Roles versus Lineups

[rollo]

I see a lot of threads about lineups for different games etc. Some of these have nice analyses but generally start with assumed statements about roles of the players and to some degree why a particular player should be in a lineup slot compared to another. There are also the numbers games as well 442, 4231, 352, 451, etc. While I find some interesting bits in all these discussions, I am even more interested in starting from a different point for the discussion. In particular to approach in a way a coach would presumably do it for a real team.

What are the SPECIFIC strengths and weaknesses of the players in the pool. This means NOT just saying Dempsey is creative or good on the dribble, but more specifically under what conditions (part of the field, kind of pressure, kind of team mates, specific situations) does Dempsey do specifically what to help the team? What are his specific weaknesses?

I do not mean to imply that these questions are not being addressed to varying degrees but not consistently and not with specificity. This is also difficult to do - I recognize that. However, I think that the more specific we can be about the players in this way, then the arguments about lineups and players playing together in different roles will fall out more naturally and with some common understanding (or disagreement) about the potential roles of the player in an overall game plan.

Any thoughts?

[KALM]

The first person I thought about when I read this thread was Michael Bradley, only because facing one of the weaker teams in the Eredivisie this weekend, Bradley struggled and looked much like his national team self. The difference was that he was playing as a two way midfielder alongside a central midfielder with similar attributes and responsibilities as his own. Principal Firebush had a pretty good description of his normal midfield partner, Geert Roorda, whom he compared to Michael Carrick or Gareth Barry ("He's a very accurate passer who will sit in front of the defense and distribute the ball.") Bradley, on the other hand normally plays a much more advanced role, with less defensive responsibility and more frequent runs into the box. The Roorda and Bradley partnership, in my opinion, won the midfield battle against league leaders PSV last week, but with Roorda out injured and Bradley now playing further back, Heerenveen could only manage a draw against bottom dwellers Heracles.

edit: I realize that doesn't really address the thread topic directly, but I figure it's a start.

[Maximum Optimal]

I think this is a good topic. However, with so many players to analyze the thread might get fragmented.

Here are my thoughts on Dempsey. Strengths: creative dribbler, good movement off the ball, fairly good in the air, decent finisher, a tough competitor, fairly creative as a passer. Weaknesses: average speed, while a creative passer not a good possession player, not a strong defender.

How to use him: We've seen him both at forward and right midfield with the nats and I think both those positions are ok for him. I don't think he is a lone forward type. He needs to have a partner at forward. Moreover, because of his own lack of speed he needs a partner with speed--Donovan or EJ. Given the emergence of Altidore, I think Dempsey's future lies at right mid. I don't think he has the speed and defensive ability to do well in a diamond type midfield. He would be better in a system such as the one we have been playing where you have two deep-lying central mids. This allows the wide mids to play more of an attacking role and also gives them freedom to pinch to the middle. I think this is the ideal setup for Demps. (By the way we played this way against Italy in the WC, with Mastroeni and Reyna playing deep, and Demps was really outstanding in the first half of that game against the eventual world champs).

I've at times suggested he be tried as one of the deep-lying central mids. He isn't the prototypical player for that role, but has enough intresting attributes to make such an experiment worthwhile. Unfortunately, I think we are now too close to qualifying for this experiment to be conducted in this cycle.

[ussoccerFan12358]

This is a good thread idea that might actually establish something on the treacherous board that is USA N+A. Where do we start? Just pick a player hash him out and move on to the next player? How's this going to work? I'm asking cuz this could be really helpful and productive and I want to see it happen, but let's get organized so nobody has to filter through several pages of random unorganized thoughts (and likely bickering).

[Kevin8833]

(Taking into consideration Bradley is using the empty bucket so there is no point in even mentioning any other formation):
I think the only way to do this would be One player at a time.

1) Donovan: Back up top, he is a goalscorer, him and Altidore up top together would be awesome. Donovan is best as a roaming type of forward playing off of a target striker like he did with Mcbride in 2002 and like he does with Ching.
2) Dempsey: Back to RM he is a great player on the ball with creativity who can be very dynamic out of midfield, and contrary to most I think he has plenty of defensive bite as a wide midfielder.
3) Adu: I see him as a super-sub at this point, but I see him as the successor to Donovan as the SS. Right now with Beasley hurt I would like to see Adu tried out on the left but would have to improve defensively.
4) Bradley: I still see him as a d-mid who can push forward when the chance comes, let him sit just in behind Feilhaber making tackles, winning possession and distributing, but still make these killer runs into the box like he does with Herenveen, just maybe not quite as often but still would get the chances for sure.
5) Spector: I think he lacks a little bit of speed as a wingback, I would like to see our backs really get up and down the line in attack, along with that he would bring so much technical ability to CB I really think we should put him in the middle with Onyewu, Bocanegra is playing alright but Onyewu seems to be rounding back into form and I think Spector could really be something special as a CB.

So this is what I think would be best (using the 4-4-2 setup)

--------------------Howard------------------
--------------Onyewu---Spector-------------
Cherundalo--------------------------Bornstein
---------------Bradley-----------------------
-------------------------Feilhaber------------
Dempsey------------------------------Beasley
----------------Donovan---------------------
-------------------------Altidore-------------

[JWitness]

I agree that this is a good idea. Discussions tend to go in a thousand different directions and there isn't much value is simply putting your suggested lineup out there unless you explain why you think it would work and why you selected the players in your lineup for the various positions. Two approaches come to mind:

1. We could agree to only discuss one type of formation (the one that we typically play), present lineups and discuss why we think the players we've chosen are right for their given positions. Most likely, however, there would still be a numbers game in this approach because there are limitless approaches to every formation.

2. What I think would work better would be to go player-by-player discussing his game, what positions you could see him playing in the various formations that the team is likely to play (we could cap the number of formations that we would be allowed to discuss) and why you think it would work. I think that we should start with our most versatile players first. (There's no point in talking about goalies.) Maybe we should start a thread for each player that everyone is interested in analyzing: Dempsey, Donovan, Bradley, etc. Here's a sketch of what a post in the Dempsey thread might look like (this is just for the purpose of showing how this approach might work):

1. Summary of His Game (strengths and weaknesses). Quick, but not extremely fast. More defensive bite than you think. Aggressive in the air, willing to sacrifice his body in the box. Good vision going forward, but maybe not the most aware player in a crowd...

2. Positions.

a. Wide right in a 4-4-2.
i. what he brings to the offensive side...
ii. how he would handle defensive responsibilities...
iii. why the team needs his skills deployed in this capacity... for instance, is he the best that we have for the role? does the team need his skill on the ball in this area? is he the best crosser?...
iv. what we lose in other areas of the field by having him here (and how we might compensate)...
v. etc...

b. Second forward in a 4-4-2...

[3. Anything else?]

In general, it would be nice to see people put forward some support for their conclusions. For instance, if you see Dempsey as a defensive midfielder, it would be nice if you could tell us whether he's ever played there before and how he fared. Bonus points if you can recall a particular match-up where he was forced to defend a good attacker. If you see him as a forward, some data on rate of goals scored in that position vs other positions would be interesting. Just glancing at his stats, I think he is scoring at a faster rate as a pro than he did when he was in college. And just as fast in the EPL as he did in MLS. Is it because now he's playing closer to the goal? I think he was a midfielder for 7 of his 9 for the MNT. What's happening there?...

Anyways, the above is just a suggestion (and really just a sketch). The point is that I think that we should settle on some kind of structured approach. I agree that this is going to be more work than some of the other discussions. It might take longer for guys to post (could be some research and, oh no, thinking involved). But there's a good chance that we might actually teach each other some things about the team that we didn't know previously. That doesn't really happen when "barry911" says that he sees us playing a 3-4-3 against Spain without offering any explanation and then "tedfromberkley" says that he thinks it's perfect only switch out Bornstein for Pearce...

[ussoccerFan12358]

I agree that this is a good idea. Discussions tend to go in a thousand different directions and there isn't much value is simply putting your suggested lineup out there unless you explain why you think it would work and why you selected the players in your lineup for the various positions. Two approaches come to mind:

1. We could agree to only discuss one type of formation (the one that we typically play), present lineups and discuss why we think the players we've chosen are right for their given positions. Most likely, however, there would still be a numbers game in this approach because there are limitless approaches to every formation.

2. What I think would work better would be to go player-by-player discussing his game, what positions you could see him playing in the various formations that the team is likely to play (we could cap the number of formations that we would be allowed to discuss) and why you think it would work. I think that we should start with our most versatile players first. (There's no point in talking about goalies.) Maybe we should start a thread for each player that everyone is interested in analyzing: Dempsey, Donovan, Bradley, etc. Here's a sketch of what a post in the Dempsey thread might look like (this is just for the purpose of showing how this approach might work):

1. Summary of His Game (strengths and weaknesses). Quick, but not extremely fast. More defensive bite than you think. Aggressive in the air, willing to sacrifice his body in the box. Good vision going forward, but maybe not the most aware player in a crowd...

2. Positions.

a. Wide right in a 4-4-2.
i. what he brings to the offensive side...
ii. how he would handle defensive responsibilities...
iii. why the team needs his skills deployed in this capacity... for instance, is he the best that we have for the role? does the team need his skill on the ball in this area? is he the best crosser?...
iv. what we lose in other areas of the field by having him here (and how we might compensate)...
v. etc...

b. Second forward in a 4-4-2...

[3. Anything else?]

In general, it would be nice to see people put forward some support for their conclusions. For instance, if you see Dempsey as a defensive midfielder, it would be nice if you could tell us whether he's ever played there before and how he fared. Bonus points if you can recall a particular match-up where he was forced to defend a good attacker. If you see him as a forward, some data on rate of goals scored in that position vs other positions would be interesting. Just glancing at his stats, I think he is scoring at a faster rate as a pro than he did when he was in college. And just as fast in the EPL as he did in MLS. Is it because now he's playing closer to the goal? I think he was a midfielder for 7 of his 9 for the MNT. What's happening there?...

Anyways, the above is just a suggestion (and really just a sketch). The point is that I think that we should settle on some kind of structured approach. I agree that this is going to be more work than some of the other discussions. It might take longer for guys to post (could be some research and, oh no, thinking involved). But there's a good chance that we might actually teach each other some things about the team that we didn't know previously. That doesn't really happen when "barry911" says that he sees us playing a 3-4-3 against Spain without offering any explanation and then "tedfromberkley" says that he thinks it's perfect only switch out Bornstein for Pearce...

Yeah, I did need to quote the whole damn post and I did it just to piss you off!

But seriously this is quality stuff, perhaps we should give the thread-starter of this particular thread the opportunity to start the threads on each individual player, I also think the above quoted post should be quoted in the new threads concerning each player's role.

[Kevin8833]

I have a different approach, I think we narrow it down to about 5 formations and do each formation seperatly, that way you can discuss different tactics for different matchups and how players fit specifically within our team in different formations. Probably 4-4-2(What we use under Bradley and would be the most important thread), 4-2-3-1(4-5-1), 4-3-2-1(4-3-3), 3-4-1-2(3-5-2), 3-4-2-1(3-4-3) . And then in each formation discussion we could go player by player ex. 1) Donovan 2) Dempsey 3) Adu etc. and discuss in each thread one player at a time, in one formation at a time.

An Example Could be:

Thead:
How the USMNT should play the 4-4-2

Ex. First thread:
Since we use the 4-4-2 under Bradley, this is probably the most relevant discussion in deciding where and how to lineup players, going player by player discuss how you think each specific player fits into the 4-4-2 set up and hopefully through these discussions we can come up with an overall assessment of the best lineup in the 4-4-2 formation with the US.
1) Donovan
2) Dempsey
3) Adu
....

[Marko72]

I'll contribute later. Just wanna say this is a fun thread.

[olephill2]

I'd also like the next thread(s) to be 6-8 pages double-spaced with proper MLA or APA citations and one inch margins. ;)

Seriously, this is a great thread idea, but it does need to be segmented down to more specific sub-threads. Otherwise everyone will be going in different directions and it will be impossible to decipher a common theme among different posts.

I think this is a good topic. However, with so many players to analyze the thread might get fragmented.

Here are my thoughts on Dempsey. Strengths: creative dribbler, good movement off the ball, fairly good in the air, decent finisher, a tough competitor, fairly creative as a passer. Weaknesses: average speed, while a creative passer not a good possession player, not a strong defender.

How to use him: We've seen him both at forward and right midfield with the nats and I think both those positions are ok for him. I don't think he is a lone forward type. He needs to have a partner at forward. Moreover, because of his own lack of speed he needs a partner with speed--Donovan or EJ. Given the emergence of Altidore, I think Dempsey's future lies at right mid. I don't think he has the speed and defensive ability to do well in a diamond type midfield. He would be better in a system such as the one we have been playing where you have two deep-lying central mids. This allows the wide mids to play more of an attacking role and also gives them freedom to pinch to the middle. I think this is the ideal setup for Demps. (By the way we played this way against Italy in the WC, with Mastroeni and Reyna playing deep, and Demps was really outstanding in the first half of that game against the eventual world champs).

I've at times suggested he be tried as one of the deep-lying central mids. He isn't the prototypical player for that role, but has enough intresting attributes to make such an experiment worthwhile. Unfortunately, I think we are now too close to qualifying for this experiment to be conducted in this cycle.
This is a good post, MO. Quality analysis.

[JWitness]

i'm happy to go in (and contribute to) whatever direction rollo decides to take this. his show. i would like to mention one of the things that he hit on in his initial post, which i didn't highlight very well in mine: his desire to really drill down on the specific strengths and weaknesses of the players. whatever approach we take, i think that we should try to discuss those strengths and weaknesses in the context of the positions that we see (or don't see) as being right for a particular player. the bracketed point 3 ("[3. anything else?]") in my previous post could be used for discussing the positions that a given player should not play due to the profile of his strengths and weaknesses.

for instance, you could describe bradley as a player who has difficulty pressing the ball and generally keeping up with smaller, quicker central midfielders (like the ones that every team in CONCACAF seems to have). therefore, you might argue that he shouldn't be in the engine room against teams like that and should be pushed up into a more attacking role, like the position that he tends to play in holland. it would be really interesting to watch the upcoming friendlies to see if analyses like this hold up, since a lot of our thoughts will be tested in these matches.

if we talk about strengths and weaknesses and positions that we think are good and bad for a given player, we will be guaranteed to have something to talk about after the matches because without a doubt players some players will be played in the "correct" positions and others will be played in the "wrong" ones. will i have to eat my hat if bradley gets played as a deep-lying midfielder and is cesc's worst nightmare in the spain game? will "tedfromberkley" be triumphant after demanding that donovan be played as a forward and we all watch him bang in a goal and grab and assist in a game where he's paired with altidore up top. could be fun, no?

[russ]

I think this is a useful exercise,but we also have to take into account the game-specific opposition.

A player will take on a much different role against a Barbados v. a Costa Rica or a Mexico.They may be even more altered against a Top 15 side.

For example,it made perfect sense to play Convey and/or Lewis at left back against T&T.

It was pure insanity to do it against the Czechs.

[Mr Martin]

This thread has potential. There are two different conceptual ways to organize this. 1) look at specific players one by one and their best roles/strengths (The way this thread appears to be heading at the moment). Or, 2) Look at the basic roles on a team and identfy which roles the US has good depth/talent and which roles the US has weak depth/talent.

I look at the question of roles more in the second way. I see 6 basic roles on any soccer team as:

1. Goalkeeper role

2. Central defender role

3. Central linking role (central midfield)

4. Central attacking role (striker)

5. Wide defending role

6. Wide attacking role (wings or wing mids)


The formations, styles, and systems you use are based on what kind of talent and depth you have in each of these 6 basic roles.

1. The US has high-level international quality and depth at only one role -- goalkeeper. Grade B+ Howard is top quality compared to keepers all over the world, and between guys like Hahneman, Keller, Guzan, and even Friedel, the US has excellent talent and depth at this specialized role. Since goalkeeper is unique and exactly one is needed on every team, and since the US's best talent and depth lies here, you may as well skip analyzing this role. You focus your planning on the 5 basic field roles.

2. Central defender role. No top international quality, but a good amount of depth. Grade C+. Bocanegra, Oneywu, Conrad, DeMerit, Spector, Parkhurst, Goodsen, Robinson, Califf. Gibbs' return to health and good form could boost this to a B- rating.

3. Central linking role. No top international quality, but a core of young potential and depth. Grade C+. Bradley, Edu, Fielhaber, Clark, Mastroeni, Szetela, Olsen, Zavagnin, and can possibly include versatile players like Donovan, Dempsey, and Adu.

4. Central attacking role. Historically a weak link for the US, and particularly thin right now, but with one young potential highlight player. Grade C-. Dempsey, Altidore, Adu, Johnson, Ching, Twellman, Cooper, Rolfe. McBride and Wolff are basically done, while Altidore and Adu remain VERY young and new, and Dempsey is converted to the role. Donovan provides versatile option here due to the lacking traditional players in this role. The upside on this rating is good, but as yet unproven.

5. Wide defending role. Never a strength role, this is even thinner now. Grade D. Cherundolo, Bornstein, Pearce, Simek, Wynne, Moor, Dunivant, Corrales. Only one proven high-level starting player in the bunch, plus a lot of one-dimentional fill-ins.

6. Wide attacking role. Poor depth beyond a couple of good starting options. When will the youngsters be ready? Grade C-. Beasley and Donovan are quality, followed by uncertainties in Convey, Mapp, Lewis, Kljestan, Rogers, Noonan, Davis. Dempsey and Adu provide versatile options here as well, but Beasley's recent injury really exposed the depth here. Plus, even when all are healthy and in form, none are the classic wing with a killer crossing pass.


So, the relative "strengths" are in the first three roles -- goalkeeper, central defense, and central midfield -- although only goalkeeper really stands out. The weaknesses are in the remaining three roles -- central attacker, wide defender, and wide attacker. Donovan, Dempsey, and Adu provide some versatility to help cover holes in several roles, but you can't "triple count" them in several roles and assume that means the roles are all in good shape. In particular, I'm concerned about the two weakest/thinnest roles being the wide roles on defense and offense.

How do you design a lineup given the strengths and weaknesses of these 5 primary field playing roles?

[JWitness]

This thread has potential. There are two different conceptual ways to organize this. 1) look at specific players one by one and their best roles/strengths (The way this thread appears to be heading at the moment). Or, 2) Look at the basic roles on a team and identfy which roles the US has good depth/talent and which roles the US has weak depth/talent.


I think that concept 1 is what this thread is about. Rollo stated that he wanted to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the individual players. Your 2nd concept focuses on the depth of the team, which really is a separate topic.

[ussoccerFan12358]

This thread has potential. There are two different conceptual ways to organize this. 1) look at specific players one by one and their best roles/strengths (The way this thread appears to be heading at the moment). Or, 2) Look at the basic roles on a team and identfy which roles the US has good depth/talent and which roles the US has weak depth/talent.

I look at the question of roles more in the second way. I see 6 basic roles on any soccer team as:

1. Goalkeeper role

2. Central defender role

3. Central linking role (central midfield)

4. Central attacking role (striker)

5. Wide defending role

6. Wide attacking role (wings or wing mids)


The formations, styles, and systems you use are based on what kind of talent and depth you have in each of these 6 basic roles.

1. The US has high-level international quality and depth at only one role -- goalkeeper. Grade B+ Howard is top quality compared to keepers all over the world, and between guys like Hahneman, Keller, Guzan, and even Friedel, the US has excellent talent and depth at this specialized role. Since goalkeeper is unique and exactly one is needed on every team, and since the US's best talent and depth lies here, you may as well skip analyzing this role. You focus your planning on the 5 basic field roles.

2. Central defender role. No top international quality, but a good amount of depth. Grade C+. Bocanegra, Oneywu, Conrad, DeMerit, Spector, Parkhurst, Goodsen, Robinson, Califf. Gibbs' return to health and good form could boost this to a B- rating.

3. Central linking role. No top international quality, but a core of young potential and depth. Grade C+. Bradley, Edu, Fielhaber, Clark, Mastroeni, Szetela, Olsen, Zavagnin, and can possibly include versatile players like Donovan, Dempsey, and Adu.

4. Central attacking role. Historically a weak link for the US, and particularly thin right now, but with one young potential highlight player. Grade C-. Dempsey, Altidore, Adu, Johnson, Ching, Twellman, Cooper, Rolfe. McBride and Wolff are basically done, while Altidore and Adu remain VERY young and new, and Dempsey is converted to the role. Donovan provides versatile option here due to the lacking traditional players in this role. The upside on this rating is good, but as yet unproven.

5. Wide defending role. Never a strength role, this is even thinner now. Grade D. Cherundolo, Bornstein, Pearce, Simek, Wynne, Moor, Dunivant, Corrales. Only one proven high-level starting player in the bunch, plus a lot of one-dimentional fill-ins.

6. Wide attacking role. Poor depth beyond a couple of good starting options. When will the youngsters be ready? Grade C-. Beasley and Donovan are quality, followed by uncertainties in Convey, Mapp, Lewis, Kljestan, Rogers, Noonan, Davis. Dempsey and Adu provide versatile options here as well, but Beasley's recent injury really exposed the depth here. Plus, even when all are healthy and in form, none are the classic wing with a killer crossing pass.


So, the relative "strengths" are in the first three roles -- goalkeeper, central defense, and central midfield -- although only goalkeeper really stands out. The weaknesses are in the remaining three roles -- central attacker, wide defender, and wide attacker. Donovan, Dempsey, and Adu provide some versatility to help cover holes in several roles, but you can't "triple count" them in several roles and assume that means the roles are all in good shape. In particular, I'm concerned about the two weakest/thinnest roles being the wide roles on defense and offense.

How do you design a lineup given the strengths and weaknesses of these 5 primary field playing roles?


That's cool, but we've got to do this player by player for each of his potential positions.

[Mr Martin]

That's cool, but we've got to do this player by player for each of his potential positions.

OK, then let's go at it player by player, along the lines of what Maximum Optimal did with Dempsey.

[rollo]

Thanks for the many really thoughtful responses. I'm happy to start new threads for each player but think that whoever wants to should as well. I'll start a couple and feel free to start others. Its probably essential though that we make an effort to really look at the strenghts and weaknesses of the player and be specific as possible.

[Maximum Optimal]

Thanks for the many really thoughtful responses. I'm happy to start new threads for each player but think that whoever wants to should as well. I'll start a couple and feel free to start others. Its probably essential though that we make an effort to really look at the strenghts and weaknesses of the player and be specific as possible.

Sounds good. I'd suggest we initially do only a couple players at a time. Try to reach consensus on how that player should be used or exhaust ourselves trying to. At that point we can move on to the next couple players. I think it would keep things more focused that way. You should be our fearless leader (organizer) in this excercise. I'm appointing you whether you want the job or not.

[russ]

I think this thread(s) should be seriously scrutinized by the main posters in it as well as the mods.

We've tried this in the past,and it so rapidly degenerates into posters humping their favorites and insulting anyone who might take their place.

Any hint of that should be binned or at least called out.

[FakeFlopper]

The first person I thought about when I read this thread was Michael Bradley, only because facing one of the weaker teams in the Eredivisie this weekend, Bradley struggled and looked much like his national team self. The difference was that he was playing as a two way midfielder alongside a central midfielder with similar attributes and responsibilities as his own. Principal Firebush had a pretty good description of his normal midfield partner, Geert Roorda, whom he compared to Michael Carrick or Gareth Barry ("He's a very accurate passer who will sit in front of the defense and distribute the ball.") Bradley, on the other hand normally plays a much more advanced role, with less defensive responsibility and more frequent runs into the box. The Roorda and Bradley partnership, in my opinion, won the midfield battle against league leaders PSV last week, but with Roorda out injured and Bradley now playing further back, Heerenveen could only manage a draw against bottom dwellers Heracles.

edit: I realize that doesn't really address the thread topic directly, but I figure it's a start.

If this is true, this sheds a lot of light on the USMNT performance by MB. Too bad, I'd like to see him play his natural role for us and get a real assessment. Benny needs more playing time with a club, but when he was in form and in Copa he looked very promising as a link in the middle. I'd like Donovan in the game more and having him wide isn't effective enough to justify him picking grass out of his ass on the wing. Say what you will about him, but he can score and needs to see more of the ball in the middle of field. Altidore as forward works, but he needs a partner to play off of and I'm not sure Dempsey is the man for that. Ching would be a better option, and hopefully Cooper. I like Dempsey back at RM taken on defenders and adding more strength to that role on the defensive side. I think the bucket formation is a huge thorn in our side right now.