Shrug. I agree with Perez. But Reyna has been hurt a lot. Basically hasn't played the last calendar years. Barely played in WCQers. Aaronson has played a lot on the wing, because Pulisic has been out a lot. Not to mention Weah. And Aaronson himself was out of the last WCQing window. What I'm trying to say is that I don't know that Berhalter won't use Aaronson, Reyna, etc. in central midfield. We had so many injuries and ill-timed suspensions that he simply went with who was available a lot. Hell, Konrad de la Fuente started a WCQer. Can we also just point out that when WCQers started, Yunus Musah was only 18? He's got a long way to go in terms of development.
Not suggesting two 8's just that McKennie needs to the one if we go the route of a single #8 or one of the two if it's MMA.
i'd do this too but mckennie is the best us player. cant leave him out I'd put wes at the 6 and tell him hes a dmid.....hes at least as good as tyler imo... but regardless, there will be heavy rotation throughut a tourney, especially if there are some wins.....so all will play what would suck...and what i expect...is that the most defensive and least capable lineup will be used vs the best opponent from the start...necessitating a switch to a more offensive team once they fall behind....which wouldnt make a lot of sense unfortunately, and weirdyly, these combos havent been fully vetted yet...and they will be at the WC
Several thoughts on this: 1) I kind of agree and disagree with the premise that our forwards haven't gotten lots of chances. I think that's probably true for Pepi. Off the top of my head, I don't remember any bad misses from him. Maybe some half-chances that you'd like a forward to make something of, but no misses of anything close to a sitter. Other guys, though, like Ferreira and Sargent have gotten quite a few good chances and have some bad misses on their game tape. 2) I'm not sure I get the backlash against the MMA midfield. We haven't lost much in the past couple years generally, but I think the only game we've lost with that midfield was the away qualifier to Canada, and I put that mostly on a botched goal kick. If you control the midfield, even if those guys aren't great at creating chances, it's very hard to lose games. It's not a bad tournament strategy to put those guys out to boss the midfield and then count on your game breaking wingers and/or set pieces to create the few goal-scoring chances you'll need. 3) That said, I'm open to experimenting with more attack-oriented CMs, but we don't have much time. I kinda feel like the WC is coming a year too early for this group, as we still need to cycle through some different lineup combos and let younger guys grow into their roles a bit more. Maybe Musah develops better offensive instincts in the final third? Maybe the EPL move cements Aaronson as an attack-oriented 8 capable of handling the defensive responsibilities? Maybe Reyna finally gets healthy and plays as an 8 for Dortmund?
We've already started experimenting in June (and technically, way back in the September window). So I expect we may see more of it in September. Aaronson's emergence, the June lineups, the talk by Berhalter of trying Reyna in the midfield all speak to a look we're going to try to execute. At the same time, to your point, Musah may begin to add pieces that also make the MMA midfield more offensively dynamic. I think the conversation is far a when / in what situation conversation than the sort of either / or dichotomy it's constantly presented as. The team clearly performs well with MMA, even if it is not scoring at the level that people want. The offense isn't terrible -- we did have the most xG in the hex, meaning that a lot of the progression was not awful -- but there's certainly room for improvement. But for some reason the dialogue is basically that the MMA midfield doesn't work or can't generate any offense. We have 3 games in 8 days against some pretty varied level of opponents and tactics/skillsets. We have 6 very strong players for 4 spots, before you even get to someone like de la Torre or Morris or something like that. We're going to be very happy having the ability to change tactically, throw another look, put on a fresh player or simply rotate at the World Cup. I don't know that there's a Best XI that's actually agnostic to opponent and gameplan and I'm sure there isn't one agnostic to fatigue.
Spot on. Since we have a younger team, I would look to start defensively and with our best lineup (MMA). However, we need to be prepared to adjust in games and across games (injuries, fatigue, matchups). For example, against Wales, if we look comfortable in the first half and Wales continues to sit back in the second half, I would look to adjust the lineup and go more offensive towards the 60 minute mark. Against England, you play MMA which is the best lineup against teams which play the US straight up. For Iran, we may need to go for a win. What is our best offensive lineup? Need to be ready to play it and make adjustments. Playing MMA for the third game in a row is not a great idea in my mind. Hugo is not wrong his observations. We have played against a lot of teams who are sitting back and we don't have a squad who know how to break a defense down. May be having Reyna would have helped, but I think the bigger problem is too time to dribbling heads down and not having a target forward as an option. Still, our #9s have been luke warm at best.
I don't have an advance tech degree so I can't navigate the US Soccer web site; hwvr, I belive the MMA midfield drew Wales (without their two best attackers) 0-0 and then went to Switzerland and lost 2-1. Both opposing managers knew exactly how to play MMA. The scoresheet was drowned out by fans and Berhalter who pronounced MMA "dominant".
Breaking down a competent bunker is one of the most difficult things in the sport. A well organized, set defense with lots of defenders in a small space? This should go without saying. Teams that are very good at this often have superior talent in orders of magnitude rather than simply just better, and teams that are good at this often practice a TON together because while individual brilliance can beat it, it often takes really precise and synchronized teamwork to pull a strong bunker apart. Bunkers are so hard there are entire gameplans devoted not to breaking them down but to avoiding them but always being in transition or focusing heavy on set pieces. It's not to sway we shouldn't try to get better, but I think sometimes the fact that Americans often only follow the very top level of European soccer distorts our view of the game. Yes, Man City and Barca are great at breaking those down, but the disparity in skill level is often massively in their favor, and they play together daily. There's a lot of focus on improving in this space. But sometimes if I wonder if it is too much, if the intent to improve upon beating a bunker in the run of play takes McKennie off the field ... reducing our chances of scoring on a set piece. Or if changing our striker lessens our press, meaning less chances on the counter. We focus a lot on the final third, but not a lot on how we get there. And there seems to be a thing where people view non-transition, run of play goals are more "real" than others, especially set piece goals, but last I checked, they all counted the same. Like I said before, I'd definitely be running out these lineups because it seems like an easy way to diversify our attack, gameplan and make our rotation stronger. It's a no-brainer. I just don't think there's a ton of point to even evaluating MMA versus RMA or AMA in absolute.
I have said many times that the solution to breaking the bunker isn't, like, having someone play the perfect throughball. A team consisting of Messi, Xavi and Iniesta rather famously could not break Chelsea's bunker. A Brazil consisting of Neymar, Coutinho, and Willian couldn't break Belgium's bunker. When they finally managed, they had subbed on Augusto who got his head onto a cross into the box. I'd say the challenge for us is lack of a real aerial dimension up top, but that's probably an over-simplification, too. A lot of our strikers are kinda the same guy. Still, just on the "eyeball" test, it does seem like we don't create enough clean cut chances (what Opta calls "big chances"). I'd expect 2 of those a match, for example. OTOH, I also remember two sterling chances not being finished down in Mexico. What do the numbers say? Weren't we near the top in xG for WCQ? Also, wasn't McKennie one of the best goal producers in WCQ? I'm not claiming to know more than Hugo Perez, but I don't think it's cut-and-dry.
We topped xG in qualifiers (and, for that matter, xGA). We significantly underperformed both metrics. Throughout the tournament, my eye said that we have issues at #9 and GK. (Canada, incidentally, significantly over-performed both of theirs, which again backs up my eye's notion that Canada has two good finishers up front, one world-class fullback somewhat miscast as an out-and-out winger, and a GK which stood on his head all tournament long, but little else.) Chance creation up the middle with MMA is a bit of an issue, to the point that the need for player rotation for fitness anyway makes it tempting to use a more attacking option like Aaronson situationally, but again, to make no mistake about it, the MMA triangle is the biggest strength our team and player pool has. I don't think that even England will find it easy to manage play against them if all three are healthy and in form. Both times that Mexico faced that triangle they were dominated by it.
I agree with Perez. Nearly all of the strikers that the US currently has in the pool solely depend on service to get their chances. There isn't one that can create consistently on their own. Vazquez is scoring lots of goals this season, his strike partner was one of the more sought after young talents in the world when he signed with Cincy. He also has Lucho Acosta creating chaos and chances for him. The US does not currently have an AM with a similar skillset to Lucho's. Aaronson and Pulisic are different types of players. When the US plays a 4-3-3 with MMA in the middle, there isn't a lot of link play between the front three and them. There tends to be a gap. This means that Pulisic and Aaronson either have to check back for the ball, or look to get on the end of balls over the top. Either way doesn't play to their strengths which is dribbling/driving at opponents with speed. This is also one the reasons that GGG likes to high press, as it allows the US's best players (McKennie, Aaronson, Pulisic, etc.) to get the ball in the final third in dangerous areas driving at opponents with speed. When the US struggles to force turnovers they also struggle to create anything for their attacking players.
You will recall the chance Wright blew (albeit after a solid build up pass) in June was on a pass from Aaronson. Aaronson was moved to the tip of the diamond at Salzburg so he could get assists to guys like Adeyemi who you can now enjoy watching at Dortmund where he played some minutes over the week end. Aaronson can get the ball to our players and Berhalter needs to work on it in September.
You are aware that Salzburg plays a very similar 4-4-2 pressing system that Aaronson played at Philadelphia? That system is not the same as what the USMNT plays. Plkaying the "tip of the diamond" in that type of 4-4-2 is not the same as playing an AM/Winger/FWD in a 4-3-3. The issues aren't from when the US forces turnovers in the danger areas and quickly transitions......that's Aaronson's strength. The major issues are when the US isn't able to do that. They don't have players that can consistently put teams under pressure and create chances. Does the US have the talent? Absolutely. Has the talent had enough time to develop? IMO, it hasn't for a variety of reasons. Injuries being a main one.
Yes, I'm aware and that is my point: Aaronson can get the ball to our players which is what Perez is saying is a need for our team. To say that we arent going to get the ball to our players like Pulisic and Weah and our 9 because we don''t play that system doesnt sound like a great plan. Could that be what Perez is hinting? Remember the look on PUlisic's face when Berhalter took him off because he wasn't playing well? That could have been Berhalter's fault as much as Pulisic's.
The US chance creation in WCQing was prolific but inconsistent. Big Chances Created in Each Round 3 2 3 5 0 2 3 0 5 0 2 2 4 1 usa(32) 4 2 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 0 3 2 can(31) 3 2 1 1 6 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 4 mex(28) GGG's midfield change should address the chance creation problems. Using a true goal mouth predator should address finishing issues.
But will that goal mouth predator be able to put himself into those positions that Jesus, Pepi, etc got into (that they couldn't convert). Or if they can contribute to the buildup that eventually leads to that Big Chance. My gut is that if Pefok has Jesus' instincts, he will score some big goals for us. I think about the header that Jesus missed in Columbus against El Salvador.
Yep. No one is worried about Canada’s lack of a playmaker in the middle of the field. They rely on wing-play through Davies and Buchanan and a Laraya here and there. They don’t have the #9 issue we do, so they get the goals we don’t. Another thing posters fail to bring up is that David and Laren put in the defensive work up-top that Pefok has not. So they get the presence in the box #9 that does at least the minimum pressing you’d want to set your side up defensively. We have to chose between a good presser or a presence in the box. Hopefully that changes. When we look ahead to our games against Wales and Iran, we can look back to how dominant the MMA was against Wales (B) and N. Ireland and feel good about how our mids will match up. We need one of our #9’s to step up along with our wing play of Weah, CP, ARob, and Dest. PS. I also predict the MMA will dominate the midfield against England. How England adjusts will be interesting.
Am I too far off in assuming that a McKennie, Adams, Musah midfield should have the advantage over a Philips, Rice, and Mount midfield?
Advantage might be a bit far. Play even with? Believable. But that england midfield is genuinely very talented and pretty darn balanced.
I think Mount would provide more going forward than anyone on our side, but I think as far as covering ground, pressing and tackling we may have an edge in that matchup. Overall, hard to say but I do think we'd be competitive. The problem is that's the strongest part of our team by far while England is strong all over the field.
Canada were more consistent in big chance creation. In GGG's possible new scheme going forward, the best player at the ram/rcm role is a tossup among McKennie, Aaronson, and Reyna.
2 big chances a game vs conccaf is underwhelming for me. The region was rather poor this cycle, IMO...how will they do vs mich better comp at the WC?? this team was capable of blowing the doors off the region if the training wheels aren't on, especially on the road (where they didnt do much of anything, mostly). When you look at the U20 tourney - and the bteam winning the gold cup - I honestly think the USMNT couldve qualifiied for the WC half-way through the ocho with a very good manager (and less injuries)....GGG was bracing for a an extrememly difficult fight with his tactics and shrank the margin for error needlessly. the MMA midfield is there for one thing - defense. The problem with it, is it shrinks the margin for error because they arent going to create much from the run of play.....yes, they can get a 0-0 game vs anyone....but having no run of play offense is a huge detriment to winning chances as well.....for me ...MMA is recipe for 0-0 game, which isnt my preference...and shouldnt be anyone else's. a super defensive midfield is great if you dont see yourself as having any other chance at winning. without a solid attacker and striker...its even harder. the way to go deep in a tourney is not grinding out every single game - it wears a team down. the teams that go far get easy wins early....I think the posters in this thread are overlooking the fact that each decision compounds itself in a tourney..... for me it should be about going far...not just trying to get a cheap win or two. this team finally has swagger and is ready to play straight up....going the conservative way and limiting the ceiling seems needless. that said, france won last wc playing pretty defensively....at the bare minimum I'd like to see the USMNT get some counter attacks - GGG seems to be petrified of letting this team fastbreak..but that is the way a major amount of run of play goals are going to be scored in the modern game...so if it has to be MMA, I want to see lightning quick passig through midfield and into transitions to try to get speedsters like pulisic, weah etc on the break.