Pre-match: International Friendly: USA vs Mexico; September 6th

In the GC Final, the US used, functionally:

--------------------------Altidore------
--------------------Pulisic------------------Morris-----
----Arriola-------------------Mckennie-------------
--------------------Bradley----------------------------Cannon----
-----------Ream---------Long---------Miazga--------
----------------------------Steffen-------

a quasi 343. The team created more big chances than Mexico did, but struggled to control proceedings as the game worn on.

Most posters and media are proposing what amounts to true 433s. That would make for a signficant change from what Berhalter has been using.

 

Getting blown out could negatively impact recruiting, as Confederations Cup '09 positively impacted it.

 

that's not what he was quoted as saying

 

i think the balance of power between us and Mexico matters to recruiting but only for those jousts. in the grander scheme of recruiting the rest of the world the more pertinent metric would be qualifying or not. i also think it's a bonus if the coach is a name brand or has a track record.

 

Would rather see a 442

----------------------Morris-----Sargent----------
-----------Boyd--------------------------Pulisic---
----------------------Morales----McKennie------------
----Dest-------------------------------------------------Cannon-----
--------------------Brooks----------Long-----------------
----------------------------Steffen-----

Don't overthink the pool.

We don't have a true destroyer. We also don't have a high-level, deep-lying playmaker.

Pulisic will link midfield and attack.

 

i think that GC Final result had little to do with formation and more to do with selection. we had about 4 good chances the first 60' and did not convert. we shall see if this time we run out a more precision striker array, ie, whether he learned his lesson. the way mexico beat us -- basically one good chance with an extremely well taken finish -- should be instructive. in plain english -- put sargent out there.

similarly, the DMs got burned the last 45' and we'll see if he learned from that. bradley is obviously not back, but nor is adams. we will see if he has come up with an alternative solution.

last, the backline generally held and we will see if he "unlearns" that solution. i fully expect dest to start per press articles and brooks because we just don't learn much about ourselves anymore, and what we do comes slowly. this is why i respond with grumbling to the "work in progress" corps. it feels to me that as soon as we make one positive adjustment in one spot we undo a prior fix someplace else. we have a tendency to revert to less effective choices that seem driven more by reputation or Crew-affection than performance.

to be fair I thought Arena went from initially effective back to rep choices as well.

 

I think this is our best lineup.

My cynical take is that we will have a minimum of 5 MLS starters and probably six. If so, I’d expect some form of

Trapp instead of Morales
Morris over Boyd
Zardes over Sargent

status quo defenders will shout: he played Dest so STFU.....

 

I saw Morales is gone after the first game, so that means he has to play tonight. Doesn't it? Right? Right? Bueller?

 

Sargent
Pulisic Lletget Pomykal Zardes
McKennie
Cannon Long Robinson Lima
Steffen

people seem to have forgotten the formula from a year ago

 

I'd go a step further and say that if the premise of the next couple months was to get Dest locked in, even if that is ahead of where he deserved on merit, if his loyalty is now as unclear as his practical value, he shouldn't play at all. i am pro experiment but not pro spending slots on people not sure if we are their choice.

 

recruiting is when you entice. actual games should be spent on people who commit. we are already speeding this along faster than merit necessarily suggests. this game should make it 100% likely he plays for us, not 10% more and we still have percentage odds on yes vs no.

the fanatics pushing this open approach don't seem to grasp that if he flips on us next month then we are back shopping his position having burned several more games on a snipe hunt.

I think it would be entirely reasonable for us to say, we are looking for wingback solutions and think you have the potential to be one. we are going to stick you right out there to start and see what happens. in exchange for that risk i want your word you're an american now. if you're not sure, you're missing this opportunity and i'm moving on to other candidates, because i have to start playing games that count next month. the door will remain open but the opening and/or red carpet approach may not be there when you come back.

i understand that would not legally bind but this should be a commitment to trying him in exchange for a commitment back. if he isn't willing to specially commit to us then why are we giving him special treatment back.

i also think a more veteran squad might get p*ssed about throwing kids in as starters their first cap. same mentality issue where the old guard didn't like perceived club favoritism. but i am not sure this matters right now because the team is young and in flux. i'm just saying handling your business this way can backfire in a number of ways.

 

It would seem so. We'll see in less than 9 hours won't we?

Kinda early for some people to preemptively criticize Berhalter for starting Trapp over Morales at this point. If Morales is sitting at the start, than people can have at it.

 

The game will kick off around 9:08PM EST.

 

I like the lineup. I confess that I haven't thought too much about exactly what I would do...maybe later I'll have a chance to look and think more closely.

First impression is that I would go more midfield heavy....4-5-1 or 4-4-2. I know that formations are fluid so a nominal 4-3-3 can morph and a 4-5-1 can really be more of a 4-4-1-1 or even a 4-4-2 etc,

 

i would assume that players said to be released after tonight would be used tonight.

i really hope we are not having to make deals to get players on an international date.

i really hope that any deals aren't distorting our plans on when and how long to use these players.

if the plan was to cameo you for 30-45' each game as a sub your club's demands shouldn't turn you into a starter. instead we should play you as planned and tell you that your club's insistence just limited your window with us this time. take it up with them. i don't like the feeling we are caving to clubs on their form assessments and our access.

 

The problem with these 433 is the lack of a destroyer or of a high-level, deep-lying playmaker.

 

yes. i don't understand the 433 emphasis. we are playing a good team -- that just beat us -- and common sense unless we have scouted an exploit would be conservative, defensive, and play for the counter. plus that's what we played last year same game was either a 451 or a 442 (I forget). which we won. i know the selection was poor for GC but why use the losing template vs the winning one?

 

i think against a very good team it has that structural issue but against Mexico and Concacaf my issue would be more one of selection/do we yet have the bodies to fill the roles. you need at least one of the types you have identified to beat a high level team while playing a 433. someone has to do the dirty work, and well.

i also think we need to have a plan B for away games and the better teams. part of this push to become prettier seems to be the abandonment of practicality and common sense. with the realities of qualifying home and away plus the violence of Concacaf, the forms we can play need to bear some relation to being able to play controlled and even defensive soccer away, and more pointedly being able to grind out results that sometimes are pretty but sometimes ugly.

you look at what happened last time and we either won big at home or lost away, high GF, high GA, few controlled 1-1 ties.

there needs to be some gear shifting possible, and to me 451 is a natural adjustment to/from 433. if we give up a goal away, you slide the same personnel forwards into 433. if we have a lead we want to protect at home, slide the same personnel back into 451. ezpz.

 

I like McBride's best 4-3-3 lineup:



Pulisic - Sargent - Boyd
Pomykal - McKennie - Morales
Cannon - Brooks - Long - Dest
Steffen

Those are certainly the players I want to see tonight as I think they are the best we have to offer right now... my only question is about the mid-field formation as I believe all three generally play in the middle...

 

Playing away in Concacaf typically means playing on crappy surfaces. That's not conducive playing a 433.

I'm reading comments that's we're essentially going to be outmanned against Mexico. Is that reasonable considering we could potentially be fielding 7 regulars from the EPL, the B1, and from Ajax?

 

This is the one I like too.

I think that we'll see one of the older guys replacing one of Boyd/Sargent and one of the more regular guys instead of Pomykal.

I think that the wrinkle we may see that nobody expects is that Dest or Cannon are in your lineup where Pomykal is listed and Ream is at LB.

 

Basic questions and issues with McBride's lineup.

Pomykal has cooled off considerably over the past 6 weeks. Should he start over Lletget?

Pulisic has done nothing against Mexico from that left-forward spot. Would he be better playing more of the linking role he tends to do when stationed on the right?

McKennie isn't a lone d-mid. Is it smart to play him out of position here, against Mexico? Could be shades of Bedoya at d-mid, against Brazil.

 

From another thread

I think Brooks is also susceptible to savvy channel runners. How do we counter-act that tactically if we have both he and dest on the field?

 

Double or triple pivot.

 

Is this in response to me? If so, why do you recommend that?