We just have two views of how to defend then, which is fine. I coach that if we have offensive threats the other team has to respect that or be punished in transition. And others would prefer to tilt the balance to defense, which is an argument of styles and to be honest I dont think there is a wrong answer. For me in an ideal scenario with pulisic centrally Id line up like this --------Altidore/Sargent Morris-----Pulisic---------Weah/Sabbi/Amon --------Adams----McKinnie/Morales Using more speed/press turnover transition to create havoc and keep defenses honest so we arent getting overrun while bunkering and getting 1 or 2 good offensive chances a game and having to convert them. I see your point, and its an argument I think neither can fully win because its based on how youd prefer to set up play. You have one idea. I just have the other opinion. I doubt Ill be able to convince you, and thats totally okay.
Yeah, once Weah is back and playing, I really want to see .........Sargent Morris...........Weah ..........Pulisic .McKennie...Adams But, Reyna's development could make a big difference. If he develops as a more regular central player, you could end up with something like... .........Sargent Pulisic...........Weah ...........Reyna ...McKennie..Adams I agree it is a very attacking formation, but I have faith in an Adams/McKennie pairing to make the midfield difficult to play through. And, with no real dominating strikers and the wings staying mostly wide as Berhalter seems to prefer, our attack could be pretty anemic if you only field battlers in midfield. Oh, and if Weah picks back up and is a regular at Lille and Reyna makes a splash at BVB, we'd be looking at guys who get real game time for high quality top 4 league teams across the front 6.
Fair enough but always fun to debate! An offense needs to be really strong to be scary and i don't see it with our purely attacking players. Against good competition, we will likely be lucky to have 50% possession and I think our defense isn't as strong as it was historically so we need to support them. I'd like to run out Pulisic - Morris/Reyna Dest/ARob - Weston - Adams - Morales/Pomykal - yedlin/Dest Long - Brooks - Miazga/? I think opposing teams would be thinking pretty hard about the abilities of that front 7 across the board and we'd also be defending with 8 and a tremendous amount of speed and athleticism. The original setup forces Dest/ARobinson/Yedlin to stay back as part of the back four and I think that emphasizes their developmental areas rather than their strengths. In my proposed setup, they are two way players with defensive support. thoughts?
We gave up 2 goals in AET; the chances created after Wondo came in the game and we theoretically had 4 attacking players on the field were roughly even.
I've seen Puli turn the ball like a Brazilian in a tight space surrounded by three. The problem is what comes after that, usually.
The game against Belgium happened the way it did because our midfield was overrun, because on the other end of the field we had a supporting striker playing as a lone striker, and Bradley playing as a CAM (which will always be one of Klinsmann's dumber ideas). They could leave 2 CBs back and send nearly everyone else into the attack to press the midfield. For the first 15 minutes of the tournament we had 2 definite attacking players, and then two "shuttlers" in Zusi and Bradley, depending on how you want to define Bradley at that point. We created...what, 3 chances until Altidore's hamstring exploded? After that, it was just 2 until the Belgium game late. Maybe your "shuttler" idea is a better way to look at it, though, I'll admit.
Bradley and zuzi are not attack primarily players. I also think that Dempsey was a decent two-way player as well when called upon. You are right about the AET goals - my bad.
Pulisic centrally. I'd suggest 433/4231. Morris would play as a winger forward. Arriola would be the shuttler. In terms of players, who have gotten significant minutes at senior club level-- Maybe Long over Zimmerman, or Opara over both.
Zusi, until his late-career conversion to rightback, was a specialist attacker. Dempsey was, of course, a specialist attacker who was comfortable dropping into deep midfield.
Is it really useful to be debating the Belgium game, like we were somehow in it? That game shoulda been 5 or 6-0. Not only that, but it was what, 6 years ago now? With basically every player retired or off the roster outside of who, Yedlin? Was Brooks playing that game? It's like a random friendly we play against better competition. We always get smoked in the first 60 mins, then the superior team loses interest, maybe we grab a goal or look competent against a disinterested team, and everyone thinks "ohhhhh, if we just played that way the entire match, we'd be world class", without thinking that we can't play that way because the other team is so much better when they want to be. We didn't deserve anything against Belgium, and if we had won, it would have been about a 1 in 100 result. Not super useful to figure out how to be successful in the future.
Yup, the smart analysis considers your own team is only half of the equation. Many of the "awesome results" we got in JK friendlies were not because his subs were phenomenal, but because the rival took out their better players.
Agreed, fun to talk soccer. Always enjoy being able to have these tactic/system debates aside from just player y is better than player x. I think if we were to play in your setup, it would mean Dest and Robinson will have a large share of the creating side of things, which for me Im not sure either are great at. I think Dest is better at it, and can cause issues. My only complaint would be teams with attacking wingers would force them back, and in Berhalter's system which de-emphasizes quick counters, I fear it may be like Mexico all over again where we win possession and then immediately give it away. And theyd just be pinned down, causing our attackers to be left on an island. While in a more traditional back 4 the team would have to keep one extra back, and then they could get forward more. Really dependent on the type of team your playing too. With a different "system" (coach) Id be interested to see what your lineup would do. I think Morales/McKinnie would be an either/or for me. I dont know that Id want those 3 across the middle, but Pomykal could slot in there and help the offense.
The midfield was overrun because the team played too far up the field. The team played lower against Spain '09, Ghana'14, and Germany'14 and didn't get overrun. Belgium didn't press much as they weren't seeking to dominate possession. They were seeking transition opportunities. The US played into this. Bradley played the 10 against Portugal, and the team got the result. Zusi wasn't a shuttler. He played wing-forward in SKC's 433. He had a combined 11 goals and 23 assists in the '12 and '13 MLS regular seasons. His defense was subpar for elite international level. Bradley was just a CM who got press ganged into play into the '10'.
Sure, in terms what could've been done to mitigate the run of play. The team that won WC'18 defeated Belgium on the way to the title. They took an extremely low possession % against Belgium. You gotta give yourself a chance. It wasn't a friendly. Belgium were hanging on in the end. You don't lose interest in a Would Cup knockout round game. Also, in random friendlies against better competition, the US almost always tries to compete for possession. Road to ruin. Winning isn't about 'deserving'. Putting more goals on the board than comp does makes you the winner. JK could've done a much better of setting up the team is what I'm arguing. The game should also serve as an object lesson in how not to take on powerful teams.
I guess a discussion about mitigating run of play works, but then why not discuss every other game in which the US plays (and frankly, every single international match regardless of the teams). How is that relevant to today? No, it's not about deserving, you are right. But in general, the more deserving team wins. Hence my point, that if we had won that game, it would have been probably the single time out of 100. We were outclassed all over the field, and I'm not sure why it's useful to discuss, just because we were insanely lucky, and a Wondo shank from winning. If I find a 100 dollar bill on the street, I don't start practicing how to find 100 dollar bills, or devote more time to searching for 100 dollar bills. We have superior players currently, and will have far superior players in the next few years. We shouldn't be far off from playing some of the top teams pretty evenly. The Belgium game is about a group of players that had just about zero chance of winning the game.
1.That's a lot of games to discuss. 2.Games can serve as models for other games. That was already explained. That's been explained several times, already. No, but you prepare for opportunity. If you are not prepared for opportunity then you blow the chance. We blew the chance at what turned out to be very winnable game against Belgium. We have a strong group of young players. The game went into extra time. Your claim doesn't reflect reality, at all.
Guess this is where we disagree. I don't think it was a winnable game. I think that was probably the best chance that team would ever have. Any other game those two teams play is a blowout. Thus, I don't see the point in discussing it, and how it's relevant. Anyhow, clearly there's interest in figuring out that game, so carry on.
My assertion is contesting possession against one of the world's top teams means you're going to be hanging on for dear life. This has happened time and time again. When we take low possession, we give ourselves a more realistic chance. This has happened time and time again. Yet, US coaches continue to chase the fool's goal of possession. If we'd taken low possession against Belgium, we would not have been run so ragged. Back to Pulisic. He can be played centrally. Use a shuttler on one side. Use a wing forward on the other.
They are different but the skill set is similar. He has picked the ball up centrally quite a bit this season. When he is wide left he cuts in to the right. When he is central, he can go stright at the defense or go right or left. tHe has been most successful for the USMNT with freedom to roam. He spent his whole career playing centrally and was moved out wide at BVB to get him on the field and utilize his attacking abilities. This current role has him more central. If were to drop down a level (which is what he is doing when playing with usmnt) he should be moved centrally to get him on the ball more often.
I dont recall it that way. I just found the game on YouTube. The few minutes I have watched is consistent with my memory. I will try to watch more. They had guys focusing on him but he had plenty of space. The bigger issue was his team mates werent finding him. I am still not sure how you can make the claim he is better out wide, when his best games have been centrally and his worst games have been out wide. Here are the numbers again... AM - 10G & 7A in 14 games R/LW - 1G & 2A in 11 games 9/7/16 H Trinidad 4:0 LW 1 90' 3/25/17 H Honduras 6:0 AM 1 3 90' 3/29/17 A Panama 1:1 RW 0 1 90' 6/3/17 H Venezuela 1:1 AM 1 0 90' 6/9/17 H Trinidad 2:0 AM 2 0 90' 10/7/17 H Panama 4:0 AM 1 1 57' 10/11/17 A Trinidad 2:1 AM 1 0 90' 3/27/19 H Chile 1:1 AM 1 0 36' 6/23/19 H Trinidad 6:0 AM 1 2 90' 7/1/19 H Curaçao 1:0 AM 0 1 90' 7/4/19 H Jamaica 1:3 AM 2 0 90' 10/12/19 H Cuba 7:0 LW 1 0 68'
I think it makes more sense to leave Reyna out wide than Pulisic for the time being. The four extra years of experience that Pulisic are significant. Reyna out wide is still partly about finding a position to get him on the field where he doesnt have too much responsibility. Down the road the roles could switch. I think offensively would line up like this with the reality of being three attackers under Sargent, mckennie supporting the front four, and Adam's sitting deep and balancing our shape. What is nice is that the front four are well rounded attacking players that could interchange throughout the game. We may have to go a bit more defensive against better teams, but this is how I think we should start and then adapt based actual results. All three of those players are athletic enough to do the work defensively and Pulisic has already shown that he is willing to do the work at his club. ..............Sargent Reyna....................Weah .......Pulisic....McKennie ..............Adams
I could absolutely see that in the early stages, but I think where Reyna ends up playing his club ball will be important to where they end up ultimately. And we really don't know if Pulisic will always play on the wing either. Could go either way. I'd say pull McKennie back to share that space with Adams instead of two forward, but that's petty and mostly a matter of the flow of the game anyway. When you take off a couple key Berhalter blinders like his instance of a plodding, mediocre-defending, slightly better than average passer playing at the base of midfield, the lineup really pretty much takes care of itself. We're still waiting for Weah to get back, Reyna is just starting to emerge, etc. We're just getting to a place where over the next year or so rolling out these types of lineups will be possible. So, with all the injuries; nothing else you can do and I can't complain about someone not rolling out impossible lineups with half the guys who should be starting hurt or unavailable. But, we get everyone healthy and playing and it will start to look obviously foolish to pretty much anyone for a guy like Trapp or Yueill or Bradley to take one of their spots. And again in Berhalter's defense, we've still not been in a position of having the whole crew healthy and together to find out just how far he would go to screw up something obvious.
You're needlessly limiting things, based on "position"... you should really think about it in terms of who you want dedicated to attack, and who you want shoring up that attack. CP can cut in from a wide position; the whole point of him at LW is so he can make the decision what to do depending on the defense, cut in to look for goal, wait for overlap to combine, easily beat his man to the byline to unbalance/disrupt the defensive unit, then cut back to top of box, etc. Reyna (or if it's too early to talk about him, any other possible 8, Pomykal, whoever can do the job it doesn't matter) could/would theoretically come forward to combine with the LB & CP in the final 3rd. That by design means CP is operating in the middle, at least some of the time. Taking away Pulisic's freedom to stay wide and torture a defender is as short sighted as trying to keep him from cutting inside and operating through the middle at times. The difference is, in this scenario, I think we're presuming the player that would be playing through the middle is adding more, collectively, than the player that's put out wide in order to keep CP in the 10 spot. At least I certainly am, mostly because it's harder to be an effective winger than it is to be an effective 8 in a 3 man CM with 2 other talented hardworking midfielders. On top of that the 10 is going out of the game for a reason. I don't think anyone should play with a 10 barring them having a next-level world class playmaker. Forcing a 10 makes as much sense as forcing the US into a possession-based team. But what do I know. It's all just opinions.
What we want for the Hex: ----------------------Steffen--------------------- Dest-------Miazga------Brooks------Robinson -------------McKennie----Adams--------------- Reyna--------------Pulisic----------------Weah ----------------------Sargent--------------------- But: - likely to be out injured: JAB, Adams, Weah, Steffen; - likely to be rusty from lack of play: Dest, Sargent, Reyna, Miazga, Robinson; - likely to be in bad form: McKennie, Pulisic. What we'll get: -----------------------Guzan---------------------- Cannon-------Long--------Ream------Lovitz -------------McKennie-----Yueill---------------- Pulisic---------------Lletget------------Arriola ----------------------Morris-----------------------