Glad you brought this up. England also plays a similar style midfield. Personally I love the more offensive type but the bottom line is what works best and right now that's MMA. But not in every scenario. I do think there will be times when others play because for that game it makes more sense.
i think france and england just had so much more talent than opponents that they were able to win despite their formations, especially in the case of France - they were just stacked. In the end, the most talented teams are simply the ones that win - 2010 spain, 2014 germany 2018 france....talent won out in each case. Finding a way to get as much talent on the field as possible is the way to go far in a WC - croatia 2018 - great example. you saw what happened when england finally had to play a team on their level in the last euros - Italy - who outplayed them despite that game going to PK....that game was there for the taking for england but they played too conservatively and couldnt capitalize after scoring an early goal. they couldnt create chances! that defensive scared approach of southgate was exposed. and italy didnt even make the WC. yes they beat germany (a weak and young germany in wembley) need extra time to beat denmark at home too.....also beating ukraine on the way to the final. in that tourney tied scotland 0-0 and barely beat (aging) croatia and czech 1-0 each. playing at home and winning on PKs is no recipe that should copied worldwide...it simply isnt "transferable"
just to elaborate - how does the team with superior talent lose? well, the opponent has to take the game to them - very few teams who are "the lesser" do that - they sit back play defense and try to get lucky....which actually allows the superior team to get away with not having an attack, generally..... so if you are a heavyweight team...you can get away with playing defensively - you know teams will sit back and try to play defense, anyway.....at the bare min you will be in a 0-0 or PK game.... but that doesnt make it the optimal strategy. just bc you win or get away with it.
I really appreciate this fresh perspective. It really prompts discussion on the optimal way to approach games at the World Cup. My fear (yes, I’ll admit it) is that going with an offensive lineup against England risks having us go down quickly 2-0. It could happen in a period of ten minutes. Our defense, especially if Long is starting, is going to need massive protection. Sorry, but I just can’t see our backline being able to defend against England competently. If we go down against England right away, I hate to say it, but that pretty much dooms our World Cup. I’d rather play it ugly against England and hope for a 0-0 going into halftime. Then you bring on Brendan, etc.
It's an evolution. People always present this as some kind of failure -- we're going to play one way, and then we get pragmatic and it's seen as "oh, that was dumb." But it's not, it's a progression. We're far more effective in possession than we've ever been. Part of the reason is the focus on trying to play that way, both in the short term with this exact team, and in terms of the long term in terms of the effect the conversation and play has on youth players. Just look at the U20 team and how they play. Just notice how much someone like Walker Zimmerman's passing has improved. Every time we do this, we take a step further forward. We probably will never be some kind of Spain 2010 team, but if it drives our skill progression, our tactical understanding and our effectiveness when we have the ball, does it really matter? I don't think Bob, Jurgen, Earnie or Gregg though we'd actually play like Barcelona in the World Cup at any point where we've tried this. They may have thought we'd progress further than we did under each of their reigns -- certainly I think Berhalter thought we would get farther along the spectrum. But I don't think anyone looked at even our current talent and were like, "we're at 2010 Spain level and we're not going to have to do anything pragmatic to win games." Even looking at the differences in game plans between the 2019 GC Final and the September friendly against Mexico should tell you that. But if you want people to change how they play, how they think about the game, what they practice, what they work on, you often need to set expectations far beyond where they want to go. I'm glad we keep pushing. We were able to transition to a more direct offense and a more aggressive defense, and it would have been more than enough time if not for the pandemic. And I think that will both pay off in terms of how we play with the ball in possession but also in terms of player improvement and future players.
Wow, this surprises me. But, then, I don't know that topping Hack-a-calf, which has a very down Mex, and an up CAN, is any kind of accomplishment. For the always dangerous eye-test, I agree with Hugs. We don't create nearly enough chances for our 9's. The board is on a tout & toss cycle with our 9's. And, after most matches, where the 9 is tossed, my response is "no service." Changing topics, I love BA, but I don't see him as any better of and assist guy than McK or Musah. Does anyone have any stats to back the assertion? I'll say the same about LDLT. On paper, he's not an assist guy. Personally (gut feeling), based on what I've seen at Dortmund, I think things would look a lot different with Reyna as one of the 8's. He threaded balls through to Haaland. How much of that was Gio, how much was Haaland? And, we don't have a Haaland walking through the door. Still, I think Gio would add a lot of chance creation as an 8. He prolly doesn't have the defense to play the position, but Puli is better at sliding the ball through cracks than M or M. If we had time, we could work up a great rotation that includes MMA, Reyna, LDLT cycling through the middle. BA in the middle and wing, Weah on the wing. But, we don't have time to give the guys practice mixing and matching. Maybe next cycle.
The one problem I do see with trying to be aspirational and then moving to something else as necessary is what happens when you end up halfway between things or don't spend as much time working on something truly useful while you worry about a future that may or may not come to be. For example, we have turned into quite a defensive team with a lot of running and tackling and high pressure all over the field as he main focus. Last interview I saw with Berhalter I believe he said something paraphrased like... the character of this team is we press, then we press some more and we do it all over the field. But we spent a lot of time worrying about positional attacks and slow possession thorough a lot of the cycle early on. That time spent could have been spent figuring out how to attack more quickly. And setting up in a system for its advantages in possession doesn't necessarily lend itself to playing more quickly and countering. You can end up in a lot of halfway to nowhere spots if you're working to implement one thing while always worrying about how it fits into the future you think you want.
Yes, but I will keep beating this drum...every good team needs to develop a plan for offensive transition AND being in possession after transition. There's an element of a mental transition on your decision making when a turnover occurs, but the reality is that the time spent on possession against a set defense isn't a waste because we still use a lot of those patterns of play and principles. There's still heavy elements of positional play (even in transition). We're still using many of the same patterns of play and movements in build up and in the final third when we face a set defense. There's a ton of value there. There's still more time we could have spent on transition, of course. And there's still elements of the build up not in transition that have been added that are more direct than we started. So perhaps the balance is not quite ideal ... but it's not like the work did in 2019 is completely or even mostly useless. We needed to improve our play in possession and we absolutely did. Sure, though I'm not sure the definition of system here, and I'm not trying to be an ass with that comment. If we're talking something that is a component -- say formation, that's one thing to discuss. If we're using a more complete definition of "system" then it's evolved, and it's more a question of whether the elements of the system work together. I don't really know that our gameplans now are hamstringing ourselves in service of the future. I hear a lot of complaints about us not counterattacking and holding back, but I don't really see that at all these days. You're not going to counter on EVERY transition op, and while I don't have a measurable metric, it doesn't seem like there's any kind of dictate to holding possession over transition. If anything, I think we are too impatient at times. I know you had issues with the U20s and building out of the back, so we'll probably disagree here, but I feel like we are in a place where we are putting that decision making on the GK and CB. I don't think our best chance to win to always push direct forward play, personally. But other than these, I'm struggling to see where our current set up is wildly disparate from our talent. I don't think our talent is at the level that we need to defend and hope, even against England. I'm not saying throw caution to the wind and go ... just saying that I don't think we're going to roll out a terrible gameplan against them nor do we need to vary massively from how we play. And by massively, that means an adjustment that's hard to implement game to game.
I don't think it's that simple. Historically I've seen a lot of examples that fit in opposite baskets. I think there are times when playing aggressive actually pays off, our '02 squad was a perfect example, our two best performances (against Portugal and Germany) were a product of fearless attacking soccer for a 3-0 lead (before losing due to conservativsm in the 2nd half and some bad luck on ridiculous goals given up), and fearless attacking soccer in a hosed 0-1 loss. But in '09 in the Confed Cup, we beat Spain with hyper defensive, counterattacking soccer, barely generated any chances but capitalized, and then set a template that nearly worked again five years later against Belgium (if Wondo finishes, that game is nearly identical to the Spain win, in both instances we were outshot basically by about a ratio of 9-1). When the Swiss upset Spain, it was basically counterattacking flukey win totally against the run of play, but when they beat France last Summer, it was more about France not utilizing their attacking talent effectively (same problem with England where eventually they got found out too, really, twice, if you include the Denmark game which turned on a dodgy penalty), and the Swiss playing aggressive as hell and to win... I'll be honest here, I would really have to comb through history to get a feel for it, but I do intuit that it goes really both ways. That history is littered with a lot of corpses that tried to play heads up against a powerhouse and lost in spectacular or ugly fashion (see Costa Rica losing 2-5 to Brazil, but attacking more successfully against them than any other team at the '02 WC, us losing heroically 2-3 to Brazil in the Confed Cup Final), as pulled off the mighty miracle. There are simply far more corpses of teams that tried it and it failed, then there are heroic examples of victory. In terms of the counterattacking and defend approach, it usually doesn't work, but against huge mega powers, it's often the only way the little guy beats them. Us vs Spain in '09, Swiss vs Spain whenever they did it, Honestly, to me, most of the examples that aren't this, typically are teams that were simply underrated, rather than a legit david vs goliath scenario. Denmark in '92 were just freaking good. France in '98 were damn good in that final and overall, Croatia in '98 Senegal, USA and S. Korea in '02, Ghana and Uruguay in '06 and '10, Chile, Colombia, and Costa Rica in '14, Denmark and Peak Iceland etc? If you really dig into them, you find that the teams were just really freaking good and in peak form, and that typically the reason they don't often have the counterattacking then possum defending for 45 minutes is because they didn't need to, like Cameroon, and Nigeria in '90 and '94, those sides simply were underestimated until they weren't, and only in retrospect do we typically rate them as we should have but didnt going in (in many instances anyway). I don't really think there are any hard and fast rules other than that you can't play afraid or intimidated, period, and that if you have the talent and athleticism to have a legit chance, you should play confident, rather than score and then pray to hold onto the goal lead (because against the big dogs, more often than not it's a failing strategy) but if you are infinitely weaker, like the US and Swiss were when they upset Spain, your only chance is to counter and defend like mad and hope for the best. It really depends. And then there's Portugal in '02. How much of that was that being an absolutely bad --- US team, and how much was Portugal assuming they'd waltz all over us and becoming completely disoriented by the quick goal, the fluke goal, and the soccer 101 cross and head it in goal? I don't know, but I do tend to think that '02 US team was just really damn good. Clint Mathis, teenage Landon and Beaz, in prime McBride, in prime Reyna, exiting prime Stewart, one moment of health O'Brien, a legit solid back four, and elite goal keeping? That was a top 15 team in the world, period. And they played like it most of the tourney.
yes, he just had a 3 assist game in preseason in the prem. He was subsequently involved on both goals in their 2-1 win over Wolves in the season opener. In two games he likely had more assists than McK or Musah will have all season. On the first goal he stole the ball from Wolves defender who had possession in the box which turned into a goal for Leeds. On the second goal, he pressed the Wolves defender who had to try ffor a clearance in an impossible situation and made an own goal out of it. v. Cagliari last preseason game: Leeds United Vs Cagliari: Brenden Aaronson Provides 3 Assists (the18.com) The 21-year-old Aaronson was one of the standout performers — he was named Man of the Match and given a rating of '8' by LeedsLive — with a hat trick of assists. The first for Bamford was an outside-of-the-boot piece of nastiness that split two Cagliari defenders and met the striker in stride. Du du du du Patrick Bamford! pic.twitter.com/exwZQhwPB7 — Leeds United (@lufc) July 31, 2022 The second allowed Rodrigo to tap in at the doorstep. Aaronson Rodrigo pic.twitter.com/AnKiVetJ06 — Leeds United (@lufc) July 31, 2022 The third was an out-swinging free kick that defender Robin Koch headed home. KOCH! SIX! pic.twitter.com/Fbs6NoDOuu
I wonder what Hugo Perez would think about taking a great assist guy like Brenden and using him as the cam in a modified 4231. I use Scally instead of ARob because the fullbacks are more like mids who are there to get the ball to brenden/musah rather than bombing to the corner flag and crossing. We know Dest can take that line to the top of the box and score with his left. Scally is better at passing into the central mid with his right (trailing) foot. @Suyuntuy would likely identify this as something Bielsa did with Leeds but I think it could also be played more conservatively. I like how this set up emphasizes the strong points of each player. -------pulisic-----ferreira---weah --------------------brenden ---scally----------musah---------dest --------long--------adams------zim replacement team --------morris----pefok----malik -------------------(reyna?) ---------arob------ldlt-------cannon -------richards--sands------ccv 3 extra: Arriola, Vazquez, Delgado I keed!!
I’m expecting it. When I told a friend from England this, he thought I was nuts until I named off our MMA midfield. They more than match up with England’s. I expect England to have to drop forwards into our midfield to help with numbers.
So are you saying our forwards have been starved of touches? You’ve listed players like CP and Weah like if only they had the ball, we would have created tons of chances.
I don't think they drop forwards. I think they starve our 3 fwds of service and invite the MMA midfield forward. MMA can't really take the bait so they will play harmlessly with the ball and give it up eventually. The England midfield will then do what they do best which is using the ball in the final third and make sure the wrong people get the ball on our side when England give up possession after an offensive action.
you must not have seen hiw shouthgate manages - he has been going super defensive....unless he changes it up (which is possible. but unlikely) there is very little risk in going offensive against them imo...very likley 0-0 type game
one huge benefit of pressing shoud be naturally creating quick turnovers/rushes towards goal and shots.... I have a sneaky suspicion that berhalter hasnt really shown his hand as to what his true system and intentions are....that hes waiting for the wc to surprise people with it....that it will all be coherent then...just been hiding it to prevent scouting and gameplannng agianst his true tactics.... at least thats what i hope.
I love the sound of that. My fingers are crossed Gregg is working on something to surprise us with… I suspect that wrinkle is going to involve Brendan A.
If Gregg is going to come up with a different plan, it's because teams like England, and even Wales and Iran, will play differently than your normal CONCACAF team. I'll have to re-watch the Morocco game again to see how they played differently.
The USMNT should post this on their bulletin board: https://www.90min.com/posts/the-32-teams-at-the-2022-world-cup-ranked USA Strength: None Weakness: Many The United States should probably treat this tournament as a prelude to the World Cup on home soil in 2026. Doesn't mean they should try and tank for a better draft pick here, mind. Fkers. I bet you the USA finishes top of the group. You'll regret writing this, Mr. Walsh.