Review: How Argentina exposed the US's achilles heel

That should tell you something about the flaws of the current system. A good system should not stymie creativity or intelligent play.

It's not a simple issue as the style of play that is desirable is not currently compatible with winning because the US doesn't have technical talent to play style requiring high level technique. The resulting style of play is efficient where the US can impose its will or has a pronounced advantage in skill, but against the more technically proficient side the style is doomed to fail because the lack of technical proficiency is exploited repetitively.

 

This has been rehashed many times. First, he was actually good on a number of occasions (for instance, in the aforementioned 2011 Belgium friendly). Second, the vast majority of those 46 caps predated JK and SK's move to Anderlecht. Third, when he was used during that 2010 cycle, he was used almost exclusively as an 8 in BB's twin CM role...a role that does not play to his strengths. In the 2011 Gold Cup Bob started him in favor of LD against Jamaica I think in a more free roaming, 10-ish role and he was quite good. In any case, depending upon the formation and the situation, his invention, movement and workrate would be useful and he certainly brings a bit more than, say, Zusi.

 

It's hard to understand why so many get Pulisic wrong. Let's not forget he is 17. Okay then. Now: You can't pass to Pulisic when he is in a central position anywhere near the attacking third. He gets dispossessed in the BL and he would get dispossessed against Argentina. When that was discovered at Dortmund, they continued playing him and used him to a) take the ball up the sides and b) move centrally off the ball into a spot near the box where a shot or attempt at assist is next in the sequence. At the same time he was given less minutes and used on the youth team where he could be tutored, presumably on whatever he was not getting at senior level.

He continues to play because he is so good at what he does. He should have started against Argentina and we should have planned around his play at Dortmund. I think that is more or less what we did, apart from not starting him but don't pass the ball to him in certain situations and it's all good. It's not complicated.

Speaking of those things we know he can do, he doesn't have to learn to play quicker and with greater physicality and to keep his error rate low. Like Henry Fonda said to a critic who was commenting on his daughter Jane's debut performance "Shut up, she's perfect."

 

Watching these tournaments in parallel confirms my suspicion that South American teams are more psychologically ruthless than the top squads in Europe. Chile and Argentina don't just dominate with their talent, they crush their opponents spiritually and mentally early in the match. The US succumbed to all their beliefs of inferiority very quickly and from there on it was hopeless.

While there is a gap in talent, several American players played far below their level in that match. While it's true that Americans have traditionally been weak in possession and thinking quickly, it's hard to single out this particular group for that relative to past US squads. I mean it's hard to argue that FJ, Cameron, Brooks, Bradley, Dempsey, at least, don't know how to move off the ball or don't have the experience/ability to execute at higher tempo. Most of the players didn't perform because they were shattered mentally.

When players who know better (and I think most of this squad knows better) don't move off the ball, it's usually for two reasons: 1) exhaustion 2) not wanting the ball. The US players suffered from the latter. No one wanted to receive the ball because everyone was too afraid of making a costly mistake that would be punished Argentina. I saw several instances of players hiding from the ball. You can't win soccer matches like that, obviously.

If anything, it showed the US's achilles heel is not possession and technique, per se, but playing without fear. Applying possession and technique when the chips are down, taking risks even as the other side threatens to punish you. By the end of the match, players were passing even before the pressure was on. That's PTSD.

 

If Klinsi will not ever prune the old guard until the priesthood in the media say it is ok, we will forever have them playing and the media writing "prune the old guard".

 

I'd agree with you about Nagbe, he's a more explosive player. During Camp Cupcake Nguyen played a game and a half, mostly occupying the wing, and would've had an assist if Zardes didn't whiff here. When he's been on the field for us he's been relatively productive, yet he's only been able to muster 236 minutes in five years under Klinsmann. I'm not saying he should be in the starting lineup, but he's been a lot more productive than others who have been gifted many more minutes.

 

Sasha's issues with the NT have more to do with what he does at the club level just not translating over.

 

Yeah, Nguyen was good in the first ~25ish minutes of the Iceland game but bad the rest of the camp. I like Nguyen and think he can add something coming off the bench but I do think his lack of defensive bite really hurts his chances of starting for us outside of a few circumstances.

Same game but Iceland's goal 3 minutes before that...what is he doing here? Around the 39 second mark. Sorry, I couldn't find a GIF of it.

 

Bunker and counter are two different things.

 

I have a hard time telling if the bigger issue with the US is off ball movement or the ability of the player on the ball to read the movement and make accurate and perfectly weighted passes to take advantage of that movement, particularly in the face of aggressive pressure. I think its a combination of both, but to me it's more of an issue of vision and technical ability when passing. The ability read the field, pick the right pass, and then make that pass quickly all while under pressure is what separates someone like Bradley from someone like Jones.

 

So I think my biggest mission has been to push the US from a Nordic/British underdog style to a SA/Mediterranean underdog style. So going from being Norway/Northern Ireland to Paraguay/Italy. Basically that means being less direct and moving off the ball as a unit at a much higher level. There's really only one way to beat a team filled with superior individuals and that's with superior organization.

In general what the OP is talking about and what I look for (since Arsenal's Invincibles) when I watch good teams play is apparently called Juego de Posicion.

"The players will have specific tasks and responsibilities within these zones depending on the phase of the game. The unique thing about this concept is that the options are predetermined by the position of the ball. If the ball is on the left wing at midfield, then the zones that must be occupied are entirely different than when the ball is on the right half of your own 18 yard box. The team must use continuous ball-oriented shifts when in possession. These shifts must be coordinated to give the team as many passing options and running lanes as possible while simultaneously causing the opposition problems. Short passes, switched balls, and the rotation of the ball’s position are all important tools that are defined by the complex positional tasks assigned to the players."

This is, obviously, anathema to our current coach's philosophy of the game. If a team has a clear understanding of all these shifting roles they can play faster, because they know where everyone else should be on the field without spending time looking for options. If there is a shared concept then they know the series of actions that should take place to move the ball into space ahead of time and can execute more quickly (both on and off the ball).

 

That's inexcusable, don't really know what he was thinking. I'd never have him on the wing where he has added defensive duty though. When we were playing Bradley under the strikers was the better role. Much less defensive responsibility.

 

1. I can't argue with your logic regarding what Dortmund did or didn't do and why they took those actions because I, apparently unlike you, have no first or even second hand knowledge of the Tuchel and staff thinking and actions on the matter.

2. I can and will argue about your point, "...don't pass the ball to him in certain situations and its all good. It's not complicated." Hardly the correct answer. First, nothing is simple, i.e., uncomplicated against ARG. One of CP's strengths is putting himself in position to receive passes from pressured team mates. Against ARG, he did that reasonably well. What is the team mate supposed to do when CP is the only receiving option? Should the US persistently play with, in effect, only 9 field players every time CP moves centrally? Hardly.

3. I think CP is a very good player, but he is a beginner in the BIGS, especially against a WC finalist contender. The H. Fonda quote does not apply; CP might have been perfect in his father's eyes, but not in anyone elses. If you didn't see him repeatedly muscled off the ball and, despite his excellent tight space dribbling, get stripped a few times, then you were not watching closely. Don't misunderstand me. I want to see him given the opportunity to raise his game to the level of awesome in which his peers are the best professionals in the world, not other teenagers. He's not there yet and it showed. His passing success rate was 60% (6 of 10) with no successful forward passes in the attacking half.

 

Players who can't dribble can't cover a ball.

So, if you know you're playing guys who can't dribble, you also know they'll panic when you press them hard.

No mystery there.

 

Bunker-Counter is what we did to get results against big teams but never actually win anything back in the day. We would bunker, then counter off a 50/50 ball or chase a GK or CB clearance. CRC does this and never wins anything with it too. You might be thinking of press- counter which it totally different and still require technical players. Chile plays this way. Argentina did a little of this. We tried to do it against them but did not have the players.

 

My answers are all in my post.

 

The comments on the ruthlessness of the good COMNEBOL teams reminded me of how I interpreted what I saw for most of the match.

When anyone is facing something stressful (like a big match), their body kicks into, simplistically, adrenaline overdrive. That phenomenon can create a bifurcated psychological and physical reaction that most of us have experienced. On one hand, we can get focused and excited. The world slows down around us and we're able to make good, fast decisions easily. On the other hand, we get scared. We panic. The world speeds up around us and we freeze both psychologically and physically. We become unable to do the things that we normally do just fine. I used to experience this most noticeably skiing. On my game, I could ski almost anything and feel capable and comfortable doing it. However, if something set me off, I would tighten up. Bumps came too fast, my reactions were too slow. Falls and frustration ensued.

This match felt like watching one team in adrenaline focus mode making the right decisions easily and effectively and the other in panic mode stunned into inaction and unable to do the things that are normally easy for them. Some of this bifurcation is due to the early goal. Some is due to the obvious skill mismatch. Some also has to be on the coach. If the team has a plan grounded in reality and knows how to execute that plan, they can focus on what they are tasked to do and get comfortable. We looked like a team without a plan or with a plan everyone knew would fail. The insecurity this engendered, combined with getting smacked early and hard by Argentina, put us into a stunned panic that we never recovered from.

The coach needs to see this and simplify expectations early and quickly. JK didn't appreciate what was going on or didn't know what to do about it. That's on him. This was also a situation that begged for JJ. He comes across as the one player on the team who is never going to panic and is able to lift his teammates with his energy and focus. No one else on the team has his ability to do that and it showed.

 

Nguyen is limited by formations. He does some things well but doesn't do enough things well to be indispensable. If you're talking playing under the strikers, I'd rather see Lletget given a shot there before Nguyen again and currently is seems Jones is the most advanced of our midfielders and he's still asked to do a lot on defense.

 

I"'m sorry but those men are professionals and if they collapsed, it's on THEM and no one else. THEY failed to manage their emotional track. THEY failed to have deeply ingrained fundamentals that would not fail them under emotional pressure. We have a word for that and that word is choke. There is a reason highly skilled pros train so much. It's so their skillset will be 1) fine tuned and maximized and 2) so it will not fail them under pressure.


If bad soccer is what you grew up playing then it will come out when you least want it to.If you have a bad first touch then no matter how much training you do, under pressure it will come out. This is why early and correct practice is so important. You lay in good patterns at the base so when your brain is frying from the pressure your reversion will be to excellence not kickball fail. Mike Bradley looks so good when he is comfortable. When he feels that pinch he falls to pieces and can't even verbalize what happened after the fact.

 

@beerslinger23 to me, bunkering is a way of defending. Countering is a way of attacking. They CAN go together, but they don't HAVE to.

 

We did the same thing in Seattle as well. When I watch a match in person I try to pay attention to what happens off the ball, and we are in general very static. It's been awhile since I watched the Donovan era in person but I don't recall them being nearly this static, but they also had more dynamic attacking midfielders I thought. I don't know if this cultural or it's just that we have a generation that's particularly poor off the ball

 

No argument that "choke" is a synonym for "panic" in this situation. The point is that almost everyone, whether they are "professionals" or not, have a threshold for managing their adrenalin rush which leads to "panic" or "choking" rather than the adrenalin-based focus which Argentina showed. Being paid for your work, AKA "professional", doesn't create some magic protection from fear and panic. Recognizing this reality means that an effective coach helps the team ground themselves when the risk of "choking" or "panic" is a reality. I agree that, at the end of the day, the players are the ones who screwed up. However, they were put in a position, by lineup and strategy, that made this more likely than it needed to be.

 

Sounds what you are saying is that Bob Bradley did not deserve to be fired after the Mexico loss in the Gold Cup. His professional players lost their composure and a 2 goal lead. They failed. It's on them an no one else! Got it.

 

That team had some of the best off the ball movement we've ever seen out of the US against a quality opponent - we could have scored half a dozen.

They didn't choke at all, and it's unfair to say our players did against Argentina. We've never had the technical ability to operate well under intense pressure against good players. Sometimes we've been ok other times terrible