First of all, let's look on Mexico team in this game: something like 4-2-3-1. The midfield has two deep laying, two way, holding midfielders who can win the balls, keep the temp, and rock a shot. Castro scored from a long range. Then 3 attacking midfielders. Gurdado at left, Blanco at center and Santos at right. Of course, Blanco can go anywhere he likes. When Gradado attack, he can dribble to beat the right back, down the wing to cross, or cut into the middle for a shot. Or he can have overlap from left wing back who can go to the sideline then cut the ball cross, like what Mexico's second goal but in right side. He can have Blanco comes over to pass the ball. Or he can turn the ball back to left holding midfield to keep possession for regroup. In this way, you don't need to force anything. In the right side, Santos does same thing. The attacking is very smooth, and this one requires the single forward very mobile. Doesn't need to be an air ball holder. The center attacking midfielder needs to have a free reign to go wherever he wants. Both wing attacking midfielders need to have ability to move inside and still capable to create troubles. As I remember, Brazil in Confed Cup has same kind of formation, with Kaka in center attacking role, and Bobinio in left. Do we have kinds of players to play like this? Let's look on USA U-20 last time: Altidore is that mobile forward. Adu is at the center but free to go wherever he feels. Rogers in the left and Zizzo in the right. Two holdings midfielders who can rock a long distance shot. 1) Altidore-Davies-Cooper. Are they mobile enough for this role? 2) Dempsey/Adu/Torries/Donovan. Center mid? 3) Donovan/Holden. Wing attacking mid? I think that we have enough good holding mids who can do this. Only feeling is that wing backs are lacking, and not enough good wing midfielders.
I think we have good enough players to play a possession style. Jr will continue to start and play the full 90+ every game so this will be a problem if we want to play a possession style because he lacks composure on the ball when pressed. Torres, Feilhaber, Donovan, Holden, Dempsey, Edu, and Jones are players the have the skill to keep the ball under pressure. I think some of our defence will be a big liability if we want to possess. Boca and Demerit just punt the ball up field every chance they get. Gooch has shown composure on the ball and Cherundolo has too. At the end of the day it's all about what bob wants to do and it's clear possession isn't on his list.
He should really put it on his list. Absorbing pressure is a lot harder than applying pressure. Just aleviating pressure by having the ball is miles ahead of absorbing. How many balls were wacked to nobody and recovered by them. I'm not even a coach!!
Im not sure if he is up to the task yet but Paco Torres can hold and pass the ball very well for his club team Pachuca. I was surprise that he was not given a chance to play in the Gold Cup.
The biggest limitation to our possession is our defenders. The lack of on the ball composure and passing ability among defenders is a structural American problem evident in all age groups...not just the Nats. Our midfielders are good enough to play a reasonably decent possession game when called for against most teams.
So far there are no strong DMs, playing with wingbacks is risky. Otherwise, ditto on the problems the defense has to get out of the area passing, and not just kicking the ball forward. Yes, that's a structural problem with US soccer.
our possession is better at games below 8,200 ft. You learn nothing from games at a place where you can't breath after 20 minutes.
I disagree. While a lot of that depends on the opposition, our biggest problem is our fear to try it. We are never going to be Spain, but against the likes of Mexican defense we have the ability to be much, much better in possession. We just don't have the right mentality, which has a lot to do with the coaching staff.
No...I'm not sure if our defenders lack the skill or the confidence, but they panic constantly and clear the ball rather than passing it. You can't play possession soccer without passing defenders. Don't even bother talking about the midfield...makes no difference without a defense.
We could trot out a possession team if we insisted, but it wouldn't be a very good possession team, certainly not against other possession teams. Honestly, with a few exceptions, that just isn't our best players' game. Bo above has it right. It starts in the back, and by my count we have two guys in the back who are compatible with it. Not exactly the sorts to lead it, but the sorts that could compliment others who play that style. As is referenced on another thread, this could change. It's not like a nation of 300 million doesn't give birth to or raise enough kids who have a natural talent for that game. But the short version is that it's not really scouted, and it's not really coached. I'm hoping that the hiring of Wilmer Cabrera is a step in a different direction in that matter. But even if he were the best possession coach on the damn globe, that alone is not enough. Read John R's post about how the best natural passer in his region was overlooked for better dribblers, better tacklers, bigger/faster kids.
Yes, we do have the players to keep the ball. Our coach prefers a defensive, counter attacking or long ball style. Our U-20's typically play a better style than Bob's squad.
Against other U-20's. I know that's an obvious statement, but consider the wider ramifications, ie Freddy vs Pato.
I think we can play possession soccer. I think we could even on Wednesday at Azteca, but chose not to. Many of the times that we threw away possession with a long ball, it was a conscious choice to look for a run to the corner; the player hoofing the ball upfield was not under pressure and had three or four short passing options, most of whom were also unmarked. This may be Bob Bradley's fault to some extent, based on the mistaken belief that our forwards can win those balls a decent percentage of the time. The players repeatedly chose a high-risk/high-reward option over the safe pass.
The US may be able to cobble together an XI with adequate possession skills, but we still won't be good at it on an international scale. I'd definitely like to see better possession, but against top teams it will not be good possession with the current player pool. Here is one possible possession-oriented XI: --------------Dempsey----Adu--------------- Donovan-----Feilhaber---Torres--------Holden Spector-----Parkhurst---Onyewu----Cherundolo These players would be among the best skill/composure players we have. But even this lineup wouldn't be a top possession team; merely a solid one by international standards. And I really wouldn't want to put them up against good opponents in crucial matches. Parkhurst and Cherundolo have real physical limitations for top international play. The central midfield has no bite or ball winning. The strikers have no speed (and Adu should probably focus on saving his club career, but that's a different thread entirely). So you have to make compromises in possession in order to get players with other qualities and strengths onto the field. We have players like Altidore, Davies, Bradley, Edu, and now Jones who add power, speed and a quick transition component to the game. But they will weaken the possession aspect. Personally, I'd be interested in this XI: ------------Davies---Dempsey------------- ---Donovan------------------Feilhaber----- ----------------Bradley------------------- -----------------Jones-------------------- Spector-----Marshall--Onyewu---Cherundolo Speed and finishing up top. Skill and attacking vision at the wide attacking mid positions, who pinch in as needed. Ball winning physicality and veteran composure in Jones. Relentless workrate, movement and attacking transition play from Bradley. Physical, reasonably composed CB's. Reasonably skilled outside backs who can get forward at times. And the bench is deep with guys like: Altidore, Edu, Holden, Torres, Bocanegra, DeMerit. Such a lineup won't be good at possession againt top teams (or Mexico at Azteca). But against other 2nd tier teams the US should have enough ball composure in this XI to possess with confidence, while still focussing on transition speed and power, the US's real strengths.
Further, as was pointed out in the "we have the team our system created" thread, this is less an issue of the "finished product" that we see Bob Bradley and his group of 30+ fairly regular senior nats players play than it is an issue created of ODP, Bradenton, NCAA, MLS, and so forth, the player development and coaching that goes into forming that core of 30+ guys that the guy at the top gets to select and form game plans for. In other words, there are possession-minded managers who would probably not choose our 11 best possession-minded players and line them up in a possession-oriented formation in a lot of the given matches on the schedule due to the strengths and weaknesses of the players in our pool and how they would match-up with the strengths and weaknesses of our opponents.
I'm copying and pasting an excellent longish post over from the Jermaine Jones thread because I think it offers this thread a very good answer.
Some good points on this thread (particularly from Mr Martin and Marko72), but I still think we're trying to answer an unanswerable question. This isn't a question that can be answered independent of context. Whether we have the players to play possession soccer depends upon the opponent and the circumstances. The fact that Chipmunks FC can hold the ball 70% of the game against other Albuquerque U-14s doesn't mean it could do so against the US U-17s. Mexico will have better luck playing possession soccer against Germany in Azteca on the hottest day of the year than it will in Berlin on an overcast March day. I suggest that if we're going to try to answer questions along these lines, we should instead be trying to answer these: Do we have good enough players to play effective possession soccer against teams that are as good or better than we are? If so, which teams and under which conditions, and in those cases would possession soccer be the optimal strategy against any or all of them, or would some other strategy work better?
I think a lot of people just want a system that values possession a little better. A system with collective movement and interchanging of passes. A system where your offense isn't based on bypassing the midfield. Making sure your central midfielders have a plan on how they are supposed to work together. The one advantage the USA has on most teams is their pace. Well, you can utilize your pace to the fullest if your players have off the ball movement and make space for the rest of their teammates. See Charlie Davies goal against Mexico. I think what gets a lot of people is when they hear "possession game" they are thinking Barcelona. No, just a system that values and retains possession better than the current regime. It really just takes a culture change. You see a guy like Martinez go to Swansea and just change the culture of how they play. It looks like he will continue with his success at Wigan. It can be done with the current group of players.
No. There are a couple of players in the pool that can or have the technique to but team-wise no. One, the US doesn't have the mindset to play possession. Teamwise, the US doesn't have the touch for it. Another was already brought before(the ball skills of the backs). The US is the New Jersey Nets when they were going to the NBA Finals, a defensive team that will force turnovers and use their transition game to score. But if you force them into a half-court game, they will struggle.
This is perfectly fair and reasonable. I was as frustrated as anyone seeing the inability of the US players to even manage the simplest of passes (those horrid passes out of play even when Mexican pressure was minimal) and the inability or unwillingness of the US backs to pass the ball around a bit rather than just drop it to Howard and wait for him to launch the ball 70 yards to a Mexican. It only needs to be a marginal improvement in possession to be of help. It is much easier to implement such a change with a club team that can practice and play this way for 10 months of the year. On a national team it is much harder if the specific players don't play that way at their clubs, because the national team manager only sees his (often changing) squad for a scattered 4 or 5 weeks in most years.
I was just going to ask you about shape on the other thread. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mr Martin again. Only question: Is Feilhaber able to play out wide? I am a chump and I don't get the Danish league at home.