4-4-2 change

No Wallace?

 

For me the jury's still out on Rodney. No doubt hes a good player but seeing the SJ and Firpo matches he is still really raw. He runs around like a chicken with his head cut off and launches field goals outside the box and has a meh first touch. He's for me at least that shot of speed at the end of the match. He needs to play smarter, speed cant get you everywhere. Thats my two cents.

 

For the time being, United has to go to four in the back. Defensively the team has been a nightmare recently (24 goals allowed in 11 road matches, including 13 in the past 5 ) and the goals have to stop.

if that slows the offense down a bit, oh well then, you do it. Because I know you can't win too many games when you consistently give up 2-3 goals a game on the road.

Soehn did this in his first season when United went 0-3 out of the gate and had given up 7 goals, including 4 at home to KC in the season opener at RFK. The team took on a whole new shape and they went on to win the Supporters Shield.

However, if they were to do it with this team, the midfield could look very different. With Simms' injury, you don't have a real defensive midfielder and with Gomez' wandering ways, you need someone who can cover a lot of ground and be physical at the same time to protect Gomez. This is the reason why Brian Carroll was left unexposed. He wasn't able to do the job in a 4-man midfield while Simms did do well in helping the team to the Supporters Shield.

My guess if they do go to 4 in the back is something like this.


--------------------- Wicks ---------------------

Namoff ------ Jakovic ------ Burch ------- John


Quaranta -------- Szetela ---- Gomez ------------- Fred


---------- Emilio --------------- Moreno ----------------


This would leave Olsen out of the lineup and for the moment I can live with that. He's not been the same players since the hamstring injury and is more of a hinderance in midfield recently than an advantage. You also have to remember Moreno's habit of drifting back into midfield to get the ball, so they could have requisite coverage there.

I'm not thrilled about going to 4 in the back, but it's a necessity at this point considering how many goals this team is leaking.

I don't want Janicki anywhere near the field. He can't be trusted as tempting it may be to play him in central defense.

 

442 makes so much more sense. Namoff can get forward to overload one side and Burch can hit the early cross pretty well.

Jakovic looks like he can get forward too and he defends well in space. Put Janiki behind Jakovic and start Olsen behind Gomez. The rest is easy to figure out.

 

Yep the change at the half was a big part of our improved play. With Habarugira coming in we might just see this change. With four in the back, we would be less susceptible to dumb mistakes, and as Dunseth pointed out, our wingers could push forward more. I also like to think it would free up Namoff and Burch a little more to make crosses and get in with the offense. The conflict would be who would be our D-mid, as Simms, Benny, Jacobson, and Szetela all play that possition. I agree with Cweedchop that at this point in the season Benny has been less effective and it wouldn't be horrible to not see him playing as much. Also the argument could be made that once he has recovered from his injury, a rejuvinated Simms could flourish in a 4-4-2, a formation which many have claimed he is better in than the 3-5-2. The switch would also make Szetela more usefull as he could be put more elsewhere in the midfield or he could remain at D-mid. Jacobson would provide depth. I think this would be a good switch.

Now anyone who knows soccer better than me care to explain the differences between the 3-5-2 and the 4-4-2?

 

From what I understand, a 3-5-2 requires the wings to really drop back at times to support the defense. It also requires stronger defenders than a 4-4-2 since you only have 3 guys back there. Our wings don't seem to have fully mastered the concept of dropping back to support the defense. Personally, I don't really think Tommy understands the 3-5-2 and how to use it effectively.

I miss Ivan Guerrero. *sniffle*

 

You hit the nail on the head. Simms injury would seem to lead to a 4-4-2 being the best option for now.

 

In a 4-4-2 I don't think that we could play Gomez in the midfield, he's too in and out of play to sit in there. Given the injury to Simms and ignoring any fatigue from yesterday, the best midfield/forward lines we could put out right now would be:

Quaranta--Szetela--Jacobsen--Fred
--
Emilio--Pontius
​

It may have been just the overall stink of other players, but I thought Jacobsen played alright against Houston; and he played better than Olsen, who seems to have no legs lately. We can do without a true playmaker because both Pontius and Szetela are willing to make passes through the middle, and with a 4-4-2 Quaranta and Fred can pinch in and be creative themselves.

With this lineup you could bring in Moreno if you're winning or losing for one of the forwards, he can either slow the game down or put some attacking passes together if you're lacking that. Gomez could come in if you're losing, he could replace one of the center mids and make the formation that much more attack-minded.

​

I would LOVE to see this lineup on Tuesday

 

Yes, if you're going to consistently lose the midfield with five in there, why not consistently lose it with four but have another defender in there? Burch is not useful in a 3 man back line b/c he can't really get up and down the wing to use his left foot. Cranking balls out of the back in your own half is always just a turnover, but cranking balls after having advanced to the end line or close to it, well, anything can happen.

Ben Olsen, and we all love him, is just too back pass happy lately, when he's even involved. If Jakovic wants to pretend he's Matthaeus, fine, but let's have some cover behind him. I thought McT was our best center back last year, wonder why that experiment is over. I think he would compliment Jakovic pretty well.

Wicks continues to make bad decisions on when to come out or not, too many times he is missing punches and left out to dry. I don't know whether another center back would have any bearing on that. But Wicks is costing points with his mistakes (his brilliant save on Angel has carried him far but is losing luster).

 

I'm all for the switch to a 4-4-2. At halftime of last night's game and was thinking to myself, "we shoud switch to a 4-4-2". I was pleased to see for the second half that we came out in that formation and gratified that it worked.

With Simms hurt we just don't have the defensive bite in the midfield to play with three defenders.

Can't play Gomez as the a-mid in a 4-4-2. Would love to see him as a withdrawn forward paired with Emilio. He'd be a more active, energetic Jaime Moreno up there.

-------------wicks----------------
Namoff Jackovic Burch John
Qaranta Pontius Szetela Wallace
Emilio Gomez

 

Whether or not the 4-4-2 is the answer is only part of the issues presented by last night's disaster. As the first half dragged on and DCU continued to pump balls upfield to no purpose and Houston continued to bring the ball up with purpose, I figured that sooner or later the DCU defense would crack. I didn't expect a 3 goal crack, but I figured DCU would concede a goal before halftime and also that DCU's formation would not permit any effective response.

Therefore, the switch to the 4-4-2 made sense from an in game tactical approach. Whether that formation would work game in and game out is a more difficult question. However, given DCU's inability to lock down games either at home or on the road in the 3-5-2, I think Soehn has to try the formation at Firpo and in MLS for at least 2-3 games to see if the change makes any difference to the run of play over an entire game.

 

Someone said it, but here's hoping the new D-man has a little pace, if we go to a 4-4-2 neither John or Burch can exactly burn up and down that flank.

 

If you go four in the back as a regular thing, rather than something you use depending on the opponent and the available personnel, then Gomez goes to the bench. That's non-negotiable. Gomez in a four-man midfield becomes the Gomez that couldn't get off the bench in Colorado.

Many people (not saying you, Chris) are under the cracked-out impression that Gomez ended up benched in Colorado because of coaching that was unable to realize how good he was. These are almost always people who didn't actually see his play there: Gomez earned his spot on the bench. Gomez' sometimes fantastic ability to hold possession depends strongly upon having both a d-mid and a holding midfielder underneath, as well as two forwards up top, to combine with. Go to a 4-4-2, and I promise you that Gomez (as an a-mid) will become very, very ordinary.

We switched to a 442 in that match because of two things: the particular way in which Houston attacked; and the fact that Gomez came off at halftime (when we made the switch).

So how about this as a wild, crazy idea: instead of sticking to a 442 or a 352 or a 433 or what-the-********-ever, we play the formation/system/set-of-responsibilities/whatever that's best suited to the players we have and the opponent we're facing?

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. The hardest demand on an outside midfielder in a 352 is the ability to cover end-to-end, to be back on defense *and* forward engaging in offense. Considering that demand, you should add Josh Gros to the above list, since there may not have been a more *fit* player in the entire history of this team. Now, if his balls in had only been better . . .

 

Who's going to supply them with balls? You really don't have any choice other than Fred.

 

Formations do matter in terms of dividing up responsibilities and areas of the field to cover. They don't matter if players just fail at their responsibilities. So, a good coach puts players into formations that suit their abilities, and don't ask them to do things they are not that good at doing. Or, a good coach teaches players how to live up to their responsibilities if they are not quite suited for them.

Also, against any given opponent there are tactical and personnel reasons for or against any given formation, so a formation that is a bit more flexible often has more advantages, hence this neverending and somewhat maddening debate.

Because Bootsy has it right, United would be better suited to play some opponents with four in the back and some with three. however, he has it wrong in that Gomez cannot play a 4-4-2 (nor must he be a forward). He can easily play midfield against teams like Seattle, Chivas, Columbus, SJ, etc. And DC would be better overall in a 4-4-2 against those teams because of the things those teams like to do. Play wide and get deep, while just keeping the center solid. Houston also plays wide and gets deep and United would be better suited in a 4-4-2 against them too, but Gomez would be a liability for the reasons Bootsy suggests, because he would not be helpful enough against a center midfield that has Holden in it. Same with LA, if Beckham plays centrally and DOnovan wide, a 3-5-2 is better, if Donovan plays forward and Beckham wide, a 4-4-2 is better.

However, against teams like the Fire, Toronto, FCD, NY, etc who do not really rely on wing play as much and have pretty creative central players, a 3-5-2 with Gomez would be better, because the central midfield is tighter, and the outside defenders are markers, with a backup in the center to help too. So, as long as DC's outside players get into the attack, they should beat such teams.

Earlier in the year with new defenders, a pretty solid central 3 in midfield, DC needed a 3-5-2 to protect the defense and simplify their roles in the defense. Now, with a sketchy central 3 since Simms is out and Szetela is too new, Olsen too creaky, Jacobson too confused, etc. DC probably needs four in the back to cover for their midfield weaknesses and the defense's own mistakes. They also desperately need some consistency, so switching formations all the time isn't helpful either. So, again, there is no simple answer to this absolutely maddening problem, and the debate rages on.

Obviously, this is getting too wordy, but bottom line to me is who on the other team do you need to stop, and where can you attack the other team the best, so where can you put players so that happens the most. But, that still doesn't guarantee wins. Players still have to make plays no matter who is out and wherever they are lined up.

Simple really. )

 

I agree. +1