9/9 US vs. Brazil - the Coaching/Tactics - Post Game Discussion [R]

Garbage? That’s a little strong isn’t it?

If he had not been tripped (or awarded a penalty) would you still use such a word to describe his play today?

They way I see it; More the once I noticed he put himself into dangerous positions to receive the ball only to have his touch fail him or look around and see no help close enough. I don’t think you can exclude him totally because he was unable to execute the end product. He made himself a presence against some really good competition.

At the very least he can help us qualify.

 

Well since this is a tactics thread, I will try to limit my post on discussing tactics. I saw us in a 4-4-2, pretty vanilla, but with tendencies to move to a box with our FB's pushing up.

HP played pretty well, best I have seen him.

Wolff was terrible, in my opinion. Killed several promising build-ups, but seemed to just not be on the same page as the rest of the team, to be expected as he has not played for the nats in a while, I can give him a pass.

I still don't really like LD out wide, he seems to not push the attack when he is a RM. But more interesting is now how the US attack seems to be focused on CD. This is a very interesting development tactically as it moved us in a direction to be a more possesion/attacking style of play, but via the English system and not via the Latin system's. We rely on the play of our CM's and distribution and long balls out of the back from our CB's.

So tactically, the Dual A-mid system seem to be moving to a more RM/LM with box to box middies.

This makes sense as it allows BB to use the Box midfield, the Diamond midfield, and the Flat 4 midfield with the same type of players. I could have predicted it in the first few camps when he kept trotting out that bucket again and again.

So I guess the 4-4-1-1, the 4-2-3-1, and the 4-3-2-1 are not going to be favored under BB.

That is what I took tactically from the game today.

PooBah

 

While he may not be a garbage player he was very uneffective at forward I thought, he may be able to help in qualifying considering who we are playing, or possibly at RM, switching donovan and wolff may have been a good choice today

 

Regarding this game:

1. I'd still rather see Landon in the 2nd forward spot than Wolfe. Although, I've no idea who I'd rather see on the right.
2. Love Dempsey as the target - As Wynalda observed, however, still has a few things to learn wrt receiving balls in the box and using his body better.
3. Seeing Feilhaber in the middle just made me wish for a Bradley - Rico pairing. Which, IMHO, would be a great partnership on a counter-attacking team. Speaking of which...

Regarding the immediate future:

I know everybody here wants to see the US become the type of team that can go toe-to-toe with Brazil and all that jazz, but we're still a few years away from being able to pull that off. There is a distinct lack of playmaking ability on our team, and I still feel our best chance of winning against good teams is to counter-attack. I know it doesn't make for pretty play, but screw that. I want to win, and I want to use the tactics that give us the best chance to win. Against Brazil, that means play for the counter.

This game shows that we're still another generation of players away from being on par with a team of Brazil's caliber.

Yeah, there was lots of great effort on the part of the US today, but our midfield was outclassed in every sense of the word. The only midfielder that really stuck out for his quality today was Bradley - with the occasional flash from Beasley and Donovan.

Let's be realistic: we're not there yet, and we won't be there for a few more years. Let's build our team for counter-attacking, as it plays to our strengths.

 

Bradley waited far too long to make his substitutions. He should have made them fifteen minutes earlier, the team was already lagging too much when he put EJ & Convey in.

And that was just a shame not playing DeMerit & Spector.

 

Seriously? Call the wahhhhmbulance. We played well and had a couple of tough calls go against us. I'm happy with today and your wahhhh wahhh wahhh-ing can't ruin it.

Honestly we had a great gameplan today, executed it well....had a couple of bad breaks, but whatever....

 

As usual, I thought he waited too long to sub.

 

Now, Superdave, you can do better than that. To make the assumption that Spector and Demerit would have come in for midfield or attacking players is silly. This was, nominally, a friendly, with 6 available subs, and Demerit for Gooch and Spector for Pearce would have arguably not weakened our defense and have strengthened the attacking potential from the backline. Which is what you want when you need to attack to even the game.
The most rational way of interpreting your peculiarly dismissive statement, above, is that you are one of those fans "who would rather advance their own agenda".

 

Yes, in part he did. Johnson should have been in for Wolff perhaps even after the halftime. And Seitz should have been put in for Tim after the injury [why risk further damage to that hand in a friendly?? Trust your backup, or don't make him your backup ]. And Spector, Demerit would have been useful in shoring up the defense, and helping with counterattacks.
On the other hand, Convey should not have played. He should not have even been on the roster. I was a huge Convey fan after that year he helped pull Reading up from the Championship, and thought he generally outplayed Beasley at the WC in the smallish time Arena gave him. That said, he clearly is not close to form in his recovery from his injury. It was painfully obvious in the Sweden game, and he should never have been in Chicago.
We have more and more good talent available, but RoboBob is not showing me any growth with his evaluation of personnel and his tactical sense....but then let's let this year play out and save that sure to be rancorous debate for the doldrums of the early winter

 

Coaching was bad.

1. We basically had one goalkeeper.Obviously Seitz wasn't going to play. He was for a camp only. Howard gets injured and we aren't able to substitute him. How much a dislocated finger was a distraction remains unknown.

2. We don't have enough forwards. What should be done about it? Hide the only forward on a sideline and let hom pass to miedfielders that are playing forwards.

3. Convey is totally out of shape, Feilhaber didn't play for two months. Let's play them and see what happens. Surprisingly, didn't look pretty.

4. Gooch doesn't look good. Parkhurst looks great. Keep on playing Gooch, may be that was just an optical illusion.

 

I'm sorry, but the guy bitching about Bradley not basing his substitutions on who had family at the game. I give such a notion all the respect it deserves.

 

The midfield shape looked pretty good to me. Brazil's goals came from:

- an own goal
- a corner kick
- a free kick
- a PK

Kaka's pace troubled the US a few times, and Ronaldinho's passing is sublime. However, I think we acquitted ourselves well.

I would have preferred to see Johnson instead of Wolff, but other than that, no complaints with the starting XI.

 

We must have watched a completely different game.

If the best thing you can say about a forward is that he's a "work horse", then it says all you need to know.

 

The midfield again is the key.
We are as someone posted at least a generation behind the Brazils.

Onyewu should not have played this one - he is an own-goal waiting to happen. Demerit?
Boca had no substitute on the bench.
Dolo can start at RM, Simek or Spector at RB.
Wolff didn't click for Arena, usually as a 3rd forward - didn't warrant his roster inclusion.
Convey isn't ready.

With all these omissions/comissions I'm surpised no one is calling for Bob Bradley's head. Poor choices. Losing streak. Will South Africa and Switzerland break his back? Will his choices limited as they are be any better for those remaining games? How long will Gulati put up with this?

 

BB's record in real matches is perfect. The fact that he's been crappy in friendlies isn't a cause for concern, and shouldn't be.

 

Copa America doesn't count because Bob didn't really want to do it?

 

Because for the US, those were friendlies.

I thought everyone knew that the US isn't in South America? I guess Miss South Carolina was more right than I thought.

 

You're making a funny.

 

i don't see that at all. he's proved nothing to me.

 

I know you are but what am I.

 

http://ussoccerplayers.typepad.com/soccerdaily/

"The problem – and it's such a loaded word – with the current National Team setup is that there's no clear indication whether strategy is determined by the players or the other way around. ...

....

Bradley is a strong enough coach to impose a plan. He did it with Chicago and Chivas. At some point, he'll have to do it here. Nobody crafts a midfield better than Bob Bradley, and he's at his best with five. Right now, there's no way the US starts three backs and there's just not enough confidence in any US forward to start him by himself. The continuing impact of the Brian McBride retirement and the inability of any US player to raise his game accordingly.

If this was just about any other soccer nation, that's the point of discussion preoccupying just about everybody."

**********

I'm not preoccupied, but I would like to have a better sense of the 'plan' BB will impose. What's his plan, and how did yesterday's game contribute to fulfilling said plan?

 

With regards to coaching/tactics:

The Bad:

1. Starting Wolff was simply a wasted spot. Nothing against Wolff, as I believe he can be a valuable veteran in camp and off the bench as a late game sub. But if the guy could not be a consistent starter for the NATS in his 20s then any reason to believe he could improve on that in his 30s? Simply put, you don't too many opportunities to play friendlies like this, against a full-sided Brazil in front of a big crowd. Would have been a wonderful opportunity to have to given to a fresh face or even someone with a reasonable shot at starting for the WC qualifiers.

2. Bradley's insistence on playing 2 forwards when we are so thin at the position is infuriating. Why not try 5 midfielders and a lone forward. We have quality depth at midfield. Virtually all of our most skilled and dangerous players at midfielders. If you go with a 4-5-1, I guarantee the US would play a more offensive game. That's because with Clark and Bradley as the combo defensive mids, it would free up guys like Feilhaber, Donovan and Beasley from many of their defensive duties. In turn it would allow them to get upfield with more numbers and connect with Dempsey via short passes rather than mindless long balls out the back.

3. Bringing in Convey in place of Feilhaber and moving Beasley to the middle. WTF!#!$ Please put the Convey rehab project to rest. Let the kid get back to form before you start trying to reincorporate him into the NATS. Convey looked awful against Sweden, which alone merited not calling him for this game. Not only is Beasley more effective out wide, but Convey is not even the 2nd best LM option any longer. Justin Mapp has shown much more promise than Convey and deserves more time.

4. Bradley's defeatist mentality. When Allen Hopkins reported that Bradley was extremely pleased with the 1st half performance and essentially had nothing negative to say, it spoke volumes about Bradley. In essence, it said he was happy to sit back, keep it close and not losing by a big margin. That is showing far too much respect for the opponent. I know it's Brazil. I know their starting 11 is probably worth 100 times more than ours. But when the whistle blows, none of that matters. You realize they are just players like you - prone to turn the ball over when pressured and beaten off the dribble when attacked. Going into half time, it was clear Dempsey needed some help on top as Wolff was simply not giving him much. Then Brazil makes 2 subs before Bradley decides to finally pull Wolff. Not surprisingly, we score right after and play some of our best soccer of the day. Too little, too late. Before you can actually compete with the Brazils of the world, you actually have to believe you can. Guarantee some of our players do; here's hoping our coach does also.

The Good:

1. Pearce at LB turned out to be a pretty solid selection -- he certainly should challenge Bornstein. While not as flashy going forward as Bornstein, he is technically sound in the attack and, more important, much stronger in the challenge. Nice to have some competition.

2. Donovan at RM is where he should be, IMHO. With his speed, endurance and ability to take people on, RM is his best position. He cannot play with his back to the ball and is not a good enough passer to play attacking mid.

3. Dempsey as a forward. I'm starting to warm up to the idea of Dempsey at forward. He's learning the position -- no longer trying to turn and juke the defender but instead now holding the ball and finding open players. Plus he is undoubtedly one of our best finishers so he needs to be closer to goal.

4. Bradley, Jr. and Feilhaber at central mid. Glad BB realized Feilhaber needs to be in the middle rather than RM. Also, for as much crap as I give BB, the playing time he's giving his son is well deserved. The kid is a defensive workhorse. He really made life difficult for the Brazilians in the middle. Benny and Michael need to play together more often -- they are a nice duo. Would just like to see the trifecta of Benny, Michael and Rico together as I believe they would not only clog the middle defensively, but also quickly get us into the attack.

5. Bringing in Arnaud. Admittedly I was not thrilled with the pick. Not so much because he does not deserve a look, but rather because he took a spot over more deserving younger players, IMHO. That being said, he brought in a great, fighting spark. He took it to the Brazilians and showed some feistiness that was sorely missing.

 

Sorry you lose all credibility when y ou initially predicate your argument on the fact that he didnt sub these guys in so "junior could go 90". We all get it. Bob Bradley bad. Booo. Alliteration good. In fact, I actually tend to agree that I am not a fan of a lot of BB's decisions, even in friendlies, but make a point based on the match not on your biases.

Personally I would much rather have seen Demerit over Gooch and anybody over Wolff. And I agree it would have been nice for him to give time to Spector and Jay. Your claim that it has anything to do with nepotism based on the player arguably having the best match of the day for the US is absurd.

 

Don't expect anyone to call for Bradley's head, he just got the job a few months ago after his extended interim stint. I don't see how there can be any real debate about his work until we're seeing how the team performs in qualifying.
Besides, we can't fire him, we need his son.

 

He did prove he has some blackmail on Bob Bradley. No way should he be starting let alone on the team. When I saw him in the starting line-up, I knew we were doomed offensively. Don't get me wrong, when he played for the Fire and NT in '02, he was great. Now, he's washed up and bombing out on 1860 Munich.