Another problem with American Soccer

Your avatar is creepy.

 

Two things:

1) Most Americans grow up playing either 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 too. One-striker formations aren't really seen at any age younger than U-16 or so. And even in MLS, some teams that normally use only one striker in league matches still play 4-4-2 in the reserve league.

2) Formations are just descriptive. The exact same formation and tactical plan can be called 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, depending on whether you call the wingers forwards or midfielders. 3-forward and 1-forward formations tend to be functionally equivalent. For that matter, even the old-school 2-3-5 tended to play much like a modern 4-1-4-1.

 

This guy Joachim Low .... he has his club predominantly play with 1 ST up top. I hear he's got an OK squad.


However, you titled this as another "problem with American soccer" .... but then gave examples of EPL teams not doing what you feel is right.

Full of fail, as usual.

 

Most people don't consider a 4-3-3 to have 3 strikers.

 

Of course it is, which is why this thread is as useless as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

 

Many issues with this thread. The reality is the world of football is shifting from more players dedicated to one position and one area of the field to a freeflowing system. Call it Total football or whatever you want but the idea of modern systems is to be less static more interchanging. So with that it makes sense to have fewer "dedicated" strikers who can be marked out of a match and more players who join into the attack from deep or out wide when needed. Hence the false #9 where you completely eliminate the dedicated striker. Doesn't necessarily mean a less offensive lineup (quite the opposite sometimes) just spreads out the duties to get into the attack among more players Pretty simple stuff really.

Not sure what this has to do with "a problem with American Soccer".

 

Actually, in this case, I think it matters.

If you generically call the front 3 in the 4-3-3 attackers, then sure, a lot of teams use 3 attackers. But that assumes that the front 3 are all interchangeable. I don't see a lot of teams where the front 3 are perfectly interchangeable. Spain has tried it from time to time, but if they include Villa or Torres or Negredo, there is clearly just 1 striker. In the 4-2-3-1, you have 4 attackers. Would you really argue that the US using Jozy, Fabian, Donovan, and Dempsey is one attacker?

So I don't think it is purely semantics anymore than claiming that the 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 (and for that matter 4-2-3-1) are fundamentally different in terms of how many strikers are playing.

 

Yeah that's what I was getting at too. A striker is a central player in my mind, and that's how the term is used conventionally.

 

Yeah, I guess this kind of thing gets confusing when you bring in other soccer cultures especially.

I think in English-speaking countries, we would typically call the outside two of a 4-3-3 wingers. Not strikers. Thinking about your point about the Dutch, I wonder if that has to do with the total football movement. Certainly, when Messi was playing under Pep in the last few years, you could call all of Barcas forwards interchangeable too.

My comment originally was intended for the OP. His insinuation is that there is much less attack from American (which = EPL? ) due to formation. People may call a formation 1 striker, but that doesn't mean only 1 guy is attacking.

 

I can't speak for youth clubs today, but the vast majority of college teams seem to play either 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 right now. The 4-2-3-1 formation was in vogue among college coaches for a while, but that was right about the same time that Spain, Brazil, Germany, and the Netherlands were all using very attack-minded 4-2-3-1 formations.

Oh, and 4-2-3-1 isn't really that new either. The 4-2-4 that was so popular in the 70s tended to play like a modern 4-2-3-1. It's just that we call the central playmaker an "attacking midfielder" and the outside forwards "wingers" today.

 

Please tell me which Premier League teams play with 1 forward and which play with 2.

Also - Please compare and contrast with let's say - MLS, Mexican League and La Liga.

There are also different ways of playing with 1 striker - It is not necessarily a defensive system.

 

So let me follow your logic,
The Premier League is the most popular league in America (up for lots of debate as many others have pointed out the Mexican League routinely gets some pretty large numbers in this country),

The premier league mostly plays with one striker (umm at the moment this may be true or may not be true it's very weekend to weekend I know Liverpool has played with 1 and 2 depending on the opponent and how "hungry" one of our forwards is)

So the logic is most Americans follow the Premier League because they like one striker, WHAT???? Do you have any clue why Americans follow the Premier League? I have a number of theories myself, Language, Stars, Cultural connection to England, speed of play, supporter culture, and once again LANGUAGE. No where on that list is how many strikers are played. I know for myself it has nothing to do with it since when I first started following it was 4-4-2 pretty much up and down the league, which is the traditional English formation.

 

@AguiluchoMerengue

320M Americans and you and your bro were able to make this conclusion by only talking to a few people you know. Great. There are plenty of teams that play with more than one forward in America.

No one cares if you are 'latino' (why is this in quotes?) and there are plenty of Latin Americans playing in clubs teams that use one striker. 4-5-1 easily converts into a 4-3-3 depending on how the players move. We have guys like Ronaldo who are in theory wingers that end up scoring 40 goals a season. These definitions mean very little anymore. It doesn't matter as much how you start a formation it matters how the players use the formation and their movement.

So you and your bro asked your American buddy next door AND played Fifa?????

Say no to racism bro.

You think people of different ethnicities have a NATURE to play one way? Certain playing styles are popular in different parts of the world but this isn't in anyone NATURE. This isn't some kind of thing that is in people DNA. Style of play has always changed. Formations have ALWAYS changed. My god the first formations in football were 1-2-7!

It isn't a 'revolution' to play 4-3-3. My god its incredibly popular. Talk to any youth coach in this country and the first thing he'll start saying is about 4-3-3 and Barca or the Dutch. Everyone wants to be them. Barca now comes around with their youth coaches and sells these incredibly expensive coaches camps. These guys spend thousands of dollars just so they can go back to their suburbs and tell the moms and dad that they learned 4-3-3 'total futbol' from Barca coaches.

Here is something to think about, you don't understand what a problem is. A problem isn't when people do things that you do not do. You have to indicate why what they are doing is wrong. Some of the best teams in the world (both nationally and club level) has used 1 striker. YOU don't like it or didn't grow up playing it and thats fine. But if you think that teams can't be successful using this formation than you need to prove why a team like Bayern who often uses 1 striker can not be successful using this formation. You have to explain why Spain can't be successful. Your preference isn't a problem for other people. Its a problem for you.

Also I want to point out that the majority of teams can't and shouldn't be restricted to one formation philosophy. One teams at the very bottom and very top can be this lucky.

If you coach a bunch of kids who know nothing about the game, then you can set up any formation and system you want and just teach it to the kids. And if you manage a great national team with a huge talent pool or a club with a ton of money so you can buy whoever you want, then you can be restricted to playing one way. But for everyone else, you need to play with the cards you are dealt. If you are managing the USNT or some pro club somewhere, you need to look at the talent you have available and try to bring in the most talented players and try to use them in the most effective way possible. Even if you think 4-3-3 is a great way to play soccer, if you don't have the talent you can't do it. If you have a guy like Jozy Altidore that can be effective playing one style, you would be a fool to either force him to play a way he will be ineffective with or leave a player on your bench that could be a difference maker.
This conversation about the 'best' formations is not relevant for the majority of coaches in the world after the youth level.

 

What ?

Just, no.

Do you actually have any evidence that most/all EPL clubs play with "1 striker" ? (I'm willing to bet you don't).

 

EPL is not the most popular soccer league in America, Liga MX is.

 

My god, your logic leaps are positively epic.

Note: that is not a compliment.

 

Can we just designate this as his thread to post his inane thoughts? At least he won't have to keep creating new threads.