I’ve struggled with how to approach this topic. I thought of presenting evidence like statistics to support my hypothesis, and then I realized the data either wasn’t that good or there is data supporting other models as well. In those situations, I’ve found that – especially here on BigSoccer – the statistics posted either get mired in discussion about the uselessness of statistics or even worse, “My statistics are better than yours” arguments. No thanks. My thinking flies against some people’s (surprisingly, not as prevalent as I’d thought) conventional thinking in soccer. The thinking goes like this - there are eleven players on the field, and one player can make only so much difference. I’ve written a few people offline about my idea, and while a few people think I’m bat shit crazy (as usual), some think I may be on to something. The American style. Here’s my hypothesis – “given a set of players who carry a pretty high level of competence, a set of players with high levels of fitness, speed, athletic ability, and a winner’s mentality, one player can transform a decent team into a very good team.” I call this the One Magician Model. The idea comes from Major League Soccer, where over the years I’ve watched American players who can generally play with decent fundamentals (we can argue all day about how good those fundamentals are, tactics vs. technique, etc – I’m not interested in that here) and a high level of speed, endurance, and physicality, be transformed by one “magic” player. Early on, it was DCU and Marco Etcheverry. Then it was the Fire and Peter Nowak. I think MLS lost its magicians for a while, until Landon Donovan somewhat filled that role in San Jose. Then I watched Christian Gomez turn a mediocre DCU team into the best team in the league in one season. Last year Dwayne DeRosario was Houston’s magician. This year, we’ve seen Juan Pablo Angel and Cuauhtémoc Blanco elevate their teammates around them. I want to be clear on this. One player can’t make a bad team a good one. I’m not harking back to the #10 model, either, where all attack went through a central playmaker (though these magicians often – but not always – play the attacking midfielder role). What I am saying is that when you have a pretty good group of soccer players who know how to get their job on the field done but may lack that magical, unpredictable element in their game, one truly magical player can change the makeup of the entire team. Suddenly, each player performs better than they had before the magician was there. I bring this up here because I think the United States is one magician away from being a very good team. We’re a good team now, capable of getting results. We’re also pretty predictable. We lack an element of surprise, of unpredictability, in our attacking game. That was evident last night against Switzerland, right until Freddy Adu stepped onto the field. Then, “voila!” – Dempsey looked better. Cherundolo’s runs became more dangerous. Michael Bradley scored a goal. We went from being a methodical team struggling to create opportunities to being a dynamic team Switzerland struggled to contain. Is Freddy our magician? I don’t know. It seems too early to make that call. What I do know is that he’s the only player in the pool I’ve seen who is capable of playing that role, unless Clint Mathis or John O’brien miraculously recover their form of years gone by. If Freddy is allowed to be that magician, will it make us that much better? Again, I’m not saying this model is definitive. I’m not convinced myself. But my gut tells me that if you surround a Freddy who played like he did last night and in the U20s with guys like Donovan, Beasley, Dempsey, Edu, Feilhaber, and somewhere down the road Altidore, you’re going to have a very good US Team.
Assuming you're right, how do you get them all on the field at the same time? Altidore/Ching --- Donovan -----------adu---------- Beasley------------dempsey -----Edu/Bradley/Feilhaber---- ?
I think you're on to something. My only caveat is that I think we're more 1.5 magicians away. Landon could be that .5 if he would become more consistent. Altidore could if he develops to combine EJ's athleticism with Twellman's finishing. Conversely, Altidore could become The One, and Freddy or Landon the .5. The other thing I'd say is that your model really just affects goals scored. I'm concerned about our central defense. With Gibbs' injuries, Onyewu's lack of polish, and Bocanegra's lack of pace, I think the US falls short of "solid" in that area of the field.
There are a few historical analogies that suggest you are on to something. El Salvador had its golden era with Cienfuegos. Colombia with Valderrama. And then of course you can point to the Dutch and Argentines reaching their apex with Cruyff and Maradona. More recently, France with Zidane. So across a spectrum of national team strength, you can see how a magician type player can lift a team to a level it had not previously been at and also how that team declines after the player retires. In terms of where we are on that spectrum of strength, the closest analogy would be Colombia. When Valderrama first started playing for their national team in 1983, they had an Elo rating of about 50th in the world. By 1990 they were in the top 20, and peaked at #5 just ahead of the 1994 WC. Of course, there were other outstanding players in that generation, but I think a significant part of their rise was due to their magician.
I agree with the reasoning behind the "OMM". The question is whether Freddy is up to the task. Is he willing? Is he able? We saw some very good signs yesterday. It will be interesting to compare Adu to Donovan over the immediate future. Landon seems willing and able — but only on occasion. Not to bash Landon. But for OMM to work, you'd like to have the magic far more often than Landon provides it.
I am inclined to agree with you as well. I think it is more than coincidence that after Freddy came on, we started linking up better. There were more ideas generated by what was a fairly ugly, stale or even non-existent attack. Dempsey clearly played with more purpose. I am an optimist, perhaps naive, but to me the audacious back heel that Freddy executed to Cherundolo the very moment he stepped on the field was quite telling. I only wish he would've finished his chip over the keeper in the waning moments of the game. I know it is often been said, but one of the biggest issues that US soccer seems to have is a lack of imagination. Freddy seems to offer some of that.
I think you see this: -----------Dempsey---------- -------------Adu------------- ---Beasley----------Donovan--- --------Bradley-Feilhaber------- Demps probably sits if Altidore displaces him, but there are worse things in the world than having a guy like Clint (or Landon or Freddy) on the bench to change a game in the last thirty minutes.
Interesting analysis -- my question, are we talking about a "magician" or just a top player making a good team great?
A) All your really talking about is a true #10 I think the model that you talk about is a true #10 type player. When you put a player with immense vision and creativity, it makes everyone better. Even moreso when you have very young attacking players who make runs all day and stay constantly active (like I think we do with Donovan, Beasley, Dempsey, Edu, Bradley, Feilhaber). So yes, I think a magician would do wonders for the USMNT because of our speed, athleticism and workrate. I do think that person would take a decent international team and make them very competitive...until.... B) Teams adjust Once teams scout and figure it all out, they will mark the magician (or #10 type) out of the game. Leaving everyone else to have to carry the creativity/offensive weight. In the past this has gone a long way to taking whatever team relies on the #10 completely out of the game offensively as you shut down the magician, everyone turns to being ordinary again. The good news for the US is that Donovan and Dempsey seem adequate in this regard, but obviously they aren't the level of creativity that a Freddy or Ronaldinho or Kaka might bring. So short term, i think you can see some positive things. In qualifying though, I don't know that the scouting doesn't catch up with us and Adu gets man marked out of games forcing the rest of the team to play their normal game, just like a traditional #10. C) Bucket abandonment - Let's face it, the more we start Adu, the less twin d-mid system we play. Adu isn't going to play right mid or left mid. It is going to be difficult to play him at forward next to Donovan (assuming Dempsey is at right mid) as that really is too small a forward line. So that puts him more than likely in central midfield. I think the logical conclusion of your thought is that we abandon the bucket.
There are also some very interesting issues regarding group dynamics and psychology involved in this model. I've had the pleasure of watching Colombia play a few times in person, with and without Valderrama. Without commenting on how they played on the field, I would say there was a big difference in how the team warmed up and walked on an off the field when Carlos was there. This energy radiated from him (maybe it was the hair) and his teammates seemed to draw strength from him. I don't think I've seen a more charismatic presence on a soccer field. One issue that pops into my mind is whether the American ethos easily makes room for such a player, especially when he is young relative to the other players. Will they defer to him on things like set plays? Will the coach be willing to build the team around such a player? The last time an American coach really tried to make a player the hub was Steve Sampson with Reyna in the 1998 WC. The results were not good, but maybe this should not be viewed as a definitive indication of what might happen. We're really in uncharted territory because we haven't had a talismanic player before. My initial impression is that the present coaching group has much more of an egalitarian, grind it out type of mindset. But they are also a smart group, and maybe at some point will see the value of the magician model.
Yeah but you have Donovan at right mid which I don't think from the US games where he has played there, that it works. I think our biggest problem in the immediate future (assuming that Nutmeg is right) is finding a place for Dempsey, Donovan and Adu. Not to mention Altidore if he turns into the forward that I think we all believe he will become. I just don't know what formation/lineup/tactics we can employ to put them all on the field in a place that they have shown they can be successful.
I don't know if I worry about it that much, to be honest. When the games start counting, there will be very few games where all of our very best players are available. It's a good point. I guess my thinking there is that one magician will bring out the best in other players around him and get that .5 (Feilhaber can be that guy, too). Donovan isn't a magician. He's never wanted to be, and he's the type who plays better when he plays with better players. I'm going to be curious to see what role Alvarez plays for the Olympic team, too. As for the defensive issues, I agree with you. Maybe. I hesitate with Valderrama because Colombia was SO dependent on him generating attack, they could look lost without him (see USMNT v COL, 1994 WC). Whoever assumes that role does not have to be such a central figure in the US attack. He just needs to be unpredictable enough to open up spaces for his teammates. With a little space, Donovan, Dempsey, Beasley, and Feilhaber can be and have been in the past deadly. A) The connotation I carry with a 10 is that all roads run to Rome. I don't want one central hub. B) They always do. That's when the supporting cast becomes more important. C) I don't care about two CMids like Edu and Feilhaber. I'd be happy to see them together. A top player could be a top Defender, a top Keeper, or even a top Finisher, etc. I don't think that any of those types of players could have the impact of one player who brings a real unpredictability to our attack.
Good post an di think it wil lbe harder and harder to find positions and formations to play. I unfortunately do not see the empty bucket dissapearing any time soon but I would love to see the following formation. You can callit a 5-4-1 or a 5-2-3 ----Insert Target Fwd here---- Demps---------------Donovan -------Beasely----Adu-------- -Bradley/Clark--Feilhaber/Edu-- Pearce/Boca-Gooch/Gibbs-Dolo/Simek I mean this could work and i realize the big question mark is the 3 man back line. But the 4 in the middle (Demp, Don, bease, Adu) are really interchangable parts and should be allowed to roam but with some defensive responsibilites. What do y'all think?
I'm not sure on this one. I mean, an exceptional player, of course, makes a team better. But, how much better game in and game out, I'm not so sure. I think what you are saying points out something a lot of people ignore around here, and that is that we don't need, or even want in most cases, to have 11 guys who are creative attacking dynamos. It's the tradition of the piano players and the piano movers. You need both. People tend to denigrate the movers, but too many players together and you have a cacophony of noise. So, I do think you only need a small number of "magical" players to be a strong team. However, I don't see having just one as being the ideal. That one player needs other guys to combine with to really create things on a regular basis. I'd say at least a trio of players who are primarily attackers and who have some serious attacking skills are needed....and you still need more for depth. And, I think you need more than simply competent supporting players to really be a team challenging for a World Cup. Look down the lineups of the serious contenders and you will find multiple creative, dynamic players. I think Freddy showed yesterday that he could very well be one of those types of players for us, and maybe we've got the few we need when you toss Donovan, Dempsey and Beasley into the mix. But, isolate Adu without some creative teammates and you severely limit the impact he can have since his ability to combine in creative ways with others will be limited. If we turn that group lose on offense, we're gonna get chances even if we fill the rest of the lineups with the piano movers. But, I'm not buying the argument that a single player can take a group of hard working, journeymen and transform them into a serious World Cup contender. Hey, maybe the US with Freddy will do it someday and prove me wrong; I'd be ecstatic. But I'm taking the easy way out and considering that past evidence seems to point against it. Freddy did well, I was impressed. But, I think this looking for the one magical player that will transform us is exactly the kind of thinking that got expectations for him out of whack in the first place.
Agreed. Until Adu and/or Altidore are past the Olympics and truely ready for the next step to the MNT for 2010, they just won't be starters and Donovan and Dempsey will be the key attackers in the starting lineup, with a guy like Ching getting minutes, too. But Adu can (and should) probably play that super-sub role even now. For Altidore, I'm just probably going to have to be patient a little longer (not that I want to be). After the Olympics, I see the US squad heading toward integrating Altidore as the primary striker. Then things start to get interesting for the three "tweeners" -- Donovan, Dempsey, and Adu. I don't think you can shoe-horn all three of the tweeners into the starting lineup; their roles are too similar. And, as Nutmeg wrote, you can't count on them all being available at the same time. These three will all share the somewhat similar two roles of of withdrawn forwards or attacking mids, playing off and combining with Altidore. One of the three will become the "super-sub" off the bench for the 2010 squad. I'm betting it is Dempsey, although I wouldn't be surprised if it is Adu. Either situation would would actually be beneficial, as a quality WC squad NEEDS that sparkpug attacking player from the bench. Indeed, the way the current player pool is developing, I'm not so sure we should be stressing the forced search for a classic right-mid/winger to mirror what Beasley does on the left. Playing a style with two designated wingers doesn't really play into the strengths of the "three tweeners" (hey, kind of like the three tenors!). None of the three are themselves wingers, so forcing wingers pushes them out of their best situations or pushes too many of the three to the bench. The current development path almost seems better suited to the Xmas tree system, with two of the three tweeners playing withdrawn, but free, just behind Altidore. The third tweener is the super-sub off the bench, or the fill-in when one of the other two needs a break. Maybe the future looks like this: --------------Altidore---------------- -----------Adu------Donovan-------- --Beasley------Bradley-------Clark--- Pearce-----Boca--DeMerit---Cherundolo ---------------Howard--------------- Let Adu and Donovan do what they do best, which is float, create, move, and disrupt defenses with slashing runs and passes. Let Beasley and Clark overlap into the attack occasionally, but mostly use their speed and work rates to hold down the midfield together with Bradley (or whoever wins the the central DM spot). Dempsey is the key attacking sub, plus Ching and another youngster. Feilhaber, Edu, Szetela, Convey are key midfield subs or win starting spots. Oneywu, Spector, Bornstein, Simek, (Gibbs?) are key defensive subs. That's where I could imagine the team heading, with Adu the most likely magician.
This is why I have always believed the vaunted defensive "work rate" evaluation was largely wasted on players like you mention. Their value is not in the worker bee stuff it's in creating anxiety for the defense, playing with vision and generally being a creative spark while conserving enough energy for the "moment" they can change the game. Moreno, Etcheverry, Valderrama and Blanco will never be confused or accused of being frenetic workers like a Franck Ribery but boy did they stir the drink. Etcheverry in particular, I never saw a guy do so much for a team without ever running full speed.
A couple things need to be emphasized about "magician" type players. One is their ability to hold on to the ball longer than normal players while being pressured by the other team. This is a key to transforming an ordinary team to a much better one. Basically, the magician buys the other guys an extra split second to finish their runs. It might not improve the other players but by giving them the extra time to finish that run makes them more effective. But in a more subtle way it also does improve those players by giving them greater motivation to make the run in the first place. The second dimension has to do with what the magician does after buying the other guys that extra split second. He needs to deliver a special pass two or three times a game. Even if that pass comes just once in a given game, he will have done his job.
well few months ago many Americans talked something else about Twellman American fans think following: if one player is bad in ONE game, he is bad...and if he is good in one game, than he is "magican"....actually you need to see how was the development of the player in the past, how it is now etc...only because he played horrible against Switzerland, does not mean he must be shit....Americans usually tend to analyze players quality immediately after one game result.... I will find couple of threads when US posters said something else about Twellman.. it is the same with Donovan...if he score goal, he is the best..if no, he is bad...etc....how should someone independent create their opinion? It would be better to say....Twellman is usually..this or that type of player...however in the game against Switzerland or other game he did not perform good..but not to say immediately..he should disappear.......every player has good and bad time...so try to analyze players in longer period..... regarding magican players...I would say that "MAGICAN" means "world class players".... does US have world class players?.....or how many world class = magican players USMNT have? hm?.
1. I don't think the american soccer mentality inculcated into kids allows for a magician type player, though I hope at some point someone will break through. 2. Why do you think that the US is one magician away, but a lot of other teams are not. And if you say becasue of the "winning mentality", I think that's where your argument fails. If anything, much more than mid level SA and Euro teams, we sometimes look like frightened puppies out there.
I think the best way to implement the one magician model would be with the following formation: ------------Howard------------ ------Onyewu----Bocanegra----- --Cherundolo------------Pearce-- -------Feilhaber--Bradley--------- -------------Houdini-------------- -------Dempsey--Donovan--------- -------------Altidore-------------- In all seriousness though, I agree with the basic premise of the thread. I mean, look at our U-20 team this year. There were a number of talented players on that team, but I think Freddy Adu was absolutely instrumental to the U-20's success. He transformed what would have been a good workmanlike team into a team capable of playing some dazzling, entertaining (and effective) soccer.
how does our 1 magician (freddy) with 10 apprentices overcome brazil's 1 sorcerer (ronaldihno) and 10 magicians?