Snakeater
01 Mar 2006, 11:12 PM
Player selection and Team tactics
First, let me say that I’ve opened this new thread because I want to engage in an intelligent, analytical discussion on team tactics and player selection. “Huth sucks” or “Klinsmann’s an idiot” posts are simplistic and boring, and they can be stuck on the “The First Friendly of the Year” thread.
Now, now let's get serious and engage in some real discussion and analysis.
I believe that Klinsi’s offensive-minded approach is based on the fact that he prefers to play attractive football more than resort to the conservative “defensive bunker” approach. Furthermore, he long ago realized that this team’s glaring weakness is at the back. And like they always say, “the best defense is a good offence.” Hence, the attack, offensive-oriented football we see.
We’ve seen throughout the last year that there are some benefits but also flaws in Klinsi’s game plan. First, one poster points out that Klinsi likes to move the back four up and expects the two wide backs, Lahm and Friederich, to attack. This exposes the two center-backs to counter attacks and leaves a lot of open space behind them. (Now, if Klinsi had two CBs like Lucio and Nesta, it’d be a lot easier to throw caution to the wind and expect the two outside-backs to constantly attack.) Speedy, skilled strikers are going to find it easy to get around the likes of Mertesacker, Huth, and Woerns who don’t cover a lot of ground quickly.
Lahm can play Klinsi’s game but I’m not sure that Friederich can. Lahm is fast, can attack, and he’s not too shabby defensively. A lot of people on this site think that Friederich is some kind of defensive God; personally, I’ve never really been a big fan. He can’t attack for beans, and his defensive abilities can only be described as “sound”. I don’t think that Friederich should be considered an automatic starter by any means, especially if there are younger players on the squad who can attack and defend better.
One poster mentioned the Italians couldn’t get by Lahm. I think that’s because he’s so effective in attack, he puts a little fear into opposing players on his side of the pitch, possibly making them hesitant to attack down his wing for fear of a counter. That, or he’ s a lot better one-on-one than people give him credit for. On the other hand, if you’re defending against Friederich, you know there’s no way he’s getting by you. It’s just another reason for the opposition to attack down his flank because they have nothing to fear in the way of a purposeful counter attack from him.
If Klinsi really wants to throw caution to the wind, he should replace Friederich with Lahm, and Lahm with Jansen. Then he’d have two backs who can really attack. Or he could replace Friederich with Schweinsteiger; Magath has used Schweini in the back, and, apparently, he hasn’t been too bad when he’s played there.
Of course, then there’s the matter of CB. What to do here? First, we know that Klinsi likes to push the back four up, which means that, at the very least, one of his two CBs has to be real fast because there’s a hell of a lot of room behind them. Now Metz has got pace but he isn’t playing at the moment. I haven’t seen Sinkiewicz play so I’ve got no idea how quick he is or how well he can tackle. Huth, Merte, and Woerns are all too slow. Is Kehl the answer?
The obvious answer to the previous question is that there isn’t one. Essentially, Klinsi has no world class CBs he can call on to get the job done. What has to happen, as a few posters point out, is a change in formation—perhaps, moving to a solid back three.
Then the question becomes who does Klinsi put in a back three, if that becomes an option. Not Lahm, Jansen, and Schweini, two of whom would be wing-backs. Two of the three CBs need to be able to tackle and need to be freakin’ fast. Fathi—Mertesacker—Metzelder;Metzelder—Mertesacker—Friederich;Fathi—Metzelder—Friederich; Metzelder—Kehl—Friederich. The options are endless.
One thing is certain, blaming all our current defensive woes on Huth makes him a mere scapegoat and fails to address our defensive failings from a holistic point of view. As much as I think he’s a liability and shouldn’t be a starter come WC time, there are other lame ducks back there: Friederich, Mertesacker, and Woerns among them.
Let’s consider the look of a possible starting back 3. Metzelder is pretty quick but I don’t think he’s steady enough to be able to take play a sweeper position. He’d be best suited as our Left-defensive back in 3-5-2. That’s where he played against Brazil in 2002. Friederich’s only strength is his defence, he might be a suitable option at Right-defensive back in a like formation. He also defends better in a more compact defense positioned closer to the goal. The sweeper position is the toughest call to make. (If Kehl can bring to that position what Ramelow did in 2002, then I’d say go for it. Hey, If Ramelow can bring to that position what he brought in 2002, then I’d say, coax him out of retirement.) I just don’t see how any of the other defenders could really make that position work. Woern’s positioning, timing, and tackling is strong; a compact back 3 would play into his hands and mitigate his one glaring weakness—his slow speed. In other words, maybe we go into the World Cup with a back line of Metzelder-Woerns-Friederich.
…Isn’t it ironic that the position we were strongest at in 2002 is now our Achilles heal. I recently watched a tape of the Germany-Brazil final and found the performance of the back three to have been exceptional. Linke and Ramelow were awesome that day, nothing and no one got by them. Metzelder was a little shaky but his defensive failings were less obvious because he was partnered with the other two and, of course, Jeremies and Hamann played as defensive midfielders in front of the back three.
To think that Klinsmann won’t learn from this blow-out is to underestimate his intelligence. We’ll see some kind of change, and it will be for the better.
The Snake has slithered.
P.S. Excuse spelling and other mistakes, just kind of flew through this post.
First, let me say that I’ve opened this new thread because I want to engage in an intelligent, analytical discussion on team tactics and player selection. “Huth sucks” or “Klinsmann’s an idiot” posts are simplistic and boring, and they can be stuck on the “The First Friendly of the Year” thread.
Now, now let's get serious and engage in some real discussion and analysis.
I believe that Klinsi’s offensive-minded approach is based on the fact that he prefers to play attractive football more than resort to the conservative “defensive bunker” approach. Furthermore, he long ago realized that this team’s glaring weakness is at the back. And like they always say, “the best defense is a good offence.” Hence, the attack, offensive-oriented football we see.
We’ve seen throughout the last year that there are some benefits but also flaws in Klinsi’s game plan. First, one poster points out that Klinsi likes to move the back four up and expects the two wide backs, Lahm and Friederich, to attack. This exposes the two center-backs to counter attacks and leaves a lot of open space behind them. (Now, if Klinsi had two CBs like Lucio and Nesta, it’d be a lot easier to throw caution to the wind and expect the two outside-backs to constantly attack.) Speedy, skilled strikers are going to find it easy to get around the likes of Mertesacker, Huth, and Woerns who don’t cover a lot of ground quickly.
Lahm can play Klinsi’s game but I’m not sure that Friederich can. Lahm is fast, can attack, and he’s not too shabby defensively. A lot of people on this site think that Friederich is some kind of defensive God; personally, I’ve never really been a big fan. He can’t attack for beans, and his defensive abilities can only be described as “sound”. I don’t think that Friederich should be considered an automatic starter by any means, especially if there are younger players on the squad who can attack and defend better.
One poster mentioned the Italians couldn’t get by Lahm. I think that’s because he’s so effective in attack, he puts a little fear into opposing players on his side of the pitch, possibly making them hesitant to attack down his wing for fear of a counter. That, or he’ s a lot better one-on-one than people give him credit for. On the other hand, if you’re defending against Friederich, you know there’s no way he’s getting by you. It’s just another reason for the opposition to attack down his flank because they have nothing to fear in the way of a purposeful counter attack from him.
If Klinsi really wants to throw caution to the wind, he should replace Friederich with Lahm, and Lahm with Jansen. Then he’d have two backs who can really attack. Or he could replace Friederich with Schweinsteiger; Magath has used Schweini in the back, and, apparently, he hasn’t been too bad when he’s played there.
Of course, then there’s the matter of CB. What to do here? First, we know that Klinsi likes to push the back four up, which means that, at the very least, one of his two CBs has to be real fast because there’s a hell of a lot of room behind them. Now Metz has got pace but he isn’t playing at the moment. I haven’t seen Sinkiewicz play so I’ve got no idea how quick he is or how well he can tackle. Huth, Merte, and Woerns are all too slow. Is Kehl the answer?
The obvious answer to the previous question is that there isn’t one. Essentially, Klinsi has no world class CBs he can call on to get the job done. What has to happen, as a few posters point out, is a change in formation—perhaps, moving to a solid back three.
Then the question becomes who does Klinsi put in a back three, if that becomes an option. Not Lahm, Jansen, and Schweini, two of whom would be wing-backs. Two of the three CBs need to be able to tackle and need to be freakin’ fast. Fathi—Mertesacker—Metzelder;Metzelder—Mertesacker—Friederich;Fathi—Metzelder—Friederich; Metzelder—Kehl—Friederich. The options are endless.
One thing is certain, blaming all our current defensive woes on Huth makes him a mere scapegoat and fails to address our defensive failings from a holistic point of view. As much as I think he’s a liability and shouldn’t be a starter come WC time, there are other lame ducks back there: Friederich, Mertesacker, and Woerns among them.
Let’s consider the look of a possible starting back 3. Metzelder is pretty quick but I don’t think he’s steady enough to be able to take play a sweeper position. He’d be best suited as our Left-defensive back in 3-5-2. That’s where he played against Brazil in 2002. Friederich’s only strength is his defence, he might be a suitable option at Right-defensive back in a like formation. He also defends better in a more compact defense positioned closer to the goal. The sweeper position is the toughest call to make. (If Kehl can bring to that position what Ramelow did in 2002, then I’d say go for it. Hey, If Ramelow can bring to that position what he brought in 2002, then I’d say, coax him out of retirement.) I just don’t see how any of the other defenders could really make that position work. Woern’s positioning, timing, and tackling is strong; a compact back 3 would play into his hands and mitigate his one glaring weakness—his slow speed. In other words, maybe we go into the World Cup with a back line of Metzelder-Woerns-Friederich.
…Isn’t it ironic that the position we were strongest at in 2002 is now our Achilles heal. I recently watched a tape of the Germany-Brazil final and found the performance of the back three to have been exceptional. Linke and Ramelow were awesome that day, nothing and no one got by them. Metzelder was a little shaky but his defensive failings were less obvious because he was partnered with the other two and, of course, Jeremies and Hamann played as defensive midfielders in front of the back three.
To think that Klinsmann won’t learn from this blow-out is to underestimate his intelligence. We’ll see some kind of change, and it will be for the better.
The Snake has slithered.
P.S. Excuse spelling and other mistakes, just kind of flew through this post.