I have no problem playing a 433 but there are BS poster who think that’s not aggressive enough particularly if they view all of our CMs as DMs (funny as I don’t think we have a single true 6 at all). I’m rewatching our games, we’re quite bad at two things: - pressing as we rarely cause turnovers and more frequently allow team to play through our lines and exploit space as you discussed. - beating a press. We are terrible at building via the back under pressure. Simply terrible.
Sorry for being unclear. I believe that WC pots are now done solely by ranking rather than by geography for the last three pots so losing games has a real cost even if we make the WC as we could be in the 4th pot and therefore have to play better teams.
Someone in another thread noted that in the Nations league group A were the 3 countries that since 1974 have been in the WC finals with the only exemption the WC final between Italy and Brasil.
You've managed to undercut yourself there. Tired teams have more difficulty closing down. Stamina, like goalkeeping, is a key part of football. The US were number 1 in distance covered at the 2014 WC, Germany number 2, while Belgium came in at 11. But the Belgians had been scrambling before that as the 'Wondo Miss' had amply shown. Whether they 'figured they had the match pretty buttoned up' is more of your largely baseless speculation. What isn't speculation is that Bradley only had the ball for about two seconds before passing. And standing at the edge of the attacking third, and not being Andrea Pirlo, he was not in a particularly dangerous position. For the US, I would define high aggression as contesting possession against one of the top counter-attacking teams in the world. And we were greatly outmanned at almost every position. Yet, JK thought setting a medium block and going for it was smart. It was dumb. In the 2018 WC, France took 36% possession against Belgium and advanced. And France have the deepest pool of talent in the world! Throwing on attacking sub on in the 2nd half is the normal course of action; there was nothing special in Lukaku's being subbed in. The only thing notable about the subs was that Donovan should have been in the team ahead of Wondo. The US have always been near the top in distance covered per match in tournaments. Belgium expended a great deal energy in the second half. Whether their losing 6 of the match's last 7 possession intervals was due to some sort of strategy rather than fatigue can't be said with certainty. Noticeably, however, Belgium were scrambling to contain the US. Fatigue doesn't impact performance? Er, ok. You're using a results based argument now. You two are yet again all over the place. Same person? It's not uncommon to see runners used in the 10 spot. In fact, Zeman used Bradley as an 8/10 at times. Schalke have been experimenting with McKennie there, as well. Using a runner says nothing about the level of team's attacking mentality.
Howard made a high volume of saves. He was excellent in dealing with them but was not making wunder save and wunder save.
I don't think the USMNT has had a coordinated, practiced press since the Honduras game in March 2017. Arena, like Sarachan, was strange in that things that worked were never really tried again. So, I'm not sure how you can conclude that pressing wouldn't work. We have three players playing at clubs that historically pressed. Adams is being bought by RB Leipzig, the kings of the high press. Pulisic is one of the leaders in the Bundesliga for causing turnovers in the opponent's third. Under Tuchel, when Dortmund last pressed seriously, he was 82% better than all Bundesliga players in defending the opponent's defensive third. McKennie plays on a pressing team; at least he played well last year when they had a coordinated pressing plan. Again, we have very few good prime age anything, much less midfielders. We will need to continue to produce more. But possession is overrated in soccer now. If you can't build from the back, that is more reason to press high and hard. The USA and probably American soccer players are just no good being passive. How many USMNT games have you watched since 1990 and see the USA try and play defensively, give up a goal, come out of their shell and play much better? The entire 1998 cycle was an example of this where the team played well when allowed to attack and were terrible when the coach tried to have them sit back and absorb pressure. The USMNT will have to have a basic setup that is flexible as we play teams much better than us and much worse than us quite often (although maybe not for the next 3 years will we play many much better teams until the WC). Of course it has to be defensively sound and be able to score. Have our expectations come so low that we are forced to choose? A three man midfield is probably essential. A back four probably the default. Other than that, we will see what GB comes up with. If he starts with Trapp in a 2 man midfield, it could be a long 4 years...
I have my complaints about the prospect of GB as manager, but that's not one of them. I'm sufficiently confident in my view Trapp is ill-equipped to play as a 6 (or any other position) on a national side, even if Berhalter used him there in the first few matches, he will quickly abandon the trial. He's not a 'bad' manager, just one lacking the proven experience at an international level. Regardless of our current roster's lack of success, the USSF can afford and the fans deserve a top flight proven candidate who can make the most of a young team. The good thing about the current situation is we're not stuck with embedded players who feel as if they have justification to challenge the manager. Whoever is chosen should be able to implement his choices and strategies without impediment. I look forward to watching how it develops, and if all else fails, will still be entertained by watching the decision making and listening to the critics. I just wish the USSF were willing to take a bigger risk that could yield greater rewards. I do not predict the USMNT will gain any traction under Berhalter.
USSF only cares about number one. The MNT itself is the unwanted red-headed step child they are forced to take care of.
It will be a long summer in 2022 if we go by the rule "we cant pass out of the back so we press". We need to pass out of the back. That's why I always have Trapp and Delgado and Brooks in my lineups. This year what I learned was that you cant have one cb who cant pass and expect the others to carry his load. Finally, if you become well known for being a pressing team, the opponent will practice all week on breaking the press and play their players who can break the press. If you are known as a "passing out of the back" team, the opponent will work all week on pressing to force bad passes out of the back. Considering that the teams we face will be calling the best xi in their particular country, it is expected they will have the people skilled to do the job.
Pressing is dangerous when the other team is better at dribbling than you are at marking dribblers. Not the case with Honduras, but completely the case against better teams.
I agree you need to do both. I was simply responding to someone who stated we couldn't pass out of the back. Maybe some hyberbole, but you certainly don't have to pass as much if you win the ball in the opponent's half. If teams fear our press, they will probably bunker deep. We will have to pass out of the back, but it should be pretty easy since they will be sitting deep.
If “teams fear our press”! That’s funny. Go the other way: we should fear other teams press because it works against us. Repeatedly.
Actually, my statement was-- For a country that invests so much money and manpower in the sport, England's World Cup and Euro records are indeed a study in underachievement. Euros '72_DNQ '76_DNQ '80_Group '84_DNQ '88_Group '92_Group '96_Semis '00_Group '04_Quarters '08_DNQ '12_Quarters '16_Rnd16 World Cup '74_DNQ '78_DNQ '82_Group '86_Quarters '90_Semis '94_DNQ '98_RND16 '02_Quarters '06_Quarters '10_RND16 '14_Groups '18_Semis I would define a 'very good team' as one that could win a WC. We don't have the players or coaching for that. Population, once larger than a few million, means little. Scraping results is pretty common in tournament play. Reaching a World Cup Quarterfinal does indeed represent success for the US. Why do you put so much credence on friendlies?
Underachieved? Perhaps? Perhaps not, after all England is only one of MANY countries that are football mad, and again their 'record' in international football, with the exception of Brazil, Germany and Italy stacks up pretty nicely against most. You think that right now the US doesn't have the talent to win the World Cup, perhaps not BUT if the attitude doesn't change it never will. Its time to stop looking at occasional narrow wins by 'bunkering down' and lucking out on a breakaway goal as 'success' and looking at 3-0 losses to England when actually trying to play the right way as 'failure'. It seems to 'some' its ALL about results, lose ant the team is sh*t, win and you are fabulous - this is despite the actual performances. Until that mindset is changed then I don't think the team will develop. Bunkering and only losing by one against Belgium is NOT the recipe for future success.
No country has had the combination financial resources, population, interest, and history in the game England has had. Attitude doesn't create talent. The most soccer-athletically gifted kids have to commit to the sport. There has to be financial investment in facilities. There has be financial investment in the training of coaches. There has to be the growth of a soccer culture. Again with the friendlies. No wonder you guys have underachieved when games really counted. I'm not sure where this 'bunkering' myth comes from. Until, the last 35 minutes of the match, Belgium had simply outpunched us. I do wish we had played more defensively, though.
As an admirer of T.S Eliot, and finding it appropriate to include a quote of his in a discussion of England vs the US, I think your use of that quote violates the spirit of the quote just as my use of 'a tedious argument of insidious intent' to describe this interchange of ideas might also violate the spirit.
The point is, 2-0 up and deep in extra time, with tired legs and minds Belgium were conceding a shitload of time and space to the Americans. Additionally, they were barely able to counter to the keep the US attack honest. Whether fatigue or mentally switching off (some combo of both in my opinion), point is this is not Belgium at 100%. Belgium do not like to hold the ball to begin with, so France were a terrible match-up for them. This version of France didn't even attempt to out-possess anyone in the World Cup, striking instead on counters and set-pieces. So Belgium (a much more flawed version in 2014, I add) were happy to let the US have possession because they were barely able to get out of their own half with it. Losing Altidore as an outlet was a big blow to Klinsmann's gameplan, but not having another option, say someone speedy who can run into balls over the top to open up space in front of the CBs was just bad planning to begin with. Belgium is a good squad, but not substantially better than the Portugal team the US outplayed for long stretches. Lukaku is normally a starter for Belgium and one of the top strikers in the tournament, so him not starting is notable. Games always open up in the 2nd half and that usually benefits the weaker team. Additionally, most goals are scored in the final 15 minutes of matches. Like anyone else that follows football, Jurgen knows this and built a strategy around rope-a-doping for 60 minutes then striking late with speedy subs. It's the closest thing Klinsmann ever had to a signature gameplan and he's been using it since he coached Germany. Before Julian Green, there was David Odonkor, a speedy U-21 who got a surprise call-up to WC2006 by Klinsmann, scored an important goal in the dying minutes of a match to rescue Germany, then hastily faded into football obscurity for ever. (Jurgen tried Donovan in the same role at Bayern). It's not exactly sophisticated, but Klinsmann had some success with it at the World Cup. But Wilmots sussed it out easily and countered effectively. It didn't help that Klinsmann had to blow his wad early and bring Yedlin on in the 1st half, which neutered his gameplan for minutes 75-90. Of course, but in the grand scheme it's another underwhelming performance against a top team. I'm pretty sure I said it was a bad performance and result. Results-wise, we assume the goal is to win the match, so we know we failed there. Performance-wise, the question is how well did the team implement their gameplan? We don't know what the plan was, but it doesn't really matter how you try to spin it: if the plan was to be aggressive, the team failed to implement that plan. If the goal was to be solid defensively they failed at that, too. So it's hard for me to say it was a good performance. Yes, but fewer chances, shots and goals against top squads does. And at the same time, Klinsmann's teams were no more defensively resolute. The 4-0 loss to Argentina is the worst for the US in a major tournament in the modern era. I don't know how you don't earn a single shot in a match and then still get your poop chute turned inside out on defense, but that was exactly the sort of thing we did under Klinsmann.
The Belgians played bloody 19-year old Origi as single striker against us for 90 minutes. If that doesn't mean disrespect I don't know what does.
There you go bringing England into it AGAIN! For your information Germany, Brazil, Italy, Spain!!! Just a few countries that have financial resources, population, interest and 100+ years of history of the game, just like England! Like I've said, underachieved? Perhaps but there again go back and look at the links I provided and you will find that you base your argument on god awful stereotypes! (don't forget only FIVE countries in the whole world have a better world cup record). I have looked through US threads and the fact is SOME US fans base EVERYTHING on the result not the performance. Your attitude is all wrong - the US will not advance unless the attitude is changed, you belittle the English over population - there are millions MORE kids playing football/soccer in the US than in England (has been for a while) so instead of harping on about the English perhaps you could explain why (despite) the numbers the US national team feels the need to 'bunker' against other national teams? The time has come to expect more from the US team, the talent is good, the facilities are good, the numbers playing are good and money in the US in NEVER going to be a problem. There are many US supporters on here that seem to agree with this too. Right now is a crucial time for the US national team and the next coach/manager is going to be a crucial decision, lets hope whoever he is will be brave enough to move things forward, ultimately though you have to expect some defeats short term to make things better long term, even Peps Man City and their multi million pound players had a couple of seasons of mediocrity before they were playing the way he wanted.
Crawleybus, You're entitled to your opinion that the USMNT needs to shift its attitude to an attacking attractive style but I have no idea why you're on a USMNT board. It's pretty clear that many posters don't need or want advice from an English fan who overrates his own team all while having little to no connection to our team. Furthermore, I'd argue that your understanding of American/English history is about as helpful as your soccer advice..... LOL - this brought tears to my eyes.....
I don't overate my national team! I would like to see where exactly? I have actually posted plenty of links to back up everything I've said......unless you can prove otherwise? You complain that because I am not from the US I shouldn't be 'allowed' an opinion on 'your' national team yet as YOU are the one that keeps bringing up the English national team you seem to think its perfectly OK for you to have an opinion on my national team no!? Basically you just don't like hearing my opinion so instead of discussing anything you keep changing the subject and 'sounding off' about the English team. It is a free country so I am afraid its my right to give an opinion on anything I like, you may also notice that my opinion on the US team is actually pretty bloody positive too! I also have no connection to plenty of 'other' teams on here that I have opinions on, I'm not sure what American/English history has to do with it?! There are PLENTY of US posters on here now agreeing with 'my opinion' as well!
I don't think any US posters think that the US entered WW2 only after England had secured the victory! In deference to Winoman's request, this will be the last post to you in this thread from me but I'll also point out that I didn't say you aren't allowed an opinion but rather that it's weird to do it in a USMNT forum as it would be weird if a US fan went into the England thread and gave unsolicited opinion. It's allowed but weird. When THHF and bskyb22 (for example) and I debate the merits about the USMNT style, there's no question in my mind that they're dedicated and knowledgeable US fans and interesting to volley with even though we may disagree strongly.