Vindication for the "Empty Bucket"

[dcole]

We looked pretty good in the Italy game until Rico left the field. And we looked great against Egypt with him back on the field. To me, this has less to do with Rico as a player and more to do with the formation we employ with him on the field: the infamous "Empty Bucket".

Bob Bradley has favored this formation since taking the helm. He's received a lot of criticism here for that preference, but I think he has been vindicated in the Confederations Cup. It is now clear to me that the US is at its best against top competition when utilizing two central midfielders with more defensive than offensive responsibilities. With Rico unavailable against Brazil, Bob's hands were tied and we were totally overrun in the center of the pitch. I look forward to seeing whether we can drown Spain in the bucket and to seeing it employed with Jermaine Jones and Maurice Edu as additional DMid options.

[Matrim55]

How many times do I have to say it? It's not the ********ing Empty Bucket if Michael Bradley is in central midfield.

I'm the guy who came up with the term. You're using it incorrectly.

[KALM]

Michael Bradley made enough runs in the final third that we were able to get numbers into the attack in a way we were not seeing a year or two ago. The "empty bucket" moniker may be inappropriate for yesterday's formation.

Interestingly enough, while Michael's club play has progressively gotten more defensive, his national team play has gotten more aggressive, to the point where he's nearly the same player for club and country at this point.

[TabLalas]

Some of you guys and your fascination with formation analysis is beyond bizarre.
Formation doesn't mean sh!t if your getting red-cards and putting forth no effort, that's why this team had success yesterday not because of some stupid formation.

[dcole]

How many times do I have to say it? It's not the ********ing Empty Bucket if Michael Bradley is in central midfield.

I'm the guy who came up with the term. You're using it incorrectly.

Yes, you remind us often that you came up with the term. Nevertheless, it is commonly used on this site to refer to a formation featuring two CMs with greater defensive than offensive responsibilities. Clearly, that description is apt for the pairing of Bradley and Clark. Both stay home on defense and no more than one springs forward on the counter. Neither is an AMid, neither plays a true "box-to-box game, both are expected to play close in front of the two CBs for the bulk of the game. That, my friend, is what the "Empty Bucket" has become.

[gettysburg32]

How many times do I have to say it? It's not the ********ing Empty Bucket if Michael Bradley is in central midfield.

I'm the guy who came up with the term. You're using it incorrectly.

Ding.

I'm pretty sure MB's goal, then Spector's cross (the US had Dempsey plus three more guys at the edge of the six) don't come in an empty bucket. Now, more confident attacking such as that, let's keep seeing it, but a true 4-4-2 with MB playing like that and with Donovan running and slashing out of midfield like he did (and did well a number of times vs. Italy) is not an empty bucket.

Once we get to see Edu or Jones instead of Clark, it'll be a big bucket of fun as we go forward.

[dcole]

Some of you guys and your fascination with formation analysis is beyond bizarre.
Formation doesn't mean sh!t if your getting red-cards and putting forth no effort, that's why this team had success yesterday not because of some stupid formation.

So trying hard and not getting red cards, that's the recipe for success? Hmmmpf. And here I thought we needed to congest the center of the midfield. Go figure.

[Mr Martin]

The empty bucket was mostly a myth, the result of an unfortunate series of games in the middle of 2008 when Feilhaber's implosion was at its worst and neither Kljestan nor Torres were ready for the Senior team. So the US played too many games with Clark and Mastro and a younger, still learning Mike Bradley as the only 3 serious CM options. Edu struggled for much of 2008 and didn't help much, either.

Mike has developed farther as a player in the last year, and even last fall he was stepping into the hole more assertively against teams like T&T and Cuba at home. Fans tend to see only the moment and not the process.

The continued improvement of Mike Bradley, the discovery of Torres, and the return of Feilhaber mean that the brief empty bucket games of 2008 are long gone.

I'll also add one additional, important point. The midfield plays much better when the outside mids are providing outlets and quality play. Last summer during the short heyday of the empty bucket. Dempsey was in a funk (his no "grit" period) and Beasley was struggling with his injuries and loss of form. The US got almost no quality play from the flank midfielders during most of 2008. DONOVAN's switch to left midfield has had a huge, positive impact on the midfield performance. It gives the team some width and the CM's some legitimate medium-range outlet options.

Not only is Bradley playing the central midfield role better now than 12 months ago, but Donovan's play at LM is multiplying the effectiveness of the central midfielders.

The next step is for Jermaine Jones to take over the role Clark has managed at the Confed Cup. Jones is superior to Clark in just about every way (and Edu is, too). I would expect a 3-player central midfield rotation of Bradley/Jones/Edu will become a dynamic force, and in combination with Donovan's superb play at LM, the US will look like a very different team later this year.

[gettysburg32]

So trying hard and not getting red cards, that's the recipe for success? Hmmmpf. And here I thought we needed to congest the center of the midfield. Go figure.

D. All of the above.

[Bob Morocco]

We looked pretty good in the Italy game until Rico left the field. And we looked great against Egypt with him back on the field. To me, this has less to do with Rico as a player and more to do with the formation we employ with him on the field: the infamous "Empty Bucket".

Bob Bradley has favored this formation since taking the helm. He's received a lot of criticism here for that preference, but I think he has been vindicated in the Confederations Cup. It is now clear to me that the US is at its best against top competition when utilizing two central midfielders with more defensive than offensive responsibilities. With Rico unavailable against Brazil, Bob's hands were tied and we were totally overrun in the center of the pitch. I look forward to seeing whether we can drown Spain in the bucket and to seeing it employed with Jermaine Jones and Maurice Edu as additional DMid options.

The "empty bucket" is not just about the players on the field or the nominal formation. It's about how it's played. Michael Bradley's goal against Egypt is a great counter example to calling the team we put out there an empty bucket. Take as a hypothetical example an Italian midfield with De Rossi and Gattuso in the middle. Both very strong, defensively talented CMs but one clearly goes forward more than the other because that matches his talents. Now if Lippi made them both play like Gattuso that would be an empty bucket, and a missuse of his players. That's what happened with the US at the start of Bob's tenure but things have been better for the past year or so.

[Matrim55]

Nevertheless, it is commonly used on this site to refer to a formation featuring two CMs with greater defensive than offensive responsibilities. Clearly, that description is apt for the pairing of Bradley and Clark.
No, it's not. Bradley played as a true #8 yesterday, and almost always does when paired with a true d-mid. Hence, the bucket was full.

Both stay home on defense and no more than one springs forward on the counter. Neither is an AMid, neither plays a true "box-to-box game, both are expected to play close in front of the two CBs for the bulk of the game. That, my friend, is what the "Empty Bucket" has become.
No it's not. The empty bucket is when you have two deep-lying midfielders who are not supposed to push forward, and instead let the wings do all the creative work. That's not how we played yesterday and - again - that's not how we ever play when Bradley's on the field.

Just because he's not Juan Riquelme or Andres Iniesta doesn't mean he's not an attacking midifielder. And just because he's an attacking midfielder, doesn't mean he has no defensive responsibilities.

Yesterday's win was a vindication of the anti-Empty Bucket. Yesterday's win proved that, even against quality teams like Egypt, you need but one true d-mid. Hopefully Bobbo's figured that out permanently.

[UxSxAxfooty]

Matrim is right.

That was only like the Empty Bucket in the sense that there were two central mids.

Mike obviously had the freedom to get forward in the attack.

[TheRustyEunuch]

So yesterday it wasn't the empty bucket but with the same players a year ago it was? I think that shows that BB might know a lot more about his players then we do. He knows what the each offer and what they are supposed to do and yesterday they did it perfectly. Bradley had a couple good runs into the box and shots on goal with Rico breaking up everything. That pairing looked great yesterday. Now fast forward a year and we will have Jones and Bradley in the middle. The fact that our two center middfielders are 90 min players in the Bundesliga has to bode well for us.

[TabLalas]

So trying hard and not getting red cards, that's the recipe for success? Hmmmpf. And here I thought we needed to congest the center of the midfield. Go figure.

You can draw up nice little formation diagrams, explain what you want out of each player in his square-peg role but if you don't have smart play, creativity, and discipline then you can flush your pretty little formation schematic down the toilet.
I understand people like to talk x's and o's but it gets a little ridiculous on this message-board. It's soccer, not calculus or rocket science, don't over think it.

[Mr Martin]

The "empty bucket" is not just about the players on the field or the nominal formation. It's about how it's played. Michael Bradley's goal against Egypt is a great counter example to calling the team we put out there an empty bucket. Take as a hypothetical example an Italian midfield with De Rossi and Gattuso in the middle. Both very strong, defensively talented CMs but one clearly goes forward more than the other because that matches his talents. Now if Lippi made them both play like Gattuso that would be an empty bucket, and a missuse of his players. That's what happened with the US at the start of Bob's tenure but things have been better for the past year or so.

Totally correct. And add to that example, MB's run into the penalty box early in the Egypt game that yielded the US's first good shot on goal. And MB's 2nd half left-foot shot from the top of the 18. And MB's terrific transition counter attack combining with Donovan in the 1st half of the Italy game -- yeah he shanked his shot, but it was a brilliant quick-counter run by a 2-way CM. And didn't MB hit Davies with the long throughball that lead to Davies shot in the 1st half of the Egypt game?

Mike Bradley started doing this more and more last fall. Go look at the home games against Cuba and T&T. Or MB's virtuoso performance at home vs Mexico this year.

It's been a process and it is getting better and better.

[dcole]

You can draw up nice little formation diagrams, explain what you want out of each player in his square-peg role but if you don't have smart play, creativity, and discipline then you can flush your pretty little formation schematic down the toilet.
I understand people like to talk x's and o's but it gets a little ridiculous on this message-board. It's soccer, not calculus or rocket science, don't over think it.

OK then, Mr. Simplistic, but there ain't no way we could have gotten a result against Brazil with the players we had available. Why is that, you ask? It's because we didn't have available two CMs with the defensive chops to handle the assault that Brazil unleashed on our goal. It had nothing to do with effort and everything to do with formation.

[TabLalas]

I think M. Bradley's penchant for getting the ball in the middle and cranking up a shot on goal is really great for this team and he does it better than anyone that we've had on th USMNT in quite some time, he does it very well, kinda like a poor man's Steven Gerrard.
Mikey can really put some stank on the ball.

[dcole]

The empty bucket is when you have two deep-lying midfielders who are not supposed to push forward, and instead let the wings do all the creative work. That's not how we played yesterday and - again - that's not how we ever play when Bradley's on the field.

Again, despite the fact that you coined the term, the vast majority (probably 95%+) of the posters on this site would use the term Empty Bucket to describe a midfield featuring Bradley and Clark. Bradley drops incredibly deep on defensive side of the ball and is in no way an AMid, and he's not even playing box-to-box. He ocassionally and opportunistically ventures forward. That's it.

I suppose you would describe our formation yesterday as a diamond 4-4-2. That would be completely wrong.

[UxSxAxfooty]

Again, despite the fact that you coined the term, the vast majority (probably 95%+) of the posters on this site would use the term Empty Bucket to describe a midfield featuring Bradley and Clark. Bradley drops incredibly deep on defensive side of the ball and is in no way an AMid, and he's not even playing box-to-box. He ocassionally and opportunistically ventures forward. That's it.

I suppose you would describe our formation yesterday as a diamond 4-4-2. That would be completely wrong.
No, you're wrong.

The very fact that Bradley gets forward at all means its not what came to be known as the "Empty Bucket."

[Matrim55]

Again, despite the fact that you coined the term, the vast majority (probably 95%+) of the posters on this site would use the term Empty Bucket to describe a midfield featuring Bradley and Clark. Bradley drops incredibly deep on defensive side of the ball and is in no way an AMid, and he's not even playing box-to-box. He ocassionally and opportunistically ventures forward. That's it.
No, that's not it. Bradley went forward at will yesterday. He also had the secondary assist Dempsey's goal. He broke up plays both up and down the field.

What he didn't do is sit in front of the back 4 and sweep. If he had done that, and Clark did the same, then yes... empty bucket.

I suppose you would describe our formation yesterday as a diamond 4-4-2. That would be completely wrong.
No shit, sherlock. There are other ways to play a 4-4-2 than the empty bucket and the diamond four.

Yesterday our midfield was this:

Donovan ----- Dempsey
-------Bradley
-------Clark

The best comparison I can think of is Germany with how Ballack and Frings play in the midfield. Not an empty bucket, not a diamond, not a box. I guess you could call this the 'Y' midfield if you want.