We need to move some players

[Nutmeg]

So no Beasley, no Bradley, and Adu AND Kljestan out of position. Interesting.
Yeah, kind of interesting that Alex Ferguson did the same thing on his way to a CL run. And they're only out of position if you play soccer as if it were foosball. If you let your players be dynamic and move where the situation calls for it, formations start to mean jack shit in a hurry. As for no Bradley, like I said, he remains an option. Which is exactly what he should be instead of the starting lock he's been for Bob.

[appoo]

Yeah, kind of interesting that Alex Ferguson did the same thing on his way to a CL run. And they're only out of position if you play soccer as if it were foosball. If you let your players be dynamic and move where the situation calls for it, formations start to mean jack shit in a hurry. As for no Bradley, like I said, he remains an option. Which is exactly what he should be instead of the starting lock he's been for Bob.

I've been trying to express the Man Utd system with USA players for a few years now.

When you have tweeners, then you let them play to their strengths and let them float between positions.

[dcole]

I've been trying to express the Man Utd system with USA players for a few years now.

When you have C. Ronaldo, Rooney and Tevez, then you let them play to their strengths and let them float between positions.

Fixed your post.

[lurking]

Like I said, it's something I'd like to try. When he was the best prospect we had in our pool, that's the role he was playing. Both club and country have since dicked around with him, and he's never looked as good, IMO. If it doesn't work, we have other options.


I disagree with that in a sense. Hes looked best when hes given the most freedom and least responsibility. Hes looked his worst when hes been forced into a central midfield role, where there is maximum responsibility.

I personally prefer him in the withdrawn forward position in Bradley's chosen formation, because there is a lot of freedom to move around the field and get involved offensively, but little to no penalty for any defensive lapses or shortcomings.

Honestly though I see Donovan and Adu as direct competitors for that withdrawn forward position, and can easily see it being a question of playing one or the other. Right now though I think moving Donovan into the midfield is the best option, as it shores up that part of the field. But if players like Rogers and Kljestan translate their games to the full national team level, then you start looking at wether Adu as a withdrawn striker and Donovan in midfield is better than Donovan at withdrawn striker, and Rogers in midfield. The nice thing at that point though is you are actually talking about depth.

That said, this is all based on the notion of a fast transition attack, where you arent trying to maximize the amount of attacking talent on the field, but instead your trying to maximize the freedom your best 4 attackers receive to get in their best positions on the field. A more deliberate attacking style dictates a different set of considerations.

[appoo]

Fixed your post.

that's not true at all. Joe Cole's biggest problem is that he plays for managers that try to shoe-horn him in at Left-Mid. If he played for Sir Alex, he'd be considered as good as Rooney and Ronaldo.

The beauty of what he does is that you can't defend Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, or Giggs with any single strategy. They pop up all over the field. They aren't wingers, strikers, attacking midfielders, or whatever. They are attacking players. Ronaldo, individually is brilliant - and he wouldn't be even half as effective without the freedom he's granted, and with out the freedom that the other Utd players are granted.

Now you get to USA, with guys like Donovan and Adu as your front runners, but still other players with ability around them. Sacha, Beaz, Altidore, etc. Sure, play the central mids behind them, but why can't you let your attackers have free reign all over the fielf? why pidgeon hole them into a position and force them to stay there?

We were most effective in the 2nd half vs Argentina when Adu and LD were doing whatever the hell they wanted to do - I don't believe that's a coincidence.

[Tigerpunk]

I've been trying to express the Man Utd system with USA players for a few years now.

When you have tweeners, then you let them play to their strengths and let them float between positions.

Well, except Adu and Kljstean are not tweeners. Donovan is, but you have Donovan at a natural position anyways.

If you let them all do their thing, then this team lined up the way you have them gets killed defensively. Otherwise, you tell Adu and Kljstean that they have to take substantial defensive responsibilities, and you don't put Adu in a place where he can utilize his vision of the whole field.

The Man Utd system isn't "put the 11 players you have in whatever position and tell them all to do what they want." It's fluid (somewhat), but its fluid in sequence. It's also difficult to execute due to communications issues even when your team is playing together day in and day out, nevermind when they come together for a handful of games a year.

When Adu makes his run, who covers for him defensively? When Kljestian is bringing the ball up the right wing, what is Adu doing that is helping the offense? If the answer is "nobody" and "nothing" your formation is poor, even given that formations don't need to be entirely formulaic.

[Tigerpunk]

Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, or Giggs

One of these four is not like the other.

Man United don't actually play like you describe them. They play with an excellent distributor feeding a world class attacking midfielder and two solid, traditional forwards (one a speedster and another a classic English CF). Then they have role players who cover, protect defensively, and contribute when they can. The US lacks a Michael Carrick (until Bradley grows into the position, but you've taken him off the field entirely). You can mimic the classic forwards in Donovan and Altidore, and Adu is an attacking midfielder (of a different style than Ronaldo). Edu can then fill in one important role - holding the center while Bradley/Dempsey goes on organizer duty. But whose playing defense for Adu and Donovan? Kljsestan, out of position, all by his lonesome?

Maybe you'd be getting somewhere with a 3-5-2, but you'd still need to show me the two defensive-minded wingers who can make it work. Beasley maybe on the left, but not Kljestan on the right.

[Marko72]

We were most effective in the 2nd half vs Argentina when Adu and LD were doing whatever the hell they wanted to do - I don't believe that's a coincidence.

It takes a certain type of player to be a freelancing attacker. Adu and LD both fit that mold, though each in his own distinct style. Dempsey does to a lesser extent, I feel. Sacha... not quite so much, he's more of a role-player, and Beasley and Altidore are not freelancers at all IMO. Each plays a relatively distinct role. This opinion of mine is not based purely upon their overall "quality" per se, but is based upon my perception of their styles and package of abilities and mentalities. A role-player can be a really damn good role-player, and even better at playing his role than the freelancer is at freelancing, if you follow. (Though it definitely takes a certain level of overall talent to be a freelancer.)

[Marko72]

Maybe you'd be getting somewhere with a 3-5-2, but you'd still need to show me the two defensive-minded wingers who can make it work. Beasley maybe on the left, but not Kljestan on the right.

Like you I'm not in support of that system for us, but I speculate that Cherundolo could be the other. But Beasley and Cherundolo each running his own flank? I don't really like it.

The other thing about the 3-5-2 is that i think people often forget just how much defensive responsibilities can overshadow a winger's attacking opportunities. Sure, get rid of the fullbacks, who needs them when we don't have two good ones (though Pearce I think is changing that situation), and we can just throw out our two best attacking wingers, and if they're fast enough and hard-working enough we can expect them to defend. But... if they're defending all the time, they're rarely in much of a position to attack. IMO the 3-5-2 is basically about dominating the middle of the field while basically conceding the wings. At the international level, speed is one of our biggest strengths, and speed benefits from width.

The 3-5-2 I think has its merits when the overall talents of your player pool are a high degree of technical ability to work in crowded spaces and physical strength. (And while they don't exactly need to be speedsters, at least 4 of those center guys, two backs and two midfielders, need to be able to cover a fair amount of ground.) Then you can totally dominate the center of the field, and, obviously, dominating the center is more advantageous than dominating the flanks, all things being equal. The thing is, we don't have the guys to truly dominate the center, at best we can try to get the better of the center. And what do we give up for a slight edge there? Our primary attacking threat, our speed advantage.

[oldguyfc]

Like you I'm not in support of that system for us, but I speculate that Cherundolo could be the other. But Beasley and Cherundolo each running his own flank? I don't really like it.

The other thing about the 3-5-2 is that i think people often forget just how much defensive responsibilities can overshadow a winger's attacking opportunities. Sure, get rid of the fullbacks, who needs them when we don't have two good ones (though Pearce I think is changing that situation), and we can just throw out our two best attacking wingers, and if they're fast enough and hard-working enough we can expect them to defend. But... if they're defending all the time, they're rarely in much of a position to attack. IMO the 3-5-2 is basically about dominating the middle of the field while basically conceding the wings. At the international level, speed is one of our biggest strengths, and speed benefits from width.

I have to agree, for the US, this formation almost inevitably would end up morphing into a 5-3-2. That would expose an already embattled central midfield in the end.

[Marko72]

I have to agree, for the US, this formation almost inevitably would end up morphing into a 5-3-2. That would expose an already embattled central midfield in the end.

Precisely.

[oldguyfc]

Precisely.

Another guy I occasionally agree with.:)

Hvala Marko

[Marko72]

Another guy I occasionally agree with.:)

Hvala Marko

Two Croatians agreeing (on something other than "we're getting screwed")?! I never thought I'd live to see it!

[oldguyfc]

Two Croatians agreeing (on something other than "we're getting screwed")?! I never thought I'd live to see it!

I think we can both agree that we'd rather be on the Dalmatian Coast right now.

[sidefootsitter]

Like you I'm not in support of that system for us, but I speculate that Cherundolo could be the other. But Beasley and Cherundolo each running his own flank? I don't really like it.

The other thing about the 3-5-2 is that i think people often forget just how much defensive responsibilities can overshadow a winger's attacking opportunities... There are two ways to play 3-5-2.

One is like Greece's, Mexico's and Austria's 3-5-2/5-3-2 hybrid, with 3 central defenders, two fullbacks and generally an attacking or 2-way midfield.

The other is Steve Nicol's NE Revs with 3 central defenders, 2 holding mids, 2 wingers and so on.

Each has its own pluses and minuses ... just like any system ever.

Here's my Nicol's 3-5-2 :

-----Demerit----Onyewu-----Pearce-----

-----------'Dolo--------Edu-------------

Donovan----------Adu------------Beasley-

---------Cooper---------Johnson----------

[Marko72]

Probably! :)

For the rest of you all, my conclusion, as unpopular and defeatist as it may seem, is that in order to keep from getting overrun and have any share of the ball without being forced into a pure longball game (not that it doesn't happen at times anyhow), we need 6 solidifying guys, and can't dedicate more than 4 to the attack. I think that a lot of the 3-5-2 impetus (and many other systems that a lot of people are throwing out) is the desire to split this 5/5. We can't manage this. Hell, Pablo cannot hold or pass nearly as well as the other midfielders in our pool, and almost everybody's agreeing that he was a beneficial addition to our squad against the Argentines!

In my own head, the best solution to this problem is if either Sacha or Benny force their way into the central midfield picture (or Edu or Bradley end up developing the sort of comfort level on the ball that they can be thinking attack while in traffic). Then you've got six solidifiers, but at least one who is as comfortable in transitioning to the attack. Then our 4 attack-minded players can see more of the ball in a better attack posture, and can pressure the opposing defense more in search of goal-scoring opportunities.

In other words, we can become a better team when our young central midfield corps improves their level of play. Which isn't exactly an earth-shattering concept.

[appoo]

Well, except Adu and Kljstean are not tweeners. Donovan is, but you have Donovan at a natural position anyways.

If you let them all do their thing, then this team lined up the way you have them gets killed defensively. Otherwise, you tell Adu and Kljstean that they have to take substantial defensive responsibilities, and you don't put Adu in a place where he can utilize his vision of the whole field.

The Man Utd system isn't "put the 11 players you have in whatever position and tell them all to do what they want." It's fluid (somewhat), but its fluid in sequence. It's also difficult to execute due to communications issues even when your team is playing together day in and day out, nevermind when they come together for a handful of games a year.

When Adu makes his run, who covers for him defensively? When Kljestian is bringing the ball up the right wing, what is Adu doing that is helping the offense? If the answer is "nobody" and "nothing" your formation is poor, even given that formations don't need to be entirely formulaic.

I follow Utd more than any other club other than USA. I love what Sir Alex and Carlos Quiroz (who I want as USA manager) have done with this side. What you describe isn't what accurate (with all due respect).

Approximately, this is what Utd do

----Brown----------Rio----------Vidic-----------------------
-------------------------------------------Evra (WB)-------
------------------------Carrick-----------------------------
---------------OH------------------------------------------
----------------------------Scholes------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
----------Ronaldo (FR)-----Tevez (FR)-----Rooney (FR)-----

The 3 attacking players have complete and utter freedom, Hargraves and Scholes do so to a lesser extent. Carrick generally stays in the middle, but has the freedom to get forward when he wants. He and Scholes are the primary distributors. Hargo is the ultimate two-way player, and probably covers the most ground. Not only does he have to support the attack, but he has to cover a TON of ground defensively. Wes Brown generally gets forward, but not as much as Evra, who basically splits time between LW and LB. He is the one who will provide width for the team from the left side.

The beauty of this is that you can have 7 to 8 attackers at any given moments, 5 of which won't necessarily be where you expect them. It's unpredictable and it's extremely fluid - and that's a big reason why it's so effective. None of those players on their own, with the exception of Ronaldo and maybe Rooney, are game breakers on their own at the highest level. Carrick, Scholes, Tevez, and possibly even Rooney would not be automatic starters for Chelsea, who have Essien, Ballack, Lampard, Joe Cole, Drogba, and Molouda. But Utd are a better side because they have that unpredictability in the attack that the Utd system allows for. Yes, it's a crap formation because looking at it there doesn't appear to be enough Defensive cover or enough width. But the formation isn't important. It's the roles. Now let's turn to USA

-------------Gooch------CD-------------------
---Dolo (WB)-------------------Pearce (WB)---
------------------Clark/Edu/PM----------------
------------Edu/MB---------------------------
---------------------CD/MB/BF----------------
----------------------------------------------
-----------LD (FR)----Freddy (FR)---Beaz/CD--

so, you get Dolo and Pearce to provide width as Wingbacks, Edu in that Carrick role, Bradley in the OH role, and Dempsey or Feilhaber being an offensive minded Central midfielder. And you have the three attackers up top, doing whatever they want. You have the same responsibilities as above for defensive cover or width or distribution or whatever.

[cc-atl]

Probably! :)

For the rest of you all, my conclusion, as unpopular and defeatist as it may seem, is that in order to keep from getting overrun and have any share of the ball without being forced into a pure longball game (not that it doesn't happen at times anyhow), we need 6 solidifying guys, and can't dedicate more than 4 to the attack. I think that a lot of the 3-5-2 impetus (and many other systems that a lot of people are throwing out) is the desire to split this 5/5. We can't manage this. Hell, Pablo cannot hold or pass nearly as well as the other midfielders in our pool, and almost everybody's agreeing that he was a beneficial addition to our squad against the Argentines!

In my own head, the best solution to this problem is if either Sacha or Benny force their way into the central midfield picture (or Edu or Bradley end up developing the sort of comfort level on the ball that they can be thinking attack while in traffic). Then you've got six solidifiers, but at least one who is as comfortable in transitioning to the attack. Then our 4 attack-minded players can see more of the ball in a better attack posture, and can pressure the opposing defense more in search of goal-scoring opportunities.

In other words, we can become a better team when our young central midfield corps improves their level of play. Which isn't exactly an earth-shattering concept.

I completely agree.

[Marko72]

The beauty of this is that you can have 7 to 8 attackers at any given moments, 5 of which won't necessarily be where you expect them. It's unpredictable and it's extremely fluid - and that's a big reason why it's so effective. None of those players on their own, with the exception of Ronaldo and maybe Rooney, are game breakers on their own at the highest level. Carrick, Scholes, Tevez, and possibly even Rooney would not be automatic starters for Chelsea, who have Essien, Ballack, Lampard, Joe Cole, Drogba, and Molouda. But Utd are a better side because they have that unpredictability in the attack that the Utd system allows for. Yes, it's a crap formation because looking at it there doesn't appear to be enough Defensive cover or enough width. But the formation isn't important. It's the roles. Now let's turn to USA

-------------Gooch------CD-------------------
---Dolo (WB)-------------------Pearce (WB)---
------------------Clark/Edu/PM----------------
------------Edu/MB---------------------------
---------------------CD/MB/BF----------------
----------------------------------------------
-----------LD (FR)----Freddy (FR)---Beaz/CD--


Ok, first off, I think this is very astute analysis. Kudos.

Now here's where I begin to feel that this probably breaks down (and it's arguable, of course, because we haven't really seen it). While the three Americans you mention up front all have good-to-great soccer minds with a good-to-very-good skill set to support that thinking, the rest are a bit more one-dimensional in their skill set, and only Bradley I suspect can cover so much ground (and as we've seen, not for a full 90 minutes as yet against an elite side), though maybe Edu can prove me wrong. For me, either in my system or in yours, much hinges on the ability of Benny or Sacha to force their way into the central midfield picture and assume some grunt duty while still holding and distributing with an attacking midset, or else Edu or Bradley to gain that level of ball control that they can look forward and think "how do I attack" without having to look down at their feet so much, and constantly treat the ball like it's a hot potato when there's an opponent in their face. (I don't feel that Clark or Mastro will ever be that player... and the only other American at this point that I can think of who might at some point is Szetela).

I'm not saying that the idea of your system doesn't make sense, or that these are not basically the players that we have that you would want to plug into the given roles, were this our chosen. I'm saying that for these reasons I think we'd be broken down trying to play it. This system requires a several guys who can cover an awful lot of ground, and can play with a high degree of tactical awareness, as well as a couple of highly creative soccer minds with a very high degree of skill. In other words, it's a great system for truly great players. I'm not sure ours are quite good enough to attempt this level of fluidity. My preferred approach is a bit more fluid than what we've been doing, but it isn't this fluid.

[Tigerpunk]

-------------Gooch------CD-------------------
---Dolo (WB)-------------------Pearce (WB)---
------------------Clark/Edu/PM----------------
------------Edu/MB---------------------------
---------------------CD/MB/BF----------------
----------------------------------------------
-----------LD (FR)----Freddy (FR)---Beaz/CD--

so, you get Dolo and Pearce to provide width as Wingbacks, Edu in that Carrick role, Bradley in the OH role, and Dempsey or Feilhaber being an offensive minded Central midfielder. And you have the three attackers up top, doing whatever they want. You have the same responsibilities as above for defensive cover or width or distribution or whatever.

Giggs and Scholes or whatever play wider, and Ronaldo doesn't play as a forward, playing somewhat behind the other two, although on the right. But whatever.

Under your lineup, Freddy is playing a central forward position. That completely neutralizes his ability to see the field, and makes him rely on his speed (Tevez/Ronaldo) or size/strike rate (Rooney) - oh, wait.

Meanwhile, the Carrick role is being played by Clark, Edu, or Mastro - none of who have the distribution skills to start attacks. And you have Bradley and Dempsey playing the role positions.

Great, now you've taken our most promising (indeed our only hope at a consistent striking ) forward off the field, turn Bradley into a role player (a position, given his defensive and mental errors, hes absolutely least suited for) (or you can replace Bradley with Edu, and have two pure defensive midfielders on the field, making them both responsible for a range of roles). It seems instead you are trying to do a more normal 3-3-4 (with Adu/Beasley/Donovan playing forward, Edu/Clark/Bradley) playing midfield, and then trying to put Fergie's stamp of approval on it. ManUtd fever isn't serving our team well, which lacks the personnel that ManUtd has, and lacks the ability to go into the market and purchase more talent.

Any successful lineup is going to

a) Get all of the following on the field: Donovan, Adu, Altidore
b) Get 2 of the following on the field: Bradley, Dempsey, Donovan
c) Put one of the following on the field: Edu or Clark

And it's going to get as many of them in their natural positions: Altidore as a target forward, Donovan as a forward or Ronaldo-styled speed attacking midfielder, Adu as a creative attacking midfielder, Bradley as a two-way central midfielder, Beasley as a speed winger who can play defense, and Dempsey as a utility player.