I think this formation suits the players that the USA has. Of course there is a difference between suiting our players' talents and their tactics. However, I think this one fits both. This post may not even matter depending on how you look at it. If the USA plays a 4-3-3, with Bradley and Holden as box-to-box/linking midfielders in front of a holding midfielder like Jones, Edu, or even Spector with Bornstein and Cherundolo as the full backs, Jones/Edu/Spector could drop between the centerbacks, allowing Bornstein and Cherundolo to get forward and level with Bradley and Holden, creating a 3-4-2-1 pretty seamlessly. The fullbacks providing width would allow Donovan and Dempsey to drift and create. This has been a part of Bradley's system for a while now. It's a nice way of allowing both Donovan and Dempsey to be in creative, free roles behind the main striker while retaining width in the team. Then again, this could just be a more attacking version of the 4-3-3 we may be sporting soon enough anyways.
I have been in favor of something like this as well. Our outside backs are decent attackers but sub standard defensive players, and this would take some pressure off of them. It would also give us the opportunity to fit another central midfielder into the mix by sliding a Bradley, Edu, or Spector type into the distributing defensive position. I understand peoples reluctance after the 98 disaster. But I see no reason not to run this out in a friendly.
Exactly. And it runs on a principle that isn't too far off from the one we used in the 4-2-2-2 - use the width of the pitch to create space for our two attacking midfielders to operate in. We used to use one of our two forwards for that, but this formation also allows us to play the ball through the midfield easier due to the numerical advantage we have in the center. At the same time, this could be used as a counter-attacking formation. This lineup could also switch back and forth between a 3-4-3/3-4-2-1 and a 4-3-3 formation. If Edu/Jones/Spector drops between the center backs and the fullbacks move way up the field, you get a 3-4-3. If Edu/Jones/Spector steps into the space in front of the defense and the wingbacks get back a little bit, then we have a 4-3-3 again.
Napoli plays a 3-4-3/3-6-1 hybrid. They play it in a fairly balanced way too. -------------De Sanctis ----------------- --Grava-----Cannavaro-----Campagnaro-- ---------Gargano------Pazienza---------- Maggio---------------------------Dossena --------Hamsik--------------Lavezzi------ -----------------Cavani------------------
Partly right. We also looked shaky as hell playing three in the back when certain defenders (*CoughJeffAgoosCough*) were lined up back there. Sure, we looked superb playing 3-5-2 against Mexico in the 2002 World Cup. But understand this was a US team with two key strengths- An incredible back three who are now USMNT legends at the peak of their careers (Berhalter, Pope, and Sanneh), and wingers who could play honest defense (I may be wrong, but didn't Eddie Lewis and John O'Brien play wide in that game? I do remember the tough as hell Cobi Jones coming on later- But to be honest I have not seen the USA Mexico 2002 Game in years...). Furthermore, it should always be known that Arena went to three in the back because of injuries to Agoos and Cherundolo and Frankie Hejduk's suspension. Basically, the problem with implementing the back three formation nowadays is that Bob Bradley's coaching style is wildly incongruous with playing like that. The heart of Bob Bradley's attack is slashing runs down the wing and of course utilizing wingback overlaps. Playing three in the back, you need players capable of making great crosses but are also capable of marking well. In that sense, the US could probably play Jose Torres and Stuart Holden wide in a 3-5-2 but it would shackle the offense. I would rather play Holden or Clint Dempsey, for example, where he wouldn't be shackled with defensive duties. A 3-5-2 would also keep Landon and Diskerud off the flank- It would be a waste of either player's skillsets. Furthermore, considering the current lack of refinement at central defense (Which I believe won't last long once certain players get experience) we don't have the backline to play three in the back. We also would rob the US of the wingback overlap. That said, I believe the US should play a back three in one of the friendlies leading up to the Gold Cup. One of my criticisms of Bob Bradley is his lack of dynamism in formations- While Arena played a 3-5-2 in the World Cup based on necessity, the fact was Bruce Arena had played a 3-5-2 in games leading up the the 2002 World Cup. While I think the 3-4-2-1 that the Near Post suggests would work, I would feel more comfortable with the US playing a back four. Nevertheless, the aforementioned 3-4-2-1 would be perfect in a situation similar to the 2002 World cup- where injuries and suspensions to key players force a tactical shift. In any case, the formation that I think would suit the US better than all the others presented is the 4-1-4-1.
Against Mexico we played Captain America Claudio Reyna as RW. LD was an CAM. Mastroeni and O'Brien were DMs, Lewis on the left. And Josh Wolff playing off McBride. Ahh, the magic of wikipedia.
I get what you're saying. I think the way it would work is probably that the lineup goes from a 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 to a 3-4-2-1. The defensive midfielder(Edu/Jones/Spector) will drop between the centerbacks while the fullbacks push forward and provide width, allowing Donovan and Dempsey cut inside. Basically, we're not likely to start in a 3-4-2-1, but we would switch into it pretty frequently. That way we don't lose the danger of our fullbacks overlapping.
Dude I think that's pretty wishful thinking. Our team hasn't shown they're the type team to control possession like Barcelona (who do have a very similar look to what you described). Plus, none of our D Mids are really used to sitting between our centerbacks. They're usually free'r and roam around the field.
I'm sorry, but nowhere in this post did I say anything about controlling possession like Barcelona. Chelsea play a 4-3-3 a lot like Barcelona's and they don't think about controlling possession like they do, do they? Moreover, Edu not only played centerback at the Olympics, for the USA, and for Rangers, but in the recent friendly against Colombia, he dropped between the centerbacks at least once. Jones has played centerback for Schalke and Spector as well has played center back for West Ham and the USA at multiple levels. No formation necessarily has to be about one tactic or another. It's all about the team who plays it.
I'm sorry but I disagree with that last line. Certain tactics only work with certain formations, in my mind. Obviously teams will tend toward certain styles, and therefore certain formations. If we want to send both of our fullbacks charging forward, I believe it's necessary for the team to control possession, or else they will be defensively exposed. When one of our fullback pushes, the other one tends to stay home. I mean I could be wrong, but that's just something I've observed. It could have something to do with our personal (Boca on the left, Dolo on the right). But my point I'm trying to say is that our team isn't one that will naturally slip into a 3 in the back with a DM between centerbacks. We might have 3 in the back with one fullback pushing and one staying, but I don't think we can play with two wingbacks pushing forward. Not with our current pool of players.
That's exactly what I am saying, but- You're correct. Based on our last cycle, our team is not a team to control possession. However, you are wrong on one count- Boca on the Left and Dolo on the Right probably won't be the case in the Gold Cup- That is a formation locked in 2009-10. You said "Not with our current pool of players", but I can see a back 3 slip with future MNTers. A 4-1-4-1 with Holden/Bradley with Jones playing behind does lend itself to a possession style formation- especially if our central defender prospects do pan out. So yes, I agree with you USMNT #11, but TheNearPost is also correct that we should give a look to a 3-man backline in one of the three upcoming friendlies. Now is the time for experimentation, especially when such experimentation can be critical in the Gold Cup. As I have said, we may face a situation in the Gold Cup where we practically can't play a four-man backline and need to rely on a 3-man set. In fact, I remember Arena playing three in the back during matches in the 2000 and the 2002 Gold Cups as well as the 2002 World Cup.
Yea man I understand. The only problem is a problem that has plagued the US team for years, and that is left back. The only natural aggressive left back is Bornstein, who lets face it, is not yet able to play at an international level. There is a lot of time between now and the GC. And hes playing abroad, maybe he will be able to play at the level we need. Or at least bring some consistency. If we have a serious game sayy tomorrow though, I do prefer the stability that Boca brings. We know what he's gonna do in that game, and he does it with consistency, which makes me feel a little better then starting Jonny B. If some of our younger players develope like we want them to, we could be a team every US fan dreams of. So, we'll see till then.
Okay, I see your point. I think that this 4-3-3/3-4-2-1 would probably work best when we're playing teams like Trinidad and Tobago and El Salvador who like to hit teams on the counter. The 4-2-2-2 we've looked good in is better against teams like Mexico and Honduras who are better possession sides. I also agree with the point about Bocanegra drifting in from left back to make a back three while Cherundolo pushes forward. When we played the 4-2-2-2 against England and Australia, Cherundolo would provide width on the right and allow Donovan inside, but Bocanegra would sit back. Findley or Altidore would make runs into the left-hand channel to provide width on that flank and allow Dempsey inside. This would make something of a lop-sided 3-4-2-1 shape and I think we could use that in this cycle as well.