I think it is a bit much to compare Bradley's defensive style or effectiveness with Beckerman considering Beckerman was brought in specifically to provide defensive cover in a Bradley led midfield that was too weak defensively. It was Beckerman's good positional defensive play that compensated for Bradley's lack of ability in that regard.
Yes and my contention is that the passing, offensive role in this is just as important as the defensive. You are prioritizing defense when the US did not lose a game last year when they were able to score a single goal. T&T in the qualifier Mexico in the GC final Canada in game 1. All had the same problem. The US could not score. The finished each of those games with no goals. If they could have scored a single goal in T&T - we likely draw or win that game and qualify. The GC- if we can score a single goal in the game we had a good chance to win it. Against Canada- if we can score a single goal that game then we don't let in a later goal while pushing and can draw or win that game. The problem with the US - imo- is scoring. I'm not worried about playing France Spain, Germany when we can't score on Mexico, Canada, and T&T.
Two things. Bradley's defensive methods now and before are two different things. Second, I am not trying to compare Bradley and Beckerman's defensive abilities. I am saying the way Bradley plays D now and Beckerman played it throughout most of his career was via good positional, space covering D... and less rangy ball winning. When you hear Lampard talk about why he likes Kante as an 8- its because he sees the 6 as tied to the back-line positionally. That is how a positionally focused player can make up for his lack of athelticism. Whether that is Yueill, Bradley, Trapp, Beckerman, Mendez, Durkin, or Torreira
I wonder.. one reason I don't care much for high pressing style teams (that don't possess)- is that I see them as volume shooters. I obviously have no problem with high press in general. I have no problem with pressing to win and keep the ball the way Pep does. I have no problem with the way Klopp tries to play high octane offense by pressing high and focusing on the transition period for quick attack. But both teams value possession- they average above 60%. Sports are (in my mind) at the highest level about who is most efficient in scoring. Shooting percentage in basketball, batting average, qb rating. What I assume (and haven't found a way to test) is that teams like the Red Bulls franchise - who eschew possession for more direct and play and base their whole game on pressing and counter pressing - is that they are less efficient scorers. My hypothesis in soccer is that if we could look at number of possessions (like in basketball) and measure expected goals created per number of possession- there would be a high correlation with winning games. My hypothesis is that this is especially true in Tournament play. Teams that eschew possession for pressing - in my mind are like high volume 3 point shooters who could win games big in the season and lose in the playoffs. The only way to win like that in the playoffs is to be like the recent big 3 pt shooting teams and shoot 3's with a high efficiency. Which is rare. I wonder if this role increases the scoring efficiency of possessions...
Counterattacks are by FAR the most efficient way to score in soccer. And pressure defense is the best way to create them. You can find the stats, but it's like the fast break in basketball -- you should push for it until it's not there, then pull back. It's actually why more teams are backing off a high press and focusing more on high pressure but with a lower line of engagement. This is lessens the chance of stretching out their own defense but also creates space to counterattack into -- it creates space to pull the defense forward. I realize you are fine with the pressing, but it's just worth noting that giving up on a counterattack to play possession ball is a bad move. Teams should move to possession when the counter isn't there -- the defense has gotten back. There's no doubt in mind that a team that can play possession ball does better than a team that punts forward and gives up on it. That's not really at question. What's at question is more: do you need a regista to play effective possession ball? If your team isn't suited to that role or style, how much do you force it?
Just thoughts in general. Tactics generally go in cycles; what's effective now will generate changes meant to counter it, and then something else will be the hip thing. That said, there have been a couple of fundamental changes to soccer ... or really one change that's cascaded ... that probably is a permanent shift in how people change. It started in the nineties and took a couple of decades to spread, but every sport has seen a fitness/strength revolution that has changed the game. Offensive linemen in the NFL were 240 lbs in the 1980s and now that's small for a linebacker. Shortstops used to hit four HRs a year; now they can hit 30-40. No one can party all night, smoke a cigarette on the sidelines and still be effective. In soccer, that fitness has manifested itself in the ability to run harder and longer ... and that led to pressing. It isn't going away -- it's too effective. And in response, everyone has needed to be better in passing and possession just to play. The pure destroyer is dying; keepers need to be able to play the ball; everyone is expected to be able to pass. When there's pressure, everyone needs to be better. But the increasing fitness also means that the day of the offensive-only player is also dying. Because when everyone has more energy, you can't have guys taking half the game off unless they are amazing. There's a reason Firmino starts for Liverpool -- and his defense is as big or bigger than his offense. Players need to be two-way, and they need to be more skilled than ever. The answer isn't a traditional regista or a traditional destroyer -- it's a two way player at defensive mid.
I completely agree with all of this. I think decision to counter vs possess is one that is hard for many. Adams, McKennie are players that think quick transition every play. They lose too many possessions trying for it. (not that those tendencies can't change) Then a team can also over possess and miss good counter opportunities. Its a balance that I think some teams struggle with. I think that has been the biggest evolution for possession teams from Peps time at Barca from Klopp's time at Dortmund. Today in the EPL- both their teams do both with slightly different emphasis.
I think our team should probably lean stronger to the counterattack, though there's obviously a place where the mids make the right decision and it's entirely driven by opportunity. Players like Pulisic, Morris, Weah, etc., are all very good in transition and we don't have a player yet to unlock a bunkered D. So I'd lean that way.
Very good post. The question is what next? How do we make our way thru that ecosystem with advantage? You imply (I'm being unfair) that each player must be able to do everything. That would not accord with the real world. We tend to be specialists. Therefore, one answer, my answer, is that you divide the pitch into thirds and you ensure that the defending third, the middle third and the attacking third have oneplayer who is very good at link-up/passing - as a specialty. One player can run very fast. in each third. In the defending third he takes out fast players on 1v1 defending; in the middle third he dribbles thru midfield (instgead of passing; in the attacking third he gets behind the defense. In each third there must be one player who reads the game and understands positioning. One player who is an expert and takes the lead on pressing. I will not continue through each skill a,b,c…..nth but you get the idea. One can't get it perfect but one can make a decent start and put a team on the pitch which can fight and take on whatever comes at it.
That's an interesting way to think about it. Not sure I agree, but it's interesting. I tend to think of it a bit of a different way -- I think there's probably some base level of defending and passing for roughly 9/11 or 10/11 players. In other words, we can have a player or two who doesn't defend and a player or two who really can't pass, but otherwise... I'm not saying that standard is really high. Just that we might have to exclude players from the pool based on those two standards. If we still can't field a team, well, then we're probably screwed. I don't think we're quite there, but I do think there's something on both sides of the ball to trying to make your weakest link as strong as possible. But I haven't given this specifically beyond much thought except that we can't have a complete non-passer or a complete non-defender at most positions. Like Kenny Saief is disqualified because he was a defensive disaster.
Adams did an excellent job in possession against Italy--the one game he was deployed as a lone d-mid for the US. Outclassed everyone else on the US. 82% passing vs 66% for the rest of the team. 3 key-passes vs 1 for the rest of the team. Wouldn't really call 'Pool a 'possession team'. Their transition game is simply so good teams don't look to challenge much for possession.
Well, I agree with you - altho I would qualify that somewhat because there are different types of defenders:some defend thru positioning. Some are bad at positioning but are bears when it comes to 1v1 defending. Parkhurst reads the game way in advance and gets into the position where he know his opponent must pass and is there to greet him. Miles isn't the best positional player but when he gets his boots in your ass he's a bulldog who doesn't let go. You need both. Any team can get a positional advantage with good tactical players; any team can get a 1v1 advantage by manning up a Zlatan vs. a weak 1v1 defender, say. Now, if I have a team with a panoply of players I will tell Miles to mark Zlatan and I''ll tell Parky to play positionally, e.g.. I'll tell my cb's to look for Morris in the first instance because he gets behind the defence and to look for Sargent in the second instance as the link up guy in the middle and Zardes as the third option in mid-field because he has the best long pass thru midfield (which we cant utilize because Eggy uses Zardes as a 9). Out of curiousity, what are you watching these days?
By building on the outstanding qualities of the program which are-- 1. Efficiency in front of goal. 2. Covering more ground than almost all other teams do. Changes should add to these qualities, rather than subtract.
Soccerwise, I watch a decent amount of MLS, US Nationals in Europe and then I pick and choose top matches across Europe — champions league or big EPL matches, etc. When I have time — I certainly can’t watch as much as some of you. I simply never have been able to truly become a fan of a European team. I have no real connection.
So you would be a system 1st type coach as well as GB. You’d just have a different construct in which to search for your players?
Yes - obviously I would suggest one problem US soccer is seeing is that soccer fitness levels and their expectations (as mentioned above) due to the acceptance and wide adoption of the press has softened and removed that advantage from the US pool. I don't think they cover more ground, are more fit, and work harder than most teams now. Its becoming a base expectation for teams all over the world.
I hate the use of stats like this. Here are two more examples that tell as much as yours. We won every one of the 8 games we scored 2 or more goals. [Offense great] We lost every one of the 3 games we conceded 2 or more goals [defense weak]
I would also suggest this is a reason US soccer is losing its advantage of its previous style. Hard work intensity, and fitness were trade mark characteristics. These are not hard things to have. They are not things born of talent or player development. They are things born of choice, mentality, and preparation that occurs outside of the international game. Due to the wide spread acceptance of the press as a base part of almost every team- all players are now being expected to have the traits that US teams were previously choosing to hang their hat.
What do mean by 1. I wouldnt have that as quality but possibly just not sure what you mean. I would slightly modify the conclusion to "Changes should add to these qualities and shouldnt subtract unless qualities added are more valuable than the ones being subtracted". I am all for changing the way we play as long as it makes us better.
I think that we did not lose a game in which we scored 1 goal is significantly remarkable. The stats you used as examples cherry pick games. The one that I am using is using the total volume of games for the year. The stats you use examples require the number of total game to have meeting. 8 out of how many total? 3 out of how many total? That gives them their meaning. But when you say across all competitions in a single year- we didn't lose a single game in which we scored a single goal... that's significant and doesn't require much contextualization.
I'm a little confused by this. Are you talking about the T&T qualifier in Couva? We did score a goal in that game, but it also wasn't last year. Last year, if you count friendlies, we lost 5 games. It's true we didn't score in any of them, but we also lost two of them (the Mexico and Venezuela friendlies) by a combined score of 6-0.
You’re missing his point. Liverpool’s countering potency encourages Liverpool’s opponents to cede possession to them. So therefore they are allowed to keep the ball. Does the USMNT adding a regista make us more potent in the counter? Does it add to our countering opportunities? Ajax cannot be the stylistic blueprint for the US. I hope you’re not using them to form your opinion here.