being caught out of position on a t/o, and having to sprint back to try to recover. You can have numbers, but if they're being pulled out of position because the guy that was supposed to be the 1st defender was chasing, then it doesn't matter so much. The "numbers" have to be organized. And, organization comes from the 1st defender doing his job so everyone else can get marked up.

[RalleeMonkey]

The funny thing is, unless you're Barcelona, a 4-3-3 is not conducive to playing possession football. 4-3-3 is designed to get the ball up to the 3 forwards as quickly as possible, hardly any passing between the midfielders.

Unless you're Barcelona. If you're Barcelona, and you've got Iniesta & Co. in the midfield, you can push your fullbacks up hold the ball and look for incisive, penetrating runs. Plus, your fullbacks don't really start getting upfield until your starting to get control of the match. We don't have guys that can hold the ball and knock it around for loooong periods of time, until there's a crack that we can exploit. Plus, our fullbacks didn't wait until we were controlling the game to start venturing forward.

[JohnR]

The funny thing is, unless you're Barcelona, a 4-3-3 is not conducive to playing possession football. 4-3-3 is designed to get the ball up to the 3 forwards as quickly as possible, hardly any passing between the midfielders.

Just what I was thinking. Under Maurinho, Chelsea ran a 4-5-1 that was often a 4-3-3 (I mean, it's not as if Robben was covering defensively at all times, right?), and that sucker was deadly on the counter.

[judodono]

Czech Rep., @El Salvador and @Costa Rica, they each scored within the first 10 minutes. Can't counter attack at that point. Which, IMO, is why we've been utterly useless the rest of each of those games.

[tubby_butter]

But, Arena didn't try to play counterattacking football against Cze & Ghana. We tried to knock it around, and it failed. We can argue about what would have happened if we'd laid back, but we didn't. We fell into their trap.


Not true at all. Well, unless by "knocking it around" you mean backpassing all the way back to Keller every time. Counter-attacking style means you don't try to penetrate offensively until you've caught the other team off balance (either they committed too many forward, or you've won the ball in an advantageous area). And in doing so, you don't commit numbers forward until then. This is exactly how we tried to play. If you were anywhere near bigsoccer during that time, the biggest complaint is that nobody except Dempsey was even remotely aggressive in offense. This is because we actually didn't know how to create an attack ... we passed it around the back hoping to draw teams out, when in reality they pressured just enough so Keller ended up booting in upfield. I'd love to see a stat on how many received balls our keepers get compared to other teams.


I don't even understand your arguement "the best thing to do is to let us have the ball and make us beat them with offense." Right. Make us play possession football and we'll lose. That's what I'm saying. We shouldn't take the bait. If the other team sits back, then it becomes a battle of patience.


We agree that teams can currently beat us this way and they know this. We also agree that counter attacking is a good idea. What I'm saying is, you can't just counter attack because you want to. You need a way to catch a team off balance. I actually like our improved combination play through the middle because it means defenses have to try to stop us. . . otherwise, we're relying too much on our defensive pressure to upset the balance. Teams in the WC, for the most part, are too good for that. So I guess the only thing I'm really disagreeing with you on is that I don't think we have really gotten away from counter attacking. I just think we've tried to become more balanced overall.


But, what we shouldn't do is get our fullbacks way up the field, and leave our 2 centerbacks stranded. Which brings me to:

You can say we had numbers back. But, the goals were all a result of our fullbacks being way upfield and, either providing no defensive support in the back, or being caught out of position on a t/o, and having to sprint back to try to recover. You can have numbers, but if they're being pulled out of position because the guy that was supposed to be the 1st defender was chasing, then it doesn't matter so much. The "numbers" have to be organized. And, organization comes from the 1st defender doing his job so everyone else can get marked up.

This is getting away from the counter attacking argument, but soccer is a fluid game and it is expected that midfielders will have to provide cover. If you have numbers in good defensive positions (which is what we did have) then that is all you can ask for. But it is up to those guys to deal with situations, and they didn't.

[RalleeMonkey]

Not true at all. Well, unless by "knocking it around" you mean backpassing all the way back to Keller every time. Counter-attacking style means you don't try to penetrate offensively until you've caught the other team off balance (either they committed too many forward, or you've won the ball in an advantageous area). And in doing so, you don't commit numbers forward until then. This is exactly how we tried to play. If you were anywhere near bigsoccer during that time, the biggest complaint is that nobody except Dempsey was even remotely aggressive in offense. This is because we actually didn't know how to create an attack ... we passed it around the back hoping to draw teams out, when in reality they pressured just enough so Keller ended up booting in upfield. I'd love to see a stat on how many received balls our keepers get compared to other teams.



We agree that teams can currently beat us this way and they know this. We also agree that counter attacking is a good idea. What I'm saying is, you can't just counter attack because you want to. You need a way to catch a team off balance. I actually like our improved combination play through the middle because it means defenses have to try to stop us. . . otherwise, we're relying too much on our defensive pressure to upset the balance. Teams in the WC, for the most part, are too good for that. So I guess the only thing I'm really disagreeing with you on is that I don't think we have really gotten away from counter attacking. I just think we've tried to become more balanced overall.



This is getting away from the counter attacking argument, but soccer is a fluid game and it is expected that midfielders will have to provide cover. If you have numbers in good defensive positions (which is what we did have) then that is all you can ask for. But it is up to those guys to deal with situations, and they didn't.

You make good points. Regarding the last, I'll just say that the 1st defender is really important. If he's out of position, chasing, he gives you another "number" but the whole defensive scheme falls apart due to guys compensating, getting caught in between. And, it can be a domino effect. That 1st guy has to atleast provide a token defense so the other guys can set up.

[JohnR]

This is getting away from the counter attacking argument, but soccer is a fluid game and it is expected that midfielders will have to provide cover.

My son had a youth coach a couple of years back who forebade the fullback from overlapping the wingers. He said, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen, you just leave a hole in the defense that way."

Bit worrisome in that he was a senior State ODP coach ...

[Grumpy in LA]

My son had a youth coach a couple of years back who forebade the fullback from overlapping the wingers. He said, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen, you just leave a hole in the defense that way." Bit worrisome in that he was a senior State ODP coach ...And I was just starting to get over my depression from the Costa Rica match.

[Nutmeg]

We tend to wax too nostalgic for my taste. We didn't become a great counter attacking team until Clint Mathis or John O'brien came into our lineup. Why aren't we a great counter attacking team now? Because we don't have anyone of their vision and moxy in the central midfield today.

[eric]

We tend to wax too nostalgic for my taste. We didn't become a great counter attacking team until Clint Mathis or John O'brien came into our lineup. Why aren't we a great counter attacking team now? Because we don't have anyone of their vision and moxy in the central midfield today.

Agree to an extent re our talent. We have nobody near the ability of O'Brien in terms of distribution, but i really don't think the drop off from mathis to our current forwards is that great (if extant at all). But the assumption that you need great visionary midfielders to play counterattacking football well is false.

In my life one of my favorite teams to watch were hagi's romania teams of the early and mid nineties. They played beautiful football all of it counterattacking. Their version was the one that Nutmeg talks about with a great visionary midfielder and moxy. Our current talent and squad pales to that team, and thus we say that we couldn't play counterattacking soccer well versus good squads. But what about Egil Olsen's Norway or The Danes of that same period? they played a version relying more on teamwork and knowing where each other will be at any moment and not so reliant on a Hagi, pirlo, or gattuso. Those old enough will remember how fun those teams were to watch, especially the year the danes got pulled off the beach to compete in some euro tournament. Sure there was legit talent on those squads (Laudrup comes to mind) but their whole was far greater than the sum of its part. We could easily duplicate those teams, we would just have to committ to playing this style in every game against all opponants for a decent amount of time. (Admittedly having a coach who knows how to play this style is crucial too. But i'll leave that for the fire BB threads.)

This is especially true at a venue like the world cup as the teams who we will be playing will attack us. Do you really think Capello or the Dutch would say "gee, they are so good at counterattacking will just boot the ball upfield"

[JohnR]

We tend to wax too nostalgic for my taste. We didn't become a great counter attacking team until Clint Mathis or John O'brien came into our lineup. Why aren't we a great counter attacking team now? Because we don't have anyone of their vision and moxy in the central midfield today.

Sounds like nostalgia. :D I miss those guys, too.

[Nic D in BIG D!]

The funny thing is, unless you're Barcelona, a 4-3-3 is not conducive to playing possession football. 4-3-3 is designed to get the ball up to the 3 forwards as quickly as possible, hardly any passing between the midfielders.

... We don't have guys that can hold the ball and knock it around for loooong periods of time, until there's a crack that we can exploit. Plus, our fullbacks didn't wait until we were controlling the game to start venturing forward.

Totally agree with the first comment! Watch the way Barca play on the counter. It is almost always Iniesta/Toure/Xavi/Dani Alves bypassing the mids to hit Etoo, Messi or Henry (sometimes Bojan/Gudjohnsen). They face up to attack the defender while the mids run into space from deep. Many times Dani plays the ball to the Xavi. Xavi to Henry (while Iniesta, Etoo take up their attacking positions). And Henry back to Alves or to Messi. It takes three passes or about 5 seconds and Barca has 5, sometimes 6 (Toure) in the attacking third. This is potent and dangerous football.

It is only when the 5 or 6 are pressing in the attacking 3rd that Barca slow it down and find the seams to pass teams off the park. Look at the CL final, the Classico and the games toward the beginning of spring.


Now on to the 2nd point ...

Totally disagree. We have plenty of guys ho can pass the ball and keep possesion. Almost all are under 25 and Bradley will not play them.

In a diamond it looks like this:

-------------ADU-------------
---Torres-----------Sacha---
------------Benny------------

Unfortunately for us this MF grouping of four does not include Bradley Jr. Which means it will NEVER happen under Bradley Sr.

It is my belief (informed by observing each players playing style) that this group could pass and hold possesion with the best of them. They also would not be able to defend for $#__!

So it is possible but highly unlikely we would ever be seeing these guys on the field together.

The closest thing we will see to this in a 4-3-3:

Lando---Jozy--Deuce
----------Adu---------
--Bradley---Benny---


We tend to wax too nostalgic for my taste. We didn't become a great counter attacking team until Clint Mathis or John O'brien came into our lineup. Why aren't we a great counter attacking team now? Because we don't have anyone of their vision and moxy in the central midfield today.

Maybe not the Moxy, but the vision is their in the players. Not so much in the Coach.