I think France played defensively when needed but didn't play that way in every game. They could have chosen a few more offensive / technical players but since they won another title I bet you're right that anyone who complained about the roster stopped complaining.
I haven't heard any players complain but I've heard a few say nice things about what Berhalter is trying to do. It might be PC so that they don't lose their spot of course. I'm anxious to see how this year goes as I understand the negativity but have felt there were some reasons to be more patient. This year the patience needs to start turning into results.
there are a few basic steps Berhalter can take to put us in a decent position: the primary being to create lineups that put our best players in a position to succeed, rather than in his preferred setup. that means setting up so that Pulisic Adams McKennie Brooks Dest are specifically put in good situations that maximize their strengths and offsets their developmental areas. He has done a terrible job of this as these guys are playing well below their ceiling for country (probably too few games to tell for adams and Dest). I don’t think a regista based system does that in any way shape or form.
Every team wants to be good at every phase of the game. Coaches work toward that and they generally have philosophies and preferences on which phase they most what to be good at. Then when the game time comes, based on the opponent and your strengths — you try to maximize the phases your best at and minimize those you’re worst at. Under Berhlater - they want a strength to be possession. But regardless of that - the game time tactics in competitive matches will be dictated by what they see in their opponent and themselves. It’s where romance and vision meet pragmatism. Frankly - Berhalter and staffed failed at being good at the phase they wanted to be best at against opponents not considered minnows- but the flexibility in their tactical approach allowed them to win games with their strengths. Ironically - it’s the fans who want winning over romance that are complaining the most. My user name is apt to all of this “Pragmatic Idealist.” That’s who I am and why I’m ok with Berhalter so far - though not satisfied. Pragmatically - the US got the results that were expected- regardless of style implemented. They got to the GC final and competed with Mexico in a close game in that final. They topped their group in the Nations league. Their vision and “romanticism” aligns with mine. I’m not satisfied with the progress toward it but am hopeful in the vision. Getting expected results and the coming youth infusion buys my patience. Berhalter has to balance those two things well and I understand that’s a challenge. It’s not a mutually exclusive- either/ or -expectation. He can’t not qualify - for example - as a cost to progress on a future vision. I’d also say - to the disagreement of many - he can’t abandon the tactics of the vision completely and we only see them against minnows. That becomes talking out of two sides of his mouth - we have a vision but not plan or steps to reach it. (Aka Klinnsman) So far - I see a plan, intent and actions that align with the vision. I also see, built within it, the tactical flexibility to get the needed pragmatic results. As long as I see both of those - I’m good. If we see a complete abandonment of the tactical considerations to reach that vision OR we drop needed and expected results - I’ll be as critical as any.
So.... what non-minnows did we beat? I only remember us thus far under Berhalter beating minnows unless you maybe want to count Costa Rica and Ecuador, both of whom had experimental squads. The only non-minnow with their a-team we've played was Mexico when they beat the crap out of us and we got a lucky draw against a Chile side missing key attackers where we were dominated and they missed several good chances.
I don't even consider friendlies for a variety of reasons. Mexico in the GC final and Canada is the Nations League are the only decent opposition we played last year in competitive matches.
And we lost 2 of those 3 while even calling Canada not a minnow may be stretching it. So, where did we win games with our strengths against non-minnows with this tactical flexibility? Or did you mean, we used that tactical flexibility to only beat minnows, which isn't exactly impressive?
France had the deepest roster of the tournament. It's notable they chose to play defensively, at all.
France used a central midfield of Pogba and Kante as well, both of whom are tough, solid players. Pogba ranges forward but is defensively sound and Kante was clearly holding his position. The was the US is looking to play is no where near the only way to play and the deep, passing 6 is not at all mandatory for playing good soccer.
So we used a regista all year and according to the OP, we sucked at offense while neutering our best attacker. What does that tell us about the USMNT and the regista?
I said we used the tactical flexibility to achieve expected results in the competitive games. We made it to the GC final and were competitive in a 0-1 loss. That was about what was expected regardless of the coach,system, or style. We topped our group in the Nations league. That was what was expected regardless of the coach, system, or style. In the competitive matches- the end results were about what were expected. That is what I said. You can quibble about the loss to Canada but I'd say unexpected/ undesired losses happen with every coach. It happened under Klinnsman and it happened under Arena. Heck- Spain lost to nobody when they were considered the top team in the world. In the end- they lost a close winnable game to Mexico in a final and they topped their group in the Nations League. This year they need to do the same in competitive matches- they need to minimally get the overall expected results.
So - are you saying that if the opponent called for them to possess and win with possession- they couldn't do it? They were built to win defensively and were dependent on that? Or were they built to be good in all phases of the game and chose to win defensively and on the counter because that was what they thought would work against that opponent?
Yet the top club teams in the world (with the best managers) all use them. Mandatory is overstated... It is currently a modern tactical preference by the best tactical minds in the world. Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man City, Liverpool, Bayern, and even Chelsea and Arsenal all have that role as a fixture in their squad. That is even due to them emphasizing different phases of the game.
Here's my preferred lineup that doesn't have a regista and doesn't focus on having a midfielder with a near 90% pass completion For purposes of this comparison, I don't think it matters if people want to swap Sargent/Weah for Morris or Pomykal/Holmes for Morales. What does adding a regista do to this arrangement (move it any way you'd like) both offensively and defensively? what are the trade-off being made? I think this set up gives us plenty of offensive threats as defenses have to respect Yedlin's speed, Dest's abilities and all three MFs as trailing players. I also think we should be pretty good at dead balls. Defensively, we have 8 defensively able players and the ability to overload the midfield with fast disruptors. Finally, what we lose in 90% passing, we gain in having three midfielders who can break lines via dribbling/shielding. Note: shoutout to @IndividualEleven for introducing me to my11.com! Cool
Talent-wise, Canada are no longer minnows. Pep and Bielsa are famously purist in their respective approaches to football. There is nothing inherently damning in a coach valuing aesthetics as part of the way his team plays. But competency in execution is important. And US Soccer have been loath to hire accomplished coaches from the better leagues. Sampson. Bruce. Bob. JK. Bruce. Dave. Gregg. For all the talk about playing a certain way, US Soccer haven't aimed high in its hiring practices. MLS good ol boys' rules rule. Is there a single outsider in the US pecking order? Can Steve Cherundolo get a look in? Thinking more about the 'regista' position, I'd argue key to better play is in plain view. The 'advanced regista'. The two times Gregg played with a regista a-mid bore the results USA 1-1 Uruguay, USA 4-1 Canada. The good news is we have depth in this type of player. Holmes. Lletget. Pomykal. To name just a few. These players excel at getting on the ball, keeping play ticking over, and contributing an '8's level of work-rate. 'Advanced registas' don't provide much in the way of direct goal threat, so the goals and assists will need to come from elsewhere.
I'd be interested in teams that do not have the ability to just buy a do everything midfield player that can both dominate defensively and start attacks who play without a dedicated defensive player in midfield or who just go ahead and task a lesser player with doing everything and how does that work out. That would be a much more apt comparison for the US team. Knowing that if you have a player supremely gifted on both sides of the ball that you can set up your midfield around them tells us little about what is best for the US. And that's why people always end up back harping on Bradley, Trapp, Yueill or whoever else is stuck in the role instead of just talking about the role in the abstract. Because who you have to play a spot matters more than the theoretical role they are assigned to play. It's like an NBA team with no good 3 point shooters deciding that with no trades they will just start playing an offense based on shooting from the perimeter because other good teams shoot from the perimeter.
You're missing the point, here, so I'll use examples. In the '14 WC, against Belgium, we had close to 50% possession against a vastly more talented team that was killer in transition. That was foolish of JK to set up the team that way. Imo, with a more conservative, we probably would've won the game. In the '18 WC, France took 36% possession against Belgium. Did they have to? No. But why chance things if the goal is to win? France had 61% against Uruguay, but then Uruguay were a pure counter team. Sure, France showed flexibility in winning against a pure counter team. 40% against Argentina. Probably should've gone for 30.
There is no way one can say that our expectation was simply to top the group in the Nations league. When was the last time we lost to Canada?
But we are not a Barcelona, Man City or Liverpool relative to our “important” competition. When we have that level of talent relative to our competition then yes, I agree that playing a regista can be advantageous. We don’t even have a good enough regista, let alone enough attackers who strike the kind of fear a Lewandowski, Sane, Aguero or Messi would in a defense that would give a regista time and space to operate. Perhaps in 2026 we’ll be good enough. I think the kids are alright. But there’s no need to rush off into a style that we are simply not built at present to employ. Bradley, Yueill, Trapp, hell even Adams and Pomykal ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TECHNICAL PLAYERS TO RELIEVE PRESSURE ON THEIR OWN without the danger of verticality which simply does not exist with Arriola and Zardes on the pitch. RB Leipzig leads the Bundesliga in points and goals without playing remotely how you say a successful side should. They’re punching above their weight, which is something the USMNT HAS TO DO until we have the talent to play like Brazil. Hell the USMNT has more CM talent than freaking Demme and Laimer. Press and play fast. Even Dortmund- a possession oriented side- doesn’t usually play with what one would call a technical CM. Opposing sides are just so scared shtlss of Sancho that they back off and let Witsel and Delaney move the ball around. Possession is usually created by respect and the threat of lethal counter rather than by the passing skill of a solitary CM.
I'm hoping that Pragidealist engages so we can discuss trade-offs. In case he doesn't, here's his lineup from the inverted fullback thread Here's what I see: it's a tradeoff of Bradley and Sargent for Miazga (or whatever 3rd CB) and Yedlin. Note, if people get focused on Yedlin, we could also have Dest on the right and ARobinson on the left wing. For me, this is clearly makes our defense much weaker as we now have only 7 defensively capable players and the most central of them creates real problems with his "defensive gravity" as his teammates have to move closer to him as his range and ball-winning are not at the international level and certainly not for the most central player. We are also requiring Dest and Weston to be more focused on defense and they will have more space to cover and less support as they can't expect much help from Bradley. This also limits puts more defensive pressure on Brooks as he'll be crowded by and covering for Bradley as well as both Dest who is not yet an elite backline defender. This set up is particularly susceptible to counters for obvious reasons. Offensively, we've switched out the elite speed of Yedlin or ARobinson's attack/cross-ing ability for about two of Bradley's looping long passes to the far corner that our opponent often intentionally leaves open (i'm guessing it'll be Morris' side as they won't leave Pulisic free) and Sargent as a third front line attacker. Bradley is less likely to join the attack as he conserves energy. It's early yet but I don't think the inclusion of Sargent (or Zardes) or any other player fills our opponent with dread as he's not yet a guy opponents have to specifically game plan against. We also minimize one of Brooks' strengths as his passing game will be neutered by being so close to deep lying Bradley.
For those who like a 433, here's a non-regista comparison Trade-off is Bradley as DM for Yedlin/ARobinson and moving Weston from inverted fullback to LCM. This is defensively stronger without a doubt, although I don't like defending with seven or asking guys who aren't known for it to drop back as defenders. The offensive trade-off between having rangy McKennie who can break lines via dribbling/shielding and 90% passer Bradley (of which a couple with be nice long loopers to Morris on the wing) seems obvious to me.