I don't see any way that moving Adams to "make room" for Bradley or Trap makes any sense. I can't imagine that someone that knows much more about the game than me (Berhalter) would make a move like that. I don't know for sure that he will but if so, it leads me to wonder what reasonable reasons could be behind a move like that? the only reason that I can think of is that he may have a player (or two) in mind to replace Bradley and Trapp but that player(s) is currently too young or not ready for one reason or another. Who could it be? I don't know. Roldan or someone else after he learns the system a bit better? A youngster currently trying to break in at an MLS team or a team in Europe? If so, who? Who are the playmaking mids that we have that can also play some defense? IF the above is true, he probably feels he has 1 year to get at least a "stopgap" player in the role and 2.5 yrs to find a permanent solution. With that in mind, he might feel pretty good about how the team looks right now with many of the important roles are or will be filled within a few months (it's not too bad to be looking at a core of McKennie, Pulisic and Adams, several CB's that are decent and 2 young keepers that look like they will be adequate to possibly pretty good and several young players with huge upside in Sargent, Weah and others). If he has one major role that is unfilled for now....it could be worse.
I doubt a player could both boss central midfield and play rb against any but the weakest opposition. A more realistic 'hybrid' would be a player who floats between CB and CDM. Plenty do this.
Just to add...the other possibility is that he isn't trying to make room for Bradley and/or Trapp but actually believes he can get the most out of Adams unique skillset by employing him as a rb hybrid. I am not convinced that is the best way to go but IMO it would make much more sense than moving him to a position where he can be less impactful to make room for the less dynamic duo.
Having one player that does too much only works in AYSO. I still feel that was one of Bradley's issues when he could run.
I think this seems to be pretty obvious to what he has done. Why not? Its a three man backline, so that hybird would basically do the same as a CB/CDM. He'd have plenty of cover and only fall back into the rb spot when we don't have possession and are defending in our own half. What makes you think that someone can't do that but can do the CDM/CB hybrid? I am not saying you're wrong. I honestly don't know. Theoretically, the space is well covered.
I don't see the space being well covered in transition defense. CM to RB is a bit further than CDM to CB. May as just play a conventional 3421.
That is really what it is. Its a conventional 3421 that transitions to a 442 if in our own half rather than becoming a 541 as normally does.
In a conventional 3421 if Pulisic and McKennie are the 2's they'd fall back into the wings of the 541 midfield. In this version, WM falls centrally and CP stays up as one of the forwards. The midfield wings then stay as outside mids in a 442 rather than fall back into wingback positions. So then, you could have the CDM fall into the back line, rather than move to RB., but in a defense I think you'd rather someone like Adams at RB than Long at RB and Trapp at CB.
I don't think the biggest problem is Adams covering the space. If that were the issue, he could probably do it relatively well...he is amazing in the amount of ground he covers. The issue is that he will have to man mark as a right back (I would think). If you man mark out wide and combine that with play as a ball winning cb/cdm it runs into problems...not the least of which is lateral movement. vertical movement (overlapping etc) imo is far easier to be sure that a man is covered than it is laterally. Defenses over shifting laterally and changing defensive responsibilities laterally is a recipe for disaster. That is one of the things that makes diagonal runs so dangerous. In my opinion the best way to maximize a ball-winner's talents is not to have his primary job to man-mark but to take an area in front of other man-markers or play as a traditional sweeper behind man-markers. In my opinion, outside backs really need to focus on man marking first. One more thing...Although I don't like the idea of Adams playing right back, I am convinced of my lack of expertise and as a result, am willing to wait and see what happens if Berhalter tries the experiment in a meaningless game before I complain too much.
berhalter could play this and not worry about defense. ------------------weah -------------sargent---;pulisic -------adams----trapp--delgado ---x--------x---------------x--------x hwvr, in order to score goals he would have to work out the back 4. when you ask Atlanta players about Tata's training methods, they will tell you that they had to practice passing out of the back every day and they practiced it more than any other thing they did. It seems Tata was obsessive about it. Ofc, they played with 3 man back line a lot which helps passing out of the back. they had 70 goals last season and 44 GA and came in second. rbulls in first place had 62 goals and 33 GA Nobody scored more goals than Atlanta.
IMO system coaches across sports are worse. At its basis they produce a lower ceiling for the team and maximizing the best talent on hand is not the top priority. If I compare that to the business world, a leader who fails to maximize the top talent on his staff and who does not put his people in a position to excel and reach new heights, will see his business surpassed by the competition. Chelsea has been brought up. At least if you're a system coach at a club you can buy players on the transfer market to fit your system. In a NT setting, especially one like ours which is completely mediocre on the international level, limiting yourself to a system is a fair amount worse. What would then compound that is settling on favorites you have experience with for your system, i.e. Willie and Zardes. If G-money does turn out to be a system coach and pencils Baldy and/or Styrofoam Willie into the midfield, then builds from there then that year wasted by the USSF becomes a few degrees worse as they would have taken a year to make a horrible hire. But that's the USSF and I'm not the least bit surprised.
There's also the endemic "system" of league/country - Dutch, German, etc... If a core of the players come from one system, then that also plays a role. The German team strikes me as an example of this type of influence.
Yes. German, Spain and Dutch all have a set of "Principles of play" that they try to keep consistent. One of the goals of this strategy is that developing talent is transactional process with how the USMNT plays. The idea is that who USMNT select in their pool and who they showcase in the national tournaments (both youth and adult) is who the US promotes for higher clubs. So by focusing on a possession, technical system it forces the US program to find, develop and promote player profiles such as the deep lying 6 and the number 10. That creates an environment that encourages the pipeline to develop and find those players. Its kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we want #10's, creative players, and highly technical players then we have to promote those players and give those players that we have all the chances to be "found" internationally. This is, of course, highly debatable. But I think its part of the thinking. Its saying that one reason the US has always has hard working, athletic players over high technical, creative players is because that is who the national program has best promoted. We have done that because that is what we could more easily find. So its saying the pipeline is largely created or incentivized at the top as much as the top is influenced by the talent available at the bottom. Anyway- I think that's part of the thinking.
This is the most dangerous part of the "strategy" to me. We are willing to risk losing more often (by instituting a new style that doesn't fit our traditional identity of hard-working and athletic) in order to create a "self-fulfilling prophecy." Trying to force an identity change throughout the system is crazy, particularly when we seem to be breaking through at the highest levels of the game with our "American-style" talent.
In looking at GB's assumed philosophy and systems, which pool players are well-suited for it? I'd argue that while they are talented enough to play in any system, the following players are not the kind that will find themselves at clubs that pursue GB's possession style and seem to thrive in a more direct environment. CP (I'm assuming that Sarri and his system will be gone) TA WM Yedlin Morales Canouse Sargent Weah Cannon Robinson Roldan (?) Arriola (?) Here are players who may fit such a profile Nagbe MB WT FJ Chandler Zardes Alitdore thoughts?
hahaha.... I was trying think about what a worse defender than Trapp would look like. Couldnt figure it out. WTF is our federation doing?
At least half of the teenagers we’ve sent over to Europe or who were well-known MLS Academy types have been technical, generally less athletic players. Almost all of them have flopped because for the most part the world game demands more and more athleticism.
I would say the two are not mutually exclusive. I will say you develop what you incentivize and promote. Spain develops players that fit their style. Dutch and Germany does the same. I have no problem with US copying those mindsets. Proof will be in the production. Overall, I think what will be more important to the US Player pipeline will the the success of the MLS and their academies as they work to find talent all across the US, develop it,and promote it. So that the opportunity for us soccer athletes increases. But the idea that the US soccer program can influence its pipeline the same as Spain, Dutch and Germany- is not a bad one. I just don't know the details on what specific mechanisms those countries used to know if we are really doing the same. I don't mind the idea in concept.
You're exaggerating and getting a little overly emotional about this. Most of the guys you listed that "don't fit the style" fit it fine and were called up by GB because they fit it fine.
2 things: First, almost all of those in depth articles posted mention that these types of formations require very strong defenders in midfield to cover the space. And the Berhalter formation lines up 2 10s and a regista? That is not a solid midfield defensive structure. That is asking your defensive line to do an awful lot of work, even asking one to double time it to play the midfield too. Which leads to the second thing, the strategy seems to hinge on basically asking Adams to play 2 positions. Yeah, just go ahead and push forward to break up plays in the midfield... oh, but don't let them hit a ball over the top of you because you'll be playing right back too. And oh yeah, don't expect too much help stopping a quick attack down your side because I want my wings playing high. My question for Berhalter will be if/when some of these issues crop up, does he adjust and change things or is he so wedded to his pet formation that we're stuck with it rain or shine? He has already adjusted from Columbus, so my hope is that he keeps making adjustments as circumstances dictate. I'm just not super confident it won't be an arduous process getting there. Saw an interview with Vermes who mentioned he thought Berhalter's biggest weakness was being slow to change his ideas when they weren't working. (He said it was also one of his big weaknesses to be fair and wasn't sounding overly critical.)
I don't think the talent development side is the pre-dominating factor in selecting a style of play that is possession oriented, attacking, and pro active. I don't know all the reasons why. I do know you hate the idea regardless and no possible reason will make you feel better about it. I'm good with it. I think we can implement this stuff AND do better than we did last cycle. The most important thing is that we do better than last cycle. If we can implement these things as well- so much the better.
Dude- All of those concerns are taken into account already. The 3421 is not a new formation. I think the rb hybrid thing is way over blow. in a 4231 - the outside back overlaps all the time, asking him to tuck inside instead is not that different. The coverage that space when the rb leaves is still the same.
Let's see if there's common ground for discussion around rationale for choices that GB seems to have made here. What are the parameters to judge the QB, which I am assuming is among the most important positions on the field given how much this player will touch the ball? ability to protect ball ability to play quick combinations in tight space ability to make lateral/back passes ability to make long passes ability to defend positionally ability to defend via ball-winning MB is best at 3, 4 and 5 and is poor at 6, 1 and 2 (with 6 being the biggest weakness) WT is best at 3, 4 and 5 and is poor at 6 and 1 (with 6 being the biggest weakness). I don't think WT is elite (WC/Big 4 speed) at #2 but I do recall that Individual11 opined that WT was good at #2 so let's put that in the neither strength nor weakness area. TA is strong at #1, 2, 6 are requirements and I'd argue at least adequate at 3,4,5. Morales has shown to be major league quality and he scores for 3, 4, 5 and 6 although I don't think he's elite at 1 and 2. WM is best at 6 and is neither strength nor weakness in 1-5.
I notice that your posts are criticisms of other posts and very rarely actually provide perspective or analysis. To that end, who are the players in our pool who play for a club team that uses GB's system? If we going to use this style, let's find the players who use it every day.
No - again and again and again. You have an ax to grind about those two players and I have no interest in indulging you. I get it- GB is a horrible, stupid coach because he rates those two more than you. Take it up with him.