Inverted Fullback thoughts

Chandler just scored in an exhibition vs. Klinsmann's Hertha - in Florida I believe. They showed Klinsmann with big smile. Chandler looking pissed.

Chandler playing on the left - as an inverted WB!!!!!!

 

Rep, to the OP, for effort.

The citing of Pep Guardiola is interesting when one remembers the USSF President, Cordeiro, retweet of the comment that implied a Pep-level manager would be too good for the low-level American cloggers. So now, teaching the team Pep principles is someone who was fired from the Swedish second division.

What is often not cited when discussing the great man's--Pep's, not Gregg's--approach is the defensive organization that is the bedrock of his philosophy.
1. play with a high-line, which facilitates the compression of space
2. the high line, in turn, facilitates a press
3. because space is compressed, cyborgs don't have to be employed
4. because space is compressed and the line is high, the team has to be extremely technical throughout to keep the ball
5. avoid the opposition the opportunity to build up play on the counter
6. use tactical fouling to enforce the aforementioned point 5.

Also, in Pep's system, Busquets was a legit d-mid, rather than a QB. Xavi ran the team. Pirlo would be classic 'QB' when one considers deep-lying mids. Neither Bradley nor Yueil would be suitable for the Busquets role.

The piece gets lost in the minutia of formations. The players being selected for the most most part cannot play in a team that aspires to play according to Pep's principles.

That being said, based on the second Canada game, 3G appears to have adjusted his ambitions.

 

The idea that anyone doesn't think Weston McKennie is an easy first 11 choice on this squad baffles me. On a squad that isn't overly talented, we are just going to let a starter on a Big 4 league Champions League contender sit on the bench because he may not have a defined position? That's ludicrous.

Berhalter, and those who are defending him, are grossly overthinking this. If you want your best players on the field, you go with a 4-2-3-1 system. While we can debate the first-choice 11, it will probably look something like this.

Defenders (L to R) - Dest/Brooks/Long/Yedlin (again, I'm open to alternatives for Long and Yedlin as well as if we want to see Dest at right back)

Pivots - McKennie (more attacking) and Adams (more defending)

Midfielders - Pulisic, Lletget, and Morris (Morris is a different player as a USMNT player than as a club player. We can also debate Lletget as the central midfielder. Long-term, I'd prefer to see Pomykal in this role).

Striker - Sargent (Altidore, when healthy, could be a decent sub in games where we need more traditional hold-up play from the 9).

This team's best setup is to utilize Pulisic's pace on the wing, Adams' ball-winning capabilities at the 6, and McKennie's ability to go box to box. This team does not have a regista, so playing a 4-3-3 with someone attempting to play that role is not ideal for this group.

Berhalter's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with his Sarri-ball style of play relative to this group.

 

To be fair to Berhalter, I don't think he doesn't view Weston as a starter. It's really Excellency's hill to die on - I've jokingly said that Weston must've dumped his sister because he slags McKennie at every opportunity.....

 

Oh, I get it. I've never said GB doesn't think McKennie is a starter. My point is why any fan of the program wouldn't think McKennie is one of the best 10 field players in the current USMNT.

As I said in a different post, it seems like some are positioning McKennie to be the new target of ire for the USMNT. I think that's completely unfair. McKennie is a talented player - he wouldn't be starting for Schalke if he wasn't. My point is, as it's always been, that Berhalter is trying to fit his ideal system of slow build-up play into a team that could be strong playing a more direct, counterattacking style with its speed and ball-winning capabilities of Adams. Put Adams on the field as a ball-winning 6, and that allows McKennie to do more of what he's really good at doing (winning balls in the air, going box to box, etc.)

 

Agreed. The mitigating factor is that Weston has been materially worse for the USMNT than for Schalke. I'd like to see him play alongside Adams, Pulisic and another rangy B2B midfielder as that would accentuates his strengths and mitigate his developmental areas. His partnership with Bradley has been terrible but I think that it's a rare player who can excel while mitigating Bradley's challenging areas which are increasing as he loses the battle to Father Time.

 

i sincerely mean what i am getting at on mckennie -- and the rest of the midfield for that matter. jordan morris has as many assists in LoN group (4) -- and almost twice as many for the year (7) -- as mckennie has in 2 years (4). so you have more creation from the wings than from the AMs. like Houston, the AM doesn't do his job so the forwards basically set each other up. when you play a team your equal or better who gets back, that starts to have implications for creating goals.....if i get goals from rounding the flank and they get back, what's plan B. if they have the forwards draped, how are we advancing the ball.

i thought we learned last cycle what the implications are if all the mids are hybrid hustle types good for about 4 assists a league season. it's like an NFL team that decided to start a running college QB. you could have good wideouts but they are useless if the QB can't hit them with a pass to save his life.

 

In the logic of Berhalter's 'system', or at least its earlier iterations, McKennie wouldn't be a starter. That's why he has sometimes been used as a plunger, rather than one of the CMs. He's an athlete, whose non-stop, all-action play allows him to stay on the field with Schalke while he learns on the job. But he's raw in ways that are especially non-conducive to what 3G had wanted from his deep mids.

3G seems to have since adjusted, though, so I expect more consistent performances from McKennie

 

fwiw one thing i noticed in considering my analysis is that pulisic had 5G 4A the last 2 years on the NT. even if framed as he missed most of 2018 those aren't dominant 2019 numbers. morris kind of superseded him this year as the productive star.

we may need to use him different or he may need to get motivated but some of the debates/ideas of what this team is or should be feel a little stale. on several of the players, bradley pulisic morris roldan etc., they played a lot in 2019. they have a track record. what is it. abstractions are second rate when i can point to how they actually did.

"in theory" bradley might be a 6. "in practice" he did about jack squat statistically and was beaten on defense.

"in theory" yueill could be a 6 replacement. "in practice" he has no G or A for the NT and moderate club production.

those advocating a regista might consider how many actual assists we are getting from the 6 hole the past year. then, ok, if they aren't giving (m)any, we need AMs to give some. "well, this guy has 4 assists in 2 years." geez, the playmaking kind of ummmm you know, has to come from someone. you can't appoint a regista who doesn't set people up, then convincing yourself that they do, pair him with hybrid hustle mids who don't pick up much slack. whether it's an explicit 10 or just a function of several hybrids, the assists have to come from soimeplace. otherwise you are re-creating the 2018 cycle midfield while swearing on bibles we were going to change how we played.

it's this weird thing where often enough people diss Berhalter but then start assembling his favorite parts into most of his team. because that's who we see the team as. beefing about lovitz is low hanging fruit. you want to fix the team part of that is midfield. that may involve newcomers we are growing to have some affection for being displaced themselves by better newcomers behind them. it's a mediocre team with few standouts. don't get married to any of them.

 

McKennie has had good games for Gregg and less than good games. Almost all the former were as an 8; all the latter as a 10. In some games he played both. For instance, the Canada home game he started as an 8 and finished as a 10. He was one of the best players in that game when he was an 8, and he left a sour taste for many with the final actions as a 10.

Some of this is that when he is the 10, Roldan is the 8...but some is that he is just better as an 8.

I agree, it is on Gregg.

 

interesting. I want us to “defend strongly and [be] very efficient”. We’re a lot closer to that than playing attractive attacking soccer.

I think that many of the posters who espouse Berhalter’s philosophy are keenly focused on appearance and style and would rather “lose with this Belgium than win with this France”.

that’s entirely a non-American perspective to value style over substance.

 

The player selection hasn't fit the ambitions of the 'system'.

The team are ranked 39th on the elo.

 

The team rankings are the result of the weak performances of Gregg's team--the weakest in this century.

The team played 18 matches in '19. That's a solid sample size, plenty to judge the coach on.

Senior national teams don't develop talent, by and large.

 

You're making it too simplistic. People like to bucket teams into possession and counterattack. But it really doesn't work that way, at least if you want to be good.

Every team spends a significant portion of the game with the ball and without the ball. Every team has transition opportunities and gives the ball away.

The idea that a team is better by heaving less options and less of a productive plan for when they have the ball -- which even in the worst scenarios is like 30% of the game -- is just kind of ridiculous.

You call France a counterattack team, but France didn't just kick the ball long every time they had possession without a clear counter. They may not have cared much if they dominated possession, but they absolutely had a plan and strategy to get the ball from the defense to the offense that didn't just involve chucking it long in order to give the ball away quicker and get a counterattack opportunity again.

They were solid defensively, but didn't hold back tactically.

When we get the ball, we should counter. But if it isn't there, I see no benefit to our team:

1) Only having one option to try and get it forward (boot it long)
2) Especially since most games we play won't be versus a vastly more talented team
3) and we don't have anyone particularly good at playing as a hold up man

My point is simply that when we get the ball, we should create a tactical situation where we have numbers in the midfield so we can get the ball from the defense to the offense. Bringing the fullback in is a good way to do that, and if you counterpress effectively, the risk is simply not that large.

There's no need to conflate this into some larger Holy War here; having a fullback help in central midfield is neither some massive commitment to tiki-taka, an abandonment of counterattacking, or anything else. It's a simple tactical move to create numbers in the midfield.

The only reasonable objection to it is that it can create a hole on the wings behind them. But a) we don't play that many teams that can take advantage of it b) we can mitigate pretty easily with an aggressive counterpress, a quick RCM (Long) and making sure one of the CM stays home to help.

Our players should be able to make passes with a four man midfield -- that's the point here. Pulling in the fullback helps a team with less technical ability. We can't be 2010 Barcelona; so that's why we add an extra man.

Part of the reason we struggle on the road in CONCACAF (aside from it being hard) is that we haven't always had the ability to be effective consistently with the ball.

I don't think even with an Adams, McKennie, Pomykal (or whomever) CM that we would be reliable in getting the ball from defense to offense.

So let's add Sergino Dest to the mix.

 

I think we should try to build out of the back more. I like using an inverted fullback, or any other way to flood the midfield.

Berhalter's defense, though, has largely been a problem. Using a bend, but don't break style both removes aggression from our team but also more importantly eliminates counter attack options.

If much of what he was doing against Mexico in September or against Canada in the Gold Cup was to force the team to TRY to build out of the back -- much like Norman Dale's "My Team is on the Floor" or how you force a young tennis player to a form with better long term results but poor short term results -- I'm fine with it.

If that was training and testing, and when we roll into the summer of this year we are pressing, counterpressing and playing out of the back after those options are expended ... I'm good.

But slavish devotion to any one tactic is a mistake. And a passive defense is a bad idea with this team. I think this team can move the ball on the ground with practice; I think the killer mistake is to remove their ability to force turnovers and attack quickly.

And so the Canada game was REALLY important to my viewpoint. People say he changed everything; I don't think he did. I think what we saw was a complete change of defense and an offense that could play out of the back OR would take advantage of going over a press if it was there.

Which is what I imagine the end state is. Berhalter was a good tactical coach in MLS and a very flexible pragmatist. I understand that the goal here set by Earnie is more philosophical and idealized.

But at the end of the day, I think Berhalter and Earnie will adapt to win when it counts. I just think it's pretty clear they don't give a rat's ass about friendlies or a few losses along the way.

 

US started '19, ranked 34th and ended with a 39 elo-ranking. That's not improvement.

We had 30% possession against Canada. That represented a change independent of what Canada were doing. And Canada weren't exactly Liverpool FC.

I also don't believe anyone was advocating devotion to one tactic. We really ought to avoid strawmen arguments.

 

Are you comparing the 1980 Olympic Hockey team, which had to be amateur, to the USMNT in 2020 which can field a complete team of professionals?

Herb Brooks coaching career kind of suggests he mostly didn't find the "right ones" and probably should have stuck with the talented ones. Gregg found the "right ones" but they were not talented enough. (conversely, that USO hockey team was sort of a golden generation of US hockey talent and many walked into the NHL after the games).

I think Earnie and Gregg were more trying to emulate Billy Beane than Herb Brooks. It sounds like they are going to continue that but maybe not go all in on the January camp/MLS part. But we will see.

 

the one defining aspect of the historic USMNT is that we play better than the sum of our parts yet we certainly didn't play a system similar to what Berhalter and you espouse. Our inability to be greater than the parts started right around when we began thinking in terms of attractive attacking football.

The concept that only through an attractive possession game can the USMNT

1. compete with elite teams
2. be greater than the sum of its parts
3. win a championship

are completely false.

Two additional points:

• just qualifying for the World Cup is not the test - our expectations are far higher than that. We should win our group or be second at worst while giving up the lowest amount of goals allowed
• our ELO has dropped more in the last year than it has under any modern USMNT coach in their first year. That is not "expected".

 

You want us to "have the ability to be effective consistently with the ball" so that we won't "struggle on the road in CONCACAF". This ironically ignore that Mexico, who is "consistently effective with the ball" equally struggles on the road in CONCACAF.

That's not the answer for the USMNT.

 

You simply don't understand that results don't matter until we're near elimination.

 

by the way, the whole miracle on ice analogy is bonkers: it was one of the greatest sporting moments of my youth so i have a reasonably good memory of it and the phillies world series victory that year as well.

The US was outshot well over 2:1 despite being behind for over half the game. When a team gets dominated on shots despite spending most of the game behind, the implication is that they didn't play an attractive attacking system. We defended as a organized energetic team and took our chances when we could. Our goalie stood on his head and theirs sucked!

the USMNT should play just like that national team did.....

 

Sargent might not quite be there yet, but if you were to break forwards up into types he’s definitely a hold-up man. He might not win every header, but he’s good at latching onto forward passes and playing them off into progressive spots.

Adams is good at playing the ball quickly but that set-up in Leipzig does not ask him to circulate and tiki-takka much at all.

Somewhat of a digression:

The common mistake I see in this thread is the assertion that (1) or (2) technical passers would greatly aide our possession. You need 8 or 9 players comfortable with one-touch pass and move to be able to maintain possession for possessions sake against any sort of opposition with organization and athleticism. It’s a difficult standard for even the Spanish giants to maintain year to year with their nearly unlimited financial resources and unlimited pool of players.

Even if you were to break down a level as high as World Cup quarterfinalists this century, you would see that the pragmatic teams greatly outnumber the beautiful ones. Even Brazil and Argentina have gone through very pragmatic phases. The Argentina squad that met Germany in the 2014 WC final was not pleasing to the eye by any means.

Maybe it’s the “Ugly American” in me but I don’t see much point in trying to do anything but win (within the rules) in a competition.