I think it is valid to point out that we play with attacking fullbacks, but I think it is tricky to count them as 2 of 5 players committed to attack since they absolutely have significant defensive responsibilities. Yes, everyone has defensive responsibilities, but a fullback has more of those than most positions. We saw what happens when that part of their game breaks down against Netherlands when they both missed a mark that was key to giving up a goal. If you attack with five and two of those five also have a ton of defensive responsibilities and they play positions they are farthest from goal and have to progress all the way up before joining the attack, I think that is substantially different than a team playing with five guys primarily dedicated to the attack from other positions further up field. Saying we play with 5 attackers is true on its face by including the fullbacks, but it lacks some pretty relevant details that make a significant difference. I think this is an issue that is interesting within the context of this teams because in Dest and Robinson, we have two very good players, a couple of the better guys in the pool for sure. But, fielding them commits us to always playing with attacking fullback as a key part of this team and that means we have to shore up the defense elsewhere somehow for when they inevitably bomb forward. It's a bit of a tricky situation that is both a great feature in some ways but also something that limits who else we can get into the attack. At some point, we have to consider if it is more advantageous to have Robinson and Dest always out there bombing forward or would our attack benefit more from getting guys like Aaronson and Gio more involved further up field and dedicating more of the defensive line to defending. How much we could count on either of them to stay back and play more defensively is an open question. I think that might work with Robinson but with Dest if you're not getting him forward, you lose a lot of what makes him special. I'm not sure that some sort of rotation of only one forward at a time might make not good sense and allow us to attack more with our players up field. Sending them both is risky if you don't play defensively elsewhere but it also makes it harder to attack if you do always rely on them because of the distances involved.
We have been poor at consistently creating chances and scoring goals under Berhalter. This is a recurring theme. This was predicted by many before the World Cup, based on mountains of evidence. And that’s what happened. We drew a very easy group (second easiest we’ve had in the modern era besides 2010) and then we drew about the best opponent we could hope for as a second place finisher headed to the knockout rounds. We scored 3 goals in four games. Pitiful. And because of that, we ran our asses off for four straight games holding on for dear life to preserve a draw in game one, a meaningless draw in game two, and advancement in game three. Then a predictable dispatching in the knockout rounds. Three goals in four games is an obvious indictment of our attacking philosophy. You want specifics? Any combination of these could be part of the solution: 1. Relying on our outside backs to create chances by crossing in the box is idiotic with nobody to finish them. We have no strong aerial threats in the pool. The best we have (Pepi) was left at home. As it was, we were near the top in crosses and near the bottom in goals. Yay! Zero tactical flexibility continuing to rely on both outside backs pushing forward given our limitations. 2. CF is our weakest position (outside of maybe CB given injuries). The confined reliance of a true CF shows tactical inflexibility. One option is a false 9 (that’s basically Ferreira anyway but Gregg went with the obvious inferior choice over Gio and Brendan). Both Reyna and Aaronson can play that role. 3. Weah can play CF in this setup. Width can be solved with Scally or Dest on the right (Dest has shown the ability to put a cross in, if he’s given instructions to provide width) or even Pulisic on the right if we have enough creative players around him. This is not a preferred option, but worth a try to get more talent on the pitch. 4. Play a 4-4-2 with Pulisic on the left and Weah on the right. Reyna or Aaronson could both slot in nicely at the top of a midfield diamond. 5. More rotation at midfield, particularly with an eye on possession as a defensive tactic to keep up from burning our legs. Both Reyna and Aaronson are viable midfield candidates (Reyna moreso), and LDLT should have gotten some run. 6. The 4-2-3-1 is a reasonable choice given our pool. Adams plays with another holding mid at Leeds. Acosta as a sub actually makes sense in this formation (for the last time, Gregg, he is NOT. AN. 8!). This allows us to get more attacking threats on the pitch. Maybe this is not our full time formation, since the MMA midfield is a very good one (can be more effective with some tweaks above), but it should 100% be one of our key variations. It fits our pool depth so well. Gregg’s 4-3-3 is ill-suited for our pool. 1. It keeps two of our best players (Gio and Brendan) glued to the bench. One is fine, as we always need subs/fresh legs/rotation, but both is coaching malpractice for a team desperately lacking in attack. 2. It puts a premium on output from our weakest role, CF. Can’t combine with our limited number of playmakers up top and can’t finish crosses. 3. It relies on significant production from our outside backs, another area with limited depth. We have no qualified backups to contribute to such a large responsibility except for possibly Scally (another example of Gregg’s mismanagement and poor talent evaluation). 4. So much is out on the shoulders of our midfield three, where we again have limited depth. At least in Gregg’s world. Acosta is actually a decent fill in for Adam’s. Reyna and LDLT decent full-ins for M&M. But as per Gregg’s “vision,” it’s all or nothing on MMA. 5. It is reliant on playing out of the back. Of our keeper and two center backs, only one (Ream l) is above average in that regard on a national level. And Gregg was slow to recognize Ream, who saved him last minute from a disastrous Long/Zimmerman/Turner #whenplayingoutofthebackgoeswrong partnership. TLDR: Tactical inflexibility means leaving two of our very limited number of quality players on the bench while forcing the team into a system that doesn’t fit our pool and doesn’t generate goals, wasting a great opportunity to make the quarterfinals for the first time in two decades.
I didn’t say any thing about age, however I’m glad you mentioned it. If the Dutch starting 11 was 2.7 years older even with out outlier Tim Ream, then that is an incredible difference given the average peak performance time of a professional soccer career. That’s a canyon of a chasm.
thread We have seen a wide variety of playstyles in build-up, this next viz is inspired by @OptaAnalyst where I look at the speed each team tends to build up pic.twitter.com/71oXPOIOGF— nrehiew (@nrehiew) December 18, 2022
It’s self-evident by their levels of professional performance, and it’s self-evident by the team’s level of performance with their replacements on the field.
First, I just want to say that I appreciate your well thought out response. Sure. There is a difference. I think it's a bit too far to blame the goals specifically on them attacking -- basically every good team in the world attacks with fullbacks. But yes, they aren't the same as a frontline attacker. I'd argue that central mids also have defensive responsibilities, usually as well. And a big reason attacking fullbacks have become so important is that basically that teams don't want to give up the center of the field. They don't want their CM to cede control of the center, and they know the opponent will likely give them wide spaces. They know that anyone coming forward has a risk of letting players behind them, and they'd rather it be wide than central. But I am entirely open to other formations that don't include them. That said, I don't agree with the post I was responding to -- that we only had two attackers -- and while there's a difference, our fullbacks are part of the attack. Right. There's a cascade of logic here. If you want to play Dest, you have to have him attack. There's no point otherwise, and you are wasting a huge asset not playing him. (And unlike not playing Reyna or Aaronson ... the alternatives aren't even that strong defensively or in any way.) If you play him, there's a decent bias to play Weah at RW here. Why? Because Dest and Reyna are actually pretty damn close in style and skillset. If you play Reyna at RW, you'd actually want someone with strong off ball movement and wide skills most often to complement Reyna, I'd think. Not that Dest and Reyna can't play together with time, but it is going to crowd things. They both want to play in the same space, do the same things, and neither is great at off ball runs. Jedi is the interesting one. He's not a great passer, but he is a pretty good defender, particularly in terms of recovery speed. You're negating a ton of value in making him defensive, but it is an option. At the risk of angering everyone, I'd note the Tim Ream/Daniel Lovtiz at LB days were causing by Berhalter wanting to do EXACTLY this. Pulisic was at the CAM, and there was a real LW (Baird, Arriola, etc.) who made off ball runs behind the defense. I don't think it is an awful idea to shift to something like the below in attack: Pulisic ----------------- CF ------------------- Weah --------------Reyna----------------Dest--------------- With Jedi playing LCB/LB and attacking as needed with the RCM in reserve like him as well. It's a mix of the current offense and the 2019 offense. I also don't think it is crazy to do another version with six attackers -- not against England, of course -- but like this: Jedi -------------------- CF ---------------------Weah -----------Pulisic ------------------- Dest--------------- ------------------------ Reyna --------------------------- And likewise you can hold both FBs back and do 4 in attack. All this is viable. There's just trade-offs in each. The Jedi question for 2026 is a very real one.
I actually think both of these setups look much more dangerous than what we generally end up with. And while I thought the team played well on the defensive side of the ball, I think the World Cup showed the same that we saw throughout a lot of qualifying with a strong defense but a very weak attack that created far too few chances, especially for a team that's not exactly known for efficient finishing. So, I think trying out some of these other ways of approaching the offensive third need to be given a shot. If we just keep doing what we're doing, I think there is every chance the team keeps looking the same, strong defense and mediocre to poor in attack. The only other option I can really see for improving the offensive game would be better set pieces because we wasted a ton of opportunities there. So, I guess to me the most likely paths forward are either to change it up in the attack and those are a couple viable options you've just proposed or become even more defensive and lean into trying to score on set pieces. Either way, I think if we want results to improve over what we just saw (which wasn't terrible) we are going to need to figure out how to improve offensively. Even as someone who generally favors a strong defense, this team looked too toothless too often.
One big issue was that Berhalter committed to a specific tactical approach prior to the tournament and then selected the roster based on that specific approach. So he called in just 3 center forwards - one’s he felt fit his system, not necessarily our best. Wright came into the tournament with just 3 caps, none in WCQ, and was poor enough in the June window that Berhalter publicly called him out. Jesus hadn’t played a competitive match in almost 2 months and isn’t a traditional 9. The depth at the 9 was poor and was compounded by Berhalter’s insistence to only consider one of the three that we brought at the position. Once Sargent got injured, there were no good options, as Wright had proven ineffective and Ferreira not a good fit and overmatched, which was confirmed in the first half vs the Dutch. We could have easily called in 4 center forwards, particularly with the expanded rosters. We don’t have to go too far back (2014) to see how injuries at the 9 can become problematic. Prior to the tournament many of us questioned why call in just 3 forwards and 5 right backs. Our best options for the Netherlands match were sitting at home.
On the first one, I somewhat agree provided Reyna is healthy and ready to play. The main caveat I'd have tactically is whether Pulisic will play wide, and when he does play wide, if he can still find ways to be goal dangerous. It's still pretty reliant on an effective striker if Pulisic is providing width. I'd hope the second one is more effective; it's six attackers, and with Reyna playing that role he can swing from side to side to provide overloads. I'd actually love this if we can swing it defensively, but I'd love to see him overload the off ball side and then switch into an overload. Downside aside from defense is probably removing Reyna from closer to goal, but there's going to be trade-offs. I'd also think it would take some time for Reyna, Dest and Christian to figure out the dynamic there. We've seen them play together before and there's a lot of trade-off of on ball play where the others aren't as active as you need. They need to get over that and work together rather than give each a chance for one on one play. That comes with reps. I think people think I disagree completely, but I don't. I don't think we did a good job of getting the offense clicking before the World Cup; I just think that once we were there, against better competition, trying to compensate with extra numbers or off the wall experimentation at that point is sub-optimal. We had one week of prep -- not the usual near-month. You are what you are; now go make the most of it. Ongoing, we should experiment more. From the posts on here, I do think people seem to think the cause is 100% tactical in possession. I don't really believe that's true. Set pieces are a problem. They should be 25-35% of our goal production. We had none in the World Cup and literally only scored in the Honduras game I think in qualifying (maybe Panama?). Some of that is personnel; some of the solutions might help it but some exacerbate it (pulling off a CF). Some of it is probably set up and practice. It's a disaster and a BIG part of our goal-scoring issues. Transition isn't great either. I know a lot of people put this on tactics, but I don't really see it. Our biggest issues has been decision making in transition. That's a personnel thing that is really only solved by them getting better. We could change our tactics and personnel to optimize chances here for sure at the cost of other things, but the conversion rate is not something I expect a national team coach to have to teach. In possession attack is lacking, no doubt. Some of that is a lack of a striker, and while we could go Weah/Pulisic or False 9, and is worth experimenting ... I do think there's a real problem in not having a quality player central to goal who can bang with centerbacks. But yes, let's experiment. I'd love to see a number of different looks. I do also think Reyna's long injury hurt our ability to incorporate him in unique ways even before his issues. And I think the overall plan at the World Cup was a pretty good one; we were just poor at executing in the Netherlands match.
If Berhalter is retained, which I don’t think he should be, but if he is; my priority list for him..... (1) Repair this thing going on with Gio and any other players in the locker room. (2) Hire an assistant coach who can help him design an offense. (3) Be tactically flexible enough to have more than one formation and approach to utilize. (4) Hire someone to help with the coherency in call ups. We should be able to see what Berhalter is trying to build, and not see favoritism, favoritism, favoritism, and then a Hail Mary selection when things don’t work. (5) Schedule more competitive games and get outside of CONCACAF. (6) Encourage more young players to go abroad in order to get into the most competitive environment. (7) Be mindful of the next generation while building the team. In other words, do not get into the 2 cycle coach mindset of falling back on the players who helped you out in the first cycle. (8) Continue to push for more youth development at the USSF level. (9) Be able to better manage in-game tactics. Notice how coaches are adapting to you and don’t just keep shoving the square peg into the round hole. (10) Adjust to our player pool and not have the player pool adjust to the coach. Focus on maximizing our strengths while minimizing our weakness. Look to exploit our opponents’ weaknesses while minimizing their strengths. Let me add.... Work on adding a quick, counter attack strategy too. It’s okay to have a slow progression style of play as the main body of what we’re trying to do. But there has to be a time when we know how to counter quickly. Oh, and as always too, win the key dual national battles. Ie., Folarin Balogun, Brandon Vazquez, etc.
I think the big advantage we will have this cycle over last is a much more clear path toward experimenting a bit. We have an established group of players who will only get better in most positions, and we have a long run up with a lot of time to try things out with a smaller number of new additions to get acclimated to each other. The absence of Covid restrictions should allow for the whole group to be together more often so we should have fewer purely speculative squads. We were so good defensively that I feel like it is the offense where most of these experiments will need to happen but naturally since offense and defense are inexorably linked, we'll need to pay attention to both sides of the equation when we do so. We'll need to not get too carried away if we land on some offensive plans that work great against lower-level teams. We don't want to get over-excited if we are able to rack up some goals against lesser teams and forget about the need to focus on defending when the competition steps up. It will be an interesting balancing act but if we don't figure out how to score a bit more and be become more consistently dangerous, I'm not sure we can realistically expect to get all that much better overall since we were already tough to break down.
All really good points. We lost nearly a whole year to COVID, started a year late (which, yes, was the Fed's fault) and still, I think the most difficult component was the constantly evolving pool both due to emergence of new players and injuries. We really can't control the latter, but having a relatively stable core and a reasonable foundation will make experimentation easier. If nothing else, I don't think we should overhaul the style of defensive play -- though a new coach may want to do so. Your last point is a good one as well. I do think there's value in having a bunker buster offense, and I do think we should find sets that overcommit on offense as a situational (i.e. needing a goal) set, but I don't see it as all that valuable for our team as a primary set. The biggest thing is to solve the fundamental elements without resorting to just throwing bodies at things. Whatever that happens to be.
Sorry I meant to write full backs. Anyway we had 4 right backs, one didn’t play, another was our worst player. We had 1 too many.
Scally was the backup for Jedi. So 3 right backs. Still one too many for me, and it was made worse when Moore played poorly. I think most would agree Berhalter brought some dead weight, heck, I bet even Berhalter recognized it in hindsight.
On the goalkeeping graph, I think they got the "sweeper" and "shot stopper" labels reversed, unless I'm reading it all wrong.
After watching our forwards’ lack of instincts around the goal, if I’m Berhalter I am tempted to take another look at Zardes.
A Zardes type would have worked well. But even if 2019 Zardes was good enough -- and I don't think he was -- 2022 Zardes is nowhere near the same player.
Gregg sticking with Ferreira as the 9 smh Not enough people are talking about Gregg Berhalter’s Twitter banner, wherein Jesus Ferreira is the 9 pic.twitter.com/aGnvnjLXpr— Megan Swanick (@Meg_Swanick) January 3, 2023 Surprised it wasn't this: pic.twitter.com/Z6U01kRHGB— Clayton Paul (@CPaul48) January 3, 2023
Admit it, you'll miss this now that it's gone Insane to think that 1 year ago today Gyasi Zardes was in the starting XI versus Canada— lauren (@njdlauren) January 30, 2023
They were never very good but I'm not sure it would have mattered who he picked as all were young (except Pefok who was on a dry streak). Could be laid at the fit of his system too but there were a lot of poor finishes by pretty much everyone the whole cycle. Expect it to be improved as the players mature.
I agree with that somewhat, but I also think that he made mistakes on a lot of occasions. One that always sticks out in my mind is the window where he played Ferreira at home against El Salvador and Zardes on the road in Canada. He said he wanted physicality against Canada, but a striker who could drop in and play the final ball would have been much more useful given the areas of the field that that game was played in (predictably, I think). Then, against El Salvador, he goes with the finesse guy who drops in when that's completely unnecessary because there isn't anywhere to drop in to -- El Salvador was allowing us to walk the ball into the final third. That was the game we needed the finisher in the box.