Two Croatians agreeing (on something other than "we're getting screwed")?! I never thought I'd live to see it!
There are two ways to play 3-5-2. One is like Greece's, Mexico's and Austria's 3-5-2/5-3-2 hybrid, with 3 central defenders, two fullbacks and generally an attacking or 2-way midfield. The other is Steve Nicol's NE Revs with 3 central defenders, 2 holding mids, 2 wingers and so on. Each has its own pluses and minuses ... just like any system ever. Here's my Nicol's 3-5-2 : -----Demerit----Onyewu-----Pearce----- -----------'Dolo--------Edu------------- Donovan----------Adu------------Beasley- ---------Cooper---------Johnson----------
Probably! For the rest of you all, my conclusion, as unpopular and defeatist as it may seem, is that in order to keep from getting overrun and have any share of the ball without being forced into a pure longball game (not that it doesn't happen at times anyhow), we need 6 solidifying guys, and can't dedicate more than 4 to the attack. I think that a lot of the 3-5-2 impetus (and many other systems that a lot of people are throwing out) is the desire to split this 5/5. We can't manage this. Hell, Pablo cannot hold or pass nearly as well as the other midfielders in our pool, and almost everybody's agreeing that he was a beneficial addition to our squad against the Argentines! In my own head, the best solution to this problem is if either Sacha or Benny force their way into the central midfield picture (or Edu or Bradley end up developing the sort of comfort level on the ball that they can be thinking attack while in traffic). Then you've got six solidifiers, but at least one who is as comfortable in transitioning to the attack. Then our 4 attack-minded players can see more of the ball in a better attack posture, and can pressure the opposing defense more in search of goal-scoring opportunities. In other words, we can become a better team when our young central midfield corps improves their level of play. Which isn't exactly an earth-shattering concept.
I follow Utd more than any other club other than USA. I love what Sir Alex and Carlos Quiroz (who I want as USA manager) have done with this side. What you describe isn't what accurate (with all due respect). Approximately, this is what Utd do ----Brown----------Rio----------Vidic----------------------- -------------------------------------------Evra (WB)------- ------------------------Carrick----------------------------- ---------------OH------------------------------------------ ----------------------------Scholes------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------Ronaldo (FR)-----Tevez (FR)-----Rooney (FR)----- The 3 attacking players have complete and utter freedom, Hargraves and Scholes do so to a lesser extent. Carrick generally stays in the middle, but has the freedom to get forward when he wants. He and Scholes are the primary distributors. Hargo is the ultimate two-way player, and probably covers the most ground. Not only does he have to support the attack, but he has to cover a TON of ground defensively. Wes Brown generally gets forward, but not as much as Evra, who basically splits time between LW and LB. He is the one who will provide width for the team from the left side. The beauty of this is that you can have 7 to 8 attackers at any given moments, 5 of which won't necessarily be where you expect them. It's unpredictable and it's extremely fluid - and that's a big reason why it's so effective. None of those players on their own, with the exception of Ronaldo and maybe Rooney, are game breakers on their own at the highest level. Carrick, Scholes, Tevez, and possibly even Rooney would not be automatic starters for Chelsea, who have Essien, Ballack, Lampard, Joe Cole, Drogba, and Molouda. But Utd are a better side because they have that unpredictability in the attack that the Utd system allows for. Yes, it's a crap formation because looking at it there doesn't appear to be enough Defensive cover or enough width. But the formation isn't important. It's the roles. Now let's turn to USA -------------Gooch------CD------------------- ---Dolo (WB)-------------------Pearce (WB)--- ------------------Clark/Edu/PM---------------- ------------Edu/MB--------------------------- ---------------------CD/MB/BF---------------- ---------------------------------------------- -----------LD (FR)----Freddy (FR)---Beaz/CD-- so, you get Dolo and Pearce to provide width as Wingbacks, Edu in that Carrick role, Bradley in the OH role, and Dempsey or Feilhaber being an offensive minded Central midfielder. And you have the three attackers up top, doing whatever they want. You have the same responsibilities as above for defensive cover or width or distribution or whatever.
Ok, first off, I think this is very astute analysis. Kudos. Now here's where I begin to feel that this probably breaks down (and it's arguable, of course, because we haven't really seen it). While the three Americans you mention up front all have good-to-great soccer minds with a good-to-very-good skill set to support that thinking, the rest are a bit more one-dimensional in their skill set, and only Bradley I suspect can cover so much ground (and as we've seen, not for a full 90 minutes as yet against an elite side), though maybe Edu can prove me wrong. For me, either in my system or in yours, much hinges on the ability of Benny or Sacha to force their way into the central midfield picture and assume some grunt duty while still holding and distributing with an attacking midset, or else Edu or Bradley to gain that level of ball control that they can look forward and think "how do I attack" without having to look down at their feet so much, and constantly treat the ball like it's a hot potato when there's an opponent in their face. (I don't feel that Clark or Mastro will ever be that player... and the only other American at this point that I can think of who might at some point is Szetela). I'm not saying that the idea of your system doesn't make sense, or that these are not basically the players that we have that you would want to plug into the given roles, were this our chosen. I'm saying that for these reasons I think we'd be broken down trying to play it. This system requires a several guys who can cover an awful lot of ground, and can play with a high degree of tactical awareness, as well as a couple of highly creative soccer minds with a very high degree of skill. In other words, it's a great system for truly great players. I'm not sure ours are quite good enough to attempt this level of fluidity. My preferred approach is a bit more fluid than what we've been doing, but it isn't this fluid.
Giggs and Scholes or whatever play wider, and Ronaldo doesn't play as a forward, playing somewhat behind the other two, although on the right. But whatever. Under your lineup, Freddy is playing a central forward position. That completely neutralizes his ability to see the field, and makes him rely on his speed (Tevez/Ronaldo) or size/strike rate (Rooney) - oh, wait. Meanwhile, the Carrick role is being played by Clark, Edu, or Mastro - none of who have the distribution skills to start attacks. And you have Bradley and Dempsey playing the role positions. Great, now you've taken our most promising (indeed our only hope at a consistent striking ) forward off the field, turn Bradley into a role player (a position, given his defensive and mental errors, hes absolutely least suited for) (or you can replace Bradley with Edu, and have two pure defensive midfielders on the field, making them both responsible for a range of roles). It seems instead you are trying to do a more normal 3-3-4 (with Adu/Beasley/Donovan playing forward, Edu/Clark/Bradley) playing midfield, and then trying to put Fergie's stamp of approval on it. ManUtd fever isn't serving our team well, which lacks the personnel that ManUtd has, and lacks the ability to go into the market and purchase more talent. Any successful lineup is going to a) Get all of the following on the field: Donovan, Adu, Altidore b) Get 2 of the following on the field: Bradley, Dempsey, Donovan c) Put one of the following on the field: Edu or Clark And it's going to get as many of them in their natural positions: Altidore as a target forward, Donovan as a forward or Ronaldo-styled speed attacking midfielder, Adu as a creative attacking midfielder, Bradley as a two-way central midfielder, Beasley as a speed winger who can play defense, and Dempsey as a utility player.
This is where I take a little bit of exception. Bradley passes well, shoots well, covers lots of ground, and loves to fight for the ball. Which sounds like a good two-way midfielder. But he does not handle the ball well under pressure; he has to either look down too much at his own feet or he has to pass it off to keep it safe, and thus his creativity his hampered too much to be a true two-way guy. I honestly felt that he was improving in this regard until I saw what happened to him the last few games. Now if this aspect of his game comes around (his fundamental ball control), we can revisit this. He's still only 20 years old.
you've definitely got a point here - we won't be as effective as Utd, though I don't necessarily believe you need great players. Just good players who have a good understanding of each other. I'm just hoping we at least give something like this a shot, maybe against a weaker side. Because I think it takes advantages of the strength of our player pool. Our attacking midfielder and central midfielder - while it mitigates our lack of strikers and attacking wingers. ------- Tigerpunk, I don't have a center forward in my line up. It doesn't have forwards or wingers either. That's the point. The only standard positions are along the back line, and the two central mids (the Carrick and Scholes positions).
I have to say, I find it hilarious that so many people are so willing to issue a verdict on a never-tried collection of players. It's that same line of thinking that drives Bradley, and actually, it's not hilarious. It's pathetic. Take Dempsey out. Put Bradley in. If that makes you less worried, you Nancies. Sorry, I just find this "you have to have X # of defenders or we'll get killed" line of thinking archaic and moronic. And most modern managers agree with me. Bob Bradley agrees with you. Enjoy the company.
We've got possibilities on the wings and at striker, but I'll agree that the quality that we have at those roles come 2010 is kinda difficult to predict. My approach calls for 2-3 free role guys (Adu and Donovan, with the possible addition of Dempsey, or perhaps a guy like Kljestan or Holden at some point), and the rest play more traditional, fixed roles. The striker, possibly one of the wings, the center mids, and the back four.
Please explain how our last 3 friendlies proves you right and me wrong. I've seen more evidence to the contrary. From my view, even the Poland and Mexico games tend to support this. And you'll note that I gave you a couple points of basic, fundamental strategy as to why I think 4 flank players are better for us in general than 2, and that 6 guys in the middle aren't as likely to help us as those two extra guys on the wings. If you've got a counter argument, I'll hear it. I'm not totally closed-minded. (At least I don't think I am.)
Our attack has looked miserable in each of the last 3 games. How you could possibly think those games support the idea playing guys in fixed roles is the way for us to generate opportunities is beyond me. Same with Poland. Our goals were scored by defenders on set pieces. So please explain how 4 games where none of our attackers scored a single goal supports your position. From where I'm sitting, doing what we've been doing sounds a lot like insanity. Every attacker I have listed - Donovan, Adu, Kljestan, and Dempsey - has shown they are comfortable in a variety of roles. They can play centrally. They can play wide. They have done so for both club and country. So how you can say they aren't capable of playing on the flank is, again, incomprehensible to me. They do it all the time. And in the system I propose, they would continue doing so based on the situation at hand. In addition, you have two fullbacks in Pearce and Cherundolo pushing forward to provide pure wing support and crossing ability.
More attackers and less defenders does not mean a better attack. At the extreme, 1-1-8 is unlikely to score and is very likely to be run off the field (just to take the point to its logical conclusion). What does make a difference is how well the attack is supported. The Polish match saw us gain consistent territorial advantage. We had the ball consistently in good positions. A lot of this had to do with the fact that MB/Clark very easily cleaned up the midfield, a lot of it had to do with the fact that Pearce so beat his man for pace that he could get upfield with relative impunity, and a lot had to do with the fact that Landon was having a very good game. And all this happened with two absolute zeroes in the forward positions. That led to set-pieces, which led to goals. To state the incredibly obvious, scoring from the run of play with zero forwards is never an easy thing. Two decent forwards makes this a pretty game for us, and even one decent forward would make it a big improvement. To go back to the 41311 set-up you'd posted where initial disagreement began, what you've got are 4 guys in the midfield who are unlikely to win the ball against a solid midfield, thus leaving the defenders to have to collect on our heels. On the plus side, those guys can mostly handle it reasonably well under pressure, at least. But it sacrifices width, and thus speed. Assuming we're talking about a strong team, and not a weak team that would could beat no matter how we'd lined up as long as we've got something resembling an A team on the field, we're at a disadvantage. Against a team like England which can work and pressure all day as long as we can, and has a greater degree of individual skill (and, yes, bigger, more physical guys for the most part, to boot), we're doomed. We're not even in a position to TRY to take it to them, we're just matching up 1v1 at regular intervals through the field and getting beat 75% of the time. Which keeps the ball in our half of the field the whole game (with nobody even to support a target guy if you want to get desperate and play the longball approach). Switching out Dempsey for Bradley gives more ball-winning muscle, true, but still doesn't put guys in a position to attack so much. Unless you spread the two wider midfielders out to the wings. Then, you've got a 4-4-1-1, which isn't so different from what I've been advocating... Your system makes more sense if you really feel that your players can combine their way through the midfield with impunity, though there are better sorts of systems to get the most out of versatile attacking players. Really, from a formational standpoint, this formation is another "lock down the middle" approach best suited to a really defensive tactic, like when you're protecting a 1-0 lead in the 80th minute of a WC game.
To be fair, let me give you my two (one for now, and one for the IF/WHEN I feel Altidore can function internationally as a lone striker), and you can tear it apart if you like. -----------------------Jozy/EJ------------------ -------------LD/Adu---------------------------- LW-------------------------------------RW/RAM -------------Edu/Clark------------------------- --------------------Edu/Bradley/Mastro------- Pearce------CB------Onyewu-----Cherundolo Notes: "CB" means "center back" and could be Bocanegra, Spector, Orozco, DeMerit, Parkhurst, even Subotic. Any of the following could be a candidate for left winger. Beasley (ok now for defensive cover, will need to recover some old form to have much of an attacking impact), Lewis (for now... provides set-piece ability), Donovan, Dempsey, Adu (I'd probably prefer him in the center) or Rogers. Perhaps Holden in the foreseeable future. Each will have his impact on how the rest is played, and you pick the one that fits best overall, agreed. The RW/RAM (in other words, either a pure or a pinched-in winger/attacking mid) could be any of the following: Dempsey, Donovan, Kljestan, Rogers. Now, my "ideal" set-up with our foreseeable talent (or at least the talent that I think I can foresee): ------------------------Jozy-------------------------- --Donovan------------Adu----------pick your 3rd-- ---------------Edu/Bradley---DLP or 2nd holding-- ------------------Back four-------------------------- The third guy could be Dempsey (the advantage is that all three, with LD and Adu could get very fluid and unpredictable in the switch, with any of them making runs, playmaking, dropping back into midfield to receive, etc, out of any position). It could be Beasley or Rogers (or another of our wingers that's currently off the radar, ie Zizzo or White or somebody). It could be Kljestan. If it's Beasley or Rogers, then Adu and Donovan are interchanging and combining the attack/playmaking roles and the 3rd is running and playing more of a pure wing role. If it's Kljestan, Donovan's primarily making attacking runs, Adu's mostly pulling strings, and Kljestan's doing a combination of things, but a bit deeper, more in a transitional role. If the 3rd guy is left-footed, then Donovan takes his role and switches it to the right. The DLP is Feilhaber or Kljestan most likely. Or it's the other of the Edu/Bradley option as a 2nd holding midfielder. Or for defensive bite when necessary, Clark or Mastroeni (obviously Mastro becoming less relevent as time goes on).
It's all about finding the right balance. With Bob, I think it is pretty easy to diagnose the direction we need to move. (Although amazingly enough he once went too far in the other direction with a Feilhaber-Donovan central midfield combo).
Putting Benny Feilhaber as a sole destroyer was pretty dumb though. Then Bob compounded the error by playing Mike in front of Benny and not the other way around. In any case, he should have tried a 4-4-2 Diamond during these friendlies because he'll need a more offensive formation against the C-CRAP minnows. He also should have tried someone besides Dempsey - even if it were Wolff - on the right wing. Some coaches and teams can adjust on the fly - Spain went with two strikers today and looked wonderful - but I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll see the same formation that you have grown to love so much vs. Barbados.
Given what we've seen so far, I would expect a very conservative game by Bradley. He's not comfortable thinking he's not "covered" defensively. An offensive line-up might upset his sensibilities. He plays Bocanegro and Onweyu together, even though they're not his best choices together, and covers his decision with 2 D-Mids, with at least one of them not being the most logical choice. He covers for what he thinks is a deficiency at D-Mid, by playing twins at the position to make sure he's covered at that position, also. He puts himself into a box, tactically, before the game even begins. That's not a knock to any player, they are simply what they are, and they don't make the choices on who plays, he does. I realize this is inductive speculation on my part, but I hardly think Bradley is too difficult to decipher when it comes to his tactical approach to the game.