I'm telling you, you're free to believe me or not, but here it goes: our big problem this cycle is going to be the CB pair. Basically all our CBs are troncos. A tronco can do ok in parts of Europe, but not in CONCACAF.
I'm no strong adherent to the CBs must be big idea, and I can see how it might be strategic to play smaller,faster, and more mobile CBs against certain sides or tactics. Nevertheless, I can't see how that applies to CONCACAF opponents specifically.
Back then we had Besler at his peak, and Cameron too. Now those two are entering their twilight years.
Nordic nations, plus England and Germany, play a style of soccer that seldom emphasizes the short passing and the skill move. The dribblers are few. So a tronco can do well, if he can pass from the back, can use his size to push people away from the ball, can tackle, and can cover the aerial crosses. But put a guy like Brooks in Spain and you'll see what I mean. Half of the C-CAF countries have the Latin style, based on quick passing ("paredes"), the fast turn (agility), the confusing dribble, and the feint that leaves a typical tronco trying to tie his shoes. You'll never see Brooks look as bad in the Bundesliga as he did against Costa Rica. The Ticos just went around him, didn't try to go over him, or to outmuscle him. While JAB turned the lights at the back and went beep-beep-beep, they had already shot.
I'd like to see us start using some more mobile CB's. Palmer-Brown, Glad, Long are all mobile. If need be, bring Besler back into the NT. A guy like Carter-Vickers who doesn't move well and isn't so good with the other parts of his game is an obvious player who loses out here with this change. We also shouldn't be using Miazga and Brooks on the same backline. It should be an either/or arrangement with those two or maybe neither.
I agree with the having one more mobile back to partner with an aerial beast. Seems all of the same or similar type came up at once and now the younger guys like EPB and Richards are on their way but not ready yet. An MLS guy might get a shot because of this.
I was going to reply to #8or#6 but you took the words right out of my mouth (or keyboard!) To give an example of a country and an style that define that country, I'll give you Colombia, which is another country looking for a NT coach. A few months ago, after the WC, many names where passed around, as usual, and a member of the Federation floated the idea of former Brazilian coach (and player) Dunga, immediately there was an uproar by the press and the general population, -and believe me, in a soccer mad country, that's pretty much everybody- against that option, as Dunga was viewed as an Anti-football coach, whose defensive tactics had caused Brazil a group stage exit at the Copa Centenario 2016, and obviously, his preferred coaching ideas were the opposite of the "DNA" of Colombian football, their "signature", so that name was quickly thrown aside.
Style depends on pool, not the other way around. Colombia and Argentina are countries that play attacking soccer because their attacking players are world class, while their defenders are just good. We've always lacked in the attacking game. When your #1 striker is a guy like Bobby Wood, you're in serious trouble. This cycle we may have somewhat better talent in attack, if Sargent, Weah, Wright pan out and McKennie keeps playing the B2B with many attacking duties role, to complement Puli. But if it's true what I foresee, our defense being sub-par even for our standards, then we just don't have the world class attacking talent to compensate for it. We'll have to keep playing defensive, this time not because we lack attackers, but because our defense will need all the help the rest of the team can give them.
An interesting discussion. I'd add that sometimes countries go through philosophical changes. Before my time Spain was supposedly a hacking defensive team but when Barcelona started playing in more of the Dutch way their national retooled and took it to a ball control extreme. Chile was always an attacking side but Bielsa added that extreme pressing and fitness element that stayed after he left. A lot of what a national team does is down to the makeup of their population. If most citizens are small then very technical is the way to go if most players are tall and fast those elements will be on display. The US has a chance to meld a lot of those together with such a big and diverse population. They can do what France has been doing, what England has started doing and Germany dabbling in by mixing different cultures into winning sides. US may have even more cultures to choose from with their size and melting pot to choose from. Eventually a coach will put out a philosophy that takes advantage of the population and the US style will be established with only tweaks added with each new coach. I'd guess a combo of what France, Germany and England are doing mixed with a more South / Central American flair.
I would say "athleticism with a little finesse": Pace up top and on the wings Finesse and ball protection in the middle High-workrate; defensively organized Strong GKing A lot of strong US teams have had good athletes running off a centralized finesse player, whether it was Ramos, Reyna or Bob tried to do it with Dempsey, Torres and Feilhaber: someone that can hold the ball and create while everyone else moves. If you look at a lot of MLS squads, they're built the same way, which I don't think is an accident.
And the way you proceed is you play the players who work well together, in combination, because that goes right at the "different culture" problem and turns it into an advantage. Probably the worst idea for us is the one Earnie was echoing, maybe for marketing purposes, of 'in your face" soccer. I could see that as a slogan for a small country in the lowlands taking on a neighboring great empire but that's not us and just unleashes the inferiority complex into a situation it cant handle. In the lead up to WWI, the French instituted a military doctrine of "elan". (first search result: https://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=16904134 The French saved Europe but I'm not sure elan helped much. Playing together overcomes the inherent weakness in the "athletic cycle" we are in. It gets rid of the "star" system that sank England for decades as their association took back seat to the marketing lords of football. Playing in combo would come closest to secession prone Spain which played tiki-taka with great success. It would repress the urge of the oppressed to play to not be invisible, etc. Of course, it's not as easy as it sounds. If a great star doesn't meet the requirements of playing well in combo, would a Berhalter insist on dragging him along anyway? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes and an excuse would be made up that blames the wrong guy because that is the easy thing to do. That's why it takes a long time to climb up the hierarchy of international football. We aren't ready. It will take time.
high work-rate: the US is typically top-3 in distance covered per match at major tournaments. This has been consistent over the past 16 years. efficiency in the attacking third via a creative fulcrum and poachers: We convert off fewer shots. Arena got away from this by not incorporating more creative players on the roster. good goal keeping: After a dip, the quality seems to be returning.
There is a lot in flux, but right now I'd go with ----------------------Sargeant ---Weah-------------------------------Puli ------------------------?* -----------Adams-----------McKennie I would try Saief there. Or Lletget.
With 3cb's instead of a 10 and 2 cb's, it puts pressure on the system to get offensive value from the wingback position. I don't see that with Yedlin; Robinson is limited, albeit a good crosser. We would do better getting Lima geared up, if that's possible (Berhalter has already mentioned he has that in mind). On the left I've never seen Lovitz but Garza in Tata's Atlanta system is the right idea. Fabian in days of yore would have qualified. Berhalter isn't as sophisticated with his fullbacks as Tata is so I'm not expecting much more than your mail-it-in Afful performance.
Against top class teams I think that’s prob a better bet. Dropping a CB for a 10 against weaker sides makes sense. However, we don’t have a 10. And putting a player there just to do it doesn’t do us any good.
Formations are overrated. Rather than thinking about formations, I like to think about principles of play: (1) Keep the ball (2) Penetrate into the penalty area -- beat a defender on the dribble, if possible (3) Attack with width (4) Support each other (5) Minimize spacing between players, especially on the defensive end (6) Move! (7) Be creative and improvise in the attack (8) Always have defensive backup (9) Decide wisely whether to pass into space or pass to a player (10) Decide wisely whether to mark space or mark a player (11) Avoid passing to the middle, avoid dribbling in the middle, in defense (12) Defend set pieces with your life There are 4 basic formations to choose from: 4-4-2 Should be the default formation -- well balanced in attack and defense 4-2-3-1 More defensive formation (in 4-5-1 family) 4-3-3 Attacking formation to be used against weaker sides 4-3-2-1 Christmas tree (not recommended) The coach's choice of formation depends entirely on his game tactics and the personnel he has at his disposal. OK, thank you, Captain Obvious!