1 what is your rationale/your assumption of berhalters rationale for using a 3 atb formation? 2 how do we best implement a 3 atb system, and in what circumstance?
it seems many want 3 atb to maximize dest, which i completely disagree with. first off- hes going to be able to attack from anywhere on the pitch. and secondly we dont have the cbs to justify leaving out any of the mids/attackers that it invariably will. i think a better rationale would be 3 atb as an alternative/option to adams being unavailable. is anyone in favor of 3 atb as our primary setup? it does make some sense to me, though, in matches we dont have adams. we dont have a backup 6- NO one can replicate what he brings to a high enough level. my first choice alternative would be moving to a 4-2-3-1, with mckennie and musah sharing those duties covering the backline. but ive seen a lot of talk of adams/mckennie as the 2 in a 3-4-3 (3-4-2-1, 5-2-2-1, however you want to define it). a d-mid with a 3 man backline is superfluous- mckennie and musah (again, when adams is out) makes sense. i dont know that mckennie/adams does (and moving musah, adams or mckennie "wide" is just incredibly wasteful to me). so the best case 3 atb, in my opinion, is strictly an option for adams being unavailable, and best utilized (without getting TOO hung up on individual selections): ____________steffen____________ ____richards__anyone__brooks___ dest___________________robinson _______musah___mckennie________ ___reyna_____________pulisic___ ____________whoever____________ again, plug in your guys but i dont think the 2 in the middle are suited for our more attacking options, and if we had defensive options there wouldnt be any need for 3 atb in the first place. so mckennie, musah, yueill, lletget and de la torre are the feasible options for me. that, to me, is the only rationale that makes enough sense (covering for adams) and that (my best case scenario) isnt remotely as good an option as a 4-2-3-1 (for example): ____________steffen____________ _______richards___broooks______ dest __________________robinson ________musah___mckennie_______ weah_________reyna______pulisic ____________your guy___________ anyways, since this is obviously on the table i thought we should have a place to really look at it and how we can utilize it (or if we should). im still a no.
Frankly, I didn't think it went as well. I believe the main reason for going with 3 CBs in the back is to get Dest and Robinson closer to the opponent's goal. Dest doesn't have a problem moving up when he is an RFB. Robinson is the one that benefited from this formation but it was at the cost of having Dest working with less space. If you noticed, he hardly had any space to operate because a defender was on him all the time. He compensated by moving inside since the defender was pretty much playing him to dribble along the touchline. Also, moving to a 3-4-3 forced us to play with just 2 cms, we didn't do well in the middle of the pitch either. Maybe having McKennie and Adam may look more fluent. I hope I never see Acosta ever again.
i dont think yesterday was a referendum on the new look/berhalters first go with this 3 atb by any means. even just brooks (with miazga and long) would have looked better, acosta is fairly deep on the cm depth chart (i think lleget would have been much more composed, and the sloppiness in the middle effected everything else) and then obviously it was our first time trotting it out. i do think you can see limitations though. we dont have as much proven, consistent cm depth as we like to think, and those two spots in the middle arent a good fit for reyna/aaronson. that only compounds the problem of already having one "weaker" player on the pitch in a third cb. that northern ireland countered with 5 defenders (which lessened the space for dest and everyone else) is a good point, and id add its not like this is some surprise we are going to spring on anyone. which is the last point ill make- this is just adding another uncertainty we dont need. we have a young team, (for multiple reasons) we havent been able to sort out/decide on on whos where yet. whos the primary striker? who is the cb pair? maybe all that IS already decided for berhalter. but we havent had that team play together in our primary setup, so establishing a second is even tougher. we are like a building with a grand opening date all set but constructions not done- and its not just finishing touches. the walls arent painted yet. rolling out a completely different system is like deciding to add on a new wing as well. but the grand opening date isnt going to change.
Great thread so far - I'll try not to spoil it. Let's talk about Richards. I'm concerned that Berhalter is not as high on Richards as many here are. I would have played Richards a lot more. Richards played the 2nd half v Jamaica, okay, but not even that much v Northern Ireland (on for Long @ 63'), when I thought he might have started (as the departed Brooks' smooth-passing stand-in). Quite possibly Berhalter would say, "Richards is great, I know all I need to know, Chris is a locked-in starter already, I'm trying to see what I've got with Long and Miazga, etc." But with the proviso - understood as subtext for every BS post - that we don't know what goes on behind the scenes, who's taken a knock in practice, whose hammy is tight, etc), I'm not buying it. And certainly not when Ream played the entire game yesterday. I think Berhalter is not quite convinced by Richards, and that Berhalter feels he need to pair a smooth passer (Brooks or Richards) with a tough guy (Long or Miazga). For this thread's purposes - three in the back - yesterday's smooth passer was Ream, supported by two enforcers, Long and Miazga. And I'm not sure Berhalter is wrong. I think (likely) we could get away with Brooks-Richards as our two CBs if Adams is available, to anticipate and clean-up trouble. Even then we'll be concerned if the opposition has a big, physical striker (out-muscled) or a really shifty one (out-quicked). But if the idea is to go with three CBs whenever Adama is not available, then rgli's passer-bouncer-passer might give way to bouncer-passer-bouncer, for the extra 'safety.' That is Richards-Long/Miazga-Brooks might become Long-Brooks/Richards-Miazga. All that is to say that Berhalter may view Richards as depth for Brooks, and does not imo consider Brooks-Richards as his top CB pairing. If he did, we would have seen more of Richards and more Brooks-Richards by this point, even allowing for the limited number of opportunities recently.
As to GB have something else in mind it does scare me. I never thought GB was thinking Acosta was good enough for this group. I wonder if we are going to see additional surprises going forward like Zardes, Altidore, heck even Bradley. I'm starting to lose confidence in his vision of how the team should be shaping. So far, the strong young core of players is bailing him out. I wonder how the masses will feel when we ran into a powerhouse opponent and we don't have an answer to counter.
I definitely like it better as an alternative to Adams being out than as a primary setup. The Adams/Wes/Musah central midfield to me looks really strong and has enough defense to still provide Dest and Robinson freedom to attack aggressively, but we really have no one else close to Adams for that role.
i dont how berhalter rates richards in a vacuum, but he absolutely defaults to comfortable, known quantities (in the back, for sure). brooks is set in stone when available, long and miazga are next. he clearly loves ream, and i wouldnt say he OVERplays him (in context of his preferences as far as we know- meaning he doesnt play ream ahead of any of his top 3), but he does trust that over any of the "young" cbs. i dont think its a matter of seeing richards as brooks' backup- thats ream (again, in berhalters eyes). mckenzie seems the most natural fit for that role- and gregg has used him a few times- so i would assume thats his primary cb rotation. brooks/ream til he ages out then mckenzie with long/miazga with richards somewhere behind. thats my read on berhalters preferences. not sure how that translates to 3 atb, but in this case it was the expected, familiar brooks' backup and his second and third guys. now- imo- richards isnt as ready as wed all hoped, and thats completely understandable. hes just turned 21, he was been in the academy getting bayernized, now hes at hoffenheim starting; trying to learn their system though his raw talent is valued above their other cbs experience (at being less badass as chris is ). coming into national team camp its yet another system to learn (or two systems in this case), where experience/understanding of the capital "s" system trumps talent. thats a lot for a kid in a position only behind keeper in terms of experience/minutes being needed. and you (i should say i) can see that struggle in his play for us. hes really tentative, goes all the way back to steffen more than even playing across to his cb partner(s). he looks like hes playing very much not to screw up, which means hes not playing to win a spot. i, like many bs posters, am pretty cavalier in my belief in "well, the only way to get experience is to play him. so play him.". and thats how i feel- if he can get a start or two he can grow into the game, not feel so nervy, get those first 10 minutes of sweet usa possession domination passing between the cbs while the other team gets nice and stretched out/warmed up. so the hill he has to to climb is doubly complicated- hes NOT the finished product, and gregg stays in his comfort zone. so he has to win a spot from a real place of disadvantage. i/we cant only hope the crowded slate this summer gives him those minutes to make his case as more than some kid peeping through the fence at the grown ups playing. one last thought- i dont get the positional preference people are building up. he played mostly rb his first couple of years at bayern, and in his looks w/the sr team he played rb and rcb. now hes on the left of a 3 man backline. i dont know that which side he plays on really matters other than muscle memory at any given point. and while mckenzie isnt actually left-footed, hes tricked most of us into thinking that, which is the reason i put richards on the "rcb" depth chart- along with his general style of play that is a strong compliment to brooks.
For me, it's definitely not the default formation. I see its primary usefulness in two situations. 1) As others have noted, as a "replacement" for not having Adams in the lineup. 2) If Berhalter wants to pretty much go all-out attack/press, he could put Dest at left wingback and Adams at right wing back. That would give you a seven-man front of Dest, McKennie, Musah, Adams, Pulisic/Aaronson, Sargent/Dike, and Reyna/Weah/Sargent/Morris/Pulisic/Aaronson. I'd only look at a three-man backline with Richards, Brooks, and one of Long or Cannon. Perhaps Cannon would be more suited to being a right-side CB since he's more defensive-minded. In any case, this is a decent option to have in the tool kit, but I still think it's a wrinkle and not the primary formation in any sense.
I thought it looked really rough in the game yesterday, but I do get the appeal: 1) We don't want to be too predictable and only have one formation and one style that we're comfortable with. 2) We might not have a lot of established quality at CB, but we do have a large quantity of passable CBs. Brooks, Miazga, Long, Richards, Ream, Zimmerman, McKenzie, Robinson, CCV, EPB, etc...all of these guys are at least decent by historical USMNT standards. 3) It lets guys like Dest, Robinson, Reynolds, and maybe Vines get forward up the wing without creating too many gaps defensively. I think it's worth trying again and trying with a different CB combo. These past two sets of friendlies, the CBs were pretty solid in game 1 with Brooks. Then Brooks is gone for game 2, and the CBs look shaky. I'm not really sure why that is. I don't Brooks is that awesome that he always makes up for his partner's mistakes or something. Brooks makes mistakes too, but it seems like there are guys to cover for them when he's playing in a way there isn't when he's not.
I think it is best used as a strongly defensive wrinkle or as a strong defensive formation when Adams is out. In other words, it's far more likely to be best used as a 3-4-2-1 or a 5-3-2 for me than the 3-2-4-1 we basically tried to run versus Northern Ireland. I have no problem with more experimentation, but I've yet to see anything that makes me think this is a formation that yields better attacking. I think in any situation where we want to keep at least five defenders reasonably back, and where the 2 DMs are clearly 2 of Adams, McKennie and Musah. Three CBs plus 2 of them equals a very strong defensive core. Five stay home and the FBs also stay much further back than Northern Ireland. I don't see it as a better option than the 4-3-3 where we have advantage or where we have three strong CMs available.
I don't think he is. I think Richards will overtake everyone at some point, but there's also elements of his game that do need some polish. In particular, with Brooks or other slow teammates, you need someone to react quickly to counters and other dangerous situations. It certainly seems like Long is more aware to those right now. Most talented is not "best right now" and I don't think integrating Richards on a gradual timeline is going to be damning. That should not be the difference in the September window, even if it takes that long.
Hey so I want to revive this thread. After seeing the immense defensive improvement that Tuchel brought to Chelsea by going with a 3-4-3, and the defensive errors/laziness that Dest brought to the Switzerland game, I'm beginning to think this might be our best option going forward. I think lining up like this might be our best overall option if we can get more practice in the formation: ----------------Sargent---------------- -----Pulisic-----------------Reyna---- Dest----Mckennie-Adams----Musah ----Richards--Brooks--Mckenzie---- -----------------Steffen------------------ IMO this formation could bring the best out of Dest by letting him have more attacking responsibilities, and also bring the best out of Pulisic and Reyna by allowing them to spend more time pinched in. In theory it should also be a more defensively sound formation. Obviously you can argue that Dike, Siebatcheu, or A. Robinson should be in the line up, but I'd say the biggest potential downside would be the amount of work and diligence that would be placed upon Mckennie and Adams. Thoughts on this? Edit: I remember agreeing with @gogorath that this formation isn't that much different than our 4-3-3 with Adams playing deep, but I still think the formation would function a fair amount different and is something we should consider.
I think there's potential in a 3-4-3 specifically with that back line, especially against better teams. I do think that group struggles to control the midfield more, and I worry that it struggles to create width in the attack, but I think there's situational places for it. I do think you are eventually leaving some strong attacking talent on the bench for a centerback.
I think you run this formation with Brooks flanked by Richards and McKenzie, as you said. Two speedy CBs on the outside and Brooks with his beautiful passing from the middle. I think you flank them with Robinson (who should have had an assist tonight) and Dest, playing to their strengths as wingbacks.