Gio Reyna, Malik Tillman, Richie Ledezma, Paxten Aaronson, Alex Mendez, Jordie Mahailovic are all creative 8/10 types whose vision and ability to connect passes to attackers in the box is superior to that of Wes and Musah. Musah and LDLT can get into dangerous positions with the ball at their feet, but those listed at the top the ability to raise our attack to another level. If we don't ADD (as opposed to switch to) formations that let us put these kinds of young talents in the central midfield, what a colossal waste that would be.
I’m not convinced that many of those guys will be WC-caliber players, but with our lack of cm depth, it would be foolish not to try.
If for whatever reason we are ever without one of Adams, McKennie or Musah, our best lineup then pretty clearly becomes 4-2-3-1 with Reyna as the 10, and we would do well to cultivate the depth there.
I think this is a very interesting issue for this team. Not necessarily needing 4231 or anything specific but we have MMA and then the rest of the emerging midfield pool that are more passers and connectors and less physical. If style wise we want to always work within the MMA mold, we are not likely to have any real depth in those roles and we just saw that we can't expect those three to just go all out and run all day for 90 minutes, game after game without running out of gas. With depth that is in a different mold than the assumed starters, we're going to need to figure out how to blend some guys into a functional midfield with more variety or we're going to end up in a very similar position to what we had in Qatar where we lacked depth and wore our guys down physically with the constant pressing and running.
Can't develop a depth chart for the ACM in a 4-2-3-1 until you commit to playing a 4-2-3-1 and rotate players in. Then judge performance. I would do it and as of now try Renya, Aaronson and Mihailovic at ACM. And in general, a better player being not being played to his strengths can yield worse results than a lesser player being played to their strengths. So even a Mihailovic can return a net-positive even if not a Chelsea/BVB/Juve level player. This would align with having the sum of the parts be superior to the individual parts themselves.
How in the world can a post like this be made and not mention our EPL 10??? Man if I needed any evidence that B. Aaronson is terribly underrated here*. * Yeah I understand he is a transition player and needs to play in certain styles to get the most out of him, but really? Are we overflowing with Premier League attacking midfielders that we can just overlook someone who has started every game in the PL season, with almost 1,200 minutes? Where he was one of the best players on the field against Liverpool or Arsenal or Chelsea? I just don't get it man. But anyway yeah, I absolutely want to see us starting trying out formations with a 10 and rotate Reyna, Aaronson and Mihaliovic in there in the near future.
Aaronson was criminally underutilized, but I don't think his highest calling is as a 10. Pulisic - Reyna - Aaronson would be your attacking trio there. And then that becomes a platform where a Pefok or a Dike can make a bit more sense. It would be harder for Weah to play up there, but the idea is that you're giving yourself options.
The omission was intentional. I don't think he is a pure 10; I think his brother may be one, but I don't see Brenden as one. His touch and vision are not in Reyna's league IMO. But he is an attacking 8, so probably should have been included. But I am happiest with him as a wing sub. This may be a minority view, and I may be wrong. But that's how I see it.
Putting more creativity in the midfield is a possible solution for the offense, especially if it simply means a sixth attacker. But I find a lot of hilarity in the idea that people are simultaneously criticizing Berhalter for tactical inflexibility while insisting that a 4231 is the only solution and we must do it. Dude rather a 433, a 442 and something very similar to a 4231 in this tournament. He's run multiple distinct version of 433s, 4231s, 4321s, 352s, etc. He's been more didactic in other ways, but formation really hasn't been one of them. People seem to ignore how much time Reyna has missed.
We've played Aaronson at the 10, and I'd imagine that we will in the future. It is ridiculous to keep him out of the post, but the intent of OP was clearly around a very specific set up. We literally played him in the midfield against the Netherlands, no? Aaronson at the 10 should stay in the toolbox for situations where it tactically makes sense. That might end up actually being against better teams -- low/mid block pressure, then an Aaronson-Pulisic-Weah attacking trio as a counter sounds very good in a 4312. But this post was not interested in finding different set ups to fit different needs.
GGG didn't use a cam in the 10's position in this tournament. Over time, Brenden Aaronson's game may round out, so that he's more than a transition attacker. We're in a new cycle. There's no need to stress on roles for now, as the pool will look different. Even in a single-pivot 433, experiments can be tried to add more creativity into the team. A lineup for next year could include--- -----------------------------------Sargent/Vazquez----- ---------Pulisic/Reyna------------------------------------Weah/Ferreira------ ----------------Aaronson/Booth---------------Musah/McKennie---- ------------------------------------Adams/Acosta------ Move Ferreira to the outside where his pace and creativity could find more use.
We should have a 4231 in our pocket ready to replace the 443 based on opponent and injuries/form. We have the personnel to do both already. For me, the biggest wild card in all this is Musah. He's barely 20, and seems likely to be both better and different by the time we get to planning for 2026 in earnest. What's the likelihood that his development solves the creativity/offense problem that's currently inherent in MMA?
I would like to see Musah as a second DM, but one that can get the ball forward better than Tyler can. But any lineup that excludes Reyna seems nuts to me.
Musah’s development will be very interesting to watch. The more I’ve thought about his progress and role within the team the more I wonder to what degree he might begin to squeeze McKennie out of the picture. I don’t mean completely out of the picture, but if you consider their respective profiles might it not be conceivable that you end up with Adams and Musah as nailed on starters with McKennie in a situational starting 11 depending upon opponent and a reserve who can spell Musah in other situations? This begins to solve (somewhat) the issue of rotation while simultaneously making room for a true ACM which I think would benefit the team’s overall offensive continuity. I do think whatever the evolution of this particular pool of players and the ultimate decision on the next manager they need to find a way to add an ACM to the starting 11.
I'll take this in a slightly different direction to illustrate how you can have a general playing philosophy, but still have the ability to adjust tactically within that framework. No issues whatsoever if the "base" setup is four at the back with attacking fullbacks. I think it's hard to have an international team where you're jumping back and forth between four and three at the back (just ask England about that). However, you can tweak things in that setup. 4-3-3 with a true striker 4-3-3 with a false 9 4-4-2 diamond 4-4-2 flat 4-2-3-1 All generally using 8-9 of the exact same outfield players, but you can adjust some to take advantage of the players on the field and (to a lesser degree) what the opponent is expected to do. So you could go MMA 4-3-3 when you play someone like England and you want to press and counter more. If you want to break down a bunker, you have the CAM option (diamond, false 9, or 4-2-3-1). Given that we do have a strength in that CAM role, it makes sense to figure out how to use it.
And the thing about a back 3 is, the first question you ask yourself is "do I have a deep group of classy ball-playing CB's?". The answer for the USMNT is no. So sticking in the back 4 context is the right way to go.
The 4-2-3-1 sure seems to be in fashion now... and I will say that I am a pretty big fan of it. I think the double-pivot in the middle can generally help to get the ball from the back to the front but perhaps more importantly when one of said double-pivots moves forward in the attack they are often unaccounted for and can cause damage w/ late runs into the box. It would also mean that we wouldn't be so dependent on Adams dominating in order for us to win. On a related note I think the absence of a CAM given our player pool was close to criminal... especially given how futile our attacks were for large portions of GB's tenure. Heck... our current strikers might not be as bad as they have looked had they had a play-making 10 supporting them. Reyna was absolutely made to play CAM and I think Aaronson could split time with him there. Tillman would hopefully be the next guy up to try and claim some time there. Be creative... heck, you could have CP move in from the wing and switch places with Reyna at times and it could really work well.
I think we need to tease out this assertion. But as to the main point, that our personnel fits a 4-2-3-1 better, I agree with. We lack a #9 either way, but we have 3 players for the 2 dm slots, so we can rotate at a tournament and avoid tired legs. It gives us a way to get 3, instead of just 2, of our quality attacking mids on the field.
Gregg should have played BA more, to rest Mck and Musah, but Gregg's style of play doesn't suit Brendan. He needs space. The way the US plays under Gregg, we're starved of space.
In a tournament, I think you do more rotating than Gregg did*, and there's room for all the guys you mentioned. I said before the cup that for the 8's and Wings, I'd include Reyna and Aaronson as full members of the rotation, and whichever of the 6 (CP, TW, WM, YM, BA, GR), was on the bench, sub them in at 30 min. Gives you, on average, 6 guys to play 360 minutes each match. If you rotate them through, evenly, your 8's and Wings average 60 minutes per match. But, we don't know if Gio was 60 minutes per match fit. And, as i said elsewhere, Greggs system doesn't play to BA's strengths. Every group stage match had zero margin, so I can see why Gregg didn't give equal time to an unsuited BA and a possibly unfit Gio.