Basically if your team has Ronaldo on it you have a 433. If your team has Dempsey and Altidore on it you do not.
It is important to remember that most coaches - and all the best ones I have worked with - start with players first. They have a deep understanding of what each player can and cannot do, and then devise a system to best position their team. Bad coaches start with a system first and then figure out how to fit players in that system. It is also important to remember that formations are about how players should line up defensively first. How they should attack second. So when a professional is designing a formation, the first thing they consider is the defensive responsibilities of each role. Then they are considering how that group of players will transition to attack. Ideally, when a coach finalizes a formation, each position in it will have very specific instructions. Those instructions are driven by (1) what the player can and cannot do, and (2) what the team needs from the position, and (3) what you expect from the opponent. So there is no such thing as "the 4-3-3." There are thousands of variables that determine how any formation will be played on a given day. At best formations create a common schema to start the conversation.
Klinsmann tried at first to adapt our pool to his ideal but adapted quickly enough not to get fired in 2012.
He went too far the other way though and tried to design a system per opponent it seemed. To be fair I think he was searching/ grasping for answers to problems and never really found them
This is the type of well thought out analysis that I love to debate with... good job @Pragidealist My argument to the counter, of what I’m guessing the general premise is that it’s important to implement a system that most players can readily identify with and expect smooth soccer.... let me know if that’s not the general premise. Ultimately, the premise of my argument is we have to look at our best players and then decide how do we maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. As a result, it’s worth the payoff to lean towards what may seem like a more complicated system if it accomplishes the goal of maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses. I like Pragidealist’s X’s and O’s argument, but I’m going to counter with names in the player pool. So, who are our MAIN guys? Just a real quick rundown, in order from left to right, note question mark indicates lack of complete faith in player: GK: Steffen, Guzan RB: Yedlin, Chandler (injured)?, Cannon?, Moore?, Lichaj? LB: Robinson, Johnson? Sweat?, Bello? CB: Brooks, Miazga, Long, Carter-Vickers, Parker, Palmer-Brown, Hines-Ike?, Zimmermann?, Glad? Ream? CM: McKennie, Adams, Trapp?, K. Acosta? Nagbe? Delgado? Roldan? Morales? AM/W Pulisic, Green? Arriola? Amon? Saief? Gooch? Picault? FW Weah, Sargent, Wood, Novakovic? Zardes? Sabbi? Gall? Dwyer? ...ok that’s a rough run down on the player pool. So where are our strengths and weaknesses? Strengths: *Good CB depth. *Good CM combo in McKennie-Adams. *Promising young attacking talent. *Fullbacks who are designed to attack. Weaknesses: *fullbacks who are good stay at home defenders *Depth in midfield outside of McKennie-Adams. *Wingers. *Mature attacking talent. Ok, seeing our strengths and weaknesses... I can assess that my fullbacks are capable of getting into the attack but they are prone to defensive errors. I also assess that I have a lot of Center Backs. I’m also aware that I lack quality international wingers. Thus, if I am to get the most out of what I have, maximing my strengths and minimizing my weaknesses, I need to strategize my game plan around: How do I provide width? And how do I allow my fullbacks to get into the attack without exposing holes in the backline? My answer to that is go with a 5 in the back with instructions to the fullbacks to get up into the attack as much as possible. I’d look to absorb pressure and utilize athleticism and work ethic to exploit weaknesses in opponents. They send up their fullbacks? We use a Tim Weah to exploit that hole. They try to pin us wide? We have a John Brooks who can make the piercing run or pass up the middle. Either way, we make life difficult by plugging up the middle of the field, force their attacks wide, and deal with their crosses into the box, then we look to quickly spring a counterattack, with a 3 pronged attack with Pulisic as the catalyst. ....To summarize, this gives us a coherent identity. It’s something that suits our player pool. To me, it’s better than saying, this is what we see around the world so we’re going to force it to happen here. It doesn’t work that way. We need to play to our strengths and minimize our weaknesses. We need to be self-aware of this and try to implement a formula early on so we don’t try to establish something new when it counts.
With a 532/352 formation.... A team: GK Steffen RWB Yedlin RCB Carter-Vickers (could drop) CB Brooks LCB Miazga LWB Robinson CM McKennie CM Adams AM Pulisic FW Sargent (could drop) FW Weah B team: GK Guzan RWB Chandler/Cannon/Moore/Arriola RCB Long CB Palmer-Brown LCB Parker LWB Sweat/Bello/Johnson/Saief (unsettled) CM Trapp (could drop) CM K. Acosta (could drop) AM Green FW *speed forward: Amon/Wood/Gall/Sabbi (Unsettled) FW *target forward: Novakovic/Zardes/Dwyer (unsettled) Overflow: Lichaj, Hines-Ike, Zimmermann, Glad, Morales, Roldan, Delgado, Nagbe, Gooch, Picault Comments: I’d build the team around a formula that we want to be at least 2 deep in every position. At this point, Sargent and CCV are listed as starters but that could change quickly. Moreover, the back up left wing back up is wide open for any possible takers. Pretty much the same story up top. Who can be our reliable goalscorers? One thing is I would want at least one forward up top with some speed. Having two slow forwards would paralyze this system, so speed is an imperative for this whole thing to work. Also, someone needs to be able to hold the ball up. And, we all know this is going to be Pulisic’s show. He’s our main man so everything runs through him. That said, for all his faults, Julian Green is perfectly fitted for this role. Granted, he’s no Pulisic but he’s got the striking ability to keep defenders honest... he just cannot be put in a place where we are counting on him to out-athlete teams. Lastly, this team would be built around absorb pressure, look for the breaks, get the fullbacks into the attack, break up the middle when there’s a chance, and kill teams with athleticism and work ethic. As unpopular as it may be, our identity is built around the fact we’ll work harder and longer on both sides of the ball than any team we face. We now have the technical ability where we are not just holding on for dear life, which means we could and should a much more dangerous US team.
I am playing a bit of devil's advocate so don't take my post as directed to you. If I follow the OP's point it is useless to list that formation because it does not mean anything. For those of us who believe that formations provide rich semantic tactical intent we would say based on your role descriptions you have actually described a 3-4-1-2 double-pivot, similar to that often played by Schalke under Tedesco and the one Klinsmann rolled out v Mexico at the beginning of the Hex. The dual CMs indicate a double pivot (dual #8s acting in a pulley). Dual DMs would indicate an empty bucket while a DM/CM pair would indicate segregated #6/#8 responsibilities. The 3CBs, the -4- line and the double pivot indicates that the outside CBs have primary responsibility to close down strong side attacks if the strong side WB is stranded high, dual DMs would make give the strong side DM primary responsibility. The AM in the -1- line typically gives the player the flexibility to roam on either side or between the FWs, attacking and defending almost as a 3-4-3 at times. Note that formation is different from the 5-1-2-2 (actually 1-1) that Sarachan rolled out v France or the 3-1-4-2 that Frankfurth beat Morales' Duesseldorf 3-4-1-2 DM/CM today! Duesseldorf did switch to a 4-2-3-1 after going down 5-1 but still gave up 2 more goals. Of course as the OP correctly points out those are just the base schemes before a coach adds its own tweaks if desired.
Our player pool broke the German's heart: he went from trying to play tiki-taka to going ultra-defensive. That friendly we beat Mexico 1-0 in 2012 (and cemented Jurgi's position), we started with 3 DMs: Williams, Beckerman, Jones. That day Jurgi discovered the power of being able to bore even your rival. PS: And Torres, another usually defensive CM, started as our AM. Ah those were the days. Now imagine if Gregg starts playing us with 4 defensive CMs to start a game! We'd never hear the end of it...
Seems most coaches in top leagues--NFL, NBA, EPL, La Liga, B1, etc.--have their systems. Players either fit those systems or get moved. Mou has been Mou whether in the EPL, Serie A, or La Liga. Pep is still Pep even though he is in the EPL. Maybe things are different at amateur and lower levels. The smart GM takes into account the player pool(and budget in the case of clubs) when hiring a coach.
https://gfycat.com/agonizingoccasionalaruanas For me the biggest difference is how much more defending a team's most advanced ST does. That has really compressed some of the gradients of differentiation. The best teams still leave a guy or two high enough to try to beat the trap but even they ask for some backpressing in their half, not to mention the defense required in the attacking half.
I would say that generally I use a formation as an after the fact label to summarize the collective roles of the players on the field. The defensive duties are the first ones I look to when making distinctions. That's why I'm talking a decent amount about wing forward positioning in relation to where the opponent has the ball and how many numbers they have pushed forward to contrast a 4-1-4-1 and a 4-3-3. Using these different labels has value in conveying these broad differences in team's approaches but getting really accurate involves much more detail. So for instance today Schalke came out in a 4-4-1-1 where Wes and the ST pressed roughly equally high but Wes dropped a little more (out of possession when the ball advanced and after winning it back he stayed underneath as a target to flick on) while the wide mids played more in line with the CM. Then in the second half they moved to a 4-1-2-1-2 with Wes at RCM but he spent a lot of time in-line with the strikers on longballs or when Schalke had the ball on their left and could cross. On defense or when the ball was moving up the righy side he played as a typical RCM would. Werder made the textbook adjustment to Schalke playing 2 strikers by bringing on Langkamp to go with 3 CB's.
At this level, players are expected to know the systems and their roles. The coach's main job is to pick the right players with the right skill sets and deploy a strategy that best match the opponent in front of us. Unfortunately, 2 things have been seriously lacking. 1- we never have a coach capable of doing the above 2 - Our players still need to be taught the basics. How to trap a ball, where the space is and how to occupy that space, et.c Jones and Klinsi said that.
To me, a "system" is an encapsulation of three things: - Formation - Roles - Tactics Formations are the general description of how players nominally line up on the field (i.e. 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 3-5-2, etc.) organizationally. Roles are specific instructions given to players operating within that formation. For example, in a 4-1-4-1, the first "1" may be instructed to function as a deep-lying defensive midfielder or destroyer responsible for breaking up opposing plays and attacks, winning the ball, and distributing it to attackers from deep. Tactics are the collective approach and instructions given to the team on the field. For example, employing a high press vs. possession vs. counterattacking, etc. One can infer roles based on how formations are commonly used, but if you buy the definitions I've provided above, I think @Pragidealist and others arguing differently on this thread are actually both right.