When did we become Italy?

[cpwilson80]

Look through any thread discussing a potential line-up for the US. Chances are, you'll see a 4-4-2 with two deep mids and two attacking wings.

This isn't unfounded, as Bradley's preferred system involves this formation.

However, are we really assuming that it's the only formation we'll play during Bradley's tenure? In part, the US' tactical flexibility enabled its success to date; we develop a gameplan for an opponent while other squads stubbornly adhere to their style of play. Some squads, such as Italy, can get away with it. Clearly, I don't believe that we can.

To those who followed Bradley more closely than I have in the past, how frequently does he mix things up?

[IndividualEleven]

To those who followed Bradley more closely than I have in the past, how frequently does he mix things up?

I've followed him with the Metros and Chivas. He mixed things up with Chivas in the playoffs and almost pulled the upset against Houston. He was a bit dogmatic in adhering to his system with the Metro with the team finally improving(in that season) when Johnston took over and switched to a 3-5-2.

[sidefootsitter]

Lippi played more formations with Italy than any other coach in the World Cup, even Aragones.

Next item, please.

[Adam Zebrowski]

well, we became italy, when we got the boot from the last world cup...

that's about the only similarity i can find...

[Martin Fischer]

Leaving aside the Italy component, it's a good topic.

Bradley won his MLS title in Chicago by playing a 3-5-2 with Lubos Kubic sweeping and two man markers. This is a very different formation than what Bradley has done lately or even the 3-5-2 formations without a sweeper that Arena and other US coaches have used at times. Bradley did it because Kubic was a unique player and Bradley built the system around his talent, not vice versa. Some suggest that he is no longer this flexible, but his time with Chivas belies that argument.

Bradley used the 4-4-2 with two holding mids against Mexico because it best fit our talent -- Donovan was needed up top obviously and there was no other central midfielder with any attacking quality. If this changes, Bradely may try something else. Otherwise, Bradley will probably intelligently stick with what works for his talent.

[cpwilson80]

Lippi played more formations with Italy than any other coach in the World Cup, even Aragones.

Next item, please.

You get the gist of the topic :rolleyes:

[sidefootsitter]

You get the gist of the topic :rolleyes:
You implied Italy was inflexible. They're anything but.

As to Bob, we'll see more down the road. He thought that "defense + work rate" concept would help him win the first two games and he was right.

Personally, I thought the games were ugly and chances too few and far in between. The worst of all, the talent seemed to have little understanding of how to play the system. The connections that ought to have been there weren't.

Overall, however, I wouldn't worry much about Bob's tactics because I don't think he'll hold on to the main job past this summer.

Now, did you see the U-23 vs. Japan U-22 highlights?

[MarioKempes]

In the international game, the 4-4-2 with 2 defensive mids is pretty much the gold standard. Why is this a problem?

[Maximum Optimal]

In the international game, the 4-4-2 with 2 defensive mids is pretty much the gold standard. Why is this a problem?

No kidding. Italy were very flexible in how they deployed their attacking players. But they did not change things up much on defense and always played with Gatuso and Pirlo as deep lying midfielders. I wouldn't say they were both defensive mids. Pirlo clearly isn't. But he played deep.

[sidefootsitter]

In the international game, the 4-4-2 with 2 defensive mids is pretty much the gold standard. Why is this a problem? Brazil played Gilberto Silva and Emerson there but not always together.

Pirlo is not a defensive mid, he's a deep-laying playmaker.

Vieira is a two-way midfielder.

Germany played 4-4-2 Diamond with Frings as the "d-mid" even though Torsten was a right winger prior to this year with Bremen.

Portugal played 4-5-1 with Costinha and Maniche in deep midfield. Maniche is a two-way mid.

Holland played with Cocu and van Bommel deep. Both are two-way mids.

Switzerland largely played a 4-3-2-1 with three d-mids, which explains why they didn't give up a goal ... and were knocked out by Ukraine.

Argentina played a 4-2-2/3-5-2 hybrid with twin d-mids, who nevertheless had excellent ball handling abilities.

And let's face it, it's much easier to play a 4-4-1-1 type like France did with Zidane and Henry on top or a 4-5-1 like Brazil with Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Juninho, Kaka, Robinho and Cicinho trying to work the ball.

[Martin Fischer]

Another classic. Our formation differs from those of Holland, Brazil, etc. because our guys are "defensive mids" while theirs are "two-way mids." All this really means is that their central mids are better going forward than ours -- DUH! The formation and principles are the same, we will get better results when our central mids get more in form and/or we find some other ones with more offensive ability. In other words, if we get better players or our current players play better, the formation will work better. Soccer is a simple game, despite Mr. 3-6-1's efforts to obscure things.

[FnordUnitedFC]

Lippi played more formations with Italy than any other coach in the World Cup, even Aragones.

Next item, please.

It was his formation that doomed Italy v. the USA. They came out against a 5-man midfield with only 3 of their own and were completely overrun. They got a goal against the run of play but were being played off the pitch until De Rossi got sent off. Ironically, this forced Lippi back into a 4-man midfield, and, to be honest, the 10 men of Italy were better than the 11 of the USA the rest of the half.

Had Italy come out in a standard 4-4-2 I am not sure we get a draw that match, but after running roughshod over them the first 20 minutes, the confidence was already there.

[sidefootsitter]

Another classic. Our formation differs from those of Holland, Brazil, etc. because our guys are "defensive mids" while theirs are "two-way mids." All this really means is that their central mids are better going forward than ours -- DUH! ... That's not correct. When Domenech plays Makelele in defensive midfield, Claude's role has been the same as with any other club - to provide defense in front of own back four and cover for the fullbacks going forward.

Parreira played Emerson much the same way Capello has been using him.

Granted, per skill level, Makelele, Rino Gattuso, Gilberto Silva, Torsten Frings/Sebastian Kehl are far superior to Pablo Mastroeni but their assigned tasks do not differ that much in the grand scheme of things.

It was his formation that doomed Italy v. the USA. They came out against a 5-man midfield with only 3 of their own and were completely overrun. They got a goal against the run of play but were being played off the pitch until De Rossi got sent off. Ironically, this forced Lippi back into a 4-man midfield, and, to be honest, the 10 men of Italy were better than the 11 of the USA the rest of the half.

Had Italy come out in a standard 4-4-2 I am not sure we get a draw that match, but after running roughshod over them the first 20 minutes, the confidence was already there. 4-3-1-2 allows you to move a fullback forward but the problem with Lippi's line-up was that only Zambrotta could do it on the left. If he fielded both Zambrotta and Grosso, as he did in every other game when both were available, he could have pushed both into the midfield.

I also think that he failed with Perotta's match-up. Simone is an all-motor guy, great against teams that are not quite as disciplined or athletic but he lacks the individual skill to penetrate off the dribble and his endurance was no advantage against the Yanks.

Then he hurt his leg late in the game and the game became effectively an 8-on-8 contest.

I felt then, as I do now, that Mauro Camoranesi would have been a far bigger threat that day.

Still, Perotta was Lippi's favorite and ended up having a tremendous Cup ... other than that match vs. the US

[Maximum Optimal]

That's not correct. When Domenech plays Makelele in defensive midfield, Claude's role has been the same as with any other club - to provide defense in front of own back four and cover for the fullbacks going forward.

Parreira played Emerson much the same way Capello has been using him.

Granted, per skill level, Makelele, Rino Gattuso, Gilberto Silva, Torsten Frings/Sebastian Kehl are far superior to Pablo Mastroeni but their assigned tasks do not differ that much in the grand scheme of things.



Yes, but under Bradley we've been playing Mastroeni AND Clark in the middle. In contrast, the second deep-lying mid for Italy and France was much more capable of contributing to the attack. Eventually, Bradley will have to go with Mastroeni OR Clark, and pair them with someone who can hold the ball better, pass it better, and generally make more of an offensive contribution.

[sidefootsitter]

Right, as was my point in post #10.

[Dr.Phil]

Thats why the progress of Bradley, Szetela, Clark and Feilhaber are important

If they pan out then we may have the chance to go with 2 box to box midfielder instead of 2 DM

[ussoccerFan12358]

Look through any thread discussing a potential line-up for the US. Chances are, you'll see a 4-4-2 with two deep mids and two attacking wings.



Basically it's a lot easier to type, and it's what many clubs of our players, and Nat'l teams throughout the world do. Of course depending on the opponent we'd change, but in general discussion it make more sense to assume a 4-4-2.

[USMNT]

Yes, but under Bradley we've been playing Mastroeni AND Clark in the middle. In contrast, the second deep-lying mid for Italy and France was much more capable of contributing to the attack. Eventually, Bradley will have to go with Mastroeni OR Clark, and pair them with someone who can hold the ball better, pass it better, and generally make more of an offensive contribution.

This is correct. Fischer is wrong.

When you have two players with insufficient skill in central midfield to move the ball forward at the international level (the real one as opposed to Concacaf), then they are "defensive" midfielders rather than two-way mids.
That IS the box formation. You expect to get most of your offense from your two attacking mids, two strikers and fullbacks.

This is how Brazil plays. The problem, of course, for us is that we can't generate the same or enough offense from the four guys up front because we don't have Ronaldinho, Kaka, Ronaldo, Adriano, etc.

Therefore, if we can't generate a credible attack this way, then the "formation," or really the way of playing, is flawed.

Ultimately, Max Optimal and SFS are correct. We will use Clark OR Mastro as the d-mid and hopefully find someone else who can move the ball forward against elite level teams. I would hope Bradley understands this, and I believe he does. He played them together because he wanted to blood Clark, and he needed an experienced partner in the middle. My bet is on Feilhaber for the other role; I don't see anyone else on the horizon. :(

[Maximum Optimal]

My bet is on Feilhaber for the other role; I don't see anyone else on the horizon. :(

It is very important that someone step forward who can perform this role. Feilhaber is certainly one of the candidates. However, my bet would be on Danny Szetela, who brings a physical dimension in addition to the skill. I wouldn't mind looking at Dempsey in this role either. He wouldn't be your conventional holding mid, but he plays decent defense and would bring a lot of flair and unpredictability to the position.

[sidefootsitter]

... I wouldn't mind looking at Dempsey in this role either. He wouldn't be your conventional holding mid, but he plays decent defense and would bring a lot of flair and unpredictability to the position. On the US Men folder, I argued for having Brad Davis take the left deep midfield position - he is not going to win an attacking left mid/wing spot from Convey/Mapp/Beasley but is a decent enough athlete to play deeper.

If you remember my old posts on this and the Youth Nats forum about the "Empty Bucket" formation, I said its best version was the 1970 West German squad that had Overath (a lefty playmaker in his Köln career with 84 goals in the Bundesliga) and Beckenbauer (an all-around god) as deep mids. That would have been an equivalent of having Freddy Adu and Benny Feilhaber for the US in these roles.

When you think about it, it may sound crazy but it just might work.