You're apparently unaware that in Europe, they don't have the "down time" that we have in the US because as soon as the World Cup ends, qualifying for the Euros begins. Either you're unaware of that, or you're making a fool of yourself by typing with a jerking knee rather than your fingers. Look, I didn't like the Bradley hire, and I still think it was a mistake. But I try to avoid making retarded anti-Bradley arguments.
I know you have taken some heat over this already. All coaches experiment, it goes with the job. If any coach doesn't try some experiments that don't work out, he isn't doing his job. The point is experiment at the right time, not be hurt, learn and move on. Sven, for example, is still experimenting and things are still not working out for him . . . . yet. Fabio Capello's first group in his qualifying group. England has just come off of not qualifying for Euro '08. Game vs Andorra (Fifa ranked 194) at a neutral site in Barcelona. Capello trots out 11 elite world class players who play like crap the first half and are tied 0-0. The lineup is not clicking. Joe Cole singlehandedly goes off and scores 2 second half goals as England wins (escapes) 2-0. England has played poorly, again, and an entire nation is concerned. Croatia the team that had beaten them twice in Euro qualifying was the next match. Four days later in Zagreb, England rose to defeat Croatia 4-1 and appears to have the monkey off their backs. And Fabio is still tinkering. And England is fortunate to be a group with one other strong team (Croatia) where the coach, Capello, can experiment with the many exceptional variables he has at his disposal.
It's not "heat". It's posters who think they can get in a shot because they'l find some agreement among other posters. It's a cheap shot. "Experiment" is a phrase frequently chosen to excuse incompetence. I didn't just put in a wrong formation with the wrong assignments against the team/coach who saw my intentions from miles away - I was "experimenting". "I knew what I was doing", he goes on. But a person can spot an experiment gone wrong from an approach that needs to be abolished. A quick example from the NFL - the Green Bay Packers Strong Safety Atari Bigby suffered an injury in the middle of the season. At first, the Packers just put his back-up Aaron Rouse in his stead. But then they didn't like how Rouse was playing, so the Packers defensive coordinator Bob Sanders shifted his backfield, putting a Pro Bowl CB Charles Woodson into that spot and using another CB to fill Woodson's. That may not be experimentaiton as much as an adjustment on the fly but that didn't work. The GB defense was shredded into pieces the next few games and Sanders reversed his formaiton, with Rouse back at SS and Woodson at CB ... but, by then, it was too late. Why am I using that example? Because when Capello sees something not working, he quickly adjusts. So do other good coaches. Bob kept trotting Beny Feilhaber into positions wrong for him and really didn't quit until Benny was no longer available. Moreover, he didn't make adjustments during the games themselves and his teams looked absolutely discombubulated. Harking back to his days with the Metrostars, I remember Eric Wynalda screaming once from his microphone - "They guys have no wide game. The flanks are wide open but they always play up the middle and lose the ball every time". But Bob Sanders made poor adjustments with the Packers and Bob Bradley did likewise with his teams. He made poor adjustments with Benny (among others) and, as the result of his incompetency, his teams often looked like crap. He's no Capello or Lippi and he doesn't come close to Steve McLaren. At some point, the push will come to shove and this will become painfully obviously to every last BS poster. But, much like with Arena in 2006, it may be far too late.
That's exactly the problem with Bradley - he puts 6 defenders on the field and hopes that the team can score on set pieces and counter-attacks! Who are the "4 extremely gifted offensive players in front of them"? The USMNT may have 2 marginally gifted offensive players in Donovan and Dempsey. Jozy may develop into a third option in time for WC 2010. Bottom line - Michael Bradley should not be starting for the USMNT. Maybe in a couple of years he develops into a bona fide starter, but right now he should be the last sub off the bench to come on in the 80th minute to help kill off the game. Hell, he's not even a guaranteed starter on the last place team in Germany! Can someone please explain to me why he should be an automatic starter for the USMNT? With Bob at the helm, it will be 3 and out in WC 2010. And honestly, is anyone really surprised that Nevin chose Serbia? I'm not surprised in the least bit.
Bottom line - although we have been able to grind out results in qualifying, the "empty bucket" misuses our personnel probably as badly as any formation we could throw out there. Even though we don't have the defensive personnel to play a 3-man back line, I'm not convinced we wouldn't be better off playing a 3-5-2 or a 3-4-3. I've dissected the problems with the bucket enough on other threads (PM me if you want it again!), so I'll just say this - if we struggle to score against Guatemala and Cuba, we'll never find the back of the net (in the run of play) when playing against WC quality opposition. It has nothing to do with the "jogo bonito" - it has everything to do with advancing. Hypothetical - if by some miracle we do not concede a single goal in S. Africa, we'll still head home after the first round (on three points) with the way our offense is looking. If Bob is such a pompous jackass that he refuses to see this, then he doesn't deserve to be the head coach of our USMNT. As much as I'd love to see us advance in the WC, and as much as I'd hate to be three-and-done again, it might be best for us if we don't advance and rid ourselves of Bob. As for Mike, I don't know if he should or shouldn't be starting - I'd love to have the dual DM combo of ManU (), but the player pool becomes shallow very quickly when your coach insists upon starting two DMs 90% of the time.
It's really too bad the Qualifers and World Cup are played on grass and not message boards because we'd have all the answers right here.
How do we not have the personnel to play three in the back? The US has a surplus of serviceable center backs and I think a three-back set utilizes our player pool better than four backs. Are you thinking we can't put in enough bite in front of them or get sufficient defense from the outside midfielders?
We have a hard enough time playing with 6 in the back now, playing 3 against quality opponents would mean we would have to score something like 5 or 6 goals a game.
You guys realize the bucket's not really all that empty when Bradley's paired with a Klejstan-type player (used to be Feilhaber) right? When there's 3 offensively minded midfielders in front of them (Beasley, Donovan, Dempsey) and a striker (Jozy) it's plenty of offense, and Bradley's shown he'll play it. On the road in the Hex against CR and Mexico, probably not but the other teams will likely get it from us. Remember, 4-2-3-1.
You're right - our player pool is better suited for a three-back set at 7 of the 10 field positions. Although we have plenty of serviceable CBs, I think we would get exposed out wide. Unfortunately, we have a number of guys who could be the CB in the three-back set, but I don't think we have anyone (healthy) who could be a good FB. I'd like to see it in a friendly first... On the bright side, I think we have a few U-23s who could play in a 3-man back line (Spector, when healthy, Marshall, and maybe Orozco), so maybe we'll see it sometime down the road. Given our depth at MF, I wouldn't mind seeing Edu as a defender, because he has the ability to do it & he's not seeing much time at 'Gers as a MF.
well that time were not smilies..no computer no smilies maybe he smiled, but we can not check it.. P.S don´t put some religious things here..it is religious free here...only soccer.
I rewatched the Guatemala match very closely, and I must markedly disagree with your analysis. Surprisingly, the formation was almost always resembling a 4-2-3-1 with Dempsey behind Ching in the first half and moving out right swapping wit Donovan in the second half. Obviously things changed when they went down to 10 men. The gameplan for the US seemed to be this: bypass the midfield and try to play the ball direct, either in the air but if at all possible on the ground to one of the front four players. Guatemala countered this strategy by, well, fouling the crap out of US players with their back to the goal. Examples of balls on the ground: 2nd minute - Lewis to Ching 12th minute - Cherundolo to Dempsey 13th minute - Donovan to Dempsey 16th minute - Bradley to Ching 17th minute - Bradley to Dempsey 19th minute - Onyewu to Donovan (probably the best exchange the US had) 36th minute - Pablo to Dempsey 42nd minute - Onyewu to Lewis 47th minute - Bradley to Lewis 50th minute - Dempsey to Ching Things got complicated the last 30 minutes, of course. Even when the ball was played long in the air, Ching was seldom on an island. In fact, all three attacking midfielders were often all playing very high as the ball was in the air. Examples: 4th minute - Long ball to Dempsey with Ching and Donovan on either side. 6th minute - Long ball to Dempsey with three players in close proximity. 16th minute - Long ball to Lewis with Donovan and Ching ahead, Dempsey behind. 18th minute - Long ball to Donovan with support around. 23rd minute - Long ball to Ching who tries to flick to Dempsey 35th minute - Long ball to Ching who knocks down to Donovan with support. (This was a good example of what they seemed to be trying to do) 60th minute - Long ball to Ching with Dempsey and Cherundolo in support. In the 29th minute, Bob Bradley took advantage of a stoppage in play to make adjustments, and appeared as though he asked Donovan and Lewis not to play so high up the pitch. Things obviously changed after the 60th minute as well. Now, do I agree with the direct strategy that Bob Bradley employed? I'm not sure it was best. But, the last 15-20 minutes excluded, our forwards were not really on an island. There were numerous examples of players available to win the second ball, and numerous times in which they did. Now to address the "empty bucket" theory. I'm sorry, I simply did not observe it. There was a space on the field that the Guatemalans were exploiting, however that space was not in front of the central mids, but behind them...Guatemala would wait until Bradley or Mastroeni sprinted forward out of their deep midfield spot and then another player would slip into the space they vacated (usually Contreras), receive the ball and look to play a ball in behind either fullback. It looked like this: --------------Ching --Lewis ----Dempsey -----Donovan --------Mastroeni-Bradley Pearce Bocanegra-Onyewu-Cherundolo Mastroeni surges forward to win a ball back: --------------Ching --Lewis -PM-Dempsey -----Donovan --------(space)-Bradley Pearce Bocanegra-Onyewu-Cherundolo Guatemala seemed to catch on to the fact that the US central midfield lacked discipline around the 20th minute or so. At this point they also discovered that Heath Pearce was a complete disaster both with pace and positioning, and went after him from then until the final whistle. 20st minute - Pablo caught upfield trying to win a ball 21st minute - Pablo caught upfield with the ball. 23rd minute - Pablo and Bradley miss a tackle upfield. 25th minute - Pablo and Bradley caught too high. 40th minute - Pablo and Bradley go for the same tackle and miss. 58th minute - Pablo charges forward but doesn't win the ball 77th minute - Pablo caught upfield once again. (subbed out immediately after) Watching this game closely, Pablo's tactical naievity and reckless attempts to win balls was quite shocking. A majority of Guatemala's best chances came from simply waiting for him to charge forward, and slipping the ball in behind him. That being said, he did win a lot of balls and was a bulldog in midfield. He was very effective when he held his position, and the fact that Michael Bradley was clearly too exhausted to cover for his partner did not help things. When Bradley did exert energy, it seemed he and Pablo were often trying to win the same ball back at the same time. I conclude from this that Pablo and Michael are just not a good midfield tandem...either one needs to be paired with a little more positionally disciplined player. Another conclusion is that Heath Pearce is a complete liability. He's poor positionally and lacks pace, and I'm not all that impressed with him going forward. If I may add a personal note: watching this game made me sick to my stomach. Guatemala came to this game with the deliberate strategy of trying to get a US player sent off and the referee bought it all the way. For Steve Cherundolo to get a yellow card in the first half for throwing the ball down, given the constant showing up of the ref from the Guatemalan side, is a complete disgrace. That team was flopping at all contact, getting late shots in whenever they could, bitching and moaning about every call, taking throw ins 15 yards downfield from the spot it went out on a dead run (assisted by the best 'homer' ballboys on the planet), encroaching on the 10 yards in the wall (it took a handball on one of these to draw a card). The guy who took out Eddie Lewis, and he did take him out quite intentionally, even pretended to be hurt for a few minutes to try and avoid a card. This is not a heat of the moment opinion, this is an objective view 5 months later. The US deserved that result, and I'm awfully proud of that side for getting it. I'd love to see teams from other federations have to play a competitive game like that and see how they perform.
Emphasis mine. I took a lot of things from your post that I both agreed and disagreed with. I thought about covering the whole thing, but since this is a thread on Empty Bucket criticisms, I'll instead focus on that issue alone. What you are saying is that you agreed after watching this game that Bradley and Mastroeni were positioned "deep" in midfield. Another example of this is that in the long ball scenarios where you felt the receiving forward was not on an island, not once did you identify a situation where the forward was supported by a central midfielder. This is what people have in the past criticized about Bradley's formation - and where his formation earned the term "empty bucket." Our central midfielders played too deep to provide the offensive support for our attacking players. Now, the defensive problems you identified I had not caught before. I rewatched, and I think that is great insight we don't see very often on BS. Nice work. But, I disagree with you on one key thing. Dempsey wasn't playing in the hole, and we weren't playing a 4-2-3-1. Otherwise, he would have been there to provide defensive cover, and Mastroeni wouldn't have felt compelled to "sprint forward from a deep position" to apply pressure. In reality, Dempsey was playing high, and there was space behind the US forwards. Mastroeni - rightly or wrongly - often charged forward to close that space. But if the US hadn't been playing in an Empty Bucket, he wouldn't have had to. Again, Dempsey would have been there to help cover it. Anyway, this is water well under the bridge. I think we can both agree that some adjustments in both people and setup have been made since this game. And I am sure we can agree that we hope all adjustments Bradley is making leads to a US win next month. Thanks for the back and forth.
I wouldn't be surprised if BB reverts to this tactical gameplan against Mexico. To be honest, it might be better suited for the game than away to Guatemala. I hope not.