power, pace, or possession; how should the US attack (the lesson of US-Egypt)

[superdave]

DISCLAIMER: I’m “lumping” here rather than “splitting.” I’m putting things into the smallest feasible number of categories. Please excuse the inevitable oversimplification.

There are, in general, 3 ways to attack. If you’re great, like Barcelona, you can use more than one (pace and possession.) Mere mortals have to make do with one.

One way is to attack with possession. Most of the time I’ve been (casually) following Mexico, that’s how they attack. Lots and lots and lots of short passing until they spring someone for a shot. Meanwhile, they have the ball and you don’t so you can’t score. If the US were to play this style, guys like Torres and Adu would be featured, and players like Feilhaber would be much more prominent. And Benny wouldn’t be spending time out on the wing. He’d be in the center of the park.

Another way to attack is with power. Chelsea under Mourinho did this. Germany does this. We’ve been trying to do this under Bradley. A team can use a guy like Ching or McBride in a possession attack, but we use them more as battering rams. And when you play guys as good on set pieces as Dempsey on the wing, as good as Bradley in the central midfield, you can then add in your center backs and Ching and/or Altidore, then you bring a hell of a lot of air power to the game. Even with poor service on free kicks, you’re going to head in a lot of goals.

Against Egypt, the US started Davies with Altidore. Michael Bradley made more forward runs than he’s been making; I imagine that’s how he played with Herenveen. Ricardo Clark popped a few from long range. Donovan looked for open space, and the US attempted to quickly get the ball to him. And, of course, the main thing Davies brings to the game is his pace.

In my mind, the lesson of the Egypt game is that the US needs to abandon the “power” game and go with the “pace” game. While I think Ching is a better player than Davies, I think the team works better with Davies than Ching. Clint Dempsey needs to be told to play the ball faster if the rest of the team is trying a counterattack. Bornstein is less of a liability at LB because he provides speed and danger on the left side.

If Bob lucked into a better tactic by starting Davies and unleashing Donovan, good for him. Luck is good to have. But if he doesn’t continue, at least for now, to build our attack on pace rather than power, then we’re back to where we were 2 days ago…needing a new coach.

Thoughts?

[cpwilson80]

Good post, Dave.

For better or worse, I think the pace style suits the US best, particularly against the better teams (I think we can get away with Power in CONCACAF.)

However, it's really easy for a quality team to counter this type of attack. Basically, play like the Czech Republic did in the first game of WC 2006 and force us to play possession.

I think the key change - aside from the 4-4-2 - is the addition of Spector. He gives us an unprecedented level of ball skills from the right back position (I think he's better than Cherundolo on the ball.) This enables us to build from the back and have Donovan or Dempsey orchestrate attacks, rather than play long balls and have these two try to win second balls in a crowd.

[DutchFootballRulez]

It was Egypt.

The played a 3-5-2.

They allowed Brazil to score from 2 set pieces. Needless, to say they do not defend well enough to be considered an elite side.

We play well when the right lineup is run out. Dempsey is a frustrating player to play, he should be up top w/ Altidore because he is a possession liability.

Altidore still hasn't accepted the role as target forward. So Bob still has coaching to do, a target forward makes the hard run to get on the end of Donovans blind cross.

[russ]

Due to thewide discrepancy in class between our typical opponents,we have to adjust our focus depending on our opposition.

Against top quality opposition,I think we do need to defend soundly,and attack with speed .Really,with eight players back (which we'll need against Spain,why kid ourselves)
pace is our only option.What good is posessing in our own half?

In CONCACAF,we can posess more and use our forwards and center backs to convert setpieces as they devlop.

[Dr Jay]

In my mind, the lesson of the Egypt game is that the US needs to abandon the “power” game and go with the “pace” game. While I think Ching is a better player than Davies, I think the team works better with Davies than Ching.

I agree. Especially with the comments about Ching. If this were the World Cup and Ching were 100 %, I would start him on Weds.

By next Summer I hope Charlie has matured even more and gotten even more comfortable holding the ball and playing off his midfielders. He, rather than Ching, is the future.

As for pace vs power, this is more of an argument about the attack. In other words, how do we make the "entry ball" into the attacking third. What does our entry pass look like ?

I think the US problems are more in transition actually. Tactically its about how we play out of pressure when we win the ball....long balls to a back-to-goal forward who tries to hold possession vs short balls to the center mids or wide mids.

I think Bob would like to play the latter but we can't against good teams or when guys like Beasley are playing. In addition, when we do, it tends to stifle our speed advantage because we end up moving the ball through the middle third so damn slow. If our center mids were great at turning and running at people (like Donovan does from time to time) we could play this way on the transition but these aren't Clark and Bradley's skills.

I like the Altidore/Davies pairing because both have speed on the counter but can hold the ball. Theoretically, it allows us to play quickly out of the back to their feet, but not negate any speed advantage.

[6 ft. Leprechaun]

Due to thewide discrepancy in class between our typical opponents,we have to adjust our focus depending on our opposition.

Against top quality opposition,I think we do need to defend soundly,and attack with speed .Really,with eight players back (which we'll need against Spain,why kid ourselves)
pace is our only option.What good is posessing in our own half?

In CONCACAF,we can posess more and use our forwards and center backs to convert setpieces as they devlop.

Agreed. Against the likes of CONCACAF, we can use the "power" while with Spain on Wednesday, I would think that we'd want to use the "pace" and look for the counter.

[drdi]

well, i think we are creating a "dutch "model to our game, with a good field disposition, pressure in all the field, searching for the empty spaces to atack and closing all spaces to defend, also. we will do fine when we will have proper players available- big, fast, technically well developed, tactically very developed too. today , to play this tactical game only spector, bradley, donovan, dempsey, perhaps altidore and de merit and adu have enough quality to play under this strategy. but without doubt this is the correct aproach our USMNT has to follow. in due time we will produce more than enough players with those qualities to assemble a very,very formidable team.a sucessful development academy program is essential to acomplish that.

[Winds350]

I think the key change - aside from the 4-4-2 - is the addition of Spector. He gives us an unprecedented level of ball skills from the right back position (I think he's better than Cherundolo on the ball.) This enables us to build from the back and have Donovan or Dempsey orchestrate attacks, rather than play long balls and have these two try to win second balls in a crowd.

I agree, getting it to Donovan or Dempsey is key. I'm not sure about building from the back against strong teams. I don't think the CB's and CM's we have available combine the defensive skills and ball skils to make that work. We either give up too much defense to get the required ball skills or too much ball skills to get the required defense.

One of the things that often strikes me in games against really quality teams is how often they make mid-range 'clearances' to their teammates instead of mid-to-long range clearances to no one. And that mid range ball is really key to freeing up the midfield. For it to work, you need to keep from having all your midfielders sucked back into defending deep and the backs need to know where they would most likely find a mid-range outlet. And then make the pass, of course. You're right, Spector's ability to make that pass helps quite a bit. The lack of a well defined team shape really hurts here. This is where good team shape and disciplined defending makes it easier to attack. Or really talented backs who don't need help. :)

Sadly, no coach in the world is going to meld the incredibly diverse club and league styles in the current US squad into one common approach in the limited time the whole team is together. What do they have, something like fifteen practice days a year together? So a more individual based attack pace approach is probably better, with more resources committed to helping out defensively.

[appoo]

I think your analysis is dead on.

I think Arena discovered in 2002 that the US programmed was best equipped to attack with pace...and that remains today. We found out in 06 we couldn't win with posession.

[Mr Martin]

I rarely agreed with the recently missing poster Sidefootsitter, but one of his top preferences was for the US to play faster and use one of its few advantages -- speed.

I really liked that BB played Altidore and Davies up top. It showed an ability to break out of the target-striker fixation. Sticking with the tried and true target, BB would have started Casey every game of this tournament. But he didn't; Casey was just a sub.

The good old 4-4-2 still suits the US best, and brings out the best in our OK, but still limited players. Tactical flexibility doesn't require changing formations. It requires an openness to tweeking the 4-4-2 with different types of players as the situation calls for it.

These guys can play the game fast: Donovan, Bradley, Davies. Beasley used to be able to, but can't anymore. Clark can playfast, but his touch is too dodgy to be accurate in a fast game. Feilhaber can think fast and has better touch than Clark, but he has obvious physical limitations, as does Torres. Jermaine Jones will be a huge addition to the US speed of play. Dempsey often slows things down and needs to act quicker. Altidore is fast, but he is still raw and sometimes slows down the play; he's only 19 and has a huge upside.

Hopefully this is a sign of things to come.

[Nutmeg]

The funny part about it is Davies can teach Altidore and Ching a few things about shielding defenders. Don't know if anyone else caught it, but when Davies had a defender on his hip, they were locked down.

A LONG, long time ago I created a thread advocating Defense First, Attack Fast. I agree with Superdave, but with a caveat.

You HAVE to have more than one arrow in the quiver, and the US hurts themselves defensively because it cannot maintain possession. When we need a goal, there is no question the US won't be a Spain anytime soon. When we need to hold onto a lead, we could do our midfield and defenders a favor by holding onto the ball.

[russ]

There's the dilemma though.

You need a Reyna to do that,but a Reyna slows the attack.

Is Torres our new Reyna?

P.S.
Yes,I know what you think about Reyna,but I'm not just trying to jerk your chain. :)

[onefineesq]

Looks like I'll be the one to disagree here and jump out by myself (and that wouldn't be a first). If we try and get into a track meet with Spain, we're going to lose very very badly. We need to take a lesson from Chelsea/Barcelona and Manchester/Barcelona. One figured they would try and go toe to toe and run and gun with Barca, and got crushed. The other figured that there was no way they could do that, and decided on the rough and tumble approach with the sporadic counter attack, and really should have won. This Spain team is too good in possession to have our players running and pressing them for 90 minutes. They will simply pass the ball around us, we'll run more, they'll pass more, and then we'll collapse from exhaustion in the second half and it'll look like the first half of Spain/New Zealand at that point. Of course that is exactly what we'll do, and that's exactly what's going to happen. At the risk of starting a flame war, we need to play a couple of guys who are decent in possession (as opposed to simply running) and can actually spring that quick counter. Of course I expect that none of the 3 guys who can do that will be on the field to start the game, and 2 of them certainly will never see the field (including the one player who showed the blueprint of how to do it when we played Spain last). Oh well.

[Winds350]

When we need to hold onto a lead, we could do our midfield and defenders a favor by holding onto the ball.

I would hope no one disagrees with that, although with some of the views I've seen expressed on this board, you never know.

I think the issue, in my mind, is that there are two components of holding on to the ball. First, the team has to obtain the ball, then they have to not lose it. Unfortunately, the US is at a place on the talent curve where player seem to be able to do one or the other, but not both, when playing against top flight competition. So while a Ching, for example, is critical to obtaining the ball when the defense is under pressure and can only blast it out of the back, he's not typically going to the dribble into the corner, or make a really nice pass to someone who can hold the ball who makes a pass to some else who can hold the ball who makes a pass.....

So first, you get enough defensive ability out there that you have a chance to be up a goal, because you haven't leaked three already. Then you get some ball winners out there who can win a ball in the tackle, and can win a 50/50 ball on a long clearance. The good news is that the guys who can win the ball in the tackle generally count as part of your defensive strength. Then you try to get some guys out there who can attack off the won 50/50 headers so you can go a goal up. Then, if you've got any slots left, you go for a possession guy to hold the lead. Eventually, as you're talent improves, you get some guys who can do lots of the above even against the best teams in the world. And good things happen.

And for those who make the argument that if your team has possession the other team can't score, that only works in sports where teams score a lot. Most goals is soccer come off mistakes, you can lose 2-0 just as easily with 70% possession as 30%.

[kingshark]

I agree that we should utilize the speed.

But speed play need someone with superb passing ability and great field vision and can make decision in a short moment. Donovan may be a good fit, but still lack the worldclass accuracy.

And another key element that may be ignore is our ability to make quick transition between defense and offense. It require our defenders (especially full backs) good at passing out of pressure, instead of just clearing the ball. That is our weakness.

[Caulfield]

I think maybe we are over analyzing the whole thing. We play better under the following conditions:

1) A traditional 4-4-2 formation where roles are clearly defined.
2) At least one speed forward up top.
3) One central midfielder with a clear role of being the more forward player (Mike) and one staying more defensive(Rico)
4) Fullbacks overlapping down the wings

We stick with those guiding principles, we play our best. When we try and tinker with formations, roles, etc., we look lost and confused.

Power, pace, possession are theoretical and should flow from the game, not be a starting point.

[rtung]

Looks like I'll be the one to disagree here and jump out by myself (and that wouldn't be a first). If we try and get into a track meet with Spain, we're going to lose very very badly. We need to take a lesson from Chelsea/Barcelona and Manchester/Barcelona. One figured they would try and go toe to toe and run and gun with Barca, and got crushed. The other figured that there was no way they could do that, and decided on the rough and tumble approach with the sporadic counter attack, and really should have won. This Spain team is too good in possession to have our players running and pressing them for 90 minutes. They will simply pass the ball around us, we'll run more, they'll pass more, and then we'll collapse from exhaustion in the second half and it'll look like the first half of Spain/New Zealand at that point. Of course that is exactly what we'll do, and that's exactly what's going to happen. At the risk of starting a flame war, we need to play a couple of guys who are decent in possession (as opposed to simply running) and can actually spring that quick counter. Of course I expect that none of the 3 guys who can do that will be on the field to start the game, and 2 of them certainly will never see the field (including the one player who showed the blueprint of how to do it when we played Spain last). Oh well.


OK, so the first part of your posting disagrees with the conclusion at the end. Chelsea decided that they were not going to win the possession battle against Barca, played anti-football, and should have won. ManU thought they could outpossess Barca, and got walloped.

Somehow, your conclusion was that the US should try to possess more (instead of playing counterattacking anti-football, which requires either power or speed, but not possession).

[superdave]

Power, pace, possession are theoretical and should flow from the game, not be a starting point.
I disagree.

If you start Casey or Ching up top and play Feilhaber as a wing, the you can't play a fast attack. You haven't got the right players. If you start the team we had yesterday, except Wynne or Hejduk at RB, you can't play possession, because you haven't got the right players.

[rtung]

I agree that we should utilize the speed.

But speed play need someone with superb passing ability and great field vision and can make decision in a short moment. Donovan may be a good fit, but still lack the worldclass accuracy.

And another key element that may be ignore is our ability to make quick transition between defense and offense. It require our defenders (especially full backs) good at passing out of pressure, instead of just clearing the ball. That is our weakness.

Not really. Most counters come where the opposition is pressing up, so you don't have to be that accurate, because there aren't that many defenders to thread. A possession game requires skill from the back.

BTW, if Donovan isn't worldclass accurate at speed, then the rest of the USMNT is absolutely hopeless. IMHO, playing at speed is probably Donovan's strongest point; he can't unlock a packed defense with pretty passing, and doesn't have a killer finisher's instincts, but get him running against a backpedaling defense with the ball at his feet and a teammate, and he'd set up beauties.

I've got to wonder if you've watched the recent Confed Cup games that the US has played.

[Caulfield]

I disagree.

If you start Casey or Ching up top and play Feilhaber as a wing, the you can't play a fast attack. You haven't got the right players. If you start the team we had yesterday, except Wynne or Hejduk at RB, you can't play possession, because you haven't got the right players.

Remember, one of my rules is we must have some speed up top, and I would never advocate those two paired together. Feilhaber is not a winger, and I would never put him out there.

I actually think a Davies-Adu pairing would be interesting. As Nutmeg correctly pointed out, Davies plays very well shielding defenders and maintaining possession. Davies is really a very versatile player able to shield, run with pace, and he's pretty darn good in the air. Adu could very well look good paired with Davies.

I just think we need to stick to basic principles, let the game run it's course, and leave it to the players to adjust to whether we need to play with more speed, possession, or a little power.

You bring up a great topic.