This is not a knock on this thread, which I think does a good job of outlining midfield options with more attacking intent. However, I believe the proliferation of #6 and #8 I see in posts actually limits our discussion and thinking of midfield players and configurations (not that Klinsmann is helping matters with the 1-11 jersey assignments). We don't talk about a classic #10 anymore, and I don't think we should limit our thinking to two central midfielders with rigid responsibilities. This could just be me, but in this era of tactical flexibility, the #6/#8 discussion strikes me as a relic of the 4-4-2-only days. I think we all agree our biggest area for improvement is to increases our attacking chances. It's not simply a matter of finding two midfielders, though; we could solve this with: better/more support for our attackers increased responsibility from fullbacks to attack quicker and sharper transitions from defense to attack or some combination of all of these. Again, my point is it is not just as simple as numbering positions and saying "play this guy instead of that guy".
I'll state the counterpoint here. I think the reason we are so fixated on 6s and 8s right now is because that's one of the key differences between Jurgen's and Bob's approaches. Bob played with no 6s and no 8s-- he used two nominally even box-to-box centralis, players meant to be both 6s (at times) and 8s (at times). The system was meant to be more fluid and less predictable as either CM could go forward into the 8 role at any time, with the other shifting over to cover behind. The problem for the US consistently was errors in communication and lack of seamless play between the two. Think of the "bubble" that used to always exist in front of our CBs. That's the land of the 6. We got abused, time and time again because neither "6/8" was there to cover that space against attack. Either they both went forward at the same time or got otherwise pulled out of space. The advantages of this system are clear- there's much less predictability in player attack. Either centrali could be the 8, either the 6, both could be more advanced in possession. The flaw of the system was that it may have been too complex for the USA to master- our centralis never seemed to work that perfect balance between extra attack and defensive cover. Earlier in Bob's reign, we stayed too defensive and couldn't generate offense. As Mikey came more into his own, he got forward more and more and we generated more goals (quite a good clip during the WC actually) BUT the "bubble" started to appear over and over again . . . and we gave up too many early and soft goals. On to the more rigid 6 and 8 (as roles in the 4-2-3-1). The 6 (the mediano) fills the bubble. He doesn't have to worry about whether it's his turn to attack or stay and cover- he stays and covers. The 8 (the regista, I suppose, the AM in our formation is really a trequarista) tries to spark the attack. He doesn't have to worry about going back to fill the bubble, it's not his job. The advantage is simplicity and defensive stoutness. And let's be honest-- it has worked. How many stupid, early goals have we surrendered since Jurgen took over??? 0. How many opponents have scored multiple goals against us? 0. That's real, significant improvement. For a USA squad that will never (yet) overwhelm the world with offensive prowess, we have to defend the goal first. The drawback of this system is also pretty apparent-- our mediano (the 6) isn't an attacking player. Therefore, we lack quick numbers on the attack (most goals during the run of play come on transition) and we can't score. In my mind, as I've been writing elsewhere, the USA will start to look much better when we play with a better 6- one who can pass the ball forward from deep.* Jurgen's system works best when we play defenders who can contribute well to the attack with accurate and quick passing. I highlight "quick" because our current 6, Beckerman, is very accurate but molasses slow in his tactical awareness on the field. He doesn't see the pass quickly enough to make it. By the time he passes the ball, the advantage is usually lost. As such, Kyle hasn't (to my observation) completed a forward pass into a truly dangerous position in the last 6 matches. We need our "6" to be a "6 1/2"- to have something of a deep-lying playmaker in him. We need him to speed our transition from defense (where the vast majority of possession is won) to attack. Right now, that's not happening fast enough and we find ourselves attacking organized defenses with inferior numbers. Kyle has been the "missing link" (to coin a pun) because he keeps missing the pass he needs to make. My solution is to try Jones in the role. He played a true 6 for Blackburn last season and was excellent. He's done the same for Shalke. He also has served up some beautiful passes for the USA (remember minute 13 against Poland? Quite a pass). That's what we need from our 6 to compensate for his assignment of staying further back on defense. So, a defense of thinking about "6" and "8" when considering Jurgen's line-ups- it's an important distinction in what he's asking his players to do. * And we'll play better when we have Landon back on the field with Clint, because defenses won't be able to mark both out of the game as ruthlessly as they are doing so now, but that's a different thread.
+1000: I don't understand Jurgen's fixation with Beckerman. Kyle is clearly not international quality expect maybe as a sub to help preserve a lead, which we have yet to have. I really want to see Jones as the 6 and can't wait to see Stu come back and see what he can do as the 8. I think this team could be quite good with Jones, Holden, Donovan and Dempsey all out there together.
I like the numbers. In general it delineates roles over positions. The thought process is that JK is playing a 4 3 3 with 3 mids having very distinct roles. The numbers reflect those roles. You could also say CM, DM, and CM- and many have. But the numbers do the same thing. In particular its a way to distinguish between the midfield roles. The differences in roles and the abilities of players to fill those roles is what has been driving much of the discussion. The number allow a short hand way to distinguish between those roles. For example saying attacking midfielder could be Dempsey, Shea, or Williams. Say the #10, highlights that is a central midfielder with the primarly responsiblity of creating and getting forward. The three midfielders of Dempsy, Beckerman, and Edu. Trying to discuss the different roles of Beckerman and Edu is easier using the short hand of the numbers than the vague position names of CM and DM. Saying that both are playing #6 or one is playing #8... And as has been mentinioned these roles and the shorthand attached to them has been reinforced by JK assigning those numbers to the players. Overall, I think its an improvment and adds a great deal more clarity to discussions.
Klinsman has been very specific about the roles and responsibilities of each position that is indicated by the number. Yes it limits our thinking of the roles and requirements of players but that is the point. We know what Klinsman requires of certain roles so we can discuss potential players in that context. Did you not get the memo?
I pretty much agree with firststar on the issues, I just disagree in the solution department. I don't think trying to make your 6 do more than the job description is the answer. I think you start wanting your 6 to be more of a playmaker and you end up with a player pushing out of position and thinking attack. And the whole point is having him sit and let others handle the attack outside a very occasional foray when space opens up. I look more to the 8 position, right now Edu, and I want to know why he's not completing attacking passes. I think blaming Beckerman, one of the guys out there doing his job and doing it well, is a red herring.
This is a negative to Klinsmann's way of thinking as well. If we know what Klinsman is thinking than our opponents know what he is thinking too. Bradleys' system was flawed (to many early goals), but there is something to be said about being a little more fluid in regards to these two positions.
Yes - as it was implemented (or poorly executed) by the US - that "something" was an early goal against and playing from behind.
Not sure it's asking the 6 to do more than the job description. The job description is to sit your ass in front of the back 4, provide the outlet, be safe in possession. You move upfield only when the back four is moving upfield behind you as well... The only additional requirement beyond that is to make longer range accurate passing to accelerate the attack. That is, don't always pass simple to the 8 if you can also nail the longer pass occasionally. Turning to Jones, I know he can nail the longer pass that we wish KB could do more of. My only question is whether he can also provide the defensive side for a full 90 -- the boring part, always taking up the "right" position to shield the back four. I didn't see the same discipline against France from Jones that KB had showed in the previous 70 (?) minutes. It's funny. And it must be maddening for Jones to ride pine behind Kyle. But the message from JK is crystal clear: do the simple things right to shield the back 4, then we talk.
Very nice post. And I agree. I also think Jones can cover more ground than Beckerman, though he will tend to burst forward on some occasions (think the Jamaica GC game) which may scare JK some. But I'd like to add, I think the bigger problem for our attack has been poor passing out of the #8 spot (Edu/Larentowicz/etc) not the #6. And the absence of a real player on the RW (whether you say Rogers or Williams). 1. The #8. JK has preferred Edu, and he hasn't done much here. While I think the choice of the #8 can vary depending on score and opponent (and hence generate some variability to the system), I'd like to see some more offensive options here. Aside from Torres, and maybe Bradley, almost all of JK's CM's are of a primarily defensive nature (Beckerman, Jones, Edu, Bradley, Williams, Larentowicz). Let's have a look at Kljestan, Feilhaber, Bedoya, Diskerud, and maybe even the likes of Brad Davis or Eddie Gaven inside. If not to start, then certainly when down a goal late. 2. RW. Robbie Rogers is worth watching, but isn't up to snuff to start yet. His ball control and decision making just aren't there yet. Daniel Williams is a CM/DM type. I like Dempsey closer to goal, but like Bradley concluded, our team may be better served by having him play wide mid, and let a real #10 type play in the middle (be it Donovan, Adu, Feilhaber, etc) or another forward. A final note, unsurprisingly, I think we'll look much better when Donovan and Dempsey are on the field together.
I loved Firststar's breakdown, but I have to agree with this point. If the #8's role is to move the ball up field, than Edu is not our guy. Against an opponent like France I can understand it, essentially having two defensive midfielders, two #6s in the game. Against other opponents, I'm not getting it so much. Honduras, Costa Rica, even Ecuador or Slovenia (remains to be seen there), I have to agree that I'd rather have a more technically advanced player in the #8. Obviously the name I think of is Kljestan since he is excelling in the role right now for Anderlecht. The other guys are a bit more questionable, but I think even Bradley or Jones would be an upgrade over Edu at this point.
I agree with you completely. Like every schema in soccer, whether numbers or x's and o's, it work well until it doesn't. A single integer describing a positional responsibility? Come now. Nothing reduces to that in real life. Why not add a few decimal places or take spatial averages based on the heat diagrams? Soccer is about the individual players and how individual skills merge to produce a whole that functions as a team. Using a single number to designate how a player does or should play is viewing the player after shoving him into a pre-designed slot that, as many critics are finding, does not fit any of the personnel available. Think out of that box and re-design to maximize the group effort. Come on, people!
The role of the 8 isn't just to pass though, he also needs to be able to cover enough ground to get forward to support the attack and get back to help defensively. People who like to compare Torres to Xavi always miss out on the fact Xavi covers the most ground of anyone in the world, which is how he is able to support the offense and provide defensive pressure all over the field. Top #8 type players also include guys like physical, hard working guys Khedira and Van Bommel, who are good but not elite passers and playmakers like Xavi. So ideally we'd have a guy who can pass, has great fitness and workrate and can make good runs into the attack in this role and the only guys we have can that can do all of this are probably Holden, Jones and Bradley.
Jones plays that exact #6 role, very very well, for Schalke in a 4-2-3-1. He plays beside Holtby a small converted forward who plays the #8 role. Jones is still one of the best destroyers in the BL!
How I see it: #1 is usually a GK, #9 is usually a striker...#10 is usually the fabled schmancy-pantsy playmaker. Everything else is fair game. Brian McBride was a 20, Dempsey is a 23 at Fulham, Altidore used to be a 17, Howard is a 24 at Everton, and I've even seen some 99's at the club level. Just refer to players by their roles (d-mid, a-mid, playmaker, etc) If anything, Klinsmann's new system just confuses me more.
Kljestan plays the role for Anderlecht. He can run with the best of them, his ability on the ball is probably better than all of those three, and his defense is capable enough to handle Europa League level competition.
This is a really interesting issue. Ideally, I think you want some offensive contribution from both your 6 and your 8. By the way there is an interview in Yanks-Abroad with Charles Renken who has been training in Germany with Hoffenheim. I found the following passage and quote interesting with respect to the issue being discussed here: In recent games with Hoffenheim's U-19 team, Renken has been playing in defensive midfield and the transition has been one he has enjoyed. He has also emphasized that the way the position is used in Germany is different that how it is used in the United States. "Sometime when I watch German football, the most technical players are defensive midfielders," Renken analyzed. "They have to be able to distribute the ball once they get it. Then they have to help keep possession because that's very important as a midfielder. They are technical and very good with their minds in order to see everywhere." Here's the link http://www.yanks-abroad.com/get.php?mode=content&id=8483 This whole discussion makes me think of Josué. He's always stood out to me when I've watched him with Wolfsburg as a player who makes a huge contribution just by being very smart and tidy with his distribution. Not too many splashy assists or goals but he just keeps things flowing smoothly. Would love to have a player like that as our #6.
Personally I am at 6's & 7's about the 6's & 8's but what if a 6 turned out to be 9? ....oh I don't mind, I don't mind.
I definitely agree with this. The best teams in the World Cup had DMs that could pass (Busquets, De Jong, Schweinsteiger) as do the best club teams (the three previously mentioned plus guys like Xabi Alonso, Obi, Fletcher and others). Beckerman has helped us allow fewer goals, but his passing has been weak and it is part of what is stifling our offense.
Frankly, I think Beckerman passes better out of the #8 role than Edu does, and that Edu is a much better #6 than Beckerman.
Add: More patience. Patience is the key to possession play soccer. Slower transitions to keep possession and build up an attack. Control the tempo. Quick transitions work both ways, upping the tempo of the game. Cross-moving the ball over larger distances. Too many short lateral passes in midfield make it easy for the opponent to defend. Create 2 vs. 1 or 3 vs 2 situations in midfield. If the 'six' (Beckerman) hangs back the other central midfielder will likely have to play against two opponents.