I enjoy your thoughts and input - so I don't mean this in a negative way. For some reason- we seem to be talking across each other on this. I understand that at times it can make sense to not have possession or focus on possession. I agree with that that can and will likely make sense at times. I think the key is - every team wants to be the best in every phase of the game. Then they can choose, what strength aligns with what weakness with the opponent. So France decided that their strengths were defense and counter attacking and therefore they choose, tactically to push the game into their favor by focusing on that. I think coaches have philosophies about how they want to play. Cruyff, Pep and that ilk believe that having possession is better than not because you control the game. I think Berhalter believes the same. But its not in isolation to how a team matches up to an opponent. The coach will work so that the team is good in all 5 phases of the game. If we play a team where we can dominate possession, limit goal scoring opportunities, and get more goal scoring opportunities than the opponent- they will choose to do that. In a recent interview Berhalter mentioned Brazil - but if we play Brazil where our the team judges the possession phase as being a place of vulnerability but the counter and defensive phases as being places of strength- then yes, I would expect the coach to attempt to push the game to our strengths and away from places where we are vulnerable. In a perfect world= where we could be anything we want- I think Berhalter would choose for being in possession to be the US's greatest strength so that they can dominate the game from the start, so that the other team gets few to no good scoring opportunities, and the US generates a plethera of good opportunities in possession. In a perfect world, the US develops a team that can play the way the played against Cuba every night. I don't think anyone would want to create a team that prefers to plays a defensive, counter strategy against Cuba. But we obviously don't live in a perfect world- so the job of the coach is to have a vision of that perfection and then develop a tactical system that has a foot in both worlds. So in reality- the coach can choose what phase of the game is a strength of their squad and the weakness of the opponent and push the game in that direction. I don't think having a preferred style of play, having a vision of how they want to play, and then having pragmatic, game to game tactics are mutually exclusive.
You borrow tactics and learn from the best. When all of the top teams play a certain way and have a certain set up- then looking to how and why they do that is important. Sports are a copy cat industry. The US is not Man City but they are also not playing Real Madrid in the championship league. I think part of the problem I have is this thinking that the US should always plan and build their whole system and tactics to punch up. The reality is the US will not be playing anyone where they have to significantly punch up - until the make the World Cup. Man City vs Real Madrid talent gap is not that different than the USA vs Mexico. The team needs to be up to date on the latest tactics and trends and copy what works. It does not need to build squads and systems so that it has a chance to one day beat the odds and squeak out a win against a top team. The US needs to stop settling for being underdogs and start developing a path to being as good as the elite.
Teams don't get to just decide they're not underdogs anymore. You have to beat better teams and move up the ladder to stop being underdogs. You have to punch up.
No- the do decide who they want to be in the future. Then develop a plan on how to get there. A vision without a plan is a wish. They first have to decide they don't want to be underdogs. Then create a plan to get there. Then beat teams. You have it in reverse order.
I can tell you with a lot of certainty that every team in the world has already made a decision to be better. That's meaningless. Actually being better is the trick. Making believe you are better than everyone else doesn't make it so and acting like it does is frankly the height of hubris.
Who is "making believe"? We're talking about develop a plan and mechanism to get there. Creating a system of play that sets the US to always play as underdogs when 90% of their meaningful games are the opposite- is defeatist. Every team in the world wants to be better. Not every team in the world is putting in the planning and work to get there. You don't get there by magic- you start with a plan. You execute the plan. You adapt the plan and so forth.
I don't think this is the key at all. Successful teams maximize their game-winning assets What's interesting about France is they went against the mania for possession, even though they had the talent to build a team based on such.
Counterattacking isn't the same as playing like underdogs. Within much of american soccer culture, this is a difficult concept to grasp.
Yet last year dominated possession in most their games. It’s game to game specific and is as much a lack of faith in their transition d as it is an endorsement of their transition O.
I didn’t say counter attacking was about being underDogs. It’s just one phase of the game. Choosing to embrace a purely counter system bc you believe you can’t compete in the other phases is. Liverpool’s philosophy is focused on transition O - yet they also average 60% possession
Perhaps transition is being conflated for counterattacking. One is a phase of game. The other is the description of a strategy of play. Liverpool are so good at transition, even Pep lowers the possession when going against them. Other teams back off, too. Teams emphasize a strategy of play to maximize their assets. If Gregg adds a few wrinkles to improve the established strategy of play then that's fine. Call it 'disorganizing the opposition' or whatever. Think if teams in top-5 leagues are being highlighted then it would be more profitable to examine the overachievers like Leicester, Atalanta, Wolverhampton, or Sheffield.
We're essentially agreeing. I am just saying its more game to game than that. Teams emphasize game tactics to maximize their assets, hide their weaknesses, and attack their opponents. GB has already done that in both the WC final with Mexico and the second game against Canada. That doesn't mean they didn't want or try to possess but they emphasized other elements. And how much they emphasize their possession phase should be based not only on their assessment of their ability to create chances in possession but also an assessment of their own transition D. One reason I suspect France was willing to give up so much possession to Belgium was not only faith in their defense and counter attacking ability- it was based on assessment of their vulnerabilities in transition to D. They wanted to minimize where they were most vulnerable.
France's group stage possession-- 68% Denmark 44% Peru 55% Australia For the most part they were going with a counter strategy.
Credit the manager for understanding that the newspaper clippings were just that and belonged in the trash can.
Good point. We need a coach like Tata or El Pelado who scout the opposition and can play a variety of styles depending on the opposition. I'm just watchin the 0-3 pasting we took from Mexico in the friendly last year and for all the talk of us "practicing", the fact is that we were totally at sea with a midfield that had all the coordination of white noise. We played a rb at left back so the rb could get more international reps for a transfer. Petty corruptions. It'll get a national program every time. Tiny corruptions, McBride. Get rid of them NOW. Oh, it's so small, they'll say. It's nothing. No, when you add them all up they are killers. If Cannon is defending well an offers nothing going forward, try Dest at RB and Cannon at LCB. Another change I would make is Holden as color guy on the broadcast. There's another "petty" corruption that needs straightening out. And so what that McKennie and Morales play in BL. They mite do fine with 10 teammates who play German BL every week. They don't have 10 German teammates with USMNT. They really stunk. Anybody who can sit thru that game and say we were missing a Regista is deluded.
Now I’m thinking you’ve missed every point I’ve tried to make. #1-Don’t rewatch meaningless friendlies. I know some feel Mexico should always be a heated rivalry but there is no such thing as a heated rivalry in a media promoted scrimmage. #2 - In no way am I saying the Regista role is the key to all the US problems: I thought I’ve been clear. It’s a key role used by the top managers in the world and one that US is thin on the depth chart. Its a role with the most questions. #3 The key to the US problems is youth and talent infusion. Frankly - anything any coach does until the talent is upgraded is lipstick on a pig. And - they know it too. The US failed to qualify with two different coaches. Talent is the answer - not coaches. I like the idea of a system where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts but have no illusions that the perfect system makes a rec team into a pro team. #4- Quit pinning for magical coaches. One minute you’re saying we’re not Man City and the next you’re acting like Tata’s the answer.Mexico has superior talent and experience and Tata barely scaped out a win by 1 goal in the only competitive match. Did he win with less talent at Atlanta? Did he have to overcome a low payroll? No he did well with top mls talent. What’s the difference between Bob Bradley as the national team coach, EPL coach, and MLS coach? Talent. What’s the difference between Arena in the MLS, first stint as National team coach and his failure last cycle? Talent The US will get better as the talent gets better. #5-They are not building this team, style and tactics for Arriola. Zardes, and Roldan. They are building it for Pulisic, Adams, Pomykal, Sargent, Llanez, Ledezma, Gio, Dest, Richards, Busio etc. While doing so they’re trying to not lose too much The US did as expected this year with a close GC loss to Mexico and topping their Nation’s large group - why? Bc that’s their expected talent level. Lastly - why do you think they are so focused on the Olympics, brought in a 19 year old who’s not yet breaking into his sr team and 16 year old without a team. Bc they know the key to progressing toward any vision is talent infusion. If you want a coach who tries a random tactical approach with no attempt at consistency and no idea how to build something for the future then we should have never fired Klinnsman. Anyone with eyes should be able to see the current leadership has one toe in the present but all their weight and attention on the future.
#1 Bad advice. Watch the 0-3 meaningless friendly. #2 You have to ask yourself what you want to address FIRST. Regista is wayyyyy down the list. #3 I disagree. If talent is the problem, it does'tt matter what coach we pick. The problem is not the talent. We have talent. We just don't have the guy who can put the talent in the position to succeed. Now, you might tell me there is not coach we could hire to put our talent in a position to win the WorldCup. Ok, I can buy that. But don't tell me we don't have the talent. We have the talent. We just don't have the coach who can win the World Cup with our talent. #4 See #3 above. b.t.w., the Tata you say I'm pining for lost 0-4 to Argentina just days after beating USA 3-0. I guess that means Berhalter's USA would have lost 0-7 to Argenina. Personally, your regista makes me puke. I don't like regista's. They are perfumed nobodies who play for vanity coaches who are given a $1 Billion payroll to play with. The sooner we get over the idiocy of a Regista the better off we will be.
Oh btw - here’s another manager who believes the DLP is a key fixture in the modern game. https://www.google.com/amp/s/tbrfoo...midfielder-calvin-phillips-can-grow-more/amp/ They may be perfumed nobodies but silly guys like Pep, Klopp and Biesla seem to think they’re important- but what do they know?
Think there is a conflation of the deep-lying playmaker for a dmid with good passing skills. Modern dmids are expected to have good passing skills, much better than those of previous generations of dmids. This does not make them specialist deep-lying playmakers.
This is the last I plan on saying on this for a while. Once people you normally respect start ranting at 2am about scrimmages, its time to find another distraction from your work load than Bigsoccer. There are things in life in which I consider myself an expert. These are things that if I told you 2+2 =4 and you'd argue with me, I'd just move on and not waste my time. I know those things. I work as an executive managing strategic initiatives- anything from mergers to business improvement initiatives. Those things- I consider myself an expert. Soccer is a hobby. At the same time, throughout my life I am often the one of the smartest guys in the room. The Regista/deep lying playmaker thing reminded me of days in school (too many years ago)- the teacher would give us an equation to solve and a usual group of us would raise our hands first with our answers. Except the answer given by my classmate was different than mine. I quickly look to others in the class- who are as clever or more than me- and see they got the same answer she did. Being fairly clever, does not mean I always get the right answers but it does mean I can quickly see that they picked up something that I did not. So when my name was called- I just said what she said. Then when I had a chance - asked "How did you get that answer?" That is the Regista for me. This whole thing started with Berhalter consistently including that role. Fine- I understood that and it was his preference. But then when I started looking at the depth chart and how thin the US was at that role, I started to wonder how important it was. That is why I started doing more research on the role. And found- as I have stated that Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Bayern, and Leeds ALL use that role as a staple in their line up. I may not be smart enough to grasp the importance of the role just because Berhalter included it but I am smart enough to realize that if Pep, Klopp, and Bielsa all agree on its importance then I wanted to understand it better. As I said early on- the reason I researched and wrote the blog post in the first place was to explore an idea, share what I learned, and provide a way to learn more about it. Now I've done that. So thanks for your participation. I now believe I understand it well enough that I'm ready to move on to something else.
You could take up chess Steinetz is credited with the idea that the game consists of "the accumulation of small advantages". http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/when-and-where-attack-steinitz-accumulation-theory notice the "rules of attack" when you scroll down to the yellow box on the link then ask yourself how a Regista "induces an error".
Good insights. I would say, then, we're not necessarily talking about a "Regista", which, in my view, is a very specific take on the role. Regista literally means "director" and this is seen as a midfield mastermind, that may do all the things you discussed in addition to providing most of the playmaking. But to your point (and mine) you can usually spread the wealth around and most teams do: In a usual possession-oriented 3-man midfield, you usually have a ball conductor (drives the ball forward), a ball recoverer (wins balls from opponent) and a ball protector (recycles possession, what you call the positional hub). Any of these can ALSO be a playmaker and in the modern game all will be expected to also make good forward passes. Historically, the USA has been hit-or-miss with developing the role most crucial to possession, which is that of the "ball protector", which requires a high level of technical ability, balance, and close control to withstand opposition press, but also IQ to keep the ball moving and quickly relieve pressure. Press resistance is the key trait which we know Michael Bradley, for instance, rather notoriously doesn't have against very good opponents. In the past, Claudio Reyna provided this for the USA; we missed that presence greatly in the 2009-2011 era. I would say today you have Darlington Nagbe and Sebastian Lletget that can offer this; maybe Alex Mendez (looks to have this in his game, but haven't seen enough full matches). The next exercise might be sorting the players in our pool into the roles they can fulfill. I'll also add an asterisk if I think they can make good playmaking passes: Ball conductors (dribbling, athleticism) T. Adams W. McKennie D. Nagbe S. Lletget M. Bradley* A. Bedoya P. Pomykol A. Mendez* Ball protectors (press resistance, close control, high passing %) D. Nagbe S. Lletget M. Bradley* A. Bedoya W. Trapp A. Mendez?* Ball recoverers (positional awareness, tackling, athleticism) T. Adams W. McKennie M. Bradley* A. Bedoya
nice post but Bradley is terrible at ball-winning. The portion of the field that he can actively cover is tiny but at he knows not to venture outside that box. where do you have morales, Holmes and otasowie in this paradigm?