From reading these forums it is my understanding that the 'coming' generations of US players have a lot of potential, now is probably the right time to change perceptions? I think the next coach there is a VERY big decision for the federation.to make. The wrong coach can be disastrous, from an Englishmans perspective I can tell you how the 'golden generation' never lived up to its potential and yes I blame the coaches. But really who is 'out there' right now? We would all like Guardiola or Ancelloti to coach our national teams but they are simply not available. Its going to be hard, maybe that's why the federation is taking its time?
When under Klinsmann's modern approach did that ever happen? Jamaica scored on us from set pieces. It is sports 101. The weaker team always wants to slow down and shorten the game hoping for a smash and grab, Playing a passive low block scheme just works to the weaker squad's advantage. You really seem to want us to play like Iceland? We have grown beyond that phase, it is time to put our big boy shorts on. Listen to and watch Pulisic, Weston, Adams and the rest of the new breed. They are cut from the Jermaine Jones cloth and want to get after the other team
I've been waiting for this (and in saying this, let me add that in no way do I think the USMNT is presently or historically has been as strong as the English National Team, we're working on it, but it's a long ways off, especially considering the current English team and its young prospects, are to my mind, a part of the greatest English National Team ever) Something odd I started noticing a decade ago was the ridiculously easy, borderline cake draws England received over and over again for qualification campaigns for the Euro's and the World Cup. Since I didn't pay as close attention to the entirety of all other seeded groups draws, I didn't notice whether or not similar trends happened with others (though, just to give as an example, squads like the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, France and Italy have all been thrown into either a qualification group of death, or at least a campaign that included either #1 an immensely difficult Pot B foe, or #2 a deep collection of strong second tier opponents), but I did notice that #1: England hasn't gotten a tough draw for a major tournament in nearly 20 years and #2 England always seems to draw international sides from similar areas that provide limited to little threat: #1 They get at least one Northeastern European side. #2 They get at least one Southeastern European side, usually one that's god awful. #3 They seem to draw a piece of the UK every second or third qualification campaign. #4 They get the patsy (to be fair, everyone does) I think the gnashing of teeth over England's disappointments from 2004-2016 could primarily be a byproduct of easy qualification masking the true mediocrity of various iterations of the English National Team (for the most part). If you look at England's draws in WC and Euro qualifying from the 2004 to 2018 Euro's you see dodged bullet after dodged bullet with no elite teams out of Pot B, and at best, formerly strong teams in a down cycle (Croatia), or overseeded teams nowhere near as good as their ranking (see Poland and Switzerland). There is no comparison whatsoever between any of the '04-'18 qualification campaigns and the difficulty of 2001, and the magisterial effort that was produced in thrashing Germany in route to automatic qualification. When you trash Concacaf (and it's deserved to a large degree) it's worth noting that Costa Rica, the traditional third best regional side (sometimes 4th when Honduras pips them) finished you w/o trouble in a neutral site in WC '14, and that qualification out of Central America is murderously unpleasant considering the reffing, the intimidating atmosphere, and the brutal climate (see again how much England struggled in Brazil, now compare the comfortable confines of Brazil to Costa Rica, Honduras, and Panama, or even the ugly thug/dive fest nightmares that come with grabbing the 3 road points at Guatemala or El Salvador). Note also that I won a good chunk of change betting that Costa Rica would take a ticket to the knockouts over Italy and England in 2014. Anyway, lets look at those qualification draws. 2004 Turkey Slovakia Liechstinstein Macedonia Verdict: Superficially difficult due to Turkey's '02 WC performance, but it ended up being no trouble, and Turkey fell off slowly but surely following '02, with only their miracle run in the '08 Euro's worth mentioning in the 16 years since. 2006: Poland Austria Northern Ireland Wales Azerbaijan Verdict: easy. There wasn't a single quality team you had to worry about. 2008: Croatia Russia Israel Macedonia Estonia Andorra Verdict: Moderately Difficult. Sure you've got Croatia, but Croatia hit a bumpy road between 1999-2016, consistently crashing out in the group stage when they qualified for tournaments despite bringing some quality teams. Then there's semifinalist Russia which remains one of the weirder runs in a major tournament. So it looked easy, and instead you failed to qualify and it ended up being more difficult than imagined. 2010 Ukraine Croatia Belarus Kazakhstan Andorra Verdict: Croatia again, and nobody else worth mentioning (sure Ukraine qualified for a couple of tournaments since 2005, but none of their sides were intimidating. They weren't bad, but they should have been an easy 4 points, and a very possible 6 in a home and home for you guys. 2012 Montenegro Switzerland Wales Bulgaria Verdict: Comically easy. 2014 Ukraine Montenegro Poland Moldova San Marino Verdict: Okay it seems like you're drawing Ukraine, Poland, or Croatia in virtually every cycle, probably out of pot B. Again, cake draw. 2016 Switzerland Slovenia Lithuania Estonia San Marino Verdict: Cake Draw. 2018 Slovakia Slovenia Scotland Lithuania Malta Verdict: Cake Draw So let's stow the argument that we have a way easier qualification than UEFA sides do. In general, of course we do, but in the particular the only reason are routes were ever easier was the fact that failure to take our group or finish 2nd wasn't an automatic expulsion (and up until '18, we finished first in nearly every campaign since 2001, and when we didn't, we finished second). Other than that, are you gonna tell me these groups are really, straight up, more difficult than home and homes with Costa Rica, and Mexico? Because I'd rate Mexico and Costa Rica as tougher outs than the two toughest opponents you had in every single one of those campaigns other than 2008 and 2010 (and I give 2008 soley because it was a total abberation Hiddink lead miracle Russian side, any other Russian side from any other cycle and I'd view Mexico/Costa Rica as the tougher out). So yeah. We have the easier road because we get 3.5 tickets instead of 1.5, obviously that makes it easier, but comparing the draws, purely on the quality of the opponents? The top of Concacaf Hexagonal competition is better across the board than virtually all of those draws you had, especially when you add in having to play away in the Azteca, and Saprissa (although Mexico's Invincible reputation at Azteca, backed up by their historical home record, has finally started buckling in recent years). In saying this, I'm not saying we have it tougher than UEFA squads, I'm saying specifically that England's draws since the very tough 2001 WC draw have been absurdly kind to England and not remotely difficult. I'm not sure if that played a role in the repeated disappointments in major tournaments, or if England just wasn't very good to begin with, but historically since the difficult 2001 draw, without question, England's path to major tournament qualification has been incredibly easy when compared to virtually all other powers in Europe (just about all of whom have managed to draw an elite side out of group B at bare minimum at least once, if not more often over the past 8 major tournaments), happily for England, they seem to be in the midst of a decade or more long golden generation that will make even bad draws likely moot in the coming years.
We tried to "control and dictate" the game at Trinidad to disastrous results. Which attacking player other than CP would make the squad for Mexico? What about Italy's B team, England, Brazil, Colombia or France?
There isn't anything wrong with being defensively compact, and utilizing good GKing and set pieces. The US has won matches this way against good opponents in the past. Teams like Sweden, Mexico and Switzerland gotten results that way just this year. The US-Belgium match from 2014 -- where the USA conceded 30+ shots, 16 SOG and 2 goals and lost -- is not a good example that kinda of performance, or any kind of good performance in general. I can't tell if folks are being serious comparing that performance to what Leiceister and Greece did. More importantly, even if you could win that way, why would you want to? American soccer fans need to shake off the underdog mentality and the dream of a plucky "Miracle on Ice" type World Cup victory. To win a World Cup you need top players, a top league, top clubs and a top coach. We should aspire for nothing less than that.
Let's not confuse stupid tactics and player selections with "control and dictate" If you want to see how to control and dictate an away match where you need a single point just compare Klinsmann's tactical set up away to the T&T A team in WCQ group. We played a mid field 4-4-2 and put Jones at the #6 behind Bradley to contest long balls. What does this have to do with the USMNT? Why does it matter? Which attacking player from Mexico would make the squad for Spain, Germany, Brazil, or France? The bottom line is that attempting to play a modern proactive style has not produced worse results compared to a low block contain and counter style! coachmatcheswinsdrawslosseswin %AGoalsFAGoalsA Arena14881353266.551.640.75 Klinsmann9855162764.291.821.11 Bradley8043122561.251.681.21 Sampson6226142252.231.341.11 Furthermore Pulisic, Adams, and McKennie sitting back in a static low block defensive scheme is the wrong way to use our emerging talent base and they have pretty much said so. Let the young boys press and run at our opponents.
You don't seem to realise that draws are 'seeded'? England are the 'seeded' team in draws for a reason you know! Also I am afraid to say that there are no world class federations in North America, Mexico have probably 'traditionally' been the best federation from the region and they are hardly considered as a footballing 'powerhouse', I am afraid I haven't changed my mind, with all due respect with the exception of Australasia North America is probably the weakest confederation. I'm sorry but the English national team is not and has not ever been as bad as many 'Americans' seem to think, it's like the 'British have bad teeth' thing, its stereotypical nonsense, Costa Rica did not 'finish them off' they were already eliminated! do you think this might just have had an effect!? That particular game was Costa Rica defending and hoping the English wouldn't score and the English not giving a F*ck anyway because Uruguay had already knocked them out! Also why is it the Germans (who just got knocked out of the group stage of the World Cup & have just been relegated from the Uefa nations league) are still considered a 'powerhouse', or Italy or Netherlands despite not even qualifying for the last World Cup in the first place yet the 'English' are terrible despite getting to the semi final of the World Cup and getting (at least) to the semi final of the Uefa nations league? Is it because they were knocked out in the group stage 4 years ago? I will tell you why - bad stereotyping! The fact is Germany still IS a football powerhouse, England isn't much better now than 4 years ago and both Italy and the Netherlands are amongst the worlds top teams.
It makes all the difference in the world. I want us to have the best opportunity to win games and when we play against teams with elite players, it is folly to try to go toe-to-toe with them. As you mentioned before, when we are the less-talented team (and I think the point is that we clearly are less talented than other top teams), we want to play conservative and hope that our opponents take us for granted (which is exactly what the Jamaicas et al. hope we do to them by trying to "dictate and control".) You seem to think that if we play attractive attacking football that it will create better talent down the line - i fundamentally disagree that getting blown out 3-0 by England is better for us long term than being in close games where we win our fair share. This isn't the NBA where the Sixers can tank in a "Process" to get better players in the draft.
Our game plan vs. England wasn't a static low block defensive scheme and had CP and WM as starters and Adams subbing in in the second half. We tried to press high but our press wasn't effective. When our emerging talent base becomes major league UCL starting players then we can happily talk about going toe-to-toe with other teams who have equal talent. I hope that we get to that talent level but we're a long long way from that right now.
I think the feeling is that if you don't change this mind-set the team will not develop to its full potential, it is perhaps one reason why the US doesn't seem to live up to its potential. I imagine that if Pep Guardiola came along and managed the US national team he would have them playing a VERY different style that admittedly in the short term would possibly mean 'bad results' but once the team are practiced and more fluent at playing the way he wanted they would improve dramatically and be a far better team than if they were to decide 'bunkering down' is the way forward. Of course its not easy, we would all like Pep managing our team but managers/coaches like that are notoriously hard to pin down but the next choice of coach for the US is going to be VITAL to the team development, a very crucial period for US football/soccer I think.
The concept of picking a style that we want to play and then forcing our players into that style is folly at the national level. We should start with the core players and then find a style that works best for them. Right now, it's not an attacking attractive style.
I wouldn't say 'folly.' All national sides are forced to simplify strategy and tactics in order to accommodate players coming into the team from disparate locations. The fact they're only given a short time to coordinate in a new structure almost demands some decisions be made on 'a style that we want to play.' I realize you address that in the second paragraph with the concept of core players. That doesn't seem realistic to me. Today, Pulisic, McKennie, Adams, Brooks, and Yedlin would seem to qualify as core players, but Dortmund, Schalke, and Wolfsburg haven't always been compliant. Injuries further complicate the idea of a core group deciding the style. I think I would be more in favor of allowing the manager to make, change, and tinker with the style decision. When tournament time rolls around, and there's more time, he can refine or change with the whole group.
that's all well and good but the current zeitgeist is that we need to play attacking attractive soccer and "dictate and control" play. That's not within our pool's abilities at the WC level. Players first, system second.
Who on that list represents the "modern proactive style" versus "contain and counter"? Because all those coaches coached the USA in a World Cup, but only one on that list holds a World Cup record for saves in a match that he lost.
We are the underdog. No matter how much you try to will it otherwise, we clearly are the underdog. I fundamentally disagree that we need a top 10 league (and tbf, it's not clear what you mean by top league) to win a WC although I do agree that we need great players and coaches.
I stipulate to all that, but caution the pool's abilities as a team has been severely stunted by being forced to play under the control of a manager who is not only temporary, but probably outdated.
I think your stats are not apples to apples as they're against different opponents. Here's our defensive stats in the Hex: We need to get back to less than 0.7 goals per game and a minimum of 9 shutouts.
We're underdogs today, but you only get better by aspiring to play better. It's not black and white -- bunker vs. Barcelona tiki taka. The US doesn't have to be a possession team, but the team should be able to do things like keep the ball when they want to, circulate possession to relieve pressure, etc. Now we have to define words like "Top League"? A top league has world class clubs, players and coaches. You know what the Top 5 leagues are. 6 of the last 8 world champions (going back almost 30 years) have been countries with the traditional "top 5" leagues: Germany (x2), France (x2), Spain (1), Italy(1). The two outliers are both Brazil, who had a world class league then (on both occasions their squads had many players playing in the domestic league). You fundamentally disagree, so maybe you have a lot of examples of achieving NTs that have weak leagues?
First, I didn't sue the words "weak league" as that's not the same as not being a "top league." I already think that MLS is way beyond being a weak league (albeit a ways away from being a top league). Look at the teams in recent finals who could easily have won: Croatia, Brazil, Argentina, Netherlands. I don't think they have top leagues but are clearly candidates for winning a WC IMO.
Going toe-to-toe with better skilled teams does not make us get better. It makes us lose and fall into a lower pool for WC and then we lose even more. This isn't American professional sports where the losing team gets a better draft picks. The reason we can't "keep the ball when they want to, circulate possession to relieve pressure, etc." is because we don't have players who can play at the highest levels where the speed of play and thought is higher. Therefore, we should play a style that doesn't accentuate our weaknesses. When we get a full roster of players who are accustomed to that level of play, then we can alter our style.
I assume in this case you mean "could easily have won" the way "Wondo could easily have scored that volley", when in reality in 100 iterations, 90 times the result would go the same way in both cases (the exception maybe being Brazil v. France, which was odd circumstances). But again - even those losing finalists have very good leagues, historically top 5-10 quality, excepting Croatia, who I think was the weakest finalist in some time and were overmatched in their final.
What are you talking about? I disagree. For one, not all top teams press and close down space very quickly, so there is differences in time and space allowed by teams. At the WC, France conceded a lot of space and killed on set pieces and counters. Next, the US has historically taken many players to the WC who are actively playing in a top league or capable of it; our players have the ability. There's no reason a team consisting of Dempsey, Jones, Bradley, Beasley, F.Johnson, Cameron etc. should get so badly outplayed at the WC except they didn't have a tactical plan to respond to pressure.
It's a shame we couldn't see Adams, Delgado, Trapp plus, perhaps, Weston as a free 8 or 10 instead of Green v. England . Sarachan seemed to have a hard time with building on past results. V. England Sarachan played Trapp and McKennie as central dmids behind Wood and Green forward with the 2 other mids, Pulisic and Weah, assigned to the wings where they had to defend a lot because there wasn't a 3rd cmid to help wide. All the goals came about because of that gap. As Twellman said after the 2nd goal "it's just been too easy for England to play between the lines and get to those pockets that put the fb's in a vulnerable situation, so easy to get to that spot" (paraphrase) . the hi-lites of the goals are really easy to diagnose and see what's wrong. Who is Acosta's man on that 3rd goal? the cmids are just totally confused. -----------------------------------------------wood ----------------------------------------------green --weah------------------------------------------------------------------------------pulisic ------------------------------------McKennie---------Trapp Visually this doesn't make much sense. I call it the American Grand Canyon with 2 blob forwards. We need to play with 3 mids like Adams, Trapp, Delgado so we can defend properly.