Do we have the horses to play a different style?

[deuteronomy]

Well, here we go. Many people here would like for the USNMT to play a more attractive attacking style, opening things up, playing younger players. Aestheically pleasing soccer may certainly be more fun to watch and a case could be made for utilizing a more attacking approach in qualifying and then adjusting tactically when (if) we get to SA '10. It could also be said that we should practice the tactical system we intend to use in '10 because it gives us the best chance of advancing in '10.
First of all, let's take a look at our player pool, which is really where most of the variables lie. It is safe to say that it is a middling bunch with a fine goalkeeper.
Secondly, there are other teams that will have something to say. Spain, Italy, Germany, Brazil, England and Argentina appear to have a substantial edge in the talent department. Russia, Holland, Croatia, the Czech Republic and Turkey each have young talented emerging players. Africa will be hosting and for years many have expected an African team to step up. Each World Cup there has been a surprise dark horse that presents itself when lightning strikes. That may have been us in '02, perhaps we can do it again.
What should the expectations be? Will it be acceptable to advance from our group? Do we need to play a certain style for people to be satisfied? Given our talent in comparison to the rest of the World's is it unreasonble to even be certain to advance from our group? Talent wise, it is highly questionable that we are one of the top 16 teams in the world.
The real question is do we have the players to win and play attractive soccer? Is winning more of a priority than it should be? Is a defensive strategy our best option to advance? We have a number of younger developing players who have yet to prove themselves with their clubs. How much can they be relied upon?
Please, this is not a bash Bob Bradley thread, if you need an outlet there may be some other threads where you can vent your frustrations or perhaps start one of your own. This is a thread where we take the coach out of the picture and look at the other variables.

[bostonsoccermdl]

Worrying about "advancing out of the group," or making it a reasonable goal, is useless at this point... It entirely depends on who is drawn.

Having said that, I would like us to use these CONCACAF games to attempt to develop a more attractive style of soccer.. Grinding out wins at home, and ties away is great and all, but it really doesnt do us much good to beat up on minnows, then go to the world cup, and get our ass handed to us due to a false sense of security...

I would at least like to attempt to ditch the empty bucket, and experiment a bit...

[Maximum Optimal]

I think the way to answer this question is to look at the quality of clubs our players are with and the roles they play with these clubs. This allows us to evaluate things in a context that isn't colored by what we think of the national team coach.

Obviously, we can't do this in a mechanical way because there are a few players (Donovan, Pope) who have chosen to play for MLS even though they could clearly have played for teams in stronger leagues.

Here's a rough comparison between our current starting lineup and the one that started in the 2002 WC:

Goalie: Howard versus Friedel. Both play for mid-level teams in the EPL. Roughly equal.

Defense: Cherundolo, Gooch, Boca, Pearce versus Sanneh, Pope, Agoos, Hejduk. Sanneh and Hejduk were both playing in the Bundesliga, although Hejduk was mainly a reserve. Pope was good enough to start for a mid table team in a top league. Assuming BL2 is close to MLS Agoos and Pearce are about the same level. I'd say it is fairly close on the defense front, with a slight edge to the 2002 group.

Midfield: Reyna, JOB, Mastroeni, Stewart versus Bradley, Kljestan, DMB and Dempsey. Reyna, JOB and Stewart were already well established players for good teams in strong leagues. Currently we have three guys (DMB, Dempsey, Bradley) who have played and started for good teams in strong leagues but who are currently not starting. So I would have to say the 2002 group has a significant edge.

Forward: McBride, Donovan versus Ching, Donovan. McBride played for Everton in the three months ahead of the WC, scoring four goals in eight games for them. Based on that I would say he was at a significantly higher level than Ching. I'd take today's Donovan over the 2002 Donovan (yes he had a great tournament). Overall I'd say the 2002 forward pairing was a bit stronger.

So there you have it. Our current group of horses (based upon club performance) is not as impressive as the 2002 group. Of course this does not directly answer the question in the thread title which is do we have the horses to play a different style. But it does suggest some caution about assuming we are making rapid strides forward in terms of the quality of our players.

Finally, I want to say that I am not as pessimistic as my post sounds. I think guys like Adu, Altidore, Edu and Szetela could take on much bigger roles by summer of 2010 and change the quality of the team we put on the field quite a bit. I was trying to answer the question in terms of our current starting lineup.

[Adam Zebrowski]

i think we look at what it takes at the wc finals stage, and then see our limitations against better sides...

right now, usa defensively is playing well, and if usa can play well against elite sides defensively, usa has a chance...

but england, spain and argentina had usa backs to the wall, and usa needs to get more attack, to change that dynamic...

adu and altidore are potential difference makers there...

i still see 2 of edu, szetela and bradley being in midfield...

torres might again give usa another attacking dimension...skill is what usa needs...

dempsey is more hard worker, with decent skill....

usa is coming along slowly, and will continue to improve...

usa athleticism will always drive the engine...add more skill to those type players, and you have a chance with the big boys

[silverlion]

I just want the team to play, anyone can beat crappy teams with 10 defenders behind the ball. I think the first step is to control the games, everytime we get the ball we switch to fastbreak mode no matter who we're playing against and 90% of the time we end up giving up the ball. That's not effective, we're giving the other team the ball when they can't get it for themselves. A lot of these 1-0 games should be 3-0 regardless of where we're playing these lowly teams, I don't think we can play anymore defensive then we've been playing this whole year.

I think BB is aware of the flaw of the strategy, all a team has to do to open us up is sit back and let us take the initiative like Sweden did vs Greece, but even if BB wanted he couldn't get us to play in a more offensive way. I just want to see how he adjust or if even tries in next years CC.

[Autogolazo]

Better outside shooters from the run of play will change things, too.

Rico Clark, Edu, Torres and (if/when) Kenny Cooper all pose this threat that Dempsey, Beasley, Donovan, Ching, Mastroeni et. al. don't.

[HouseHead78]

Better outside shooters from the run of play will change things, too.

Rico Clark, Edu, Torres and (if/when) Kenny Cooper all pose this threat that Dempsey, Beasley, Donovan, Ching, Mastroeni et. al. don't.

Bradley and Donovan, at least, have nice outside shots...

[Marko72]

I think we have the players to allow us to move into space a bit more, to not rely solely to guys checking back to the CMs and fullbacks, or else Route One to Ching. There are small things I think we could be doing right now with the horses we've got. Add that to a few of our front guys winning a few more of their 1v1 battles and our attack gets better.

That said, we don't have the guys to play a truly fluid sort of attacking, build-from-the-back sort of Spanish or Brazilian or Man U style of attack. Bringing in an Adu or an Altidore or a Kljestan does not substantially change that. To change that, we need not only defenders that can intelligently distribute, but midfielders who can do the same and hold the ball under pressure and find their own space. We are woefully short of guys who can do that in traffic at the international level outside of our own confederation.

When we have several defenders capable of that level of distribution and vision, with a pool-full of midfielders who (almost) universally have that ability under pressure, then we really need to substantially change the way we play to climb the next rung of the ladder.

[CommonSense]

Better outside shooters from the run of play will change things, too.

Rico Clark, Edu, Torres and (if/when) Kenny Cooper all pose this threat that Dempsey, Beasley, Donovan, Ching, Mastroeni et. al. don't.

As I look at LD's goal reel from this year (and for the NT since 06) I have to say.

Really?

I love how Torres is all of a sudden the anointed one.

and to the poster that says we're playing the most "defensive" soccer he's every seen.

You must not watch soccer often, because you're description of our style of play over the last 3 games is just wrong, unequivocally. We're not playing 10 men behidn the ball, we're not simply fast breaking (Christ, in the 2nd half vs Cuba we controlled the ball most of the match, in horrible conditions).

The statement "we should beat all of these teams by 3 goals, regardless of where the games are" is simply naive, a wrong-headed statement based only in your football manager world. One need only looked at Euro qualification, old CONCACAF qualification, shit, even recent CL results to see that minnows almost always threaten in their home ground.

But let's just hog-pile on Bob!

Freaking stupidity, I swear. Personally, I want results. Until Adu and Altidore mature, and one of Bradley, Szetela, Sacha or Edu really step up, I don't see much ability in the center of the pitch to play this beautiful, flowing football.

Serie B. Bench at Rangers. Bench at BM. MLS.

Those are our engines, and you guys seem to think we should be playing football that rivals teams with talent in the starting XI of the world's best teams.

It's really quite incredible. I'd love to see us play Arsenal-quality football. It's not happening, bummer, we're winning, often, so I'm happy. For now, we have the talent that best fits a defensive system when playing against talented squads. We force teams to attack from the wings, with aerial balls being our strong point defensively, and force clubs into taking long-shots and/or world-class dribbling.

0 goals against in WCQ. 3 goals against (with two away matches) against 3 of the best teams in the world. I'd say his strategy is working pretty well thus far, until we start losing games we should be winning, which simply hasn't happened yet, I'm content.

[Prime Time]

As I look at LD's goal reel from this year (and for the NT since 06) I have to say.

Really?

I love how Torres is all of a sudden the anointed one.

and to the poster that says we're playing the most "defensive" soccer he's every seen.

You must not watch soccer often, because you're description of our style of play over the last 3 games is just wrong, unequivocally. We're not playing 10 men behidn the ball, we're not simply fast breaking (Christ, in the 2nd half vs Cuba we controlled the ball most of the match, in horrible conditions).

The statement "we should beat all of these teams by 3 goals, regardless of where the games are" is simply naive, a wrong-headed statement based only in your football manager world. One need only looked at Euro qualification, old CONCACAF qualification, shit, even recent CL results to see that minnows almost always threaten in their home ground.

But let's just hog-pile on Bob!

Freaking stupidity, I swear. Personally, I want results. Until Adu and Altidore mature, and one of Bradley, Szetela, Sacha or Edu really step up, I don't see much ability in the center of the pitch to play this beautiful, flowing football.

Serie B. Bench at Rangers. Bench at BM. MLS.

Those are our engines, and you guys seem to think we should be playing football that rivals teams with talent in the starting XI of the world's best teams.

It's really quite incredible. I'd love to see us play Arsenal-quality football. It's not happening, bummer, we're winning, often, so I'm happy. For now, we have the talent that best fits a defensive system when playing against talented squads. We force teams to attack from the wings, with aerial balls being our strong point defensively, and force clubs into taking long-shots and/or world-class dribbling.

0 goals against in WCQ. 3 goals against (with two away matches) against 3 of the best teams in the world. I'd say his strategy is working pretty well thus far, until we start losing games we should be winning, which simply hasn't happened yet, I'm content.


Encore!!!

Repped.

EDIT - Nevermind, it says I have to spread it around. Oh well, bravo on a well written post. :)

[Mr Martin]

I think the way to answer this question is to look at the quality of clubs our players are with and the roles they play with these clubs. This allows us to evaluate things in a context that isn't colored by what we think of the national team coach.

...


This is a logical and thoughtful way of considering WHAT the current US Senior team can accomplish. Some days ago, Rainer24 was working on a similar line of reasoning with the following post on a different thread:


Let's analyze what is available and what most BS posters seem to want.


Midfield and forward setup:


----------------Altidore-----------------------

Beasely-----------Adu-------------Donovan

-----------Edu-----------Bradley-------------



Swap a player here or there if you want, but that is essentially the setup that most people want to see.


Now, what does that lineup look like if we look at each player's current situation?


---------------Villarreal Reserves-----------------

Rangers Bench-------Monaco Bench---------Galaxy

-------Rangers Reserves-----M'Gladbach Bench----



What MaxOpt and Rainer are both getting at is a realistic perspective on the actual level of current US players. The US currently has a group of middling Euro Club reserve players. MaxOpt's direct comparison between 2008 and the 2002 team still leaves the 2002 squad looking more accomplished.



...

So there you have it. Our current group of horses (based upon club performance) is not as impressive as the 2002 group. Of course this does not directly answer the question in the thread title which is do we have the horses to play a different style. But it does suggest some caution about assuming we are making rapid strides forward in terms of the quality of our players.

Finally, I want to say that I am not as pessimistic as my post sounds. I think guys like Adu, Altidore, Edu and Szetela could take on much bigger roles by summer of 2010 and change the quality of the team we put on the field quite a bit. I was trying to answer the question in terms of our current starting lineup.


What has so many impatient US fans excited and frustrated is the obvious POTENTIAL of the US player pool. It's the kids -- Adu, Altidore, Edu, Bradley, and the other U20 and U23 players -- who tease us with their potential. We want the potential to be actualized or realized NOW. We don't want to wait.

But right now our most gifted players are ages 18, 19, 21, 22, and 23. No Senior National team on the planet is built around kids that young. Two, maybe three kids, mixed in with a core of experienced, hardened pros -- sure. But not a core lineup built around green kids. And especially when the kids are the backbone of your attack, from both CM positions to both striker positions.

Even the mythically "young" team that Genius Hiddink put on the field for Russia at Euro 2008 was chock full of players age 24-27 with many years of Euro club experience. Hiddink's "young" team had only ONE regular starter below age 24 (the 21 year old keeper).

The US has a very gifted looking "stable" of young "horses". But they are still inexperienced colts who haven't proven anything in the major races yet. In a few years, these kids will (hopefully) have turned into seasoned pros starting at top clubs all over Europe. As a group, they will then be able to play a more dynamic, attractive style. When they have played against their peers at the U20 World Cup and the Olympics, they have shown glimpses of their potential. It's exciting. But they just are not quite there yet as Senior professional players.

[SamsArmySam]

I'd love to see us play Arsenal-quality football.
Arsenal is at the extreme end of the spectrum. And no, we don't have Arsenal's horses.

But we have do have the horses to do more than bunker-and-counter-and-look-for-a-set-piece-goal. And that last home match against T&T tells me we will probably see more varied tactics out of the team soon. It's one data point, but I'll choose tp see the glass half full for now.

[kokoplus10]

For now, we have the talent that best fits a defensive system when playing against talented squads. We force teams to attack from the wings, with aerial balls being our strong point defensively, and force clubs into taking long-shots and/or world-class dribbling.

Agreed. Repped.

[KALM]

If you look at our lineup in 2002 in the match where I thought we played the best soccer, it looked something like this:

------------Friedel-------------
-----Sanneh-Pope-Berhalter----
Hejduk----Mastroeni-------Lewis
-------Reyna---O'Brien---------
-------Donovan-McBride--------

Only three of those players were starting regularly in a top 5 league, and only one more was starting for a comparable club. Pope, Mastroeni, Donovan, and McBride were in MLS, Berhalter was in Bundesliga II, and Hejduk and Lewis received virtually zero playing time in the season leading up to the cup.

It is possible to compete without our players being in the most ideal club situations, but if you do want to base this analysis on our club situations then here's my evaluation: we're not in good shape right now, but luckily we still have time til 2010, and a lot of things could change. If we're judging this by whether we're able to field an entire starting lineup of players getting regular playing time in a top 5 league or an elite club in a lower leage (Rangers, PSV, Porto, etc.), there are a lot of players that are close.

We're already close to having that right now in our backline - Howard, Cherundolo, and Bocanegra all fit that bill. Spector, who receives about 15 starts a season in the Premier League, is borderline. And Onyewu is pretty much certain to move to a top 5 league before 2010. Whether he starts is another question.

We have an entire midfield that is in a position to do so by the end of the season, but none of the players are starting regularly yet. Dempsey and Beasley have started regularly for their respective clubs in the past and put in enough stellar perforamances that they will probably be given plenty of opportunities to win back their spots by 2010. And both Bradley and Edu have started for their clubs this year, despite recently arriving, so I imagine they will be given plenty of opportunities too. Szetela could potentially be playing in Serie A next season, although I wouldn't mind two solid seasons in Serie B. Mastroeni has been linked to several Spanish and Italian first division clubs ever since announcing that this would be his last season in MLS, and Kljestan drew interest from Monaco during the last transfer window.

Our forwards are the biggest source of uncertainty. Donovan's been linked to Bayern Munich, Adu always looks ready to break out at the club level but it hasn't happened yet, and Altidore is at a top club but isn't likely to see much playing time this season. Frankly, I'd be satisfied if Donovan could just keep up his current form by 2010 and if Altidore could just become a regular sub for Villareal by 2010. That would immediately make our strikeforce better than their '02 counterparts. Adu's obviously the X-factor, - I do at least hope that he can win a starting spot at Monaco or an equivalent team before 2010.

[sidefootsitter]

By the 2008 standards, Fulham is way above where a club like Nürnberg (low-tier B-liga) was in 2002.

If one were to compare the rosters then and now, the current roster is deeper but the 2002 roster had more players in their prime.

It's true now and will be even more pronounced in 2010 that the US can field an 18-man deep line-up with entirely European based players and thus it should be able to play like a reasonable quality European team.

Currently 22 reasonable prospects based in Europe:

GK : Howard, Guzan, Perkins.

Defense : Cherundolo, Onyewu, Bocanegra, Pearce, Spector, Simek, Goodson.

Midfield : Bradley, Edu, Szetela, Beasley, Feilhaber, Dempsey, White, Convey.

Forwards : Altidore, Adu, Davies.

And likely to get to at least 25 by 2010.

[CarlitosWay]

It seems the fundamental assumption is that starting in MLS is better than riding a bench at a mid-level European club. I disagree. The day-in-day out training is superior, and our kids puddling around Europe, looking for playing time, are much better for having hopped the pond.

That being said - right now we have no player anywhere near the talent of Claudio Reyna in his prime in 02. Not to mention John O'Brien played for a little Dutch club (where he may have scored on his debut from left back)

[Namdynamo]

I think we have the players to allow us to move into space a bit more, to not rely solely to guys checking back to the CMs and fullbacks, or else Route One to Ching. There are small things I think we could be doing right now with the horses we've got. Add that to a few of our front guys winning a few more of their 1v1 battles and our attack gets better.

That said, we don't have the guys to play a truly fluid sort of attacking, build-from-the-back sort of Spanish or Brazilian or Man U style of attack. Bringing in an Adu or an Altidore or a Kljestan does not substantially change that. To change that, we need not only defenders that can intelligently distribute, but midfielders who can do the same and hold the ball under pressure and find their own space. We are woefully short of guys who can do that in traffic at the international level outside of our own confederation.

When we have several defenders capable of that level of distribution and vision, with a pool-full of midfielders who (almost) universally have that ability under pressure, then we really need to substantially change the way we play to climb the next rung of the ladder.

It is true that we don't have the players to play like the best teams in the world but we do have the players to play like the best MLS teams (like the Dynamo, Chivas, Revs, etc...). That's all I am asking for. At the moment, we are playing like a crap MLS/college team and that is unacceptable. Especially against CONCACAF talents that can't even make the bench for MLS teams.

If you can't play attacking style against minnows of CONCACAF, how are you going to score against world class teams. Didn't games against England, Spain, Argentina tell us anything?

[Marko72]

As I look at LD's goal reel from this year (and for the NT since 06) I have to say.

Really?

I love how Torres is all of a sudden the anointed one.

and to the poster that says we're playing the most "defensive" soccer he's every seen.

... (etc.)

It's really quite incredible. I'd love to see us play Arsenal-quality football. It's not happening, bummer, we're winning, often, so I'm happy. For now, we have the talent that best fits a defensive system when playing against talented squads. We force teams to attack from the wings, with aerial balls being our strong point defensively, and force clubs into taking long-shots and/or world-class dribbling.

0 goals against in WCQ. 3 goals against (with two away matches) against 3 of the best teams in the world. I'd say his strategy is working pretty well thus far, until we start losing games we should be winning, which simply hasn't happened yet, I'm content.

You apparently haven't gotten the memo that perceptions are all about just that, perceptions. And why mess with perceptions? ;)

[tehGEO]

That's just a fundamental difference of opinion... I think it's more important for a team like the US to play and practice the way they are going to play against the best teams in the world. US doesn't have the luxury of practicing fluid, "attacking" football, they have enough trouble just getting the simple stuff right some of the time.

This is also the best result the US has ever seen in early WCQs, isn't it? That really gets lost in the shuffle around here, and easily. I think they are doing just what they should be doing. Progress is being made and it's exciting for me considering where this team has been throughout the course of my time as a fan.

[Namdynamo]

That's just a fundamental difference of opinion... I think it's more important for a team like the US to play and practice the way they are going to play against the best teams in the world. US doesn't have the luxury of practicing fluid, "attacking" football, they have enough trouble just getting the simple stuff right some of the time.

This is also the best result the US has ever seen in early WCQs, isn't it? That really gets lost in the shuffle around here, and easily. I think they are doing just what they should be doing. Progress is being made and it's exciting for me considering where this team has been throughout the course of my time as a fan.

You think that practicing bunker soccer against the minnows of CONCACAF is going to prepare the US teams against the international and world class teams? That is the silliest notion I have heard around here and I have heard that idea floated around here many times by Bob's apologists.

The semipros, farmers and fishermen of CONCACAF doesn't even close to have enough talent and firepower to break us down. On the other hand, bunkering against world class teams is a recipe for disaster. Those teams have the talent and firepower to score even if you bunker, and once they score against us, it is over. We don't have the offense to score against them since Bob only know how to Bunker and have no plan B . Look what happen to us in the last WC, Bruce didn't have a plan B neither and it blew up in his face.