3-5-2 for good?

[Tejas]

Anyone else think it's time to go with a 3-5-2 on a regular basis?

My reasoning:

1) Convey, Beasley and LD have been the core of our youth national teams for quite awhile. It is obvious they play well together and they are all 3 too talented to leave off the field. You get all 3 playing in close proximity to each other and they can tear other teams to shreds with give and gos.

2) Ben Olsen is too much of an impact player to leave on the bench. He covers both ends of the field and is simply a shot in the arm when PLAYED IN HIS NATURAL POSITION. Even after yesterday I don't think there is anything wrong with Olsen, he simply has no feel for playing central midfield. Yet he tears up the right side.

It seemed to me that Bruce recognized that he had to somehow get Convey, LD, Beasley and Benny on the field together at the same time and he was trying his best to do this while still running a 4-4-2. Running Benny in central mid was a very costly way to try it and it bit us in the ass against a good opponent.

It seems to me that Bruce will be better off conceding that the bulk of our talent is all in the midfield and that rather than converting them to defense or leaving some on the bench he will have to alter his formation for good.

Here we go:


------------Twellman-------Mathis----------------


Beasley------Convey-------Donovan---------Olsen

-------------------Mastroeni---------------------


--------Bocanegra----Pope-----Califf-------------



You can hem and haw about who goes up front and who plays in the back, but right now this formation gets all of our young midfield guns on the field together.

When John O'Brien is available you can move Donovan up to striker, sit Twellman and have JOB run the midfield with Convey.

Personally I think Ed Johnson or Ed Buddle might be in that Twellman spot eventually. We need somebody who can drop back and hold the ball in that slot, ala McBride. This happens to be something EJ excels at. I also think we will eventually see someone besides Califf.

Bottom line is that a 4-4-2 doesn't allow us to take full advantage of our current talent pool. I think eventually Bruce will give up on the experiments and resort to getting everyone comfortable in the 3-5-2.

[matlincoln]

Tejas, I'd love to see the Nats in a 3-5-2, and I actually think it would work well against most CONCACAF opponents. Unfortunately, I just don't see us having the backs/D-Mids -- even with a healthy Armas and seasoned Mastroeni -- to compete on the WC level in that formation. Think it leaves us a little too exposed.

But then again, I could be convinced! I love seeing us play with lots of young guns in the midfield, pressuring on the ball and running non-stop.

[CeltTexan]

IMHO we go with two holding mids and a conductor behind the two forwards. If the Bruce wants his youth linkup in midfield, go with DMB, Landon and Bobbinho at a left triangle. Mathis can clean up off their runs. Isn't 'Dolo coming in from Germany? Does anyone know about O'Brien?
-------------------Howard

-------Suarez------Califf------Bocanegra

------------Masteroni----O'Brien

Cherondolo-----------------------Beasley

-----------------Convey

------------Mathis--------Donovan

[Karl K]

If this the '02 World Cup proved ANYTHING for the USA, it's that being wedded to a particular formation -- 3-5-2, 4-4-2 or anything else -- is NOT the way to go.

Rather, have players flexible enough to assume either a 3-back or a 4-back set as opponents, and circumstances, dictate.

Against Argentina we HAD to go with a 4-back set since they were throwing a 3 forward set against us.

So while we were matched up 4 bv 4 in the midfield, we simply didn't have enough defensive bite from our central mids to control the run of play, particularly in the first 20 minutes.

We went to a 3 back set toward the end as Argentina bunkered in a little bit to protect the lead and out of fatigue. But had we started with 3 in the back to begin with, we REALLY would have gotten slaughtered.

[Cweedchop]

Originally posted by Karl Keller
If this the '02 World Cup proved ANYTHING for the USA, it's that being wedded to a particular formation -- 3-5-2, 4-4-2 or anything else -- is NOT the way to go.

Rather, have players flexible enough to assume either a 3-back or a 4-back set as opponents, and circumstances, dictate.

Against Argentina we HAD to go with a 4-back set since they were throwing a 3 forward set against us.

So while we were matched up 4 bv 4 in the midfield, we simply didn't have enough defensive bite from our central mids to control the run of play, particularly in the first 20 minutes.

We went to a 3 back set toward the end as Argentina bunkered in a little bit to protect the lead and out of fatigue. But had we started with 3 in the back to begin with, we REALLY would have gotten slaughtered.

Very well put...

But I will through this at you.. While I agree that we had to go to 4 in the back to counter their 3 forward attack, we could have gone to a 3-5-2 and the extra midfielder in the middle could have very well helped nuetralize what was a distinct midfield advantage for Argentina...

I think normally if we had Sanneh, Pope and Boca available with Pablo and JOB playing defensive midfield we could do well with that.. Unfortunately we didn't have those players available and playing Convey and Victorine at outside back was risk enough in itself....

[Metrogo]

Did Claudio Reyna die without me finding out about it?

I personally believe that Tejas is right on the money here. It's something that some of us were saying pre - WC. Only problem was we were proved wrong. Sanneh and Hejduk played games at the WC which I wouldn't have predicted in a million years.

Still, the point is well taken, and right on the money (though I disagree with your player picks). I have a question that maybe someone can answer, why are we failing to develop quality outside backs? Then again, England has the Neville brothers so I don't feel so bad.

[MarioKempes]

Karl is right. We should not be set on any one formation. 3-5-2 is an attacking formation which will work fine in some situations, but leaves us a bit vulnerable in the back in other situations. You line up according to your personnel strengths, your opponent's tactics, and your own strategy. This means that your formation may constantly change over qualifying or during a tournament. It also goes without saying that the dynamic and fluid nature of the game make the "formation" a bit of an ambiguous concept anyway.

[appoo]

Originally posted by Metrogo
Did Claudio Reyna die without me finding out about it?

No. But he did Blow his ACL. His future is in Doubt. Assuming he gets back to full health I think he starts in place of Pablo Masteroeni...but in Wanderer's Thread I mentioned a 3 - 4 - 1 - 2
Let Convey be the Central-Mid and Let Donovan move up as a withdrawm forward. Personally, i'd pick O'Brien over DaMarcus at Left-Mid, use Reyna at D-Mid. And whoever shows well (here's a darkhorse for ya, Devin Barclay) at RM. So the Midfield would look something like this

------Reyna-------
---RM-------JOB-
------Convey----
--------LD-------

Unfortunatly I don't think this would work against an opponent that attacks well. If that happened you'd have to drop JOB and Convey back further and LD would be left on his own.

[appoo]

Originally posted by MarioKempes
Karl is right. We should not be set on any one formation. 3-5-2 is an attacking formation which will work fine in some situations, but leaves us a bit vulnerable in the back in other situations. You line up according to your personnel strengths, your opponent's tactics, and your own strategy. This means that your formation may constantly change over qualifying or during a tournament. It also goes without saying that the dynamic and fluid nature of the game make the "formation" a bit of an ambiguous concept anyway.

Thats not always true. A 3 - 5 - 2 also allows you to play 2 dedicated D-Mids. It'll choke off service form the opponents midfield and force everything wide. Where your Wing-Midfielders can take care of them. This is something that Italy does I think. They'll play a 4 -5 - 1 though. But the midfield idea is still the same.

[Metrogo]

Originally posted by appooOnU
Thats not always true. A 3 - 5 - 2 also allows you to play 2 dedicated D-Mids. It'll choke off service form the opponents midfield and force everything wide. Where your Wing-Midfielders can take care of them. This is something that Italy does I think. They'll play a 4 -5 - 1 though. But the midfield idea is still the same.


Correct.

[Tejas]

Originally posted by Karl Keller
If this the '02 World Cup proved ANYTHING for the USA, it's that being wedded to a particular formation -- 3-5-2, 4-4-2 or anything else -- is NOT the way to go.


Point taken Karl, and I did go overboard with the "for good" part of the title, but it was with a reason in mind. Namely that in previous years of qualifying the impression I have is that we seemed to start automatically with a 4-4-2 and made needed adjustments from there. I can't remember how many games we lined up in a 3-5-2 but I don't think it was very many, and it probably made sense that we didn't given our player pool at the time. I don't disagree that flexibility is needed in our approach, but at the same time I look at the players at our disposal and it just seems like 3-5-2 is the optimum formation we should try and start with whenever possible.

It's hard to criticize Bruce on any of his decisions tactically speaking given the success he has had to date, but the one area that I think he has a tendency to get stuck in is his desire to start with a formation or a system and try and fit the talent he has into that system. I give you the outside back situation with Convey and Victorine as a current example. Basically he feels he has the time to train players to adjust and fit into a position. It's by no means a mistake, and if it works it works, but I think it demonstrates Bruce's tendency to go with a template that he has used again and again. The problem with that approach in my opinion is that if you assess your talent pool first and then create a system that puts all of your best talent on the field you could very well have more success than starting with the system first.

In short I do believe that a 3-5-2 is the ideal formation for getting this current group's best talent in places where they know how to impact the game. While I certainly don't expect us to always run out in that formation I do think it would demonstrate more flexibility on Bruce's part if we saw it more often than we have in the past.

[superdave]

I've thought this for a while, that the 3-5-2 should be our base formation. The reason? We can find guys to play wingback, but not fullback (Tony Sanneh notwithstanding.) With 3 central backs instead of 2, wingbacks have fewer defensive responsibilities than fullbacks, and I'm confident that Beasley or Convey or Lewis or Dolo or Olsen or Klein can get by at the position. (Obviously, some of those can get more by than others. :)) Further, I like having the 3rd central midfielder against most CONCACAF teams. It's better against the more deliberate, possession oriented games we usually face.

It's gonna be awhile till we play tough games (I'm not counting the new opening trigonal as "tough") so maybe by then Gbandi and/or Gooch or someone new will turn out to be able to fulfill both the defensive and offensive responsibilities of a fullback. But right now, I favor the 3-5-2.

[Pegasus]

Those tweener defenders like Suarez and Garcia look a lot better as outside backs in a 3-5-2 don't they? I always thought Pope was better in a 3-5-2 also. One question I ask is Arena seems to prefer a 4-4-2 and yet Bob Bradley who is his disciple likes a 3-5-2. Why the differences?

[Karl K]

Originally posted by Tejas
It's hard to criticize Bruce on any of his decisions tactically speaking given the success he has had to date, but the one area that I think he has a tendency to get stuck in is his desire to start with a formation or a system and try and fit the talent he has into that system. I give you the outside back situation with Convey and Victorine as a current example. Basically he feels he has the time to train players to adjust and fit into a position. It's by no means a mistake, and if it works it works, but I think it demonstrates Bruce's tendency to go with a template that he has used again and again. The problem with that approach in my opinion is that if you assess your talent pool first and then create a system that puts all of your best talent on the field you could very well have more success than starting with the system first.

I think this was certainly the case for the Bruce Arena through most of qualifying, but by the time the Nike tour came around, we saw a shift in thinking, which really began in the Mexico friendly in Denver, where we started with 4 in the back and then went to 3. Against Germany in the pre-cup friendly, we played 4 in the back, but in the quarters went to three with much better success.

But there are some teams where you STILL want to have the option to go 4 in the back.

Remember, this game against Argentina was basically a training exercise. It has multiple purposes in that vein -- one of which is to see if certain guys who are not normally outside backs can play that position in a 4 back set and give us some ball skills and attacking capabilities. Right now, the verdict on that is mixed, to say the least. It's not the formation that's bad, per se, but maybe the guys who are in it that are suboptimal.

But I think it is very premature to foreclose the option of a 4-back set because, bascially, we throw up our hands and say, "Gee, we don't have anybody who can play this scheme." Well, we do, but there in Europe now. And we may have those guys in MLS -- the just haven't blossomed sufficiently yet.

Finally, I think the approach "find the best 11 and select the best formation that suits them" is a recipe for failure. It's counterintuitive, I know, but in the international game, your ability to win is predicated more than it's ever been on matchups and the opponent's scheme, NOT on "my talent versus your talent." Throw a 3-back set against a 3 forward set, and you could be in serious trouble. In contrast, if your opponent puts 5 in the midfield, and you have just 4, you may never see the ball.

Moreover, if you have an othewise skillful and smart defender who you discover in the course of a game can't keep pace with this ONE mark, you'd better configure your other players so that he has some cover.

I think one of the things Bruce has discovered as a tactical strenght of the USA is ability to adjust and show different looks to opponents -- Frankie at left back, Claudio out wide. This will make us unpredictable opponents, and unpredictability is to our advantage.

[superdave]

Originally posted by Karl Keller
But I think it is very premature to foreclose the option of a 4-back set because, bascially, we throw up our hands and say, "Gee, we don't have anybody who can play this scheme." Well, we do, but there in Europe now.
Who??? JOB could play the spot, yes, and maybe...MAYbe...we have enough central mids that we can afford to take such a highly skilled player out of the center. (Of course, then you have to consider JOB's injury history.) It's highly unlikely to me, that Sanneh will have the wheels to play the spot in 2006.

I guess you mean Wade Barrett. First, that's only half the problem, the left side. Second, think about the talent of the midfielder who's going to have to sit if we go 4-4-2. I like Wade, but the player he's gonna put on the bench is better than him.

[Karl K]

Originally posted by superdave
Who??? JOB could play the spot, yes, and maybe...MAYbe...we have enough central mids that we can afford to take such a highly skilled player out of the center. (Of course, then you have to consider JOB's injury history.) It's highly unlikely to me, that Sanneh will have the wheels to play the spot in 2006.

I guess you mean Wade Barrett. First, that's only half the problem, the left side. Second, think about the talent of the midfielder who's going to have to sit if we go 4-4-2. I like Wade, but the player he's gonna put on the bench is better than him.

Frankie is still very much an option. If we had a qualifer tomorrow, he is your first choice starter on the outside left. Gibbs is going to get a look-see.

On this side of the pond, I have always been high on Gbandi. Let's see what happens this year in MLS for him. And, as I have mentioned before, Bocanegra should take a turn on the outside. And Convey may do much better against, say, Guatemala, than Argentina.

Talented players are ALWAYS going to sit. Again, the notion "we have to have 5 in the midfield because we HAVE the talent there" is completely a$$-backwards in my view. You deploy your personnel to take advantage of your opponent's scheme, or to exploit matchup advantages, or to allow for the unique aspects of the international game in general, or versus THAT opponent.

[nobody]

Personally, my choice wouldn't be between 3 or 4 in the back, it would be between 3 and 5, which a 352 makes extremely easy to fall into on the fly. Beasley and Olsen or whoever else playing wide just have to drop back ito defensive positions if we're outmatched. If we're too worried about the center of the field, start with Pablo and Armas both behind Donovan in the middle.

I see a ton of strong defensive options here, and am not nearly as opposed to falling back into a 532 from this setup as most here probably are. I'd actually be pretty happy going with a 532 against strong opponents, but we'd really need either Wolf to come back strong or another speedy forward to make the counter go. Basically, you could go with two holding/defensive mids behind Donovan, with a speedy guy like Wolf and have Clint trailing to pick up the garbage. Could be some interesting breaks.

[Captain10]

Originally posted by appooOnU
No. But he did Blow his ACL. His future is in Doubt. Assuming he gets back to full health I think he starts in place of Pablo Masteroeni...
NO WAY!!!! IF Reyna ever makes it back to play again, I seriously doubt it will be at a level higher than what we currently have in Mastroeni who I believe is a very strong d-mid. IMO Reyna may be useful as a right-mid, but I wouldn't bank on it. I heard he has had complications after his surgery and due to his age will be harder to rehabilitate. IMO the rest of the team has passed him by.

Just a gut feeling ... I doubt we'll see Reyna play in a highly competitive game for the NATs again. :(

[appoo]

Originally posted by Captain10
NO WAY!!!! IF Reyna ever makes it back to play again, I seriously doubt it will be at a level higher than what we currently have in Mastroeni who I believe is a very strong d-mid. IMO Reyna may be useful as a right-mid, but I wouldn't bank on it. I heard he has had complications after his surgery and due to his age will be harder to rehabilitate. IMO the rest of the team has passed him by.

Just a gut feeling ... I doubt we'll see Reyna play in a highly competitive game for the NATs again. :(

Before injury, he was at the top of his game and one of the best central midfielders in the game. No American will "pass him by" until Claudio gets back on the field and proves that he doesn't have it any more. Mastroeni is good, But I, for one, would much rather have Claudio Reyna in that position because when he is on, on he owns the midfield. No matter who is out there against him, be it Edgar Davids or Michael Ballack or David Beckham. NO ONE else can do that for us. To say that the rest of the team has past him by tells me you haven't really seen him this season befor his injury. When he practically single-handedly shut down a Manchester United midfield that included Beckham, Giggs, Roy Keane, and Juan Sebastian Veron.

[appoo]

Oh and Claudio is only 28. I'm not sure his age has anything to do with anything right now. I mean Pablo is 25 or 26.