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

poobah:

Thank you for your response.

Now, I also am partial to the double pivot, but I see essentially two problems (which are basically the same) with the US employing such tactics: First, the same problem we had when John O'Brien was the obvious pivot man for us. That is, that there's only one of him. Then it was compounded by his complete lack of reliability. Now, of course, that player is Benny Feilhaber, which brings me to the second problem, or problem 1b. That is, that our current obvious choice to play the role is nowhere near ready to do so.

Now, I'm a believer in Benny. I've liked him since I first became aware of him, and I think he can be that guy. But to say for sure that he will develop to that degree I think is a stretch, and if he doesn't, we're screwed by the fact that, again, he's it. There isn't another Benny Feilhaber in the pool.

So, what do we do about it? For starters, I think the 4-4-2 Y has to become an option. As it is, we're asking too many players to fill roles for which they aren't ideally suited. I see the Y as alleviating some of this, as it would see less distribution load placed on Bradley/Mastroeni/Clark and less ballwinning load on Benny.

I would ideally see this as a kind of funneling defensive formation which requires more shape retention by the contral midfield and the shepherding of play as opposed to the sort of "windshield wiping" destructive play of the twin d-mids that Bob has used to this point. In my eyes this strategy has lead to a lot of overextension and bad positioning by not only the d-mids, but by the fullbacks as well and the resulting scrambles have ultimately forced the central defenders into very bad positions from which it has been nearly impossible to recover.

Offensively, it would place a lot of load on Benny's shoulders, which is unfortunate, but at least it does so in a way which asks him to do the things which he does best, e.g. distribute wide during counters and play accurate long passes over the top to a front-running type. I think with the speed of Donovan and Beasley he may be able to put them in positive situations at a pretty decent rate, and here's the kicker, provided the team knows what the hell they are trying to do. I think the reason Benny is taking so much heat over this particular match is that he wasn't able, except in a very few instances, to provide the kind of passing that fans are beginning to expect from him. Essentially my thinking is that he isn't being placed in a position from which he can be successful, and this is the result. (For the record, I thought he played pretty well, much better than versus Sweden, but I note that he didn't contribute much on offense.)

As with your 4-4-1-1 I think you can counterattack effectively from this formation, but you probably aren't going to be able to play the ball around the middle as much and consequently aren't going to be able to posess a team to death. I don't really see this as an issue, however, since we haven't been able to generate enough quality chances nor finish the chances we have made in the "half court" offense, to use sfs's basketball analogy. I also think it would take a little bit of work for the stable of d-mids to become proficient at the more positional defense this scheme would require, but I think the "big three" are all pretty smart players and should be able to master it by the time the hex rolls around, at the very latest.

Anyone care to agree or demur? If so, let's talk about why!

 

Which is kinda strange considering their teams usually had one in MLS.But then again, he was never American.

Nowak, inflexible? Surely you jest.......

 

That's a fair point. I think what I was getting at is, Dos Santos is not an obvious equivalent for Adu; he was getting preseason playing time with Barça (is he still?), whereas after the initial CL runout, Adu has been riding the pine at Benfica. There's potential there, but I'm not sure the players are at the same point as far as realizing it.

 

I see the formation problem in the fact that Bob is pretty comfortable with the "EB" but simultaneously risk-averse to push it even close to its limits (I mean, you can have fullbacks rarely crossing into own half as Cafu did with Milan).

More or just as importantly, Bob doesn't seem to find a proper mix where a player's talent fits his slot on the field. In other words, the players assignments are slightly off what they do best and off what a given system requires for them to do in a match.

The third problem is that the formation and the players selected for it are not flexible for the times when you have to chase the game or adjust to the formational changes made by your opponent.

The fourth problem is that he rarely plays to the talent on hand in general. The US may not have the best individual talent but it has some advantages such as the speed of its offensive players in Beasley, Donovan, Johnson, Wolff, Davies and more rarely used Mapp and Hill. Bob also seems to want a target-type forward regardless of whether he plays to him/off him.

Now, what would sidefootsitter do?

First, I would make this team play much faster than it has been. It needs to run a faster transition game - no more backpassing. If you commit a turnover, so be it.

Second, I would quit chasing and use low pressure tactics. Save your energy for the counters.

Formation-wise, I'd go 4-5-1 against the top squads; I'd try the "Empty Bucket" against similar level teams with twin fast forwards on top; I'd try a Jumbo (2 target forwards) 4-4-2 Diamond against the minnows.

Player-wise I'd have Donovan in the middle as a sole fast striker, as a twin-fast striker and as a central attacking midfielder in a Diamond.

Since Beasley can only play on the left, I'd try Mapp, White, Alvarez and Wolff on the right.

I'd rotate Bradley, Clark and Spector as defensive mids.

And I'd push Pearce and Cherundolo forward on pretty much every attack.

 

I'm with you in thinking the Y is the way to go with the personnel we currently have. I do disagree somewhat with the emphasis on Feilhaber. He is a strong candidate for being the more offensive of the two deep lying mids. However, there is someone else who I believe might be a better candidate: Landon Donovan. I would not have said this a year ago or even six months ago. But I think Lanny Boy's defensive game has improved tremendously in this period. He is not as slick a passer as Benny, but his speed is a big plus over Benny.

The other point I would make is that we do need some flexibility (at least two basic formations) in how the team is deployed. I would keep the defensive system the same (four defenders plus the two deeplying mids). Where I would change up would be in the four attacking players. Option 1 would be a conventional Y, with two attacking mids and two forwards. Option 2 could be something along the lines of what the U20s played, but with the two wide players being more dedicated to the attack. Perhaps more like France in the final stages of the last WC. That option will become more viable (but is not entirely dependent upon) Adu and Altidore being integrated into the squad.

 

response inline

 

I can see the bracelets now. "WWSFSD?"

Thanks for the response. I think you bring up one exceedingly good point that I'd like to amplify: that we aren't taking advantage of the edges that we do have (i.e the speed of Donovan, Beasley, Johnson). This is similar to my assertion that Feilhaber is being misused. As you point out, we don't have the talent of the major powers. In my opinion, that makes it even more crucial that we maximize what advantages we do have, rather than ignoring them and trying to shoehorn ill-fitting players into a rigid system.

 

I'm pretty sure Conrad has only scored one career goal for the national team, and that was when pairing Bocanegra versus Mexico.

 

To me the issues, aside from Wolff's inclusion and perhaps not giving some other Cd's some time, don't have to do with player selection. The big question is can Clint be most effective for the team as a lone or forward striker? It seems to me unlikely but I think Bob and Nowak believe differently. I think Sanchez has tried him there as well so perhaps he shows more ability in the role more than I've seen. He certainly can play with his head, run onto balls and dribble. I just don't see him as a "back to the goal" "bang it out with the CD" type. Maybe he'll add that to his quiver.

If Bob and co. truly believe he can be developed into our frontman, than the Brazil game makes sense to a point. If that's where Clints gonna play, thats where he needs to play. If not, then you are wasting a chance to have Demps play top talent at the position he is most likely to occupy over the next few years.

But if Demps is going to play there, is Wolff really your first choice to play off him going forward? That really is LD's best spot. (and while I'm not sure an LD/Demps pairing is ideal, it's better than Wolff/Demps)

Also, whatever Benny was supposed to do in the center of the park, he played mostly at a holding/DCM slot and penetrated very little due to the ball coming right down the gullet more than once. The game may not have been an "empty bucket" by design, but that is mostly how it was played.

It seems to me we have at least done a decent job of solving one of two '06 problems - there are a number of LB candidates who can do a decent enough job and it's just a matter of them fighting it out on the field.

We still have not solved the other problem - RM and by extension how best to use LD. I don't think Wolff withdrawn/A-mid will be the answer for anything more than a few qualies.

 

Right.

I was watching Mike McCarthy's press conference before the Packers-Eagles game (the GBP site has these press events online) and Mike was asked about what he was going to do against the Eagles much esteemed DefCor Jim Johnson.

Mike's reply was, "We'll do what we always do. We have a certain type of offense and we're not going to depart from it."

I took this to mean that the GBP team was built a certain way by design. The team/GM has acquired certain players because they fit the concept that Mike3 was going to use. Once you acquired them, that's the ball you play.

Now, look at the various soccer powers. England and Germany play a "power ball". Italy, Spain and the Yugoslavian off-shoots play the ball on the ground with finesse. Holland relies on skill and speed. Aregentina on ball control and short passing. West African nations use their athleticism.

That's what those teams do. That's what those teams have always done. That play is their culture.

The US, to the contrary, doesn't have culture. It's too young and still developing its soccer sense.

And the problem lies in that the US coaching staff is far more likely to copy the "working models" from other nations and clubs without a true understanding of whether the borrowed styles and formations really fit the US talent.

The only thing that the US coaching teams have adopted over the years is to use the US athlete's speed and stamina to play a "high pressure" defense. But that works much better in friendlies with many allowed subs (prior to a couple of years ago, the friendly subs were unlimited) than in major tournaments where many high level matches are held within a very short time frame and this tactics wears out players after a 3rd or 4th match. Plus, it gives them too many cards.

So, in my post, I was trying to first establish the culture or a concept that the US would have to build on. Only once you establish it, you try to design a formation or formations that fit into it.

Galarcep has a piece on this today and Clint indicates his desire to play in a forward position.

He's got an OK size and speed to play a "mobile target" role, sort of a scoring version of Emile Heskey but without the megasized butt.

And he obviously fits into the role that Bob wants from him.

 

If Bob is determined to make him that guy and Clint is up for it, it might not be a bad gamble, esp. if Sanchez is playing Clint there sometimes. He is certainly quick enough and is not small. He doesn't have an exceptional air game but is not awful either. If LD and Demps can get a working partnership going it certainly gets more of our proven players on the grass at the same time.

Still doesn't explain the Wolff partnership, but what the heck.

And at the end of the day we still don't seem to develop enough true 2way middies. One of the problems continues to be that we didn't have a seasoned player to slot into the "Reyna role." Bradley and Benny may come along, and if they do it's great they are getting the shot at their age (not that Benny is really young, but is younger), but it is odd that there was no one "off the shelf" to step into Reyna's shoes.

 

Well, Bob seems to want to go with a target striker even if he has to squeeze someone into the role.

My suggestion was that a slow/er target striker was a position that one may have to eliminate entirely in many matches.

Here's an NBA analogy - in the late 1980's, Don Nelson figured out that he'd never be able to beat the top teams (Boston, Philly, LA) by playing it like they did. If he tried to match up directly with them, he'd have all the success of Joe Frazier trying to go toe-to-toe with George Foreman. So Nelson invented a small ball, which relied on speed and skill. He then repeated the strategy with the Run-TMC Golden State Warriors in the early-90s, then with the Dallas Mavericks in the early 2000's and in the last year back with GSW.

Now, clearly the USMNT will face some teams where one needs to score in the half-court match but, at the same time, there seem to be a lot of other opponents against whom a "fast small ball" would work better.

I think Bob sort of played a "fast small ball" vs. Mexico in the Gold Cup final.

But he certainly not played it a few weeks ago when the US was not matching up well in the size department at Sweden. He used the same "slow it down, keep possession" style that he used at Copa.

And he got whacked as he did at Copa.

And it seems that he'll be getting whacked repeatedly in the future also.

 

I'll admit that I'm having some serious misgivings about the direction the USMNT appears headed.

First, the problem is at forward: we don't have any and--from all available evidence--Bradley hasn't been all that serious about finding one, let alone two. Any problems that may currently exist in midfield will be solved if we can field one good forward: Donovan or Dempsey will be "freed" and better able to interchange roles at AM, right wing, and/or withdrawn forward. If we get that one good forward involved and, thus, are able to better use LD and CD, there is less pressure on Adu to be an immediate high impact player, if indeed Bradley decides to include him.

Second, the problem at forward has existed for years and years. Without intending to criticise McBride as a person or a player, McBride was one of the worst things to ever happen to the USMNT: Arena built an "offense" out of doing whatever it took to hoof the ball into the box, primarily hoping to land it on McBride's head, but at least hoping to create a mad scramble for a garbage goal. Our preferences shifted from fairly well rounded forwards, e.g., Wynalda, to slow, technically-deficient target men who could "hustle" and play solid defense . . . ultimately hiding a fundamental lack of individual and collective offensive credibility. Thus, I'm astonished at the lack of urgency in identifying, introducing, and cultivating credible threats at forward.

Third, depending on the tactics of the given game, Bradley is compensating for our lack of quality up top by playing one of Donovan and Dempsey "out of position." Donovan and Dempsey are not and never will be able to effectively play isolated up top, as lone "targets." Because we don't have at least one "good" forward, one of Donovan or Dempsey are being "under-utilized," are being required to make up for our lack of quality up top by being required to over-extend their "game." Putting it bluntly, Donovan and Demspey are "tweeners" that need to be involved in the game, not isolated out wide or isolated up top. It's fine for them to drift out wide or up top, but our team suffers when they are fixed there.

Finally, I'd love to see Jozy up top, with LD, CD, and Freddy floating around the withdrawn forward, AM, and right wing roles.

 

McBride, for a target guy, is not technically deficient. And he was never really a "lone target forward" type. One of the problems was trying to use him in a 4-5-1. McBride was/is best as an odd-ish "withdrawn target" - a guy that likes to hold up the ball with his feet or flick on with his head and does best with a second striker either running through or playing off him.

Arena tried a few times to force him into a 4-5-1 player, but it was never McHead - or the USMNT's - strongest formation.

the point about LD, Demps and Adu (and a few others) as tweeners is right on. But the point about McBride is wrong. Arena resorted to McBride by himself when our other forwards went (in Arena's mind anyway) cold. And, I think, when Arena started to play scared.

 

I understand what your saying. Nonetheless, I believe that any forward who utterly lacks the ability to go at defenders 1 v 1 is technically deficient and extremely one-dimensional. McBride was so good in the air and "hustled" so much that his deficiencies were--and to an extent, still are--overlooked.

I didn't say that McBride was a lone forward; I agree that he is a "complimentary" player. Moreover, I agree that that was part of the problem when he did play alone.

No matter the formation, our entire offense consisted of delivering the ball to McBride's head and hoping for the best on counters.

Glad you agree.

I've argued about this subject too many times to be excited about doing it yet another time; you know what I think.

 

Yeah, we can graduate from bashing Arena to bashing Bradley now, but I think if you look at Arena's tenure he "devolved" into a "Target McBride" situation. For a good while in the first half of his WC tenure he would use McBride in front of the forward CD (where McBride liked to play) and run Wolff or someone off him. 1 v 1 is certainly not McBride's greatest strength, so if that's your key to "technically deficient" then ok. But he was good with the ball at his feet, could shoot or pass and had enough moves to free up a shot - but was not likely to blister past a lot of fellas.

If memory serves it was really mostly toward the end of the run-up to '06 that Arena seemed to leave McBride isolated - it was like he read a book that the 451 was in fashion and decided we needed one too...

But I digress.

I still don't really understand the Wolff move - except to integrate him into the squad for Q's. But if so, I hope it's not in that exact line-up.

 

Yeah, the footballing world has moved more so to various versions of 4-5-1 over the past couple of years.

On the subject of the pressing style of defense I actually think it's a good idea for one very important reason. THE 2010 WC IS GOING TO BE PLAYED DURING THE SOUTH AFRICAN WINTER. Down there they'll be able press all tourney long without fatigue issues.

On the subject of BB's tactics, imo the tactics are based on the coach's preferences and not so much the personnel. And his attacking preferences favour the short passing game. At Chivas USA and Metros he went for forwards like Eddie Gaven, Razov, Galvan Rey, and various tricky Mexicans.
He would typically have some sort of (relatively) deep lying playmaker like Guevara or I forget the Mexican's name with Chivas USA.

And he's basically constructing that sort of team with the US.

 

it's actually working out reasonably well, but we need a couple of players still that are, unfortunately, extremely hard for any country to find.