I've been thinking long and hard about Bruce's system. 4-4-2, with 2 attacking oriented fullbacks. The problem is as of right now, our fullbacks aren't that good. I do not consider Bocanegra a natural LB. I don't consider Gibbs a natural LB. The question then, is a 3 man system in the back a better option? We have a lot of players who can play it well it seems, or are coming in the system. Something like this I think. -------------McBride----------EJ------------------- DMB------------------Mathis----------Landon------------- --------------JOB------------Reyna------------------------ --------Gibbs--------Pope------------Boca------------ ---------------------Howard------------------------------ Obvioustly this lineup probably will not happen, as JOB and Reyna are injured, and Mathis, although talented, is having his own difficulties (the question then...Kirovski was getting playing time from Bruce, why not give Mathis time on the field...). I think this lineup is pretty good. You could even slide Mastro into one of the 3 back positions. Gooch looked pretty good. I think it's a viable option honestly.
And put in Cherundolo and you'd have my everybody's healthy lineup. Jaysus, talk about a dominating midfield.
i have no problem with the theory, though six of the 11 players you listed may not even start. but whatever.
This has been debated for a while, seriously after the Holland game. I suspect in the world cup we will see a 3 man back line. The Bruce will game plan to fit our opponent so a standard formation may not be applicable, a standard lineup may be.
I stopped posting on the US men's board during 2002, because there was no point. Arena had his little strategy, and he was going to stick with it. He got lucky in the WC (we were pathetic against Poland...Korea...and then even in qualifying how many times we got lucky...Mathis' play, Razov's play in the first round of qualifying). However, that would be my lineup. I put Mathis in there for one reason alone. Nobody can see lanes better than he does, and I think he would take better advantage of EJ's speed than Landon would.
A 3-man backline seems natural for us, given that we are short at fullback but we have a lot of big, fast, athletic center backs--Pope, Boca, Gibbs, Onyewu, Mastro, and further down the line Spector. Berhalter and Sanneh are older guys that can also be slid in there in a pinch (and I still hold hopes that Chris Klein will follow in the footsteps of Sanneh's forward-right mid-right fullback-center back progression). Our midfield is also better-suited for a 3-5-2. That said, if history is a guide I think we'll stick with the basic 4-4-2 during qualifying, then start to throw some different things out there during the WC itself. FWIW, the conventional wisdom of late has been to play Boca on the left in a 4-man backline and Gibbs in the center, but I prefer them the other way around. Stick Gooch on the right, and you've got a damn good 4-man backline. The other nice thing about the 3-5-2 is it allows you to play 2 defensive mids, one of whom is a "skill" guy (Reyna or JOB) and one of whom is a "destroyer" guy (Zavagnin, Armas, Mastro, etc). Of course, if Reyna and JOB are both healthy, they're too good to leave either one on the bench IMO...and I'd also like to see Mulrooney get a look at d-mid.
Yes, this topic does come up frequently. Earlier in the year, for example, was the thread titled: 3-5-2 for the Qualifiers? Back in 2003 and early 2004 the 3-5-2 didn't make much sense because the Nat's central defensive depth was very thin. We only had Pope and Boca as reliable guys. Mastro was a part-timer at center back, having played more defensive mid in the past. Gibbs only was just begining with the Nat's, Oneywu was still a distant prospect, and veterans like Sanneh and Berhalter were hurt. We had much more defensive depth at outside back, even if it wasn't a collection of stud players: Hejduk, Cherundolo, Vanney, and the experiments with Convey and Albright. So, until just very recently, the 3-5-2 didn't fit our defensive depth, even if it did seem to suit our midfield depth. The situation has changed, however, and I'll bet Arena will used a 3-back setup at times this year. We now can count on solid play from Pope, Boca, Gibbs, Oneywu, Berhalter, and maybe even Sanneh. Marshall may be close to a callup, and Mastro is always an option in a pinch. Any Nat's roster that plans on using a 3-5-2 willl need at least five of these players available and healthy, in order to have starters and depth. Another possible sign that the 4-back formation may be seen less often in 2005 is the apparent loss of status for Convey and Vanney. I don't really think Cherundolo has also lost status, yet, but it is possible given the fewer callups he has had. Hejduk is obviously still in the mix, as is Albright, and newbie Spector may be entering the pool. But, that leaves the Nat's thinner at outside back than center back for the first time in recent memory.
My thinking this year is that if a 3-5-2 is the way to go, it's only because we should be transitioning this team to a 3-4-3 formation over time. We could be taking out our CONCACAF opponents with three strikers in front and padding our goal differential in the process, instead we drew 1-1 with Jamaica at the close of the semis...at home. One of the larger criticisms of the US team, IIRC, is that scoring is not this team's forte, and anything that takes pressure off the backline - and if this means reducing the backline, so be it - by shifting the play into the opposition half should promote a more attacking and still physical style of play.
Cherundolo is a potential starter at right mid in a 3-5-2. And more strikers doesn't neccesarily equal more goals. I mean, you could argue that we've been playing in a 4-3-3, with Donovan as a withdrawn striker rather than as an attacking midfielder. It's all pretty subjective.
---------------Keeper--------------- --------Pope---Boca--Gibbs--------- Cherundolo---Mastro--Reyna---O'Brien --Donovan------Johnson-----Beasley-- Defensive depth: Oneywu, Berhalter, Spector Mid Depth: Zavagnin, Lewis, Dempsey Forward depth: McBride, Ching, Wolff ..... Maybe, maybe not.... Would be interesting to watch. Eliminates the need for a "classic" #10 in the center. Uses Reyna better than some other options, but may not be the best fit for Donovan. The front line would be VERY fast. Cut me a break on assuming Reyna and O'Brien are healthy... I'm just thinking... By the way, dfb is correct that more strikers does not mean more goals. But it does force opponents to keep players back, or get burned. A different 3-4-3 version might be with a diamond midfield: ---------------Keeper--------------- --------Pope---Boca--Gibbs--------- ---------------Mastro--------------- Cherundolo--------------------O'Brien --------------Donovan-------------- --Johnson------McBride-----Beasley-- Less speed up front. Is adding McBride an improvement over removing Reyna? I don't like Johnson in a "winger" role. I want him moving all over.
This has been brought up numerous times lately and I'm still wondering why people think the Nats have the players for a 3-5-2. There isn't a good RM for a 3-5-2 let alone a 4-4-2. Mathis can not play RM in a 3-5-2, not even possible. Donovan would be a poor choice, keep him at AM. Dolo seems to be everyone's choice but to me he doesn't provide enough offense to warrent moving him into the midfield. Lets compare a 4-4-2 and a 3-5-2. -------------McBride----------EJ------------------- ----------DMB-------------------Donovan----------- --------------JOB------------Reyna----------------- Boca------------Gibbs---------Pope-------------Dolo ----------------------Howard----------------------- -------------McBride----------EJ-------------------- DMB------------------Donovan------------------Dolo --------------JOB------------Reyna----------------- --------Boca-----------Gibbs---------Pope---------- ----------------------Howard----------------------- The outside mids have more defensive responsibility in a 3-5-2 than in a 4-4-2 and much much more than a box 4-4-2. You have taken Beasley further away from goal and given him more defensive responsibilities in order to get Dolo into the midfield and closer to the goal. This seems completely crazy to me. I'm all for the 3-5-2 if the Nats have a RM like Beasley who can play endline to endline and is a threat going to goal. A right mid who offsets Beasley's extra defending with some extra offense from the right. Dolo is not the player to do this. He doesn't add anything in the midfield that he doesn't provide overlapping from the RB spot. I just don't think people think about or understand the importance and roles of outside mids in a 3-5-2. And yes Beasley will be less effective offensively if given more defensive responsibilities.
DMB's extra defensive responsibilities would be an issue, altho this can be offsetted against weaker opponents by playing Lewis at LM and giving Beas a more central role with Reyna. Hell, Bruce could even install some sort of system where Lewis plays left mid when the US is on defense, then moves centrally and sends DMB out wide when we're on the attack. As for RM, i'm not too worried, Cherundolo and Hejduk are both good candidates for RM in a 3-5-2 setup.
I agree with you. I'm not sold on the 3-5-2, and I think you are correct that the biggest weakness is the lack of a quality right mid. I prefer the 4-4-2 with the box midfield over the 3-5-2, and I think this 4-4-2 has become Arena's current default formation, even if he likes to tinker based on who the opponent is. I did think the suggestion for a 3-4-3 was interesting. It demands a bit less offense from the outside mids, so it might suit someone like Cherundolo, who has proven to be a solid ball handler and passer. The 3-4-3 also puts Beasley in the "winger" role that seems to fit him best.
Arena doesn't seem to have experimented with a balanced 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 much lately. If he had, he might have tried Gaven or Reyna as RM, West as RM/RW or Wolff as RW. Philipakos may be a possibility a year down the road if he gets some quality PT at Olympiakos. But what are you going to do if all your top prospects at a position are hurt at once?
I don't know about the 3-4-3, I have a feeling it would turn into a 5-4-1. I don't think Reyna is a good RM in a 3-5-2, he's too slow for me. I never thought about Wolff out there(a RM in a 3-5-2), I wonder if he can cross at all? Can he defend?
I wouldn't mind a 3-5-2 with Beas and Cherundolo as wingbacks. Landon could play just behind the two strikers with Reyna running the show in midfield. I'd prefer Dempsey over Reyna but BA might prefer experience in that position. ------------Johnson-----------McBride--------------- ---------------------Donovan------------------------ ---------------------Reyna/Dempsey----------------- DMB----------------------------------------------Dolo ---------------------Mastroeni------------------------ -----Boca-----------Gibbs/Onyewu------------Pope---- ---------------------Keller------------------------------
It is subjective, and if anything it shows that three up front (in principle) and three in the back (on paper) doesn't hurt this team. Keep Donovan, Johnson and either Beasley or McBride up front, and allow Reyna or JOB or whoever isn't hurt at the time to play withdrawn central mid. Whoever's got the speed; we certainly have more of it as the years have gone by. Again, anything that raises the possibility of more goals makes this team more dangerous, especially if three US defenders is enough to hold the line (which, more often than not, it is).
I think you'd need someone with more offensive skills on the right than Dolo. Knowing Arena, he'd field Chris Klein. I'd play Eddie Gaven. Now for asymetric formations...
ok im new here but ive been reading most of your comments. i think that the four four two is fine. lets say we play with berhalter and pope in the center and nocanegra and dolo in the wide back position. the wing positions would be DMb and klein or anyother RM which we dont have but donovan would fit. the center mid position has plenty options i dont kow if i would put donovan in the center ( hes been playing well) or leave him wide with job and reyna or armas. im not sure. but i know DMB is a definete.
Another thing, if we run 3 in the back with either Gibbs or Boca as one of the center backs, and Cherundolo or Hejduk on the right wing, we can switch between 3-5-2 and 4-4-2 at will.