I may be a little too much of a Pomykal-stan, but I think he deserves to be in the ball recoveres section and very possibly in the protector. If we're broadening from the formal definition to abilities -- and I agree this is the way to think about it -- Pomykal could be a big solution. He was very strong before getting hurt at winning the ball in the midfield, turning and starting an attack.
Well, those scenarios were a little flip-flopped. In 2014, Belgium dominated possession and the game up until they went up 2-0 in extra time. The only reason that match ended even on possession is because Beglium let us have the ball for almost all of extra time. We weren't getting hit on the counter in that game. The opposite happened to them in 2018, as France scored early, forcing the Belgians to have to come out to equalize (which is, ironically, how they got by Brazil). But to your point, it's better to have a team that can play multiple ways. Germany's unwillingness to adapt was their undoing.
That's probably true. I took a quick pass at it just to get the idea going but it's not comprehensive and I'm sure it can be improved. Haven't seen enough of the others to comment, but folks can put where they think they're appropriate.
I won't debate you; I've only seen a handful of his games so I'm only going off the relatively little I've seen.
This is fantastic and very helpful. This also helps to explain why guys like Wijnaldum is mostly considered a #8 but has very high passing completion (in the 90's). Same with Nagbe.
No. USA had 457 passes in regulation. Belgium had 398. Belgium didn't dominate possession; they dominated transition. France had 39% possession by the time they scored against Belgium in '18. France had a fairly consistent strategy for the knockout rounds.
They dominated every aspect of the game. The US possession heat map for that match was basically right in front of our own goal. What I'm quibbling with is the idea that match unfolded in a way that was different from what Belgium intended, regardless of whether they had possession or not. Arguably, Klinsmann did exactly what he needed to do to get a result out of that match and was unlucky Wondo didn't put it away. No disagreement there. And I guess that gets to the point -- France showed you can control a match without having possession and ultimately that's what's desired. They have the best defense in the world that can pretty much absorb the attack of the best teams on the planet. Crucially, the US can't really welcome the attacks of most teams without being penetrated.
The anti-Regista game can be seen in Schalke's win over BMG today. Schalke played more compact and took advantage of passing lanes to execute a short, crisp, quick-release game that advanced the ball up the pitch with good numbers to get plenty of shots on goal and good pressure on turn over of the ball and few back passes. It was the kind of game Pomykal would love to play, along with forgotten man Delgado, but it is doubtful we see it with EggStew in charge. Servania can also do it but lacks discipline at times. No better game to recommend than today's Schalke v. BMG today for those interested in midfield.
They didn't dominate possession, which was the point of my post, to refute the suggestion they had. No it wasn't. What's your thought process? Contesting possession against one of most gifted attacking teams in the world is doing what's needed? Bob did differently against Spain in '09. USA had 38% possession against Ghana in '14, but only conceded one goal. The team had 33% possesion against Germany, but only conceded 1 goal.
Except they did. For one, the teams basically broken even on overall possession; the difference being that Belgium used theirs to create a record number of SOG in a World Cup match. Bob put together a plan to beat the team in front of him and did so clinically; not sure what it has to do with Belgium, a different team from a different era with a different style. I wouldn't say the US "contested" possession. Belgium ceded possession to the US knowing they could do very little with it, barely managing to get out of their own half for long stretches of the game. In this respect it allowed Belgium to control the match. What the US did well was make the most of the few moments of control they had (and could've won the match during one of them). And that goes back to my point: the goal should be to control matches, which sometimes you can do with possession and sometimes you can do without. Seems to corroborate my point.
It's called transition. So yeah, Belgium dominated with their transition game. Good to see you're no longer claiming Belgium dominated possession. Spain were an immense attacking team. The claim was the US couldn't concede possession to spend most of the game defending. Well, they did just that. Belgium dominated possession. No, but they dominated the whole game. No, but they conceded possession. But Belgium didn't dominate possession as you had initially claimed. The US successfully defended while having minimal possession, something you claimed it couldn't do against strong teams. You've changed your 'point' so many times and made many erroneous statements in this exchange..
Yeah, the key is balance. Fabinho, Wijnaldum and Henderson all compliment each other or can interchange; depending on what Klopp needs he might tinker with the balance by selecting a different midfield anchor. Fabinho is the most press-resistant, and Henderson least so, but each can play a role depending on what's needed.
My point remains consistent: I originally said Belgium dominated possession and the match. They controlled the game when they had the ball and when the USA had the ball. Actually "the claim", which is really just an obvious fact, is that the US cannot absorb the best attacks in the world consistently the way France can and did on its way to WC victory. France has the best defense in the world; the USMNT (and I think this is an uncontroversial statement, but maybe you disagree) does not. You citing one example of the US doing doesn't really disprove that point. The same team that defeated Spain also gave up 4 goals against Brazil, 4 against Mexico and 2 goals against Ghana. Belgium controlled where the ball was played, with or without possession. They took possession when they wanted and turned that possession into dangerous chances. Any possession the US had was conceded. Giving up 2 goals and a record number of shots on goal is successful defense? I guess we'll agree to disagree. Examples of good (Germany, Beglium) and average (Ghana) teams that have scored against an entrenched US defense disprove the point that the US can defend against great (i.e. World Cup winning) sides how?
That's some world class spin. You are just restating and reframing your 'points', which were wrong to begin with. I provided reasons and documentation. I consider the exchange over.
I was going to say something similar - Prag's seems to have a more expansive definition of a registra; whereas DC seems to be more rigid (specific to a DLP/holding mid who isn't a ball winner & isn't box to box). I think the different view on what constitutes a 'registra' is amplifying the differences of opinion.
A couple of things regarding this: 1) Correlation does not equal Causation. Is using a registra contributing to, or making them one of the top clubs, or, rather does the fact that they are top clubs allow them the flexibility and option of using a registra? 2) You cite club teams only, who have an entirely different player pool to choose from available time to practice systems. How many of the top ranked national teams or last few world cup semi-finalists/Euro finalists use them? Related to the last quote above and point #2, I personally wouldn't consider Pogba to be a registra - but, maybe others do. A person's take on that can affect how they answer the OP's question.
This is exactly what teams would do if we went as anti-possession as people want. The goal is to be as good as you can in all phases of the game and then adjust your tactics game to game.
Tactics are learned and borrowed from the best when you want to be the best. If you want national teams with this role - Spain, Germany, Croatia, Mexico, Netherlands, Brazil all come to mind.
In your business it is best not to be too inventive. In soccer it is best to inventive when punching up which is the position we are in. We need to figure out what we are good at and build from there. Adding a regista at some point will be like trying new icing on the cake.
I checked some sources, including the writings of Jonathan Wilson. Regista is used pretty expansively to mean a player who dictates play from fairly deep positions. The position doesn't have to be the deepest in midfield. So Xavi and Modric was and is a regista, though neither played or plays as the deepest center mid.. Yaya Toure was considered to be register through his use of surging runs. I guess the same line of thought could be applied to Pogba. If Gregg sticks with the system from the Canada game then Adams could be that player. Today, he was 84% passing, had 2 key passes, and hit on 3/7 of his long balls.
Being inventive is borrowing from the best. I also would suggest the point is to not start with the assumption that we are punching up. Most of qualifying games we won’t be and the idea is to build a foundation so that we aren’t at all, I think too many people are focused on the present and the current US soccer leadership is firmly focused on the future. In the present, we have to beat the level we played in the gold cup. That’s true for the next 2 years. Then the talent we use today won’t be the talent of the WC. I also think that role - and a key piece is a central role who is press resistant - is key to bridging the gap between today and tomorrow. I don’t think it’s as extra as you do.
Everyone on this board should get some scotch and think about two more US young players getting their debut at top league. Then watch the “Miracle” and get pumped about US soccer’s future.
You can't be serious. Invention is the process of searching for something that has not been done before. It does not have to be something alien or far flung. It could start with putting our 2 best players on the pitch and asking them how they think we should proceed. That is just one effort. We can try something else. But, no, invention is not doing what somebody else is already doing.
Most of the time “innovation” is simply borrowing ideas from somewhere else an adding a slight, localized tweak or using it in a new context. We can use other industries for an example. One of the largest innovations in the last 100 years was the car. But both the motor and the carriage existed before. It was combining the two that created something that looked new. In sports this is even more true. One of the biggest developments in the modern game has been the focus on the press. Klopp is one of the biggest proponents of it. Focusing on the transition phase of the game, over the other phases, was part of the Bundesliga culture. Klopp got the idea of focusing on pressing from watching Pep at Barcelona- where Pep instructed his players to spend the first 6 seconds after losing the ball to press and regain it. This is a concept that reaches back to Ajax. Pep did it because Barcelona wanted the ball and wanted possession. They had defensive vulnerabilities that Pep wanted to minimize but Klopp saw it as a way to score. He saw the benefits of winning the ball high and scoring while the opponent was disorganized- the result Gegenpressing. Klopp did so well with it that it has been largely copied and nearly every team now includes some form of press and gegenpressing in their system. (courtesy of Zonal marking) But this "innovation" started by copying from the best. Inverted fullbacks, false nine, 343 diamond and now the 2323 all has origins elsewhere. Sports is a copycat industry. The triangle was effective in basketball with Phil Jackson and suddenly everyone is using the triangle offense. Possession was the rage after Barcelona and teams everywhere focused on possession. Pressing is the latest. Pep regularly refers to the tactical impact of Biesla. If you want innovation- then you first understand what the top managers are doing and why. - such as the regista, DLP, possession hub role - then try to find a way to copy that benefit and role with the squad and opponents you have. That could mean things like using Nagbe as the press resistant hub with Adams as a ball winner at the 6, and a playmaking passer with them. It could mean playing more with 3 in the back and using a cb in that role. That is why I think the breakdown of a mid normally having a ball conductor, ball protector, and ball recoverer is a good reframing. I still think GB wants a traditional Regista- because of his choices in that role early of Bradley and Trapp- who not only are good passers but have been field generals in the past. But by taking what the best do with that role and thinking about the reframing above- we can conceive of how those three midfield traits can be configured in different ways with our player pool. Pomykal the ball conductor, Adams the ball recoverer, and ledezma the ball protector? Can Mckennie be the ball recover, and let Adams sit back and focus on being the ball protector? I personally like the idea of Pomykal the ball conductor as an 8/10, Adams as the ball recoverer as an 8, and someone like Bradley, Yueill, as the ball protector. I think in a 2323 possession set up you can put that passer and possession hub in between Mckennie and Adams with those two focusing on counter pressing. (which means one of the two is an inverted fullback). But the point being- all of that is trying to tweak the concepts that are being used by the best. That - imo- is how innovation is done with sport tactics. Innovation starts with understanding what the best do and why. Then tweaking that for your environment and purposes.