It would appear that Bob is betting the house on transition. My general sense of the direction he is taking the team is that we are going to pack players behind the ball, defend like hell, and break out when we get a chance. I want to highlight players' contribution to the transition game. Writing this helped even me understand why some players are chosen over others, and maybe this exercise will inform the board overall. I think it is fair to criticize Bob for going all in on this style of play, but it is helpful in understanding how we play and why Bob prefers some of the players he does. Here is my ranking of our best attackers and midfielders in attacking transition*: 1) Landon Donovan: This team is built around his strengths. He is truly a world class transition player, capable of beating any team in the open field. Settling in at left midfield also forces him to defend and remain engaged the entire game. He was fantastic vs. El Salvador. 2) Clint Dempsey: He gets more grief around here than he deserves, especially for a player who has had a hand in so many goals for the US. His pass to Altidore for what should have been our 3rd goal was sublime. His header was vintage Clint. Hang dog look be damned, the guy runs his ass off, creates goals at a remarkable clip, and he's doing it best in transition. 3a) Charlie Davies: A revelation. He won't beat you in tight spaces as he doesn't have the refined touch. But put him in the open field and he is a nightmare for any opponent. 3b) Michael Bradley: If there is one US player you want chasing a breakout attack, it is Michael Bradley. The kid has a lot of flaws in his game, but his speed is underrated, he has a knack for showing up in the right place, and is a lethal finisher in transition. 4) Jozy Altidore: People forget how fast Jozy is, but the kid can separate from any defender. He's got the instincts of a goal scorer and can finish. 5) Maurice Edu: Edu is the perfect compliment to Michael in central midfield. In form, he is a very quick and accurate passer who does a good job of finding guys in space and getting the ball to them in a hurry. And his takeaways lead to chances. 6) Benny Feilhaber: Obviously, not a Bradley-type transition player, but he does contribute with his vicious passing. 7) Ricardo Clark: Like Edu, though not as good of a man marker and not as good a passer. 8) Sacha Kljestan: Laugh all you want, but I'm convinced this is a reason Bob fast-tracked Sacha - he forces turnovers and forces the pace in transition play. Unfortunately, none of this is true with Sacha's current form. 9) Brian Ching: I understand why Bob loves the idea of Ching - a big forward who makes smart runs, holds up the ball, finds teammates running onto him, and is a danger on set pieces. I don't necessarily see Ching doing those things well. 10) Stuart Holden: Holden is a fantastic all-around soccer player. He may not force the pace enough in transition for Bob's taste. In the Gold Cup, he held up the ball more and preferred possession, but against El Salvador he broke out and put in two great crosses. 11) Jose Torres: I like him because he keeps the ball moving and is a great passer in that he's quick, accurate, and will occasionally open a defense. But, he's a possession guy. He'll tend to slow down the pace perhaps more than Bob would want. Bob's commitment to the transition game is a key reason I think we see the guys we do, and why we'll see a heavy diet of Jozy, Davies, Donovan, Dempsey, Bradley, and Jones next summer, with Edu, Feilhaber, and Ching playing key roles as well. *I'm not ranking Jones until I see him with the US, but based on what I've seen of him in Schalke, he'd be right behind Dempsey because he forces turn overs and starts transitions. I'm not rating Adu simply because he's nowhere near ready for the US team and shouldn't be part of the discussion.
Well said as usual Nutmeg. Very good analysis and pretty much spot on. My only argument is with the speed you claim that Bradley has. I guess I don't see it like you do. I often see Bradley out of position and catching up. Is it any coincidence there has been a run of 30 yard wondergoals being scored against the US in the past 6 months? A lot of that has to do with the poor positioning of our central midfielders (Bradley, Clark, Mastro, Kjlestan). I also think Davies has pretty good skill on the ball and seems to get out of traffic without much difficulty. Otherwise, spot on.
Very nice post. Repped. There have been so many fun, well-executed transition goals recently. The Donovan goal vs Brazil was classic. Davies at Azteca. Bradley's vs Egypt. The foul on Altidore that created the PK vs Italy. Even some of the misses, like the 2 in the middle of the 1st half vs Italy, came from lightning fast transition play. It's hard to believe that not too long ago fans were lamenting how over-reliant the US was on set piece scoring (the peak moment being the win at Poland with 3 set-piece goals). I'm sure fans will continue to debate the merits of this style, but you are correct that BB has made a clear choice to focus the US play on transition play. Jones should fit into this very smoothly. It would work even better if the US could pass well out of the back, rather than just lumping the ball downfield (Boca, DeMerit especially).
Oh, he's anywhere from below average to horrible positionally. He doesn't read the game quickly and put himself in the right places consistently enough - it's my #1 knock on him as a DM. To be fair very, very few 21 year old kids are close to being ready for that role. But top end speed? The CPI had him clocked as the fastest player on the US team, which is consistent with what I've seen elsewhere, too. He's fast. That's fact. Thank you for the kudos.
Very interesting post. I'm curious though if you have ideas of other American players who would fit this style, but haven't been given much opportunity. Also, what type of defenders do you feel best fit this style? Does our current defender pool seem accurate for this style?
Just remember speed and quickness are two different things. The ability to change direction and accelerate are often as important as raw speed. Does he have quickness too? I've not seen him enough to judge.
I agree with you on his positioning as DM. In my opinion, he is a box-to-box midfielder that is playing DM. He will do the workrate for the job but his insticts is to push up into the attack. He will score some goals and be caught out of position. It is like asking a wolf to be a sheep, it is just not in its nature.
Part of any good transition game is accurate long and medium-range service from the back line, and accurate long throws from the keeper. With a back line of Boca--DeMerit--Gooch--Cherundolo, I don't see the ability to hit the long ball accurately. While Cherundolo gets forward more frequently than Spector and is quicker, I think Spector is a better long ball specialist and crosser. I also think Castillo's passing out of the back line would be a significant improvement over what we're used to. Howard's distribution strikes me as not on a par with his shot-stopping talents, and our lack of wide play makes finding recipients for his throws less likely. So basically, our transition game has to come from the midfield forward if we're to have success, unless personnel changes are made on the back line. However, speaking of transitions... If you've ever watched Jermaine Jones play for Schalke, you know he likes to bring the ball up himself at pace and challenge guys to foul him or take him on, then take the foul and/or dish off right before a challenge, like a point guard driving the lane and forcing contact. I wish we had better free kick takers because Jones is going to get fouled a lot in the opposition's half.
Great post. Transition it is, and it sums up my thoughts to a T for the 1st 5 you mention, I just haven't put a lot of thought into the rest. The team transitions quickly and effectively. However, they don't seem to know how to use transition for anything but scoring. Which isn't the worst you could say about a team. They just don't know how to maintain possession and make the other team chase.
Good points, Nutmeg. I'm not sure that I agree with all the rankings, but then I'm not sure that I don't either (haven't thought about it carefully enough, tbh). I do think you underrate Davies' ball control, though. I think he's shown that he's actually pretty good in tight spaces recently. I do agree, though, that he's more dangerous with room to work because a lot of his repertoire of moves are designed to let him explode into open space. But I think one can see that he's actually very skilled with the ball at his feet.
For the last decade the US has been most effective scoring goals in a "fast break" manner. Remember how we caught the Portugese on the counter 2002? Since then our most dangerous offensive moments have come attacking out of a mismatch situation, getting players forward in an open-field scenario. How many goals do we score from set-pieces or against an entrenched defense? Don't much care for the term "transition" even if the idea is very familiar to American fans who think automatically to more of a basketball situation. Anyway, it isn't a style per se as much as it's looking to poach a goal at the opportune moment. It can be effective yes, but I wouldn't want to build a WC challenging team around a "transition" offense. There's good reasons we have developed into a team which has to counter to be successful. We don't have the technical defenders able to build from the back. Opponents tend to mark our ball-carriers tightly given our propensity for easy turnovers. A ball-control side we have never been and nothing indicates that we're about to change now. On the plus side, we have never had a better group of athletes to play the run and gun style. Problem being we can catch teams napping at times but when the going gets tough we have a hard time morphing into a different style. The best sides are those that can be polyvalent according to the fluent circumstances of the particular match. Case in point against ES where we could never get control of the match, even for short periods. When you're limited to relying on "transition" play, you'll never gain the important pyschological hold on a match.
I think his play against El Salvador and recently for Pachuca (Playing wide) have dispelled that notion. Torres played at a very quick pace (Linking up well with Holden) and it's clear that BB's desire to step up his game have affected him. He looked quicker than Bradley out there.
If you're right (and you prolly are, especially after what we saw in SA for CC) I think we're in for a short, rough ride in the WC. If we simply become a defend, defend, transition, counter attack team, then all opposing teams need to do is: 1) force us into trying to break them down 2) intercept the ball when our inability to keep possession becomes painfully obvious 3) spring the counter-attack themselves 4) blow by our slow, woefully out-of-position back line Rinse, repeat until they 5) score on our sometimes positionally-deficient and over-aggressive goalie The only thing we have going for us is that top teams have tended to under-estimate us but all it takes is one prepared team and we're hosed.
The problem with the defenders just kicking the ball as far away as possible without thinking of passing is one that needs to be addressed. It seems to happen whenever USA meets opposition that is supposed to be better than they are. It's time to get in the defender's heads that it's much better to get out of the area playing, controlling the ball, and that there's no reason to be intimidated by names like Brazil, Germany or Italy.
The real question is why can't we seem to posses the ball even for just a little while to balance it out a bit. The counter is fine but chasing the ball on defense for the whole game can wear a team down, see the our last game in Azteca. I know a lot of our players we have are "transtional players" but they do have the ability to knock the ball around, stringing a few passes together even agianst the elite teams; Landon, Bradley, Dempsey, etc... all have average to above technical ability. So what is it? Put a little pressure on us and watch out its a bunch of fish out of water, a flopping and twitching chaotic mess. If anyone could figure that out, and not from a developmental long view we need more kids playing in the playground like basketball perspective but from "you have just become the US Nat Team Coach, here are the keys, go with God" perspective. How would you right the ship with these guys? I think the ability is there, I know we are not Spain or Brazil but we could do a lot better.
I don't think anything get's slower than ching, one thing you forgot to add is torres is also a one touch player kind of guy so he can slow the game down but he can also make the game have a lot of movement, if they used him!
I think the problem with this approach in a tournament is fatigue. It's a tiring strategy in any particular game, because you defend so much, and when you do attack, you turn the jets on. The players are fit enough to do it for one game, but like we saw in the CC, there is a cumulative effect that will catch up to you in the latter stages. In my opinion, we need only use this approach against the top teams in the latter stages. We ought to conserve energy before that point. The better teams tend to start slowly and pick up speed as the tournament moves along. A lot of tournament play is about energy management. Of course you have to do the right things in each game to advance, but you also have to have a larger view and manage the whole tournament. Look at what Germany and Italy typically do.
No, it is not strictly an American term regarding soccer. Transition is merely what players do individually and as a unit when going from attack/possession to defending and vice/versa. A teams tactics will say much about how they transition. At risk of oversimplifying, English teams will transition from defense to attack by trying to get the ball forward as quickly and with as few passes as possible. Players make runs accordingly. Mexican teams might transition from defense to attack through a series of short passes and holding onto the ball - more of a buid-up approach. Players must also transition in this situation accordingly. The ES game was a very open game that provided opportunities to get the ball forward quickly into space which is what the US tried to do and with success at times. A poor team is one where they are defending, win the ball but then players take their time moving from their defensive positioning relative to their opponent to a support/attacking position. Invariably, the ball is quickly lost or booted away as there are no good options for the player with the ball.
It is exhausting to do all of the time. Good teams will vary throughout the match to allow their players to recover. Some of the best German teams were excellent at varying the tempo of the game from very direct on transition to patient possession and build-up. That is the probem with a 22 and 24 yr old CMs. They don't have the experience of running the game in such a way and MB in particular is pretty much a full speed ahead guy when the team regains the ball. At the same time, this is the current strength of this team. While there are players who may be able to possess better, I am leery that this would necessarily lead to more goals for this team. And frankly, I think we would need better ball handling defenders to be a good possession team.
The only way you are going to address it is develop better backs. We obviously won't have them for this cycle. This is the group Bob has to win with, so the counter attack/transition game along with set plays will be how our offense runs. As Nutmeg has pointed out...we have the offensive horses to pull it off. There are few teams in the world that can match the speed of Donovan, Davies and Altidore in transition. The problem is when we cede possession too easily against teams that can hold the ball for forever (i.e. Mexico).
The transition game,when it's not working, also turns into the "clearing the puck" phenomenon which Nutmeg has described previously. The other problem is we attempt transition balls when the sensible play would be put the ball out and regroup.Bornstein in the ES game was trying to start transition when he should have played the ball long and out. If Onyewu can develop his positioning sense when we have the ball,he could become an important cog in this system.We could then posessthe ball in the back long enough to set up a solid transition rather than the "first ball forward" rush we get into.
The biggest problem against Mexico was that Boca, DeMerit, Bradley, and Rico were atrocious with the ball. They were playing hot potato with the thing. They weren't defending Donovan (even swined up), Dempsey, and Davies. If they were as good as they were against Spain and Brazil with the ball, we win that match. I actually think Bradley is hitting on the right style of play for this group. Our best players are open field players. So create a situation where they get into the open field as often as possible. That's the mistake Arena made. He thought he could play possesion soccer with Reyna, Donovan, Beasley, and Convey. If he had embraced the style Bradley embraced, I think we could have done a better job in 06.
I think something that should be noted about Feilhaber is his ability to read the flow of the game. He may not ever be a player that dictates the game from the middle, but he reads the speed of play and the movement of his own team better than any player we have. While I think Bradley has better range on his passes and is the better box-to-box player, Feilhaber understands when to keep the ball moving at a quick pace (1-2s, 1-touch balls, etc.) and when to slow it down and hold onto the ball. It's part of the game that Bradley is still learning at this particular position, because his instincts seem to take him forward immediately into the attack, acting as more of a true "box-to-box" player, rather than a settled, passing midfielder. Feilhaber, though, is very comfortable as the calmer player, using his instincts, touch, and vision to either accelerate the attack or give it time to develop. It's a bit unfortunate (though that may not be the right word) that we have a group of talent that dictates the use of a 4-4-2 (i.e. we have 2 stud strikers who play well in that formation, as well as 2 talents that hybrid wings) instead of a 4-3-3, because Bradley and Feilhaber could form a brilliant midfield with a hard-nosed athlete like Mo Edu or Jermaine Jones.