A Change in Tactics?

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by jd6885, Sep 11, 2007.

  1. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    First of all, should we change from our regular 433?

    I think we saw today that against good midfields that we'll see later in the tournament (if we get out of the group), we can't hold our own. No doubt Germany, Norway, China, etc will study the North Korea game and find out how to tear our midfield apart. North korea went from

    --x----x--
    --x----x--

    in the midfield on the defensive to

    -x--------x-
    ----x--x---

    on the offensive. They held the ball well on the wings because of the lack of pressure from Lloyd and Chalupny. They knew that if they wanted to hold the ball, keep it away from Shannon Boxx, who was playing deep in the middle.

    With that said, we'd probably need to switch to a 442 like the men's side:

    ----Orielly-----Wambach----
    Lilly---------------------Chalupny
    -------Boxx---Osborne---------
    -Lopez-Whitehill-Markgraf-Rampone

    On the attack, it turns into a 4-2-4 with Lilly and Chalupny as wingers. We could also switch it up and have lilly streak in diagonally to the center, at the same time orielly pulls to the left. As well as Chalupny streaking in center and Wambach pulling to the right. This causes Wambach's inevitable 2 or 3 markers to chase her to the wings, allowing room for Chalupny to get a shot off in the center, or she could lay it off to Lilly who could also shoot.

    We'll certainly have more possession with two world class ball winners at the heart of our Midfield
     
  2. kool-aide

    kool-aide Member+

    Feb 1, 2002
    a van by the river
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Except I don't think other teams can match NK's relentless pace. They hauled @$$ constantly. I think a 442 was called for in the NK game but with Sweden, a 433 could work (and has). I guess put me as undecided right now.
     
  3. mathisfan13

    mathisfan13 New Member

    Sep 29, 2003
    Ohio
    I really think it's way too early to call for a change in tactics...

    Why?
    1. The North Koreans were just a good team. Yes, sure the #1 team should beat the #5 team...but shouldn't the #3 team beat the #23 team (or w/e number Nigeria is)? One of the biggest problems in US soccer is people (coaches, fans, players) hitting the panic button too early. Sometimes, you just don't have a great day. You really hope it doesn't come in your World Cup opener, but it happens to every team at some point...

    2. I really attribute a lot of the trouble the US had to opening day nerves and the atmosphere, not poor players or poor formations. Sure, it would have been nicer to see the midfield possess the ball a hell of a lot more, but didn't we all know coming into this tournament that this team struggled at that? Add in the fact that two of the midfielders were making their World Cup debut in the most hostile atmosphere this team has seen in years (if not ever)...and it's easy to see how the team got rattled a bit. On top of all that, watching your superstar go out of the match with blood streaming out of her forehead is something that can get to any player...

    Now all that being said, there is no excuse for giving up two goals like they did. I remember Julie Foudy saying "I'm sure this is something they've trained...a player down, opponent's pressing, you're a goal up." Well, if they did, it certainly didn't look like it...the team looked in disarray while Wambach was out- similar to how they looked for the first 10 minutes after she left the Finland game...the only difference is that North Korea had the firepower to make them pay for their mistakes.
     
  4. mathisfan13

    mathisfan13 New Member

    Sep 29, 2003
    Ohio
    Oh and I think we will some changes for the Sweden match, but it will be more about playing a style to beat Sweden than changing in response to North Korea.
     
  5. BlitzSpiele

    BlitzSpiele Member

    Sep 7, 2007
    Maybe the US should have played with 10 in the second half against NZ or Finland. I
     
  6. mathisfan13

    mathisfan13 New Member

    Sep 29, 2003
    Ohio
    Even if they had, neither of those teams had anything even close to the speed and determination of the North Koreans. Neither of them really play a similar style to the Koreans either...

    I was referring to practice- Foudy talked during the New Zealand game about how the team was practicing different scenarios together- down a goal, up a goal, etc. I guess I may have been harsh in saying that it didn't look like they practiced the appropriate scenario...but there's only so much I can chalk up to nerves and pressure. Part of being prepared for a World Cup is knowing you can perform in the situations you'll face. In my opinion, it's pretty easy to see that, at some point, Abby Wambach was going to be off the field. That's simply the way opponents are going to play her- if you can't defend her, then de-rail her. I'm just disappointed they looked so lost while she was off.
     
  7. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The entire midfield and defense was lost after the 72 minute. Except for a nice dribbling run by chalupny when she was taken down near the box (and not called), the midfield produced zip. Boxx looked confused at times and passed to the wrong team 90% of the time. Maybe it could be attributed to the wet surface, but it was just bad in the midfield.

    Perhaps against sweden and Nigeria, our midfield wont be as porous as it was today, but you'd have to think at the Semis (if we even get that far) there would need to be a change in the midfield. Believe me, teams will study the game tape hard and emulate N. Korea's play. You can see that defensively, the US mid is content to sit on top of the defense and play a low pressure game, giving the opposing team ample time to bring players up. The last thing the US wants with a 3 man midfield is for a good opponent to isolate or stretch their three mids like the Koreans did today. They were constantly switching the side of attack, and their forwards smartly chose their times to run. You don't have to be the fittest team in the world. Just the smartest. Or at least smart enough.

    For example, the Brazilian men, arguably the best in the world at the moment, aren't constantly running at you to stretch your defense. Instead, they play smart. They hold the ball to give their mids time to get into position to attack, they slow the pace of the game to lull you into a sense of safety, and all of a sudden, they put the ball into the perfect spot for a player to run on to and then they run at you (usually just outside the box).
     
  8. casocrfan

    casocrfan Member

    Nov 25, 2004
    San Francisco
    or play the correct players in the 4-3-3. Boxx can't hold the midfield in this line-up against a quick, skilled team. By the way... Sweden is a quick, skilled team. Boxx would do well in this position against Nigeria.
     
  9. asdf2

    asdf2 Member+

    Oct 11, 2004
    San Francisco
    I haven't been watching enough to comment and critique intelligently, but I do notice you recommended we play at 36 year old at winger.

    On a seperate note, why is Aly Wagner not playing. From what I've seen of the WNT, which is a little bit a long time ago, she was our star creative midfielder of the future. Now at 27 in her prime she's on the bench. Anyone know what's up with that?
     
  10. sspeed

    sspeed New Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Tempe
    She was injured for quite a while ...and now the coach appears to be afraid to make any changes in the lineup we have been running..I for one think she could have been very effective the last couple games....not so sure however that Nigeria is a game she would excel in.
     
  11. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It doesn't matter if Kristine Lilly is 36 years old or not, she's one of the fittest players in the world. She needs to see more of the ball to link up the midfield and forwards. When she's too far from the midfield, nothing is created in the attack. I think you can see how pivotal she is as a playmaker in the last two games. Abby's greatest two goals came from Lilly's services to her. Kristine lilly dribbling at defenses is also a terrifying thing for the opponents. We have so many good players on the ball, but we don't use that skill much.

    The 433 is too direct, there's not enough buildup from the midfield because we're afraid to hold the ball there. That's why i think osborne and boxx will be a good duo in the midfield. Have your playmakers on the wings, and your best holding players in the center--you'll see better buildup and better attacking rhythm. We saw a little of that against Sweden when we did have osborne and Boxx in the middle. The swedish team created zilch in the middle of the park, while the US team looked dangerous with the ball on the wings, dribbling the ball, 1-2s with the on-running full backs and central mids.

    If we play 433 against brazil in the semi's we'll get burned. They're players are too fast in the midfield for a 3 mid to work.
     
  12. casocrfan

    casocrfan Member

    Nov 25, 2004
    San Francisco
    The 4-3-3 is only "too direct" if you play it that way. If the midfielders and the front line work together well this line-up is actually more about switching the attack (see SCU in college) and finding the seems behind the defense with good runs and through-balls on the ground.

    But I agree with you, the way Ryan has the team playing the 4-3-3 it is too direct and that is what is making our attack so predictable.
     
  13. asdf2

    asdf2 Member+

    Oct 11, 2004
    San Francisco
    Again I haven't watched the WNT enough but the 4-3-3 vs. Sweden's 4-5-1 (or that's what it seemed like anyway) resulted very predictably in their 5 players dominating our 3 players in midfield in the first half. Having Boxx and Osborne in their side-by-side in the 2nd half seemed to positively change the game.

    We still didn't look fast enough however.
     

Share This Page