Hugo had an interesting take (paraphrased): "I wanna know who is playing behind the strikers and are they giving good balls". I kind of agree with Hugo. Our #9 problem is partly that we play with two #8s (McKennie and Musah), who are fine players but not ideal to make that last pass. It's not like our 9's are blasting chances into the 10th row. They often got zero chances. I think it is worth considering Hugo's opinion.
Bruce S taking on the MMA. Let's see how he feels after getting body slammed, I got a good masseuse that can take care of those sore muscles when it's over, lol. Good luck. And should your mission fail, the agency will deny all knowledge of your existence.
Costigan said the same thing on scuffed the other day if memory serves, that the MMA midfield simply doesn't produce enough attack value passes for the wing forwards and strikers and it could be a problem against defensive oriented Wales and Iran.
The hold up play and the ability to make a good run into the box on a cross has been lacking too from our striker pool IMO too. But I at least partially agree that our strikers have not had a ton of opportunities. I would not put it all on the 8s though. The wingers are there to interchange/cross and so are our outside backs. Overall I would still put most of the blame on the striker pool but there is some blame to go around. More and more I am liking what Vasquez is bringing to the table and if Pefok can holdup/flick-on like he has been then the pool is looking a bit brighter.
I agree about the MMA midfield simply not being enough offensively. That is why I think the clear answer is Aaronson in the midfield*. Most people just haven't come around to that reality yet. *Operating on the assumption that Reyna will see few minutes if any atleast until the September camp.
Hugo may well be right. We keep wishing for a 9 to save us but maybe we are better addressing other problems rather than waiting on a player that will never come. I agree this team creates few chances and it often gets overlooked. Lack of passing surely plays a part. We overvalue dribbling and mostly our midfield is all about running and being physical. I do think Berhalter knows this, thus Aaronson in midfield last window. But that will make us less rugged which could be a problem the better the competition. I think you can keep MMA and add a true 10 behind the other two up top. We get the width from bringing our fullbacks up anyway so moving from wingers to two forwards wouldn't be too hard to do. I don't really see the current system as likely to produce many goals as is no matter who you shuffle in without some modification. Maybe two deep mids and a 10 get us there but for me it is tricky when the only forward who has looked better creating already likes to drop into those spaces so may as well keep the midfield clicking and swap the 9 for a 10.
The guys behind the striker isn't always the 8s; in many cases, it's the wingers, particularly Pulisic. Still, we're all aware that putting a more offensive player in the midfield will increase effectiveness in the final third. It might also make our defense worse, it may also disconnect our offense from our defense. People seem to phrase it like if you make a change here you get all of the positives and none of the negatives. It's not like Yunus Musah or Weston McKennie is a slouch, or as if the MMA midfield has performed poorly at all. It's trade-offs.
Gregg is married to the MMA midfield. I hate it, but he is. Were it me, I’d go with this 11. Weah is our best shot at a tactical 9. ————WEAH—-——— —CP——————BA— ——- REYNA————— ——————-LDLT—— ————ADAMS———- AR—RICH—ZIM—DEST ————Horvath————
Aaronson plays strong individual defense, especially as an attacker, but he tends to go high and stay high. We've played him three times at the CAM position, and our defensive shape has suffered each time, and our build up has been challenged at times. In both situations because Aaronson likes to play just off the front line and it creates gaps. Can Aaronson (or Reyna) play like Musah in terms of placement and role but simply add a better final third ball? Perhaps. It seems like we will see the attempt, given the June lineups and the mentions of Reyna at CM. I'm not opposed to the whole concept at all; in fact I'd like to see it. But every time I see an argument for it, it's presented this way, as if there's no trade-off. Except we've seen it three times, and there absolutely were trade-offs. Worthwhile? Maybe. But still trade-offs.
Our best unit has been and remains the MMA midfield. It's simply deficient in one key area that has caused us all sorts of problems, caused us to lose one very important match (in Canada) for lack of chance production. Aaronson in the midfield largely rectifies that. But it's a tradeoff. AMA isn't as good a unit overall as MMA. It's an option for the right moments. Our opponents KNOW that we lack chance production through the middle, and they've seen others have success against us by sitting back and absorbing our wide attacks repeatedly. That game plan even suits the tendencies of some of them.
I think MMA are our best midfield against heavyweight opposition (England). But we will also face two middleweight opponents (Wales, Iran). As I’m sure discussed elsewhere, we should play to beat Wales, lest they advance at our expense later with a gentlemen’s draw v England. In many/most of our advancing scenarios, we’ll need to defeat Iran as well. We can (beat them) of course - this is soccer - but what lineup maximizes our chances? MMA seems in some ways too conservative, too safe a choice. If we start that way (and are unsuccessful), we need to be ready to pivot quickly, to increase our attacking chances.
For England and Wales, I think we need MMA so we don’t get overrun. I don’t know enough about Iran to have a strong pov there. Going down a couple of goals quickly would be very, very bad. Unfortunately, it’s also highly possible.
Hugo is definitely gunning for the next USMNT opening. But he brings up a good point. MMA is a style that just isn't conducive to the midfielders playing that killer ball unless it's on a counterattack or something (I like MMA against England as many here think). Musah's strong in transition. Not sure how much transition we will get against Wales. If Aaronson continues to be in form I would play him in the 8 role, providing service to Pulisic, Weah, and whoever is our 9. Aaronson of course can play well in transition too but he provides a better killer ball.
So, he is basically saying what I said after our 1st window in WC qualifying, and have been taking grief for ever since. Welcome to the dark side, Hugo. We clearly need more creativity out of the midfield. The problem is not the fact that we play two 8s though. The problem is that the 8s we choose to play have yet to show that they can be all-around creative forces going forward, consistently. One of them likes to move forward without the ball and get on the end of passes in the box. The other likes to dribble the ball through midfield, but does not seem to get his head up to connect with teammates once he gets in good position. I like both our normal starting 8s, and I was VERY encouraged by what I saw from Musah during the last window. If he plays like he did then, going forward, I may be able to relax about this situation. But overall, I dont find them so exceptional defensively that replacing one with a smoother offensive player would not be warranted. Again though, I am interested to see if Musah shows over the next 3 months that he has taken that next jump in his game. That would be a game-changer.
It's not like you need to submit your starting 11 prior to the tournament and not deviate from it. MMA some of the time with a more balanced midfield at others. Horses for courses. Just as long as Gregg does not see Acosta as an option at the 8 all is good.
Really? Then why didn't both us and Juve do more winning? I am not criticizing his game, just playing with 2 8s
GGG seems to be addressing the problem by moving the rcm into more of ram role. The team created more quality chances during the last window.
For a coach who came in talking a lot about how good we were going to be with the ball and creating chances, we've not settled on three attackers, a midfield with no dedicated creative player made up of two hard running 8s and a stay at home destroyer and hoping to generate offense wide when our fullbacks can get forward into attack. It's a good sturdy way to play and will keep games close and always give us a chance, but it is not a pretty style at all. Kinda reminiscent of Klinsmann's first cycle when he came in talking big about how we were going to attack and dominate the ball and then rolling out lineups with 3 and 4 defensive midfielders and no width on our way to playing a ton of defense and barely holding the ball against Belgium while defending for our lives and watching Howard set a record for saves. Almost sounds like US Soccer hires these guys on idealistic promises but then once the games start they all realize pretty quickly that we simply aren't that sort of team if we actually want to win soccer games. It will be interesting to see if we keep things as they are for Qatar or if he really does play with more attacking options in the last couple friendlies and into the tournament.
This seems actually like a pretty good plan. You continually push to where you want to go, but you aren't going to sacrifice short term results when they matter. The US has gotten better and better, and it will likely continue -- just look at how the U20s played in CCAF. They will likely have to get a bit more pragmatic as well, but every generation keeps pushing.
I also don't necessarily think it is wrong to take a very defensive approach. Sure, in CONCACAF we have a talent edge over most teams and could play a more attacking style, but when we face top teams we're still an underdog who will win more games taking a defensive approach and playing it safe than trying to run and gun when outmanned. And against the best teams, our hopes of controlling the ball for long stretches will simply vanish as an option. Just saying the difference between the rhetoric and reality of US coaches has been pretty significant.