Why Play an Attacking 4-3-3 at CR, and a Defensive 4-4-2 at home against Honduras???

[ty webb]

Why Play an Attacking 4-3-3 at CR, and a Defensive 4-4-2 at home against Honduras??? Does this make any sense??? Shouldn't these tactics have been switched??? Also, playing Adu and Torres on the road but not at home makes no sense.

How does Bob come up with this?

[aarond23]

My opinion...Bob probably figured we were hosed at CR anyway and thought if we were going to lose might as well go experimental.

At home he's going to go back to 'his style' of soccer, for better or worse.

[TrueCrew]

My opinion...Bob probably figured we were hosed at CR anyway and thought if we were going to lose might as well go experimental.

At home he's going to go back to 'his style' of soccer, for better or worse.

An attempt to be able to justify never playing attacking soccer or skilled players ever again.

[keller#1]

we know the answer. Let's not bash the poor girl

[Kevin8833]

Bob Bradley maybe feels the heat now and since he is a horrible tactician he is just playing scared and defensive

[superdave]

Kevin's got it.

Man, if we drop points because our central midfield doesn't have enough technique to hold the ball and force tempo, Bradley's in a "gots to go" situation.

Just more evidence that Bradley doesn't think technique is an important attribute. He values other things more.

[ty webb]

This is the back line we needed in CR.

Also, Bob trusted the Adu and Torres enough to play them in a hostile CR. I thought they were two of our better players. Today he can't fit them in the first 18, yet Sacha and Beasley who were horrific, somehow make the first 18.

What is going on?

[superdave]

What is going on?
If you give Bob a choice between a technical player and an experienced player, or a technical player and an athletic player, he NEVER chooses the technical player.

But a team needs a mix. If you make that choice too many times, your team can't string passes together and gets run over.

[Slotback]

I am really questioning Bradley as national team manager. Everything from player selection, tactics, etc.

Most of all not seeing anyone close down on defense is completely alarming.

[ty webb]

I am really questioning Bradley as national team manager. Everything from player selection, tactics, etc.

Most of all not seeing anyone close down on defense is completely alarming.

It is shocking isn't it.

[ty webb]

After watching both games, does anyone understand the reasoning behind these decisions?

Obviously, the Benny sub was good, and helped to change the complexion of the game. But, why start two DM's at home against Honduras in essentially a must win game? We looked bad in the middle of the park with the empty bucket allowing way too much space to the Honduras CM's in the first half.

[Tonerl]

I don't consider a 4-3-3 to necessarily be "attacking". That's one reason that the Costa Rica match was so shocking. We showed a complete lack of understanding of the formation.

What made the 4-4-2 more defensive than a nominal 4-3-3 was the use of two purely destructive types in the middle with no creator.

Any formation you choose needs creators to be "attacking". In our 4-3-3, the three most creative players in the eleven for us were used as the number 9, on the right wing, and, most bizarrely, on the left (!) of a flat (!) 3 midfield. There was no way in hell we had any chance of playing "attacking" soccer in that formation. Torres didn't receive the ball in the right positions to be successful, and Dempsey and Donovan weren't going to see the ball if Torres couldn't make it happen.

Anyway, both formation/personnel decisions were crap. So, to answer the original question: I have no idea.

[Marko72]

(First, just to state the obvious, I don't have a pipeline into Bob's head, I'm purely deconstructing his decisions and speculating on his reasoning and motives. It's all conjecture based on what I've seen and what I know of the situation.)

Bob has a tendency to overcompensate for his past, recent mistakes. I think he was in part thinking of not repeating his mistakes at El Salvador, starting a team set up too much to sit back, and, should we go down a goal, not be in a position to get it back.

That said, I think a lot of what he'd particularly deployed had to do with player availability issues, and attempts to piece together something which would have natural chemistry. I think the 433 had to do with him wanting Torres on the field (and near Beasley to make up for his lack of touch) in a turf game when players' touch tends to get away from them, while still having both Mastro and Mike on the field to form a spine. I think the decision to go with Wynne and Beasley over a guy like Spector probably had to do with the idea that speedy players would be necessary against the Ticos on turf. And being that we'd had the fastest players in defense on the wings, I think the idea was that Altidore and Dempsey would naturally pinch in whenever Wynne and Beas got up the wings, freeing Donovan to simply drift in or out or back or wherever he felt was necessary to find space. Obviously, losing Ching to injury had something to do with the way he'd deployed the forwards as well.

Well, that, I think, was the plan, and it didn't work. The primary problem being the flanks and the way that they were basically left defensively exposed, which pulled apart our CB combo. Torres wasn't ready to play 2-way midfielder and play organizer, Mastro wasn't up to par period, and of course Wynne and Beasley being overmatched meant they weren't able to get up into the attack at all, which made his forward deployment 100% negligible. At the half, he redeployed them the way they really should've been all along (with Jozy in the middle and Donovan out wide), but the whole thing was just a mess.

He realized that, and then over-adjusted at home (given that we were playing one of the most talented attacking teams of the Hex who were coming in rested, making this tactically something betweeen an "away" match and a typical home match). We really should've started a guy like Benny or Torres next to either Mastro or Clark, but given that Torres had had a rough game and from what I hear wasn't exactly popular among his teammates during/after the CR match, and that Benny is just coming back from his long form-and-injury-related sabbatical, he wasn't exactly what one would term a "sure-thing" sort of starter in a must-win game against a talented and rested opponent.

Basically, a few bad decisions against CR led to a few more questionable decisions against Honduras, which we'd managed to survive.

Amongst a lot of criticism I have for him in the way he'd managed these two, I will give him this bit of credit: Feilhaber for Mastroeni was the right move to make, and it paid dividends. That's about the only credit I give Bob over this 2 match stretch. (I don't really give him much credit over starting Spector, as it was basically forced on him, and he really should've identified that much earlier on... doing so against CR could've changed things a bit, and not necessitated such a reactionary line-up this time around.) This was a low point for him. I hope he's learned something about it, particularly as regards our fullback situation.

Really, our lack of quality and depth at fullback has been our achilles heel both in terms of our talent pool, and in terms of causing the majority of Bob's bad decisions in his tenure, either directly or indirectly. (And our early good form in this round is due as much to the good form of Hejduk as anything else, IMO, making things temporarily a bit easier on Bob.) I hope he's got a clearer picture in his mind of who can do what, because I think it's getting pretty obvious now (and will probably be crystal clear by the end of the Confed Cup, IMO).

[Karl K]

After watching both games, does anyone understand the reasoning behind these decisions?


OMFG.

Where to begin in yet ANOTHER tedious, tiresome, tendentious Bob Bradley bashing thread?

Look, folks on here call for Bradley's head for, frankly, what seems to be the reason du jour. He plays the empty bucket, fire Bob! Then he turns around and doesn't. He doesn't start Jozy, fire Bob!. Then he turns around and starts him. He doesn't start Torres, fire Bob! Then he turns around and starts him. He plays the empty bucket AGAIN....fire Bob!....then switches out it to win the game...but fire Bob again!! because, you know, he shouldn't have done it to begin with.

Geez louise.

And those are no straw men, as some on here have accused me of erecting. This isn't a term paper and I am not going to do footnotes, but I know, and you know, and everyone else knows, that THIS is how a fairly sizable contingent on this board have operated over this cycle.

Another thing that people seem to forget: opponents are NOT holographs. One major problem with the detritus that passes for analysis around here is that the razor sharp minds seem to forget that we are, you know, playing another team who have, you know, other players, who, you know, do stuff to try to prevent us from winning.

So, let's take the Costa Rica game. Now the reason du jour there for firing Bob! is that Bob experiments with a 4-3-3 in a road game So, what now...we're not supposed to do ANY formation change in any specific circumstance? Should we always play ONE formation? Or just two? Any Big Soccer genius want to set up a laminated formation coaching card for Bob to follow with nicely laid out rows and columns?

What the heck do you people want -- aside from Guus Hiddink or the one-man Dom Kinnear lobby? It's awfully hard to tell sometimes since the goalposts get moved more often than anybody can count.

Look, a decision is a bad decision simply if it doesn't work. But people ought to get out of their own heads once in a while and think about WHY a decision is made. And it's easy, really.

A 4-3-3 with the personnel available as a set up makes in that venue made sense for two reasons.

First, it got Altidore, Torres, and Beasley -- three of our quickest players -- matched up against Andy Herron (who is hardly the most gifted technical player) and the 35 year old Harold Wallace. The idea was to get youth/speed on top of age and technical weakness. But Andy Herron played out of his mind, and Beasley stunk it up.

Second, it was designed to cede width for speed, and clog the middle on defense. Nothing would have been better for us than for Costa Rica to devolve into playing a wing/cross game -- the are not technically polished enough to implement it and we dominate in the air. But little did we think our midfielders would do the ole on their marks, ball watch, and not do recovery runs once they were turned


Obviously, the Benny sub was good, and helped to change the complexion of the game. But, why start two DM's at home against Honduras in essentially a must win game? We looked bad in the middle of the park with the empty bucket allowing way too much space to the Honduras CM's in the first half.

Why start two D-mids against Honduras? Good God.

Ok, let me go slow for you:

Wilson Palacios
Ramon Nunez
Amado Guevara
Carlos Costly
Carlos Pavon

Tell me, how many of OUR players have merited a transfer fee of $20+ million to an EPL club? Anybody out there? Anybody?

There's a reason Spurs shelled out that dough for Palacios. He is GOOD.

And Nunez? His career may have checkered, but I bet the vaunted FC Dallas team would like to have him back. His career is beginning to blossom. He has talent.

Guevara is a shrewd player.

Costly? Did you see that goal? A phenomenal finish.

However, if you have been paying attention to the news, you should have known that Palacios was not going to be match fit for 90 minutes, Guevara is getting up in years, and Pavon, at 35, though dangerous, wasn't going to play 90.

You see, when you coach, you have to understand the OTHER team's substitution patterns. Palacios -- their best midfield player and a player who is better than ANYONE we have, needed to be neutralized until the time he came off.

I bet the plan was to see how the game developed and if we grabbed a lead in the first half, we'd be in great shape to continue to contain the Palacios-Nunez duo until Wilson went off, and we could sub out one of our Dmids.

And it would have worked, too, because (a) we DID put Honduras under pressure in the first half (should have had TWO PKs, not one) and (b) you typically don't plan to have one of your best players cough up the ball in the center circle when he had plenty of passing options and instead to allow a goal-scoring counterattack by those holographic opponents..

Finally, as a coach, you do NOT crush the confidence of players you may need down the line. Starting Mastroeni, who had a stinker of a game in CR, was a good move, all things considered, particularly the opponent we were facing. And you STILL don't know what you are going to get from Feilhaber.

Again, once again, get out of your own heads. Look at the totality of the situation. With are very flawed pool of players, and this particularly tight week of matches, we need to look at the big picture.

[fscat]

IMHO, Bradley played the offensive 4-3-3 at Costa Rica because he knew it was a throwaway game. If you look at all the circumstances leading up to it:

bad turf
oppressive heat
key injuries
lack of a camp
players coming off of long European seasons
playing somewhere they have NEVER won at

It was almost a perfect storm. He saw that, he knew they probably didn't have much of a chance, so he rolled the dice and went for it, cause he figured if they played defensive, they would get smoked anyway. I disagree with his assessment, but I think that is what Bradley and his staff deduced. As I said, he rolled the dice, and just came up craps.
Therefore, after the away game at Costa Rica, he knew he couldn't do that again, especially with the personnel available, so he had to play a more comfortable formation (which I agree with). They needed the three points last night, and couldn't gamble with the an overtly attacking formation (especially considering who was in form and available).
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I doubt someone who was as successful in MLS as Bradley was, and who has overall, done a good job with the Nats as he has done isn't a "f*$#ing idiot" as some armchair football managers on BS think he is. They take chances, sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. They form opinions that are sometimes right, sometimes aren't.

[Marko72]

If you give Bob a choice between a technical player and an experienced player, or a technical player and an athletic player, he NEVER chooses the technical player.

But a team needs a mix. If you make that choice too many times, your team can't string passes together and gets run over.

Let's not get carried away with this myth. He chose Torres in the first XI at CR, who was as responsible for our poor showing as anybody except Beasley and Wynne.

[Marko72]

Karl K can analyze. That one's worth reading a couple of times.

[elephantstone]

Finally, as a coach, you do NOT crush the confidence of players you may need down the line. Starting Mastroeni, who had a stinker of a game in CR, was a good move, all things considered, particularly the opponent we were facing.

Uh... what? If Mastroeni, a 33-year-old veteran of two World Cups, cannot handle not starting one out of two qualifiers in a week without emotional distress, then he doesn't have any value to us anyway.

Does this same concern for player confidence on your part extend to Torres or Adu? Or are we just worried about limited-skill defensive midfielders who increasingly remind us of the Chris Armas era?

[Nutmeg]

OMFG.

In spite of the teenage beginning, this is a good post from Karl. I'll take it on civilly. If Karl can keep it that way, maybe it'll be a good discussion.

Look, folks on here call for Bradley's head for, frankly, what seems to be the reason du jour.

I agree some are doing that. I am well aware I am now one of the most vocal against Bradley, however, and I don't think I am. My general criticisms of Bob can be summarized:

1) Putting square pegs in round holes. I simply don't think Bob is especially good at sizing up the strengths and weaknesses of players and because of that, puts them in bad spots. I can offer many examples. And as I've said, other coaches are getting more out of our players than Bob is. Why?

2) Failure to prepare well. I don't fault Bradley for trying something new in Costa Rica. If anything, I want him to vary his lineups more. But, I do fault him for trying something dumb and not having the team mentally prepared for games. This is two games in a row where (a) the lineups weren't right, (b) the tactics weren't right, and (c) the team wasn't mentally prepared for what was going to hit them. Bob's been there - I do expect him to have his team sharp from minute one.

3) Failure to make good adjustments. Here, Bob did much better. I think he rolled the dice on Benny, but he must have seen something that made him believe Benny was ready. Hell, even you thought Benny wouldn't see the inside of the US Locker room again. But good for Bob. Much better job yesterday than Wednesday. I do think, though, that bringing out Casey for Beasley was the wrong move. We lost shape and weren't nearly as good in possession after that. I understand the move - get more defense on the field. I just philosophically disagree with it.

Another thing that people seem to forget: opponents are NOT holographs.

Not forgetting it. In fact, if you read the scouting threads, the strengths and weaknesses of both opponents were laid out pretty clearly.

Look, a decision is a bad decision simply if it doesn't work. But people ought to get out of their own heads once in a while and think about WHY a decision is made. And it's easy, really.

A 4-3-3 with the personnel available as a set up makes in that venue made sense for two reasons.

First... The idea was to get youth/speed on top of age and technical weakness. But Andy Herron played out of his mind, and Beasley stunk it up.

Second, it was designed to cede width for speed, and clog the middle on defense. Nothing would have been better for us than for Costa Rica to devolve into playing a wing/cross game -- the are not technically polished enough to implement it and we dominate in the air. But little did we think our midfielders would do the ole on their marks, ball watch, and not do recovery runs once they were turned

First, formations are the most overrated crap people talk about so framing the argument that way isn't all that valuable. And understanding the why behind Bradley's thinking here doesn't excuse the flaws in it. Wynne exposed on an island on the right, Torres in front of Boca and Beasley on the left - it's ironic you accuse others of not seeing the opponent as real problems. Because I'd accuse both you and Bradley of seriously underestimating Costa Rica (see your comments on their players and technical ability).

Like I said after that game, I think you build on what's working and gradually try to iron out what hasn't been. My biggest problem with what Bradley did in CR is that he abandoned what had been working and didn't address our own weaknesses. This, in possibly one of the top 5 worst places in the world to play.

Again, at the end of the day, understanding and justifying why Bradley did something isn't all that interesting when that something flopped spectacularly. More interesting is analyzing WHY it didn't work and hoping those things are eliminated in a year's time. At least, I hope that's what Bob is doing.

Why start two D-mids against Honduras? Good God.

It is absolutely a fair question. Were those two players the right combination? I disagree with you and Bob for the following reasons:

1) You overrate Honduras.
2) More defenders does not equal better overall defense.
3) Our inability to hold onto the ball has repeatedly shown itself to be among our opponents' best weapons.
4) This emotionally frail version of Pablo doesn't jive with reality. He knew he sucked in Saprissa. If anything, benching people who suck sends the right message - performance matters. And besides, I don't see you rushing to criticize Bradley for leaving Torres off the gameday roster - and you thought he sucked. Was he crushing the confidence of a player we may need down the line? Your argument lacks consistency.

Again, once again, get out of your own heads. Look at the totality of the situation. With are very flawed pool of players, and this particularly tight week of matches, we need to look at the big picture.

I agree. Our playing pool is only pretty good. It's not world class, but it's internationally legitimately Top 20. That means we are a fringe team to make it past the first round of the WC.

So in the big picture, I see the difference between us possibly advancing and flaming out is a coach who puts our pretty good player pool in the best spots to be successful, well prepared for the situation and opponent at hand, and willing to make the in-game adjustments for when we run into tough situations.

[Karl K]

4) This emotionally frail version of Pablo doesn't jive with reality. He knew he sucked in Saprissa. If anything, benching people who suck sends the right message - performance matters. And besides, I don't see you rushing to criticize Bradley for leaving Torres off the gameday roster - and you thought he sucked. Was he crushing the confidence of a player we may need down the line? Your argument lacks consistency.


Uh... what? If Mastroeni, a 33-year-old veteran of two World Cups, cannot handle not starting one out of two qualifiers in a week without emotional distress, then he doesn't have any value to us anyway.

Does this same concern for player confidence on your part extend to Torres or Adu? Or are we just worried about limited-skill defensive midfielders who increasingly remind us of the Chris Armas era?

Coach to Adu and Torres: "Relax, you guys are gifted and young. The future is bright for you. Having you two will be a huge luxury for us in this cycle, so don't worry about being left off the 18 your time will come."

Coach to Mastro: "Pablo, we may really need you, and this is your last shot at a World Cup because all of our other center mids are young and relatively inexperienced. You've done it before, need it from you one more time."

THAT'S the difference.

End of Mastro's stint -- did you see his face. He knows now it may be over.

If we can't rely on Mastro -- and it may appear we can't now -- this makes our pool weaker.