http://positionalplayscholar.com/in...case-for-the-inverted-fullback-for-the-usmnt/ Thoughts going into 2020
Sigh. The case for Bradley as QB and center-most defender is vomit-inducing. If we're going to model ourselves after a team, lets move to an athletic defense-first combined with counter/press and elite dead-ball capabilities and not Pep's team.
Change it to Yueill or another deep lying playmaker type if you don't like Bradley. He's not the point. The point is that it't not an either or. As mentioned Klopp's team averages 60% possession. If you get really good at transitions then teams sit back. To be a top team- they have to be good at all 3 phases- not choose one. These teams have a 6 who can be a deep lying playmaker and then put two ball winning dmids next to them. The two ball winning dmids - imo- should be Adams and McKennie... that likely means one should play as a inverted halfback.. unless you want to push one of to be a deep lying play maker and push someone like Ream inside.
If we had a player who was capable of being a deep lying playmaker at an elite level (UCL knockout) then this is an interesting conversation (even though I don't think it suits our other players). Neither Bradley nor Yueill or anyone else in our pool is anywhere close to this required level. Therefore, it's folly to build a system around a QB who isn't capable of competing at an elite level. TLDR, get a Sergio Busquets or Jorginho first as without a player of that level, we are far better off playing to the strengths of our elite players, none of whom are Pep types IMO.
It's not either or. You want to win and score in transitions. If you do that well- teams adapt and don't give you the opportunity. Then you have to be able to break down teams with possession. To do that- borrow from the best tactics in the world - which has three players in the midfield- one of which is a an excellent passer and decision maker. Then you put the best guy you have in that role and look to find other guys in the pool to get better.
Put another way. - In possession- you have 3 guys in the midfield... 2 of which should be ball winners and one should be a passer. Who do you want - that is in our pool for those three roles? Then back into the 433.
If we get to the point where we're defending well and other teams respect our transition offense, that's great. My point is that we will not be a good defensive team unless we have a focus on great defense and placing a regista who is valued for distribution over being a disruptive reliable defender is a terrible trade-off unless they are world class. If we want to create a reliable attack against a defensively oriented team (and Id note that has not been the USMNT's problem at all), why wouldn't we focus on being an elite dead-ball team? We have the talent right now to be great at that and the game is moving more and more in that direction and away from build up goals that you espouse. We can ask our forwards to push for corners and getting fouled in the offensive third - that is very hard for a compact defensively oriented opponent to prevent against a fast and athletic USMNT
If we insist on a 433, all three midfielders have to be disruptive reliable defenders as we cannot have any weak defensive links while attacking three. Note that all I care about is World Cup level opponents not CONCACAF (where I'll again point out that e reason we didn't qualify was because of poor defense rather than lack of offense). This is particularly true as our back four plus goalie isn't as stout as a defensive unit as prior USMNT defenses.
That's an ugly way to play. I also don't think its mutually exclusive. The goal is to be a complete team. Then the opposition and your personnel dictate which you most of your time. I do not think the game is moving away from possession play- the opposite in fact.
I'll try to write this as respectfully as possible: it's really dumb to be against a style of play because it's "an ugly way to play" if it gives us a competitive advantage. It doesn't surprise me that part of your desire is playing attractively; conversely, I could care less about it. We have a chance to be elite at something in the near term while we have no chance to be an elite possession team. We certainly shouldn't be making a trade-off to worsen our midfield defense by making sure one of the players is a "passer". if a team tries to prevent us from getting any dead-balls, it will lead to more possession for us ironically and I'm doubtful that if we put an emphasis on getting corners that we couldn't still get a lot of them as it's quite hard to defend against. If our opponent changes their squad to prevent us being successful in dead-balls, that should open things up for our speed based players....
dumb? It depends on what you're going for. I don't think we're any closer to being elite with set plays. I think you're living in the past. From my perspective- Sports are entertainment. I want to be entertained. Winning with bunker ball and set pieces is boring. The only thing entertaining is the box score at the end. Its also cynical and defeatest which - imo - is anti American. It's saying we can't be good- so lets just win what we can- however we can. Lastly-it's anachronistic. Its how the English used to be play before they embraced the modern game. It hints at the influence English coaches and philosophy have had on Us soccer in previous generations. Its going backwards instead of forwards. I hate the whole idea of it.
that's not what I said at all. we can be very good at dead-balls and by very good I mean top 10 in the world. As you may be aware, there were more goals scored in the last world cup from dead ball than any other and the champion actively ceded possession in order to play strong defense and counter. More specifically, Here are players who are good in the air: Brooks (elite) McKennie (elite) Adams (elite) Miazga (very good) Long Pulisic (surprisingly good) Sargent If you believe that we are closer to being an elite possession team than an elite dead-ball team given the above, well, let's just agree to disagree. We have the makings of a top 10 dead-ball team right now as it's hard to find 6-7 good dead ball defenders who can coordinate against a well-designed play. As I said, it sure appears that a large part of your desire for a change in the USMNT style of play is your desire to be "entertained" while I only care about maximizing our chances of winning. Given your preferences, I have to ask: were you entertained this past year? It sucked for me as we've never done worse in a coach's first year wrt ELO ranking.
btw, there's nothing more American than winning lest you forget that we won our independence fighting inelegantly and our history is filled with renowned champions who won ugly.
Well, it appears you'd be more enertained by trying to play attractively and losing than winning with a street-fighter's methodology. That's deeply un-American in my book - it really reminds me of my Mexican friends who comfort themselves with their attractive style as they tried to accept dos-a-cero or their reliable R16 loss in every world cup (but we looked good, mi amigo).
It's a sport. By definition its entertainment- so yes. I want my entertainment to be... entertaining. At the same time- I want the US to be one of the best in the world.. they will never be that until they can win with possession. France may have strategically ceded possession but no one doubts they can play possession when it makes sense to do so. Imagine if both teams tried that strategy at the same time.. it would be a game of hot potato. The Us needs to be good at possession to be a good team. They can get the same results (qualify- beat everyone in our region but Mexico) with that style or without it. They will never be considered a better team than Mexico until they can possess at against them. In doing so- they are more entertaining tactically and on the field. AT the same time- its not either or. The "system' of the US is one that has a plan for transitions, possession, and out of possession. The one that will most define the US future and is most tactically interesting is in possession.
You are welcome to your opinion but 1. nope - we don't need to be a good possession team to be good. We need to have a competitive advantage over other good teams to be good. Dead ball is our best bet right now and we have a huge deficit in possession skills. I mean, you're espousing that having either Bradley or Yueill as the QB of our team is a really good thing and entertaining: that's totally nuts. 2. We can do better than we've ever done if we actually have something that we're world class in. Dead balls are far from anachronistic, they are what separates great teams from the pack. Arena and Klinsmann started the build out of the back possession style and we saw what happened in the last Hex.... 3. We will be considered better than Mexico when we go back to beating them. How we do it makes absolutely no difference at all. 4. Winning is entertaining - looking pretty is for Instagram.
I'd actually be OK with perhaps Dest playing as an inverted fulback. He has the skill set, plays as an outside back regularly and while he is one of our better players, he's not as key as Adams could be in the center. The article mentions the players to play the inverted fullback should be "stars," but the examples from Man City and Bayern point to players who are good (naturally, neither team has anything but high quality players) but neither is a true top 2-3 player for their teams relative to the rest of those squads. Dest would much more fit this roll. Then there's the manipulation to keep Bradley or another ball playing center mid that makes us weaker in defense. I think Yueill is an upgrade to Bradley since he actually has some work rate and tenacity, but Adams is so much better than either that creating a system to favor one of our mediocre regista types instead of accepting that we have a really good 6 and no decent regista just seems silly in the extreme. I saw Arsenal talked about in the article. Arteta has Torreira playing at the six and that guy has an endless motor, fights for every ball and distributes quickly. He's much more Tyler Adams than Michael Bradley. So yeah, inverted fullback, fine with it even if it's not my favored system But, use Dest as your inverted fullback and stick Adams in the center, which also has the added effect of making us faster and better defending in transition as we flip guys around on the fly. Playing a system where players have to run into less natural positions and also playing with a weak, slow player operating in the defensive midfield slot still looks like suicide to me. It may work nice enough when we play the bottom dwellers in CONCACAF and have 60% possession, but we get to the WC and top teams will run right through that mess. And we're not holding anything near that possession against top teams. I guess it seems to my thoughts we may just have a couple players that are ideal to play such a system, they are just not always the ones Berhalter thinks they are (Bradley) or he wants to deploy them in the wrong slot (Adams).
Good points about Torreira. I'm interested in seeing Adams in that center role. I tend to just think he's more of a star if he's more unleashed to roam, hunt the ball, and get into the attack. I think we'd want Dest further up the field in more of the attack as well, but as in my first example- that could mean we just stick with Ream as the inverted fullback and I'm good with that. I think we're missing that deep lying passer. My gut says Bradley is still high on the depth chart for that role but I think its getting too much attention. This isn't about squeezing Bradley in the starting line up. Its about getting Dest, Adams, and McKennie in their best spots- then filling the third role in that midfield.. that of a passer - with whomever is the best we have. The point being - in that system there are two potential roles for ball winning dmids.. along side a passer. I would rather see by McKennie and Adams in those ball winning roles. I think for some reason its gets in peoples heads its Bradley vs Adams. That's not the choice.Its Ream vs who? Cannon, Lima, Robinson, Bradley, Yueill, Parks, etc. Adams and McKennie are both likely to play in the midfield in possession. Its about who you want with them. The purpose here is to enhance the US ability to play in possession, hold possession, and break teams down with the ball. Putting Adams, Ream, and McKennie in the mid doesn't seem to be the best way to do that - and it seems overkill defensively. It would be like playing three in the back against a single striker. It wastes potential. I think this January camp could be interesting to see if anyone else pushes Yueill and enhances the US ability to break down defenses. But if Adams can do that role and its McKinnie and Ream beside him- I am fine with that. Adams could be great at it. We'll see. But much like Kante having a freer role with Chelsea under both Sarri and Lampard.. I am willing to bet Berhalter tries to do the same with Adams. Putting him in that center role- could also shackle him and limit his overall potential impact.
While you have been entertained in the recent year with tactics that have led to the largest drop in ELO in the first year of a coach, here are two long-time respected BS posters with a different opinion. I'll say it again - winning is the only thing that matters.