The highlighted portion is a total fallacy. You can have BOTH a high octane offense AND a solid defensive shape and stability. You just have to teach the players to react quickly and intelligently on transition -- either way. You don't need Brasilians or Italians to be successful offensively. You need intelligent, quick players with accurate passing and some creativity. We have several of those in Donovan, Adu ... and Kljestan is starting to develop that as well. I fear that Dempsey has gotten too conservative with his play -- I wish he would take a few more risks when he attacks. Add a couple of quick wingers like Rogers and ... well .. someone on the right (not sure a fast and quick winger with good dribbling and crossing skills exists in the pool right now) ... add a physical and technical man up top -- Altidore -- and all of a sudden you have a dynamic attack if they click at the same time. We're really not that far off if we use this combination. Unfortunately, many time we give the ball away too easily -- we need to protect the ball better. IMO Beasley is a major culprit in this. And defensively, we need to do a better job reacting to a turnover. We also need someone to command the defense in the back -- I'm not sure the guy that we need to do that exists right now either. So, the excuse that we don't have the players is not true to me. We have plenty of talented players -- we just don't seem to be using them at the right time and the right way.
The thing about that match was that Bradley used a right-footed central player (Kljestan) on the left and a left-footed central player (Adu) on the right. The box that resulted from the players is one of the many ways to play two deep midfielders, neither of them a pivot/distributor in the Carrick mold, and two center forwards without the service problems that arise from some of our other attempts at the system.
I offered an analysis. You dismissed it, insinuating that I have no idea what I'm looking at. I think we're done here.
Not when others are discussing the topic at hand in a civil manner (such as is the case a couple of posts above this). As long as this is happening, I don't see a reason to kill it. It can be done. But by all means, the personal attacks will have to stop ASAP.
Did I really just read all of these contradictory statements in the same post??? * The US can have both high octane offense and strong defense at the same time. * We have "several" quick, skilled attackers (don't we need more than just several?). * We lack a right wing who can dribble, cross and has speed. * We give the ball away to easily. * Beasley and Dempsey are not good enough. * We lack someone who can command the back; such a player doesn't exist right now. * The lack of talented players isn't true. We have plenty of talent. Wow. Thats quite a mouthful of opposites.
Please read more closely. I said I am not sure what you are looking at. Let's face it, the last game we played of significant competitive importance - the last game we can use as instructive as to how Bradley plays his players in a match where the opponent is even in the same league as the US - was against Guatemala in Guatemala. Even that is a stretch, as frankly Guatemala is not a good team and we played down to their level. Having said that, let's use that match for analysis. You say that the empty bucket is imaginary. Here are two visuals I put together after closely watching that game. These visuals specifically describe the consistent spacing in that game. I have posted these before and am doing so again so that you can offer contradictory analysis. You posit the empty bucket is imaginary and that our forwards are not isolated. My analysis finds exactly the opposite. In terms of spacing, the empty bucket was very real and our forwards were very isolated. Secondly - what does the empty bucket mean for our defense? Because US forwards are isolated and US midfielders often didn't have a chance to move up the field, the general area marked yellow was often wide open and available for Guatemalans to operate under little pressure. The problem is that from there, a disorganized defense become very easy to pick apart, and particularly vulnerable are the areas shown in red. Wide balls played over the top or through balls played from midfield give fullbacks very little chance to react because nobody is cutting down the angles. That's why we saw Guatemala exposing space. I doubt they even game planned for it. It was just open and obvious. If you have analysis to the contrary, I'd love to see it. Perhaps Bradley has made adjustments since Guatemala based on the very real problems the very real empty bucket caused. As I've said all along, we'll see.
Once I fix my other computer, I'll download and rewatch the away game vs. Guatemala. To be honest, I don't remember much, other than it was a hackfest.
Agreed that the Guatemala in Guatemala match was the last one we can look to for how our first team squares up against meaningful competition. It is worth noting that two changes have been made since that match that potentially will have an impact on the issues you raise. First, Dempsey has been moved to right mid and Donovan has been moved to second striker. In reality Donovan has a free role and in subsequent matches was popping up all over the place to receive the ball and help out as needed on defense. I like this change. Second, Kljestan has seemingly won a starting spot, bringing us a different kind of central mid. I'm less sold on this change, but it is something worth trying. I think we have to wait for the Mexico game and maybe a couple more matches to see what these changes mean.
Glad you brought this up as it is a good illustration of ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation of what is going on. ManU does not and never did play an "empty bucket." Very simply, they do not because, by definition "empty" means not full. The whole point of a good attack is to create space and exploit it. One of those routes to exploitation is to move more defensively oriented central midfielders into available spaces, both to receive and to deliver the ball. ManU is absolutely fantastic in its ability to fill empty space, getting its deep midfielders forward into the attack and its wing midfielders back into defensive positions. ManU simply plays a 4-4-2 with some midfielders having greater defensive obligations than others. There is nothing special about it. What is special is the players who occupy the positions. You can tweak the alignment numbers all you want and it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Put better players in the game and everything changes for the better.
Again, Guatemala, IN Guatemala, RAINING, on a bumpy, crappy pitch. You got away WCQ to get a result. You do whatever you can to get that result. You can't seriously argue that watching away games in Guatemala and Cuba are examples of how we'll play in 2010, or disregard completely our ability to cruise through qualification while Mexico got through on GD. Yes we played some ugly, hard-to-watch football in Guatemala and Cuba, but those games can be anything but ugly slug fests. What's important to me is getting wins at home. There's no excuse for losing ANY points at home. I expect results away. I don't care if we win an ugly 1-0 vs. Costa Rica. I'm not going to flip my lid if we draw to Honduras away. I don't even think you can derive much from his player selection. There's a lot of competition at key spots, and a lot of European movement. Boca and Gooch are locks in defense. 'dolo's spot could be up for grabs, LB is far from certain. Beasley isn't playing. Mike's having mixed results, but with Edu failing to get any time and Mastro's spaziness he's got the spot locked, but his partner is far from certain and a lot can happen for Edu and Rico in the coming months. It's not like our forwards are fixed, I have to think Dempsey and LD are locks as RM/RS, Altidore has probably taken that LS role, but Cooper is going to be hard to ignore when he moves abroad. Perhaps push Dempsey left? I have a hard time dropping Dempsey. I know players like Adu and Sacha are very tempting, but Dempsey is a gamer. Go look at his goals, when, and against what teams. I want Dempsey on the field when it's all on the line, especially as he seems to have solidified his "put him anywhere" role for Fulham, which is much that same as his role with us. Back on subject, all I'm saying is it's a blank slate. Bob has, in fact, tinkered as of late. I know the dreaded thread title is likely still preferred, but we could see a bit of a change should Sacha or Torres take hold of the spot opposite Mikey. I'm very interested to see what line-up we bring to Mexico, and feel that's the first true test for Bob. Nothing that has happened really matters.
Yes, you may have proved that the US didn't play good soccer against Guatemala. You have done nothing to prove that BB told them to leave the forwards isolated, other than the theory that the coach wants to play bad soccer (and he might want to do so once a lead is obtained against a team like Guatemala at home). Once again, forwards being isolated happens when the midfield is outplayed. Why was the midfield outplayed against Guatemala? Well it is possible that BB told them to focus on defense as the best tactic to get a win on the road in Central America (and that wouldn't be wrong, would it be?) It could be that Guatemala plays above itself at their home venue and opposing teams play below their abilities there (history would show that this is the case) Both Personally, even if the style of play was completely the result of tactics, I don't think how one plays in Central America will tell you a lot about how the USMNT will play in other situations. Finally, if BB wasn't interested in making the fowards less isolated he wouldn't have given Feilhaber so many chances and wouldnt' be giving Klejstan time in that position. It's pretty clear to me that BB wants to solve this problem, without doing something that severely weakens the defense, like playing Adu in central midfield.
It is possible our midfield was simply outplayed vs. Guatemala. I think that's a fair point. My only problem with that is that Bradley had just seen his CM get run through by England, Spain, and Argentina with all the same issues without making adjustment. Maybe he felt like he didn't have other options. I disagree. I think he simply refused to explore them in time to make good adjustments. I'm going with 1. Kind of. Bradley intentionally played kickball. He played it safe. He chose to play ugly. Kudos to him. I hope we never see it again, because we were frankly lucky. Decent Guatemalan finishing would have rendered a different result, and again, Guatemala is a shit team that couldn't even get to the Hex. Like I have repeatedly said, I hope it is not a future indicator. I hope Bradley adjusts. But to say that the Empty Bucket wasn't a valid criticism in the past and that our forwards haven't been isolated is IMO wrong. Demonstrably so. Which was my point to BigRose all along.
Well we all know one CM adjustment that he won't make. His unwillingness to make changes is his biggest fault. We'll see where we stand against Mexico. If he rolls out his usual 11, we'll know he's learned nothing. If he mixes in more from the younger group, maybe there's a little hope
'Against Meaningful Competition' may need to be abbreviated in this thread soon. So, AMC, a 4-2-2-2 will put our outside backs on an island. If the pitch is so large that some player(s) must be on an island I'd strongly prefer the forward(s) be chillin' on that perverbial island than 'dolo and pearce/et al. Naturally, a rarely seen 4-2-2-2 holds some luster and decieves some fans. Without much scrutiny, it becomes an appealing system against the typical minnow because our outside backs can get forward and provide the necessary width on the wings which is why so many attacking minded players were in the XI at Denver. Personally, i'm willing to give credit to BB for employing a new system with developing players for that particular situation. I would consider that taking a risk on Bradley's part despite being against Guatemala's B side and at home. As some have said before me, BB takes what he has been given by the other team, puts his best players out there, in a system that conceals their weaknesses, but he is not greedy. Finally, a point of irony. Since many folks are returning to review and reminisce the 2002 Portugal shocker, and on the same thread discuss the recent evolution of BB's 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1. I believe that Portugal took the field in a 4-5-1. (With two central mids sitting in front of the back four) Similar, in some respects, to the way our lineup is beginning to look. Before we get carried away with our own narcissim and criticisms, a close examination of how Portugal's 4-5-1 was exposed by US and Portugal were quickly down 3-0 in just over a half hour of world cup play. Portugal stayed with the 4-5-1 the remainder of their time in Asia and did not make it through to the next round. On occasion history must repeat itself to produce lasting change.
This is a great post, and I think you are right in terms of analyzing what has been happening. However: two things, I think, need saying. First, I don't think the case for why this has happened over time is open-and-shut. It's still open to interpretation. It's possible, as others have noted in the thread, that this change is only really temporary. Second, if we assume you're right about everything (including the "why"), we must note that Bradley's lack of a better plan "B" when he was "forced" into the bucket is disturbing.
So you think how we play vs a poor team in Central America is no indication as to how we might play vs a good team in South Africa??
I'm guessing that we he's getting at is that the tactics deployed by teams that we face in SA won't be similar to the ones we face by most CA teams (i.e. horrible pitch, no lights, bunkering, etc.). I'm expecting the football in SA to be a little more free-flowing than what we normally see at away games like Guatemala.
Yes, absolutely. The apparent change could be temporary, and we can only wait and see. The hope is that with the development of Altidore and Kljestan as regular starters and with the shift of Donovan to the free attacking role, that this is a permanent change, but this is not certain. Well, I don't know about "disturbing", but frustrating for sure. The US isn't anywhere as deep as most top nations in terms of starting-quality international players. We have somewhere around 12-16 or so. Bradley may simply have not had the personnel to have a Plan B ready when Feilhaber imploded, Donovan came up lame this summer, Beasley missed most of the spring and then needed to work through his recovery, and Dempsey was struggling with his "grit-deficit". And honestly, Bradley may not have cared about Plan B in 2008. The challenging friendlies this summer were just that -- friendlies. The early World Cup Qualifiers were against minnoes who even the US older 2nd-rate players could get past. Plus, key components of Plan A were committed to the Olympics, where they were getting tested and evaluated. They were not necessary during the Empty Bucket Phase. But I do hope Bradley has a viable Plan B for 2010. In 2006, Arena's Plan B (after Gibbs, O'Brien, Mathis, and EJ flamed out for various reasons) was to depend too much on the older guys -- Reyna, McBride, Lewis, Pope -- and we know that this wasn't good enough.
And this is what I have an issue with. What would be wrong with putting Donovan or Adu in the center of the park behind a pair of forwards and a destroyer behind them, or a flat-four in midfield? Heck, the Reyna/Armas partnership wasn't exactly terrible despite it being a little more conservative than I would have liked. Expecting to get all your offensive punch from a lone striker, a free player, and the two wings doesn't cut it especially if you don't have a deep threat amongst the two deep-lying midfielders (a guy to make the late run or to shoot from range). Slightly off-topic, but we have depth at center back and not on the flanks, which makes me wonder whether we'd be better off playing some form of 3-5-2 (be it normal with the two deep center mids or inverted with wingbacks and the three center mids playing higher on the field in tandem with freedom to move to the flanks) than the schemes that Bob has been trotting out since he took over the USNT.
I haven't had time to read the entire thread, so this may have been posted already, but in response to someone who suggested that the Bradley responses were invented, they certainly weren't. Listen for yourself, hopefully this won't be the moment, while watching a round of 16 game in the 2010 WC that doesn't include the US, where we all realize that things began to go wrong as our coaching is still unable to have the guts to attack an oppoent. I have been a supporter of BB's to this point, but his reluctance to attack against inferior teams like Cuba and Guatemala has me very concerned at this point. God help us in T & T and El Salvador, to say nothing of our visits to Costa Rica, Honduras and Mexico. Glenn Davis hour with Bob Bradley (somewhere in this mp3 can't remember where the interview starts)
Well I should have read through the entire post, the person doing the posting was telling a joke about it being made up, sorry 'bout that. Click on the podcast though, it is an interesting interview, a little more open than we're use to from BB.