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

I personally like this quote from Bueno's article:

http://www.pe.com/sports/soccer/stor...1.3e432a0.html

Giving your best U-20 player a chance to compete against Brazil because he just might play a key role in 2010. What a novel concept.

 

Here's the Australia story ...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/soccer/arnold-calls-for-australian-bteam/2007/09/11/1189276726382.html

SOCCEROO coach Graham Arnold last night stepped down after 15 months, but not without urging Football Federation Australia to do more to give A-League players experience in international competition.

Arnold ... believes A-League players will be crucial in forging Australia's path through Asia to the next World Cup.

Pointing to the success last night of {several A-Leaguers}, Arnold said Australia should set up a Socceroo B-team to play international matches so that local players are prepared when drafted in for World Cup qualifiers.

"The A-League has to have a Socceroo B-team. It should be from the A-League. They need to learn to play in internationals and play in Asia. They should play in international games and get experience," Arnold said.

**********

Ok, there is far from an exact parallel between MLS and the A-League (or Mexican or Brazilian or any other league), but there are parallel elements. Top players from non-European nations are drawn to Europe for obvious reasons, and those players' national teams have to cope with their 'absences' as best they can.

How are we coping? How is BB coping? If BB announced that he expected that - by the time the 2010 WC arrives - 20 of 23 USMNT roster slots would go to European-based players, what would the reaction be?

 

Here is what I dont understand, for 1860 Wolff is basically the guy making all the off the ball runs and sending through great not good, but great passes to players in scoring positions. None of that was on display. I suppose he just didnt get into the rhythm enough. He made some terrible passes and his 1st touch and cut back ability alluded him on several play. Too bad, he is one of those guys who in the rare games when he puts it all together can bring a little magic to the pitch.

 

Not to be repetitive, but you lose me right here. Feilhaber didn't play as a defensive mid. It wasn't Bradley and Pablo out there. The world is divided into (irony alert!) lumpers and splitters, and you are definitely a pretty extreme lumper. And I guess that's ok, except that the way you lump central mids leads to poor analysis like this. Elsewhere you wrote that most MLS teams play that tactic when almost none of them do, because in your taxonomy, there are only two kinds of central mids. So you lump together very unlike players such as Toja and Mastroenni. Since the phrase empty bucket popped up on bigsoccer you've fallen in love with it and describe any 4-4-2 that isn't obviously a diamond midfield like DC or Houston run as an empty bucket.

 

The obvious answer is that Brazil and BL2 are quite different. More generally, some players show something in practice but can't do it in a game, and others show you something in a game that they don't in practice. Some raise their game when playing at the international level and others flounder. That's why it is really important when two players are fairly close in quality (Bornstein vs Pearce, Bradley vs Clark) not to assume too much and to give both roughly equal opportunities to show what they've got.

 

Eh, Bob was holding Benny and Mikey back from going forward as a two-way mid would..

But that is not entirely a bad idea, if you expect an attack up the middle. It's easier to cover for a fullback by shifting the defense to that gap.

BTW, Mexico currently has ...

Ricardo Osorio (Stuttgart)
Pavel Pardo (Stuggart)
Aaron Galindo (Eintracht Frankfurt)
Carlos Salcido (PSV)
Guillermo Franco (Villareal)
Nery Castillo (Shakhtyor Donetsk)
Andres Guardado (Deportivo de La Coruña)
Giovanni Dos Santos (Barcelona)
Carlos Vela (Osasuna, on loan from Arsenal)
Rafael Marquez (Barcelona)

plus many of their fringe or veteran players like Kikin Foseca, Paco Palencia, Cuautehmoc Blanco, Jared Borgetti and Gerrardo Torrado have been in Europe in the past.

Sanchez may be guilty of slight undercounting.

But he is not alone in wanting Euro ball for his cadre:
Park Ji-Sung Wants More Asians In Europe

http://www.goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=409007

 

I think your splitting a pretty fine line. While I certainly don't agree with SFS, I have a hard time agreeing that we're not running out two central midfielders whose primary responsibilities are of a defensive nature. The way they go about it is different - Bradley is an on-the-ball hitter and Feilhaber tends to read passing lanes and pick people off - but at the end of the day, they're Central Midfielders primarily responsible for defense - DMids.

The real question in my mind is whether the US would benefit by having one person in Central Midfield whose primary responsibility is to be a creative, attacking player.

And that is where I think it is completely fair to start questioning BradWak. Since Bradley took over, he has built the team around a scheme that does not have a central attacking presence, and especially against better competition, we have failed to be a consistently create scoring opportunities. So why not build on what is working, stop doing what isn't, and take a few risks by evaluating other schemes?

What I think is working:
- The BradWak scheme is doing an excellent job of putting a lot of pressure on our opponents, especially in the midfield.
- Our fullbacks have a lot more license and ability to get forward than we have seen in past US Teams
- (SD and I disagree here) Donovan and Beasley as right and left midfielders have been a pretty good combination
- Howard is an awesome goalie
- Boca or Gooch provide a tough physical presence in Central Defense

What I think isn't working, and where we should start looking at alternatives:
- We aren't creating enough opportunities through the center of our midfield.
- We haven't found two forwards who are good at creating or consistent enough at finishing chances
- Our Central Defense, while physical, isn't particularly smart. They're error prone, to say the least.

The one alternative I'd most like to see:
- Drop a forward for a creative midfielder whose job isn't to be yet another DMid, but who is freed up to help initiate attacks. The top candidate in my mind is Freddy Adu. He should be called into camp and bled into this team. I absolutely disagree with BradWak in their omission of Freddy from any National Team camps since they started. I also think it's time to bring in Altidore. In fact, I think it's past time, considering other forward candidates that have been considered. While he might not be ready to be the lone starting forward in a 4-5-1 today, his play with the U20s indicates to me that if Bradley can play at this level, there's a good chance Jozy can, too.

Finally, I would like to see the end of the Boca and Gooch pairing. One or the other, not both. Conrad is an excellent alternative here, and Parkhurst IMO should be given more opportunities than he has been given so far. Pairing Parkhurst or Conrad with Boca or Gooch gives us a good balance of physical ability and defensive "smarts" - anticipating play, eliminating mistakes, and organizing the defensive line.

 

So how many U-20 players do we have getting time with G-14 teams?

 

Any particular reasons for calling him a wimp?

I think that was definitely the case in 2006 but he's been more assertive in 2007.

But, let's say, all his blemishes are there. Doesn't he still give the US a greater threat on top than his replacements?

And I am asking that because I am fully cognizant of the fact that he only scored 3 goals in MLS this season while Eddie Johnson scored 14.

Yet Donovan is the same player who can also score a hat-trick against a decent opposition, as he did vs. Ecuador.

Who on this US roster can match that feat?

You're not going to get places if you only play "bunker and counter".

That was Bruce's problem after Jan Koller put his noggin on that ball. You bunker ... and the other side doesn't attack in waves and is content to sit back 'cos they're ahead already. Then you;re forced to come forward and, if you don't have a "half-court" game, you're screwed.

As I can see (and count), this was the heaviest Euro contingent yet. 10 out of 11 starters flew in from "over there".

In the last 3 WC's, the Euro-to-MLS ratio was roughly 1-to-1 (or half&half, if you prefer).

It was a major step for the US just to get to the likes of Nürnberg, Sunderland and Preston North End.

Between now and 2010, you'll probably see most of the US Nationals with the mid-tier clubs in either England or Germany or the top-tier clubs in Holland. That will be another major step up.

As long as these steps are taken....

 

We're not going to get anyplace trying to play toe to toe with our squad against teams like Brazil and other top squads when our guys are simply far, far below the level the top teams can bring either. So, playing cautious and keeping things close allows you the chance to steal a goal and a win. Until we get to a point where our players improve in quality to where we can actually have a shot at being successful with top teams in a slug fest, I'll pass.

There is a reason coaches all over the world for a long time have been using the defend and counter strategy against favored teams and in away matches, etc... It's simply the most likely way to a result when you're out gunned. Show me a US squad that has a list of players close to those of Brazil Italy, Germany, etc...and I'll say, yeah, attack and let the chips fall where they may. But, until that day comes, I'll take a strategy that lets us actually have a shot at winning any day.

Sure, you need a Plan B if you fall behind or if you're playing teams that will not attack you (most likely in CONCACAF where we actually have the edge), but Plan A against teams that can easily out gun us should be the tactic that gives us the biggest chance to win.

 

I hear what you're saying and I (sort off) agree here but ... that's not what Bob was doing. He was chasing very aggressively, as he did at the Gold Cup and Copa America. Against a quality South American team (Brazil and Argentina), all it does is wear your out in a tournament match with only 3 subs to make.

And if Bob played this vs. a Euro side, he would have been "crossed" to death.

The way to play "bunker and counter" is the way to play "bunker and counter" - to play for the "negative space" by sucking in the opponent deep into your territory, forcing him to open a lot of gaps in the back and then countering with speed.

But ... Wolff didn't have the skill to do this centrally and Dempsey the speed.

Bob could have played it with two of his fastest forwards on top (Donovan and Johnson) or to go with a single fast forward (Donovan or Johnson) and two fast wings (Beasley and Wolff on the side) in order to have a fast counter.

Of course, we haven't seen any fast counters from the US because Bob didn't run any. He instead chased hard with 8 players (and sometimes with 9, as Wolff dropped back too a little) against 4 or 5 Brazilian attackers.

That was a semi-decent tactic for an away team in a UEFA Cup-Copa Libertadores/Sudamerica match when it carries a two-plus goal advantage and wants to use that to keep the game close.

But it is not a very good tournament strategy because it doesn't favor a comeback if the opposition scores first and the US defense is too suspect to rule that contingency out.

So I see the current formation as a "neither fish of fowl" type. It allows a lower scoring match but it rarely keeps the US from losing.

 

Hi SFS,

You are going to make me go back to 2005 and pull out my tactical discussion of the 4-4-1-1 counter!

What I took from the game was the real solid proof that BB will not, unless forced to, run a 1 forward formation. He will run a 4-4-2, bucket, diamond, or flat. Dempsey and Jozy will prob be our forwards. LD on the right DMB on the left and MB & Benny in the middle. Against lower tier teams he will play a diamong and push the fullbacks up, mid-level teams and bucket, and top tier teams a pressure flat.

Kinda scary that 3 years before the world cup BB is that obvious.

Maybe it is too much to ask for at this stage in our development as a futbol nation to expect the coach to be so tactically astute as to have more than three formations in his belt.

On the positive side. At least these are viable formations, the persons he has selected are correct, in a sense, for the job. Arena couldn't even get that right.

Just my opinions

PooBah

 

Not to throw another wrench in to this discussion, but I think Bradley sees Feilhaber as a defensive mid. To me, that is a complete and utter waste of the style of player he is, but that's another matter. My point, I guess, is that I think you are evaluating who the player is rather than how Bob is trying to use him.

 

Okay, let's assume you're right about Bob's intentions. What are your feelings on that? What do you think the implications are for the future of the team and more importantly, what do you think would be the correct thing to do in terms of personnel and tactics (i.e. how could Bob make improvements to these intentions and what would better suit the program)?

I realize this may come across as patronizing but I assure you I'm being sincere. I've always really enjoyed your posts and was hoping to start a little more discussion about the future of the program. Thanks.

 

First, he's seeing limited action. Second, based on WC U-20 performances, neither Adu nor Altidore are far behind Dos Santos in terms of potential. That's not a knock on Dos Santos who I think will be a special player. Rather that's a testament to the promise these 2 US attackers showed this summer.

Regardless, that's not the point. Clearly the threshold for callups with the senior squad is NOT that a player should be getting time with a top 14 team. If that were the case the US would not be able to field a team.

Instead, the point is bringing along a young, talented player sooner rather than later. Especially when those younger players show more potential than most of the players on the squad.

 

I sorta see your point, but while I'm not a fan of BB, I also see that the lack of development in the US pool over the last 2 years has somewhat tied his tactical hands. Look around at our top 15 players, and they're either guys who are very, very young and/or inexperienced (Feilhaber, Bornstein, Bradley) or guys who haven't improved as much as we'd expect, or even at all (Landon, Gooch, Johnson, Beasley, etc.) or are guys at the stage of their careers where they are what they are (Cherundolo, Ching, Bocanegra). Without spending more than 20 seconds thinking on this, I can only think of Dempsey who doesn't fit in one of those 3 categories, and he doesn't miss the "hasn't improved enough" group by much. I see what you're saying about our defenders, but if Gibbs hadn't gotten hurt and Onyewu had improved more over the last 2 years, those guys plus Steve C. plus Howard is the backbone of a formidable defense.

The other thing I would point out is that you're thinking an awful lot about matchups and fitting players into roles. I think the bigger challenge is for Bradley to identify his 4-5 field players who are or potentially are difference makers, and figure out how to get the most out of them. That's why I've been talking up the 4-1-3-1-1 kind of approach. I think that gets the most out of Dempsey, Donovan, and Beasley, while hopefully limiting the liability in our central defense. And if Bradley decides to turn Beasley loose and get him going forward every chance he gets, that suggests that Bornstein and his iffy defense isn't the answer at LB. Instead, Bradley should find another guy who is more defensively solid. Because whomever he puts at LB, that guy won't be a match turning player. So pick the player based on how he fits in with the guys who ARE possible match turning players.

 

"El Doble Pivote", Señor?

It'd be nice to have one who'd make long connections.

Nor will he run a 3 defender line-up despite having some major performance problems from those that he had tried (I thought Demerit and Califf were OK at Copa ... but not exactly of the Aldair quality) and relative depth at midfield.

I don't recall him in a Diamond. The best he'll do is to push his deep mids a bit more forward, so it looks flatter than the "bucket". Adu may change his mind at some point.

This reminds me of BLTLeo's and Parmagiano's translation of some pre-WC Czech articles where Karel Brückner had said that the US defense was suspect.

And most posters here - myself included - thought that Brückner was playing mind games ... but damn if he wasn't right. One just doesn't get the real perspective on things while playing minnows.

3 formations?

How about 2?

They are, more or less.

Except any decent Euro or South American coach knows every weak spot in it and the US has more than its share of those.

So, it's like playing the "E2 => E4" opening in chess. It's good to know the first few moves but you better learn the Taimanov Variation also.

And, yes, I do agree with SD ... but where does Bob go from there?

 

1.You don't know neither do I, how much it distracted him on the FK

2. The "wimp" is Horace Grant playing on CBA team. Jordans were playing on the opposite team. Besides playing Donovan far away from Beasley negatively impacts both of them.
And I don't even want to start Dempsey forward/midfielder discussion. Wolfe is playing right wing in Germany, and that's a perfect position for him, as everybody knows, he never scores anyway. The only point of playing Donovan on the wing would be to give him more space. But that was a Brazil in the friendly! Was Bradley afraid that they would put two guys on Donovan to take him out of the game? If Bradley really thought so, he is a total fool.


3.That's a very subjective opinion. For me, at best he wasn't good at all.

4. Great!

 

Posting late at night is a lot of fun. One can debate himself as much as he wants. And morning folks will skip all these up anyway, so not much harm gonna be done to the super valuable reputation. So talking to myself, at what point our coaches will figure out that the roster is pretty deep, especially at midfield and they don't need to divide people on starters and bench players but select a strategy and starters based on the opponent.

Example. It was absolutely obvious that our best chances would come from running through the middle on counterattacks. We have exactly three American players who can make pass on a run: Donovan is great at it, Clejstan is good at it, and Adu can do it sometimes. OK, Adu is young and busy doing growing up in Portugal thingy; so do we have Donovan or at least Clejstan leading outbreaks? No we have Feilhaber, who is a very good stationary passer, but not on a run, and Mike Bradley, who is a tough, smart kid that can't pass.
Bradley Sr. just doesn't understand stuff like that and any experienced coach grown in soccer culture does. It's like learning to speak a foreign language at age 35. At some point you starting to think that you are doing everything correct, but every native 16th years old knows that you are a foreigner.
The "foreign language" story is from my life; and that's exactly why I shouldn't write for NY Times and Bob Bradley shouldn't coach NT.

 

Never said he was. I was commenting on what I think we should be doing, not what we are doing. And, I think in this opinion I am in a distinct minority as mostly around here I seem to see praise for the US's high pressure tactics and more calls for us to be more aggressive and more attack minded, which against teams of high quality is just asking to be torn apart.

 

Nutmeg, I pretty much agree with all your major points. But, I tend to think that a lot of the coaching decisions are based on the all too obvious fact that the team presently has no reliable, true forward.

I expect Altidore to fill that bill (and to make all of us cringe every time he gets nailed). When that happens, lineup readjustments are likely to occur. Donovan may move back into the middle as a withdrawn forward; Dempsey back to the right. Regardless, until Altidore is up and running with the first team, it's going to be tough. Right now, IMHO, the coaches are struggling with a need for defensive balance and attacking power built out of an incomplete set of players.

I don't like Donovan out on the right, but I can understand why he plays there--it's fallout from the need to have Dempsey up front. The coaches have it pretty much right, in my view, considering the players available. "Players available" is the big unknown because it includes those hurt, those who (in some folks' eyes) are "better players" but not in the pool, those who are up-and-coming and those who are potentially over-the-hill. It's what makes this discussion never-ending.

I'm not concerned that Altidore, Adu or others have not been in camps/games. They almost certainly will in the near future. At that time, the new team shape will begin to emerge. Personally, I can accept the problems created by the absence of a reliable true forward because there is nothing to be done about it in the short term. I have a lot more difficulty with the inconsistencies in the play of certain centerbacks and a left back.

 

Hi Tonerl,

I didn't take it as patronizing, anyone who has read my posts overs the past few years should now I really try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. It's a good questions really, how do we improve? If we know what BB is going to trot out, our opponents do as well. How do we impose our system?

My feelings are that I think BB needs to be more unpredictable. I think he saw the last WC cycle and decided that a 1 forward formation was not the way to go. So he developed a scheme where he could use 2 forwards and try to correct a mistake he saw.

While valid, I think it is a bit naive. The 4-4-2, in all its incarnations, is still tactically a bit behind the times. Look at Liverpool, or Chelsea, or Valencia, or Real Madrid, or Juventus. There are 5 basic 'base-line' formations in futbol today

4-3-3
4-4-2
4-2-3-1 (4-4-1-1)
3-5-2
4-5-1

All modern teams play some derivative of these basic formations.

The Spanish play a lot of double pivots (4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1)
The Dutch of course the 4-3-3
The English the 4-4-2
The South Americans play a lot of 3-5-2
European smaller nations play a lot of 4-5-1

This a grand generalization....I know...But it would take me several pages to go into all the countries at a club and country level.

You also have the Italians, who play a very unique 4-3-1-2 (Argentine club teams also play this alot). But that is played more like a two forward double pivot, I think it's a merge of the Spanish 4-2-3-1 and the English 4-4-2. You get two derivative formations, the 4-3-2-1 and the 4-3-1-2. I could go on another two or three pages with this.

The most interesting thing about modern tactical futbol is the emergence of the big teams playing historically 'bunker and counter' formations.

Liverpool playing a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1 counter
Man-U playing a 4-4-1-1
Chelsea playing that hybrid 4-3-3/4-5-1
Real Madrid playing the Double Pivot (got Capello fired....now he comes to talk to us....interesting!!)

They are so tactically astute, and the players so good, that they can pull it off. Think of the US vs. Czech's. Amazingly, they bunkered and countered us. They sat back in that 4-1-4-1 and hit us on the break and made us chase the game. That was SFS's point. The Czechs were a superior team by any pre-game analysis, why did they trot out a tactic and formation that gives us too much respect? Simple answer, they knew our defense was suspect to the break, they knew that Arena was not a very tactically astute coach, Bruckner was a genius, I could go on, but the basic idea was that they could.

In tournaments where you are playing a lot of high pressure games in a short time span, the more defensive minded teams will do better. Sometimes.


So where does this leave us? I think going forward until the US players become more tactically astute, and US coaches start to really learn the in-game tactical nuiances, we will continue to improve but fall short in the big games. I will give credit to BB, maybe he realized that the product he was getting out of the youth system and the clubs in the US was not turning out tactically aware players and a more advanced formation was not feasible. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He simplified things. I hold out hope that after a year or so and more players playing in Europe, better water at training camps...that we will try some more advances stuff.

What game for me would be the litmus test..

US v Guatemala.

We know they would bunker, lets put out a 4-4-1-1 and hit them on the break, make them chase the game...make there whole time wasting tactic backfire. Then I would know that we are ready to move up to the next level.


Sorry for the long post

Only my misguided opinions

PooBah

 

Like a typical Daddy coach, this guy Bob is (perhaps subconsciously) building the USMNT around his son. Putting players around him that his daddy thinks may help cover Jr.'s weaknesses.

If we were Brazil, we could probably handle giving away a penalty every other game that the coaches son commits, but we ain't Brazil yet. We're not going to be able to handle covering for this kid.

And I'm not saying in 2-3-4 years Jr. won't be good enough to start regularly for the USMNT, BUT! He's not there yet.

Under Arena's tutalege (sp?) did Bob only learn that a NT coach should have 2-3 players that 99% of the knowledgeable soccer-watching public knows should absolutely not be on the roster?
Then: Agoos, Armas

Now: Jr., Wolff, Bornstein


Sunil: Sooner is better than later.

 

I think....and this is just my opinion....If I was being nice I would say that BB is waiting for more players to play overseas and for Jozy to be ready for him to pull out the more advanced stuff....If I was being naughty, I would say he doesn't know how.

 

While a lack of productive forwards is an issue, my point here was actually that BradWak has made a tactical decision that they are going to build a team without a central play maker, and come hell or high water, they have stuck to that decision.

The criticism of BradWak - that I think is completely fair - is that they have proven to be tactically inflexible, especially in their makeup of the midfield. Irregardless of opponent or in-game situation, they are playing two Central Midfielders primarily responsible for (and skilled in) defensive support.

My opinion on it is pretty simple -

1. Allow for more flexibility in the team makeup, specifically by:

2. Introducing Freddy as a Play Maker in front of the two central midfielders.

3. Dropping the two forwards scheme - we don't have one good forward, let alone 2 or 3

4. Stop playing two physically gifted, yet at times mistake-prone, central defenders together. Instead play a guy like Parkhurst or Conrad who may not have all the tools, but who have the brains to cover for the mistakes their partner is going to make a couple times over the course of a game. Maybe then having two DMids wouldn't be such a necessity.