Aside from the Scotland game, the Slovenia game with the 4-4-2 diamond was probably our best offensive performance to date. Obviously defensively we had a few issues, but we should also understand that in that game we had Kyle Beckerman guarding our front line, which is probably a drastic downgrade from Maurice Edu, at least defensively. We also might benefit from having two strikers on the field. Altidore and Gomez both had good club seasons. So who do we put in and where? Similar to the Slovenia game where Johnson and Bradley were the #8's, Donovan and Bradley both defend centrally but can move wide when the USA has the ball. Dempsey acts as a ten but has freedom to move deep like he did against Canada, especially with Donovan and Bradley moving beyond him. Altidore and Gomez will be doing a job similar to what the forwards did last cycle. They will place themselves in the channel between centerback and fullback and move wide or central. This will keep pretty much the whole backline occupied, or exploit spaces opened up when the fullbacks advance. There will be people with reservations about Donovan playing central midfield. However, as I've said before, Donovan has about as much defensive ability/bite as Iniesta and Xavi. The reason Barcelona are able to function with those two in the central midfield with only Busquets behind them is because they press so intensely. If they sat back and let the opponent come to them, their defensive deficiencies would be exposed, but they don't give their opponent the time and space on the ball to do that. In essence, Barcelona use their possession and pressing tactic as much because they're lacking in defensive ability as they are overflowing with offensive craft. At least Donovan and Bradley are high stamina and energy, which makes them perfect to pursue the opponent high up the pitch.
In general I like it. It has the personnel in midfield to morph into a lot of different alignments. As you call out, a lot would depend on Donovan's defensive intensity. My concern is with the forwards. For that skinny diamond to work, some of the width needs to come from the forwards moving through the penalty area and wide to retrieve balls sent into the corner, and to cause movement among the opposition backs to free up space for the midfielders to attack into. I haven't really seen Altidore do that, but maybe that's something he's developed at AZ. The times I've seen Gomez play for the US, he's also tended to stay central. Neither of them seem to have a good medium cross, even by the standards of a forward. With those two and Dempsey, they may get in each others way more than create space and opportunities. Having said that, I can't really think of a forward in the pool who would be a better option. Findley can play that game, as can Cooper, but they have other issues.
The problem with this is that Jones never stays home and almost always pushes forward. I also have a feeling that Bradley and Donovan would pinch in more often than not and leave our flanks exposed.
Like I said, the USA's forwards, including Altidore, did this exact same thing last cycle. They placed themselves in the space between the opponent's center back and fullbacks and would move between the two, which would occupy the whole backline and give our midfield freedom to run at them. Moreover, Altidore has played left wing/midfield at least a few times and frequently drifts to that flank, while Gomez has played right midfield/wing for his club last season and scored plenty of goals from there. Cooper is interesting option though. He has said that his favorite position is actually left wing, if I'm not mistaken. I think people severely overstate a player's tendencies vs a coaches orders. Michael Bradley has made at least half a career from being a marauding, box-to-box midfielder, but he's been able to sit back when asked to. Jones himself has played defensive midfield for his club this past season a lot, so I don't think he'd have an issue. Donovan and Bradley are central midfielders in this formation anyways. When the USA is defending, they move into the middle. So yes, that would leave the flanks exposed. However, that's partly why I like having Altidore and Gomez in that space between the centerback and fullback. The fullback's feel less willing to push forward because it could leave a 2v2 situation at the back, and anything could happen.
I much prefer Dempsey to be in the hole than up top, even if he is moving over to the left. I really think we would lose alot offensively if we move Torres to that position. He's not really a guy that tries to influence the attack directly. Maybe as the deep-lying play maker. And if we had Jones in that defensive midfield role we woudln't worry about TBD. I dunno. It's an interesting shape, but the one I suggested suits the players better I think, and gets our better players on the field.
As time goes on I like Dempsey in the hole less-and-less. He simply does not combine well with anyone else, unless it's a chance of his own. If you play Torres in that position, then you're looking for him to bring other players into the attack. If you play Jones in that role, you're looking for pressure and dynamism on the counter. Wherever you play Donovan, it must be where he is going to get into the attacking third as much as possible. That's where his influence needs to be felt.
I think talking about "formations" in relation to attack is naive. Formations merely describe how you defend and not much else. I'll quote David Lee, a guru currently working for NYRB
I don't think this is a bad idea at all, although I don't think Jones is the right player for the CDM in this system. The two players in our pool that are most capable of filling it are Edu and Kitchen (who has played the role brilliantly for DCU this season). Kitchen might not be ready yet though
I like that... Years ago when John Spencer was still playing for the Rapids he was interviewed by a Glasgow paper. It was full of the usual stuff about quality, the growth of the game in the US, etc.... and he added in a tidbit regarding formations declaring that we were "up are own arse about that stuff."
This is exactly right. The game is very dynamic. Players are constantly moving, overlapping, switching sides, etc. The formation describes how we lineup at the start of each half, and how we are generally spaced defensively. It doesn't say too much about how we attack. Players cover so much ground today. To think they stay in some kind of rigid formation is ridiculous. When I hear people use phrases like "empty bucket" I just cringe. One extreme is to listen to someone like John Spencer, as mentioned above, talk about our use (and overuse) of formations. The tactical wasteland that is Scottish football isn't something you want to listen to or emulate. Formations do matter some, but they aren't the be all and end all. The Italians go to the other extreme in focusing on tactics. It can be said that their result against Spain was a tactical masterclass. However, in USA football, a middle ground is probably preferable. What is most important is to have positional balance, to keep a proper shape on defense, and to watch spacing between players. The Barcelona system demands that options are constantly available to the player with the ball and this is accomplished through the use of triangles. It's a marvelous system, but the chosen defensive formation is not particularly relevant to how they play.
It is funny how Donovan and Dempsey both in some ways seem to have a slight skill/mentality disconnect. Donovan's quickness, finishing and one touch ability seem to point to his being best as up top finishing off attacks. Yet, he's unselfish to a fault, not really a forward's mentality and prefers to spread the ball around and play a passing game. Clin't not really got that pace and he's more a guy who is able to hold the ball in traffic and keep possession in tight spaces, but he's really never been one to set up his teammates. So, you look at their skill sets and see Donovan up top and Dempsey in the hole as natural. But, their mentalities seems to indicate the opposite.
I would be OK with a skinny diamond as long as one of the 2 "wide" mids has the role of being more holding than attacking which then starts to look like an asymmetric version of the 4-2-2-2 that the US played quite a bit with BB. Covering the back four with just one DM is tough duty, especially given the CB's for the US. I think back to the Mourhinho days at Chelsea where they played a skinny diamond quite a bit with Essien at DM and Ballack often at the RM but playing more of a holding role. Of course, back then Chelsea's key defensive players were in their prime and it worked quite well for them.
I think the defensive formation is relevant to how they play. Barcelona likes to press keeping a high defensive line and then win and keep the ball in the oppositions half of the field. This is difficult to do if you don't have 3 forwards pressing. If you play 3 forwards pressing high, that pretty much means 3 CM's in a triangle and FB's providing width, in other words, a 4-3-3 - sometimes a 3-4-3. What they do so well with the formation and defensively is compress the field when the opposition has the ball so that when they do intercept/retrieve, they have options/triangles readily available. I think formation does say a lot about how you want to defend as a team and from there, player selection as far as who is best to carry out the tactics.
Cameron is a likely candidate for DM. He'll make less mistakes there. That leaves JK with the problem of pairing someone with Boca. That moves Edu to RCB with Jones, Bradley and Torres the CMs in the 4-5-1. That's only if he passes on Goodson, Gooch (likely) and Parkhurst there.
Sure, in a 433, the forward wings have the defensive assignment of helping out their FB's so on defence they end up on the extreme left/right of the midfield making it a 5 man midfield and presto a 433 is a 451. I think the difference is that the 433 emphasizes offensive wide "forwards" whereas the 451 emphasizes that those going forward out of the 5 mids are all "mids." For example, against Barcelona, you could say that Chelsea played a 451 or a 433 in their recent CL match up but really it was a 451 because the wing player on the left was Ramirez who is a mid and on the right it was Mata who can play both but against Barcelona he stayed back to defend mostly. In either case they had 3 central mids in Meireles/Mikel/Lampard. I guess for a manager, it is easier to walk into a locker room with the starting roster and say 451 as an explanation for why some forward who scores goals sits and a defensive player plays in his place for any particular match. For the USMNT, if Donovan and Beasley sit and Jones/Torres play in their place it is probably a 451 not a 433. A 451 needs mids who can score. Bradley/Jones/Edu/Torres/+1 would leave us wondering who will do the scoring. The Chelsea mifield of Ramirez/Meireles/Mikel/Lampard/Mata has 4 who can score.
Why can't Barcelona do what they do playing with a 4-4-2? They can, of course, and do. What's attractive about their system is that they can go from a 4-3-3 to a 4-4-2 or a 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 or 4-2-4. It doesn't matter the formation. The point is that the player with the ball always has options. Of course the defensive option(s) they choose has ramifications in how they defend, attack. I'm just speaking more generally that Tiki Taka doesn't require any particular formation as long as the triangular positioning and spacing are respected.
Yes, I've always felt that Barcelona games are like a science fiction movie where football players keep getting attacked by this killer triangle that suddenly appears when they get the ball at their feet. They use it on offence also. It takes precedence over any "formation" as far as I can tell altho certain players tend to position themselves in certain places, of course. They are like the general who is all tactics and no strategy.
And whatever critics the system might have, it bloody works! And works often. It is a victory of skill, finesse, and energy over strength and power. It will be interesting to see if this system is still winning in 2018, as Xavi will be retired, and Iniesta will be very long in the tooth. A new, fresh crop of players using this system will test its universal efficacy.
I think it depends on who you're talking about. For instance, the Republic of Ireland sticks closer to their original positions than probably any other team at the Euro's, as opposed to teams like Germany and Spain that were probably the most fluid. I get that the game can be fluid, but a lot of people really try to oversimplify the game and tactics. Where a player starts and moves when their team wins the ball back can have a HUGE effect on the game. It's not just smarty pantses getting anal about x's and o's on a chalkboard. I think that Dempsey's got good ability to hold the ball when the play slows down. Donovan is excellent at breaking down defenses at pace and making quick decisions before the opponent has settled. The issue I have with Torres is that he barely ever gets involved in the attack. He naturally defers to other players. I liked him in the role against Scotland where he drifted all the way across the pitch from the left, making overloads all of over the field and playing intelligent, short, quick passes that allowed Bradley, Jones, and Donovan to burst forward while he and Edu sat back.
Not to sound like a broken record but the lesson I've gleamed from JK's tenure this far is to play 3 CMs as 3 CMs. Not 2 as CMs and one as a winger. Generally when I try to depict a formation I try to balance the defensive alignment and natural offensive tendencies. Donovan and Dempsey are our best players, they are also near the ends of their careers. We should put them in a formation that tries to limit their defensive duties and maximizes their offensive freedom. Thus the 4-3-2-1.
I would say that right about now the U.S. isn't really playing a 4-3-2-1 necessarily. I would say it's slightly more lopsided than that. Donovan plays wide left, but Jones peels to the right from the central midfield. Dempsey is playing what I would call a false nine role, whileGomez is highest up but in kind of a right forward role. It's really more of a 4-3-3 that moves to something of a 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 shape. For a visual approach... I don't actually mind the shape or idea, I just think the wrong players are in the wrong roles. I would actually put Donovan in Jones' role. Jones does get out to that right flank enough, but I wouldn't call him someone we can depend to whip in great crosses even semi-consistently. Donovan, on the other hand, offers that and intelligence and composure on the ball that will be welcome to the U.S. central midfield. I would also play Altidore at the left forward role. I felt like we have too much playing in front of the opposition. We need more players making penetrative runs and Altidore is somebody who can offer that. He's also keen and comfortable cutting in from high on the left side.
I'd be more in favor of what you post above than what we've seen. Against Guatemala it was a 4-4-1-1 with Jones at right mid. Against Scotland it was a 4-3-2-1/4-1-4-1. What you have above is a 3 CM alignment, which is what needs to be used if we play... wait for it... 3 CMs.
At higher levels Donovan has typically looked more comfortable up top or out wide, so the 4321 probably wouldn't optimize his talents. The diamond with Donovan at forward and Dempsey at trequartista should be fine as it worked separately with each player in the Slovenia and Scotland matches. What's really needed to make it work especially against a more conservative opponent is a real attacking threat at one of the midfield positions.