3-5-2?

[gosya]

I know it's been brought up in the past, but wanted to provide my 2¢ on why I think it could make sense.

First of all, I'm a believer that you must try to play your best 11 at all possible times (unless it's an aberration like Lampard-Gerrard, who juist can't work together).

In my view, the best 5 attacking options are Beasley, Dempsey, Donovan, Adu, and Altidore. At this point, Eddie Johnson does not make the cut as far as I'm concerned, but that's a different discussion.

With that in mind, I believe that you do need 5 attacking players on our team. And since Bradley is dead-set on playing to defensive/holding midfielders, it seems 3-5-2 would be an interesting option to try. Furthermore, outside backs our are biggest weakness, and playing that formation would "eliminate" the problem.

Basically, since our general strength is central players, as opposed to outside ones, we'd "clog the middle" with our best central talent.

So, in my formation, the starters would be:

GK - Howard
CBs - Onyewu, Bocanegra, anyone else from a pu-pu platter of solid, if not spectacular backs. You can even throw in Cherundolo in there as a RCB (especially given that neither Donovan, nor Dempsey would give me much comfort playing defense as RM).
DMs - Bradley, and then any number of options - Edu/Fellihaber/Clark/Mastro
LM-CM-RM - Beasley-Adu-Dempsey. I think it's time to start bringing up Adu. Assuming that we qualify, we need to start htinking who can seriously help us two years from now, and it's not Eddie Lewises of the team. And I think Dempsey is very serviceable as RM, albeit not brilliant.
FW - Altidore-Donovan. LD is the most lethal scorer for U.S. right now, whether we like it or not. And Jozy should get even better with time.

Now, this lineup is predicated on one important assumption - that U.S. qualifies for the World Cup in 2010. Basically, in qualifications versus weaker opponents, we could play the old 4-4-2 with 2 DMs, because we can score with only 4 players dedicated to attack. However, it's pretty clear that against stronger opposition, we need at least one more attack-minded player (since U.S. isn't particularly good with at having 2-3 players break down a 6-person defense). And the best way to have one more attcking player, given Bradley's preferences, is a 3-5-2. What are your thoughts?

[Sandon Mibut]

We finally get two decent fullbacks (particularly on the left) and NOW you want to go back to a three-back set?;)

[cc-atl]

First, I don't think it will ever happen with Bradley as coach so I am nut sure I want to put a whole lot of energy into speculating whether it would work or not,

Second, personally I think it could work against weaker competition where we dominate the possesion but I think against top competition we are better off with 4 in the back. Also, I fall along the line of thinking that I would prefer not to switch formations based on opponent.

Therefore I think we either move Donovan to a central mid position and give him a try there or only 4 of the 5 you mentioned start (Beasley, Donovan, Dempsey, Altidore, Adu).

[Marko72]

I know it's been brought up in the past, but wanted to provide my 2¢ on why I think it could make sense.

First of all, I'm a believer that you must try to play your best 11 at all possible times (unless it's an aberration like Lampard-Gerrard, who juist can't work together).

In my view, the best 5 attacking options are Beasley, Dempsey, Donovan, Adu, and Altidore. At this point, Eddie Johnson does not make the cut as far as I'm concerned, but that's a different discussion.

With that in mind, I believe that you do need 5 attacking players on our team. And since Bradley is dead-set on playing to defensive/holding midfielders, it seems 3-5-2 would be an interesting option to try. Furthermore, outside backs our are biggest weakness, and playing that formation would "eliminate" the problem.

Basically, since our general strength is central players, as opposed to outside ones, we'd "clog the middle" with our best central talent.

So, in my formation, the starters would be:

GK - Howard
CBs - Onyewu, Bocanegra, anyone else from a pu-pu platter of solid, if not spectacular backs. You can even throw in Cherundolo in there as a RCB (especially given that neither Donovan, nor Dempsey would give me much comfort playing defense as RM).
DMs - Bradley, and then any number of options - Edu/Fellihaber/Clark/Mastro
LM-CM-RM - Beasley-Adu-Dempsey. I think it's time to start bringing up Adu. Assuming that we qualify, we need to start htinking who can seriously help us two years from now, and it's not Eddie Lewises of the team. And I think Dempsey is very serviceable as RM, albeit not brilliant.
FW - Altidore-Donovan. LD is the most lethal scorer for U.S. right now, whether we like it or not. And Jozy should get even better with time.

Now, this lineup is predicated on one important assumption - that U.S. qualifies for the World Cup in 2010. Basically, in qualifications versus weaker opponents, we could play the old 4-4-2 with 2 DMs, because we can score with only 4 players dedicated to attack. However, it's pretty clear that against stronger opposition, we need at least one more attack-minded player (since U.S. isn't particularly good with at having 2-3 players break down a 6-person defense). And the best way to have one more attcking player, given Bradley's preferences, is a 3-5-2. What are your thoughts?

A couple of problems I have with this. The wingers of a 3-5-2 have to cover the entire wing, they've got a lot more defensive responsibility than they do as wingers in a 442. In fact, a 3-5-2 could just as easily be termed a 5-3-2. Now Beasley can cover a wing defensively (defensively chasing as opposed to marking) all day, but you've just taken some attacking impetus out of his game. Now on the other wing, you've got Dempsey. He doesn't exactly fly, and he doesn't defend particularly well. So we have compromised our right side's defensiveness without really having a player that can quickly break forward in attack in return.

The other issue is as much a philosophical issue or a player wishlist, if you prefer, but I believe that our 442 (or a 4231, which would be my eventual preferred system) requires one of those two central midfielders to be as comfortable holding the ball and transitioning into the attack as they are winning the ball and keeping it safe. The options we've been using recently are not. Either that will come with time with the younger guys we've been using, or the options that we've been passing over (Feilhaber, Kljestan) will get back on track raise their overall game and compete for minutes alongside a Bradley/Edu/Clark/Mastro. You can quite effectively attack with 4 players, even the players that we have, if someone in the middle of the field can involve them with regularity.

[ACCCsoccer]

A 3-5-2 negates attacking runs by Pearce and Cherendulo. We don't have any true wingers, except for Eddie Lewis. They're all we've got.

[nobody]

I still like this, especially the way Freddy and others are developing.. It allows you to basically have a trio of attackers up top (Donovan and Altidore in front of Freddy), with a couple of defensive/holding mids (pick 'em) behind them, and then fill the wings with a couple quick guys who can attack and defend (Beasley and Dolo), toss in three big, strong defenders (about the only kind the US produces anyway) and we've got the players we need. Biggest loser in this setup is Dempsey, who would be the first option off the bench if we need a goal. And, the biggest question marks are backups for the wing positions, although Frankie could back up either side, really.

[mattjo]

Personally, I would advocate a 4-2-3-1. Seeing as one forward always seems to be invisible, why not keep our defensive allignment and improved wingback play, solve our ceenter midfield conundrum by playing Adu in the middle up top, Edu and Bradley as defensive midfielders, and DMB and Donovan on the wings, then up top we can look to Dempsey/Altidore... seems to get our most talent players on the field, provide defensive coverage, and with our forwards incapable of scoring anyway, will we really miss 1?

[sidefootsitter]

Austria played 3-5-2/5-3-2 vs. Croatia and never suffered problems covering corners, though Croatia did try to send long diagonal passes into the flanks.

That said, Sandon has a point.

[Marko72]

That said, Sandon has a point.

Yes. Though it is a bit odd that the player who over the last couple of years has rather consistently been our best defender (Cherundolo) seems to be suffering a slight dip in form at the same time that our most consistent historical trouble position, LB, seems at least temporarily shored up with the recent surge of Heath Pearce.

Personally, I don't think that's an argument either for or against the 3-5-2, simply an obvervation. Plus, the form of either might just be a temporary thing. But I'm more inclined to believe that Pearce really is getting to be that much better, and Cherundolo's simply suffering a temporary lapse (these things happen) than the other way around, that Pearce's surge is just a hot streak. I think Cherundolo's legs still have a few more good (top-flight quality) years in them, I'm guessing around 3 more.

[PJohnson]

I like the idea of a 3-5-2 also. Adu seems to thrive in the attacking central mid role in my opinion. And Donovan is at his best playing just behind a target forward. Dempsey and Beasley are competent wing players that WILL do the dirty two-way work. And Bradley and Edu are natural holding/D-mids.

So here is my preferred lineup:

----------------------Howard------------------
-----Cherundolo------Onyewu--------Pearce----
----------Bradley------------Edu---------------
Dempsey--------------Adu--------------Beasley
------------Donovan---------Altidore-----------


The big question here is if Bradely and Edu can provide the kind of cover that Onyewu needs in the middle. I think they can.

[mattjo]

Austria played 3-5-2/5-3-2 vs. Croatia and never suffered problems covering corners, though Croatia did try to send long diagonal passes into the flanks.

That said, Sandon has a point.

I don't know if our backs, who have already been criticized for lack of speed and positioning mistakes, could handle that responsibility. Personally, with our lack of depth in the talent pool (although it has improved considerably over the years), I like seeing our best players on the field. And if one of them is suffering, our best subs are in that area as well.

Croatia looked awful in that match. such an inconsistent team. I mean they can look great and be called the Brazilians of Europe and then play some of the least inspired football around. Their prep matches for 06 were heavily criticized by the press in the region (losing to Poland, tying Iran, . Yet in 2005 versus Brazil they played one of the most entertaining 1-1 draws I have ever seen, and in early 06 before their prep matches began, their victory over Argentina was great as well.

[Martin Fischer]

I like the idea of a 3-5-2 also. Adu seems to thrive in the attacking central mid role in my opinion. And Donovan is at his best playing just behind a target forward. Dempsey and Beasley are competent wing players that WILL do the dirty two-way work. And Bradley and Edu are natural holding/D-mids.

So here is my preferred lineup:

----------------------Howard------------------
-----Cherundolo------Onyewu--------Pearce----
----------Bradley------------Edu---------------
Dempsey--------------Adu--------------Beasley
------------Donovan---------Altidore-----------


The big question here is if Bradely and Edu can provide the kind of cover that Onyewu needs in the middle. I think they can.

Neither Dempsey nor Dolo are well suited for the roles you have them in. Dolo could do Dempsey's role, though I don't think he excels in that position and we don't have any other obvious choices there. You need another larger defender to play right back in the 3-5-2 -- John Spector would probably do well in that position if healthy.

[Marko72]

I don't know if our backs, who have already been criticized for lack of speed and positioning mistakes, could handle that responsibility. Personally, with our lack of depth in the talent pool (although it has improved considerably over the years), I like seeing our best players on the field. And if one of them is suffering, our best subs are in that area as well.

Croatia looked awful in that match. such an inconsistent team. I mean they can look great and be called the Brazilians of Europe and then play some of the least inspired football around. Their prep matches for 06 were heavily criticized by the press in the region (losing to Poland, tying Iran, . Yet in 2005 versus Brazil they played one of the most entertaining 1-1 draws I have ever seen, and in early 06 before their prep matches began, their victory over Argentina was great as well.

True. Croatians have some good creative players, and they play with a creative mindset, but most are good, not outstanding in quality. Their defenders, however, are definitely top-notch.

[Pandy Flapjack]

Until the US can find 2 forwards that have a clue what they need to be doing, we should be playing 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1 ...period.

[Marko72]

Until the US can find 2 forwards that have a clue what they need to be doing, we should be playing 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1 ...period.

But who is the forward up top alone, and is he going to be totally neutralized by being put alone up top?

In other words, doing what should seem the obvious choice from one way of looking at things can actually be counterproductive.

I am with you if either Eddie or Jozy grow to the point that they can hold their own. At this point I'm pretty confident that neither can, and they need help (specifically, they need a partner to draw away at least one central defender from keying exclusively on them), or else we just might as well go to a 4-6-0 and hope for a lot of scoreless draws...

[galaxyfan03]

Interesting thoughts, gosya, and i agree with the attacking mentality but not sure our backline is good enough to go with just three!! My preferred formation is a 4-1-3-2, when talking about attacking:

----------------------Howard-------------------
Cherundolo----Gooch--------Boca------Pearce
----------------------Bradley-------------------
--Dempsey-----------Adu-----------Beasley--
--------------Landon-------------Altidore------

That would put our best attacking players on the field at the same time, while giving us enough protection in the back!!

[Marko72]

Ok, time to trot out my vision of a reasonable system for us that balances solidity with some attacking capability (the base system, tweaked for specific opponents/game situations):

-----------------------Striker-------------------
---------Withdrawn Forward-------------------
Left Wing---------------------------Right Wing
-------------Holding Mid---DLP----------------
Left Fullback-----CB------CB----Right Fullback

The striker is likely to be some combination of Jozy, EJ, and/or Ching (though I agree he seems to be slipping), Cooper, even perhaps a guy like Jacqua. The withdrawn forward is either Donovan or Adu. The left wing is one of Beasley, Lewis, Donovan, or Dempsey. The right wing is one of Demspey, Donovan, Kljestan (though I'm not wild about him as a winger), or perhaps soon one of the younger guys like Rogers or Holden. Depending on the situation and opponent, as well as current form, the holding mid is a guy like Edu, Bradley, or Clark... or Mastro as a more pure destroyer (though Clark isn't that far from the same role), and the deep-lying playmaker is Kljestan or Feilhaber if he returns to form. The key is that the DLP has nearly as much work-rate/defensive responsibility as the holding mid, but putting him out there gives you a guy more comfortable on the ball under pressure, a guy who can attack and distribute into space better than one of the others, who are much more confident in winning and minding the ball than they are in taking risks. Then the 4 man back line. Where a very defensive approach is sadly necessitated, make that two holding mids/destroyers... essentially what we have now. In my view, that's the situation option as opposed to the basic starting point.

Should one of our strikers, probably Jozy, possibly EJ, ever raise their game to the level that they could handle two center backs double-teaming them for much of the day and remain relevant, then I'd advocate going to the 4-2-3-1 approach.

-----------------------Striker--------------------------
Left AM---------------CAM-------------------Right AM

Now the beauty of this is the potential interchangeable, unpredictable combination of Adu and Donovan, plus either Dempsey or a runner like Beasley or Rogers taking turns getting back to receive the ball, pulling the springs, getting up to support Jozy/Eddie, creating, and making unpredictable attacking runs into space. I imagine Adu nominally in the center (where he most likes to be, and therefore is the one most often in the string-puller mode), and the others nominally at the wings, but except for one of the purer runners if they're in the game, they're all basically interchanging at will much of the time. With Adu, Donovan and Dempsey, you've got the ultimate interchangeability and unpredictability, though you sacrifice a bit of speed, capitalizing on the concept that all three are versatile attacking "tweener" players of slightly differing styles who can play either side or centrally, and can to differing extents do all of the following: create, dribble, and finish. With Beasley or Rogers, you gain a bit of speed, though they'll be more obviously dedicated to outside attack rather than having the option of attacking or pulling strings through the center channels. If all of the first three are fit and in form, I like the idea of playing the three together and having the two speedy guys on the bench as supersubs. In any case, this system makes having a creative guy at CM a bit more of a luxury.

This hinges on the ability of having a striker that can handle being isolated a good portion of the time when nobody is available to support him. Right now I don't think we have that guy.

[TigersFIMA]

Anyone more tactically astute/observant than me know if we've ever really tried a 4-2-3-1 at the USMNT level? It, along with the 4-4-1-1, per Marko's post above, do seem to me to be well suited for our personnel. I'm just curious if we have any recent history with it to look back on. Thanks.

[gosya]

Interesting thoughts, gosya, and i agree with the attacking mentality but not sure our backline is good enough to go with just three!! My preferred formation is a 4-1-3-2, when talking about attacking:

----------------------Howard-------------------
Cherundolo----Gooch--------Boca------Pearce
----------------------Bradley-------------------
--Dempsey-----------Adu-----------Beasley--
--------------Landon-------------Altidore------

That would put our best attacking players on the field at the same time, while giving us enough protection in the back!!
Absoultely agreed. However, my original premise was that Bradley is married to the 2 def/hold midfileders, whether rightfully or wrongfully. And I was trying to work with that.

Overall, my point is that single forward is just not wrorking. And neither is 4-2-3-1. Sure, it works well in CONCACAF, but if we want to be known as a team capable of beating he 3 teams we've just played, we need more attackers. It wasn't even the lack of goals. It took till 6th half (2nd half against Argentina) to even create serious scoring chances.

[sidefootsitter]

An interesting thing about both the Dutch and the Portuguese 4-2-3-1 was that it was very easy to morph that into 4-1-4-1 with Moutinho for Scolari and with Engelaar for van Basten.

Hypothetically, Mikey Bradley could do this as well.

As to 3-5-2, Pearce has enough size to be the outside left back but 'Dolo does not.

Greece, which went with an extremely conservative 5-3-2 played a lot of tree trunks in the middle of that defense, which made it next to impossible to get them with a high ball or off a set-piece.

Simultaneously, the big defenders would come into the PK area themselves on Greece's set-pieces.

Personally, I did not like the way Lagerback attacked that defense ... but, in soccer, all one sometimes needs is a lucky shot, which renders a "100% bunker" rather moot.

But any practical system is doable if it suits the personnel and the purpose of the match.