What made Fischer a great (perhaps, the best ever) player was his ability to calculate options (this is what I read) up to 16 moves ahead. Someone wrote that your part-time player is good for 4 moves, a pro for 6-8, a grandmaster for 8-12 and Fischer could go further than anyone. (He had to, since the Soviet tactics was to play the full 5 hours, then to send the game plans via the phone-telegraph to a team of 8-10 top Soviet grandmasters and let them do the prep-work overnight while the guy actually playing the game went to dinner and took a long nap .... his opponent was limited to one second and eventially the Soviet brainpower prevailed ... but Fischer destroyed Spassky within the alotted time) With the exception of Lippi, who really did change his formations on the fly, going to 4-2-4 against Germany in the extra time. I read an article a couple of years ago about two Dutch coaches then in charge of the top two teams in Portugal - Co Adriaanse at Porto and Ronald Koeman at Benfica. Adriaanse played 4-3-3 exclusively throughout the season while Koeman changed his formation several times each half like a college basketball coach. Porto won the Portuguese league. Exactly. And that's what Porto was. You sort of knew what they were doing but they had too much talent to be stopped from executing its game plan. Speaking of the "best laid plans" - in the 1972 Euro semis, the late great Belgian coach Raymond Goethals said, "I don't care what the rest of the Germans do. I am not going to let Müller beat us". The Germans won 2:1 with Müller scoring both goals. As a coach, there are only so many things you can do.
Geez, i was reading your post.....and getting towards the end.....I heard a chorus of 'Hallelujah' and angles were flying overhead......but then you just had to do it. You just HAD to do it. Mention 'empty bucket' at the very end. My goodness man, you were almost through to the other side.......go to the light....don't be afraid of the light..
The statistic about the long ball out of the back was interesting. When my kid did ODP, the first thing the coaches did was instruct the defenders to play long out of the back. Quote from our Regional team defender, "They told me to pass the ball to Eric" -- Eric being the squad's big, fast star forward. That's not how that defender plays at club, or most of the defenders on the Regional team for that matter. Indeed, the response from this defender's club coach, who is a South American ex-international, was, "Oh, so they taught you to play kickball, huh?" Maybe it's not kickball, maybe it is, not for me to say. It could be the right thing to do, might be that our defenders simply do not have the ball skills to play otherwise, and it would be foolhardy to expect otherwise from them. But long out of the back to avoid the turnover in the defensive half of the field, seems to be a U.S. natonal-level coaching decision from the top down.
So, how many fouls drawn and yellows drawn for Jozy? Not to mention a PK drawn. He was very dangerous tonight.
SFS, I hope that you are not right regarding BB. IMHO, he is 1 for 1 in terms of tournaments where I actually thought we honestly went for a result. He beat a good Mexico team and brought on the right sub at the right time (Clark) to turn that game. Now it could have been dumb luck as MB was suspended. But he saw a tactical problem and he fixed it and it turned the game. Period. I guess I just don't understand the criticism of Bradley from a national team perspective. His track record is just fine thus far. He won the Gold Cup (granted we should have lost to Canada in the semi's IMHO...but that happens). In the Copa we were throwing out several junk players. IMHO he squandered the opportunity to bring along alternative options that I think were in need of consideration at the time (Charlie Davies v. Jozy or Adu....really?......Lee Nguyen v. a Jeremiah White or a Brian Mullan/Steve Ralston). Some of that was his fault....obviously....but some of that was the situation (Cooper's injury, probably had to make commitments to several MLS coaches regarding certain players, etc.). At the end of the day, he has gotten more right than wrong IMHO. With regards to his commitment to an empty bucket, let me say this. I think he may be partialy limited by the quality of our defense. For whatever reason, I honestly believe that our central defenders just aren't as good as they have been in the past. Maybe I am off on that, but I honestly worried about who we start in central defense for the first qualifier and how they compare to previous options we used in qualifying. I think this concern is absolutely magnified by the quality of our outside backs getting forward. Steve Cherundolo, Marvell Wynne on the right, and Jonathan Bornstein and Heath Pearce on the left......they aren't exactly your stay at home defense first outside backs. They push up often. That leaves the central defenders even more exposed. In earlier cycles we had a Tony Sanneh at RB or we started a Carlos Bocanegra or Corey Gibbs at LB. Ultimately that provides us with much more cover (centrally) than a Cherundolo or Bornstein. Obviously Spector and Simek are more defense first options on the outside, but I honestly think that they are currently #2 or #3 on the depth charts. In the case of us starting more offensive outside backs, I think using two twin d-mids has its advantages. If you watch the game against Sweden there were two very very dangerous plays by Sweden where Ricardo Clark and Maurice Edu each tracked back one time to cover an attacker into the box when Eddie Robinson and/or Jimmy Conrad got pulled out of position to cover for outside backs that were covering other players and/or too forward to defend. Having those extra defensive midfielders there provide that extra security defensively for our center backs. I guess I am saying this.....I don't know that we can have a diamond midfield and two outside backs that push up frequently with the quality (or shakiness of our central backs). I don't know that our central backs and a single MF can handle the defensive responsibility if we started something like this. Donovan and DMB(Convey and/or other options much less so) help immensely in dfense but Adu wouldn't and while Dempsey hustles, he is no McBride defensively. -------Altidore------Dempsey------ --------------Adu---------------- --DMB/whomever-------------Donovan ---------D-mid (Clark or Edu or Bradley)----- --Bornstein---Bocanegra---Parkhurst----Cherunodolo ------------------Howard---------------- While I would love to see what a lineup like this might do offensively, I am pretty concerned about what it can do defensively. IMHO I think the solution is this............ 1) On the road, empty bucket is fine (Edu, Bradley, Clark) 2) At home, I prefer we be more offensive and play either Feilhaber or Adu in central mid. But until qualifying starts, I think you are seeing a general system and a team that is trying to play in it as much as possible. I think you saw the same thing with Arena. When it got to tournaments, he varied his formations, players and tactics and even went to like a 8-2-0 against Costa Rica on the road that one time. I honestly think we will see the same from Bradley. Just my .02.
Good post MLSNHTOWN. I agree that it is too risky to play the diamond with two outside defenders who push up a lot. At the same time, I think there is an alternative to playing with two defensive mids. This alternative is to play with one defensive mid and another deep-lying mid who has better offensive skills. The prototype for this sort of player is Pirlo. But Italy is not the only country that plays that way. Ballack shoulders his share of defensive responsibilities as a box-to-box central mid for Germany. The advantage of a deep-lying playmaker is that he helps out more on defense than someone playing at the top of a diamond formation. In addition, it is more difficult to mark out this kind of player. It would pull the other team's defensive mid way out of position if he were asked to man mark this kind of player. We have a couple players who can play this role. Donovan would be my first choice. His defense has improved a lot. He covers a ton of ground. Logic dictates that you want to try and put your best player in a position to exert maximum influence on the game. There are other alternatives. Feilhaber likes to play deep. He is an outstanding passer. His defensive deficiencies are somewhat covered as part of a setup with two deep-lying central mids, with the other being more defensive. I think with some additional playing time with his club Szetela could become a contender for such a role. Edu and Bradley could develop into the sort of two-way players that could fill this role. I don't think either is there yet, but both have some potential. Bradley has the advantage of having his club use him in a more offensive role. This should accelerate his development in that direction (assuming he has the talent). It is worth remembering that Ballack started out as a defensive mid. I agree that Bob Bradley will eventually move away from playing two defensive mids. Some of his recent choices (such as playing Feilhaber wide right) have been dictated by the fact that not everyone has been available. I would be much more disturbed if he continued to trot out two of Edu, Clark and MB if everyone were available.
What I took from Altidore's appearance was this: He's already better than most of what we have, and he's not really all there yet. This is pretty much my observation too. He wasn't showing for the ball effectively, he wasn't making the right runs into space. Good with the ball at his feet and good physically. But not all there yet. If he becomes our big #9 immediately we'll see him disappear from a lot of games for a while until he either figures it out (what we hope for and what I tend to believe) or gets discouraged and lets that mess with his head and, thus, his development. I think that's part of what happened to EJ (in his case, the injury seemed to be the big thing that messed with his head and he hasn't really developed much since). He's got the tools, both physical and skill, to be a really good player for us, that much is obvious. The Swedes noticed it too and their prescription for Jozy was to hack him before he could go to work on them.
I think I had posted the following somewhere in the youth related thread. In a spring, 2007 interview with Alex Kerzhakov (ex-Zenit, currently of Sevilla, but rumored to go to the Prem after the season), the Russian forward mentioned that Juande Ramos (ex-Sevilla head coach, currently at Tottenham) allowed his defenders 3 passes. After that, the ball had to go forward and if that was a long ball, then that was a long ball. I guess, "1-2-3 and out" was considered by Ramos to be just the proper balance between possession and passivity/aggressiveness. Now, if you watch the Prem, the lateral/back passing is only allowed if the other team is defending and you're switching fields near the midfield stripe. If you get the ball in own half off a turnover, you have to deliver an outlet pass much like a rebounder has to do in basketball. The league has the best transition game in the world and, when it's combined with some skill, it's quite an entertaining show. Oddly, the transition game was Svennis's weakest part as the England coach. He really allowed too many passes before the ball had to cross midfield and England couldn't overcome its problems - especially with the ref calling Peter Crouch on every push-off - in the half-court game.
I said before the GC that the US would accomplish things if it won its games - played at home against the opposition ranked in the 50's and lower and often without mnay top players - by more than two goals, with the exception of Mexico, where any win would suffice. So, squeaking by Panama (Elo #64) and Canada (#55 and without several of its top players and the head coach) by a single goal was not, in my opinion, an example of good performance. The same held true with the matches against the Guats, T&T and Salvador. The US's best game was against Mexico, where I thought it played very well offensively and just OK defensively. There were a lot of chances created by both sides (asI recall, two minutes before the end, Univision had both teams with more than 10 goal scoring opportunities) and winning a game like that is often a matter of having a little more luck than the other guy. (BTW, The key there, IMO, was Ching and not Clark) Then they were destroyed at Copa America. Granted, it was a B- roster but it folded far too easily to teams where it could have put up a better fight. So, while I can indeed be wrong about Bob, my analysis of his tactical decisions is that they are usually absurdly inane. But the selection of players under his disposal is far superior than what even Arena had back in 2006. That should have resulted in more coherent performances from the team but they have been very uneven. That said, I think the US is likely to easily qualify for the Cup. I just don't think Bob's the guy to take the next step with the ever increasing talent. But we'll see where it all goes off this summer's friendlies and the early WCQ's where the games become a little tougher all around.
All a coach should really have to do at this level is put the right players on the field and let them do their thing. Obviously a defense has to be organized, but for the most part the players, if they are properly familiar with each other, should know what to do based on what the other team is doing. Offense is reacting to the defense and exploiting it. A set offensive plan is worth nothing because it is predictable. One of our problems is the lack of a cohesive American style of play. We all have coaches from around the world who teach us varying tactics. When our best players are put together, they probably have very different ideas about the preferred style of play. The coach has another idea. Brazil, Italy, Germany and Spain do not have this problem to the same degree. They are all taught pretty much the same as kids. Their coaches are not variegated foreigners. You can see this in league play as well in those countries. We are a melting pot of soccer, and it isn't pretty at the moment. I don't know what could possibly effect change (Team America?), but continuing to hire boorish uninventive coaches at all levels of the USSF system is NOT the answer, unless they are given a tactical system on which to base their teachings. There almost needs to be some kind of direct statement from the USSF giving some concrete expectations and tactical guidelines, although it shouldn't be too constrictive. The national team coaches need to be able to harness the best talent that they have at their disposal with an eye on the greater good, not try to fit players into their individual schemes. 2006 was a perfect example of that... trying to fit square pegs into round holes. I really don't know if there is an age-encompassing solution to this problem(?), but we should be able to figure something out for the USMNT in the four years between World Cups.
The good thing about this, though, is if you read Jozy's blog, he knows this, he knows he's sorely lacking in his off-the-ball acumen and he's working on it. He says it's hard, but he knows that's what he's got to do and he's working on it and learning from others.
somebody report to the mods that there is a problem with Big Soccer this morning. there is a post that recognizes our limitations and admits there maybe no easy answers to fixing them, and seems to allow for the posibility that the coach knows what he's doing. it also doesn't decribe the best player on the pitch for both teams in the most recently friendly as a candidate for the bench in 2010. clearly a major malfunction.
BTW, today the Daily Mail has the passing/long ball stats for the Premiership teams. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...all.html?in_article_id=509680&in_page_id=1779 The above has Arsenal with the fewest long passes and Reading with the most.
Excellent information. I am not sure that it is exactly an "apples to apples" comparison as Nutmeg seems to track what US defenders do, while the referenced article seems to track all passes, regardless of whether it came from a defender or not. I look forward to tracking the USMNT in this statistic in future matches.
Your exactly right. We need to recognize that while our talent is increasing, we are still a mediocre team with mediocre players.
Honestly - and i really don't mean this to start a nepotism debate - but we would be sacrificing M. Bradley's place in the team. A team like that would need a guy who can eat up ground in the back of MF so the 2 deep would have to be Clark and Edu - Bradley would go out of contention for this pool nearly entirely.
I think there is a lot of underestimating of what Donovan could contribute from a deep central midfield role. His defense is underestimated as are his passing and his ability to cover a lot of ground. I think he and any of Clark, Edu and Bradley would provide adequate defensive cover in the middle and for any forward forays by the outside backs. And relative to having two of Clark, Edu and Bradley in at the same time, I think we gain a lot offensively from pairing Donovan up with one of them. Certainly, more than we would lose defensively.
whatever pictures you post it still seems true. The adult LD seems to lack heart. Maybe it's coming back now or maybe he needs to play the Scottie Pippen role while somebody else steps up to be Jordan.
I'd rather sacrifice our adventuresome and seldom productive outside backs going forward if it allowed us to field better attackers through midfield.
Shush you and your silly "logic" for trying to not use tactics that we don't have the forwards to play with.
Did you watch him play for the Galaxy last year when Beckham was injured and no one thought the Galaxy stood a prayer of making the playoffs? He took a dismal team on his back, many times looking like the only one who gave a crap. For my money he was the best player in the league the second half of the year (and I watch just about every game). Donovan seldom behaves in the way we want him to. We'd all love to see him wear it on his sleeve like Demspey does. He is not a demonstrative, fiery type, a fact that has positive and negatives. He may be more comfortable in support. But the idea that he doesn't have heart is flat wrong.