insert your favorite________. Me, obviously I'd rather have us play like Real--but without the defensive blunders. I'll go easy on them since they played Barcelona this past weekend and were probably a little tired. I knew Man U was in trouble when Madrid came out controlling the pace of play--slow the game down and the English go to sleep... If any of you newcomers saw the game, THAT is what we are talking about with the defenders contributing to the attack and possession game. Obviously that does NOT mean booming longballs unmercifully to a phantom player downfield.
I don't care what style we play, just that we win. But yeah, I would rather see us attack like Real, but what country wouldn't?
Real Madrid is the greatest club in the history of soccer and the greatest club in the world right now. Who wouldn't want to play like them?
ManU!!! Why? No one has Zidane, Ronaldo, Figo and Raul on their lineup. The USMNT will need 3 or 4 more Adus to be able to play liked this.
real madrid and man u are better than any national team (except brazil of course) so for the u.s to play like them we would have to be better than brazil. sorry but asking if we should play like real or man u is not a realistic question.
None of the above! For the U.S. to succeed we need to carve out our own style based around the tools at hand. Strong goalkeepers, hustle, discipline, etc. Isn't that what all the powers that have broken through in the past have done? Brazil is different from France or Germany yet they all have had sucess. I don't like it when we pretend that we need to play like country XYZ to win.
Re: None of the above! Perhaps "play like..." is a bit misleading. Think instead of "playing a (insert style here) game, which has also been used by (insert team here)". We're not really talking about copying a team, but using a style of play that they happened to have success with.
I've always thougth that at our best we look much like Manchester United. Our Left and Right backs would be storming upfield and overlapping, our midfield controls play with crisp, touch passing, and we play our offense from the flanks in. With good crosses coming from both the right and left. Manchester United is basically a clinic on how to control a game through your midfield. Real Madrid actually played a lot of counter-attacking soccer (with the exception of the 2nd goal). At times they would show a lot of midfield dominance but actually ManU played right with them. If it weren't for Keane and Butt having atrocious games, and Iker Cassias having an insane game...thing might have been different
ManU has very little ability to play combinations through the middle, and when the pace of the game is slower and more tactical, they have big time problems. They are much more comfortable with a high tempo, direct game. Not many World Cup games are played like that.
Re: None of the above! Brazil--5 WCs Germany--3 WCs Italy---3 WCs Argentina--2 WCs France--1 WC England--1 WC The top three teams play a very tactical, slower pace style of soccer. Slow pace does not mean that they think the game slower. We can dream all we want about using our 'athletic' ability to win the WC, it's only going to happen when our skill and tactical abilities are equally as advanced as our athletic ability.
Re: None of the above! This is a strategy used to maximize the efficiency of something without changing it. It does not look at the big picture long term, nor does it acknowledge the weaknesses and their current effect on the 'success' of the team.
Is it really accurate to compare Adu to the players listed above? We don't even know how this kid will (or even if) pan out.
And welcome to the general forum for the U.S. Men. So we have no chance in hell of ever aspiring to be like Brazil, that's it, let's just give up, and forget about it. Keep everything the same, let's keep wondering where our midfielders and outside backs are going to come from.
Ah, but we've been down this road before. If Helguera wouldn't have scored an own goal, and if Hierro wouldn't have gift wrapped one for Beckham, the score would've been 3-1. The U.S. also played a lot of counter attacking soccer against Mexico in the World Cup, and we got the result we needed. So are you going to argue that things might have been different in that one too?
Not quite. I don't remember TOO many missed oppurtunities for Mexico. You have to admit that ManU made a million chances for themselves, and if they finish like they normally do they score about 7-8 goals in this game. Real's defense was pretty pathetic at times. But I will say this: If the Hand of JOB had been correctly called, then we end up with 1:1 game. Completly different game and I would think that the Mexican's would have won it. Can I ask what your opinion on this whole thing is? I know your a big fan of Defenders who have skills so that they can participate in the attack (I'm with ya here, I still rememeber frankie hejduk's play in the WC, absolutly no offense from him). But I also like an uptempo style of game, it plays into one our biggest strength, our athletecism. You correctly admonished the person who complained of not having Figo and Zidane and whomever, thats just an excuse. But at the same time, we probably won't produce players of that kind of skill level just because our kids aren't suited to play that type of game. American kids love to run around like crazy and everything is uptempo. Slow=Boring. For Better or worse. Our best bet is to fuse the 2 ideas together. No reason that you can't play an uptemp, SKILLFUL game. Thats what Manchester United does. They don't neccassarily need all the intricate combination play. They have a lot of skill on the ball in terms of passing, quick 1v1 moves, and shooting. I mean you can't look at a player like Danny O'Shea, or Beckham and say they don't have skill. But O'Shea can't do the same things that Roberto Carlos can do, and Becks can't do the same things that Figo can do. At the same time, Figo isn't nearly as athletic as Beckham...its pretty close to a wash when comparing the two. In conclusion. Why should we play that slow-down, high-skill, controlling kind of game when our strength lies in the other direction? I look at a players like Steve Cherundolo and Carlos Bocanegra, and I see them as the next step in the evolution of American defenders. Players are incredibly athletic, yet still bring a lot of skill to the table. And that, I think, is the Manchester United way of playing
Why? When did you see any team in Japorea play an up tempo, high paced type of game? You rarely see up tempo, high paced games at the WC level. It's played in the summer, and as we personally know from '94, it gets hot. Economy and tactics win out over high energy. I actually see us emulating Germany because they are economical and tactical. That gives us the best chance to win. But long term I'd rather not depend on that style, especially given the limited number of tall and muscled players that we have in the youth ranks. We have the market cornered at the youth level on 5-7 to 5-11 types who are not burners, and not really all that big. Direct, high tempo favors big players with speed. So I think we should try and maximize the number of quality players coming through, and I'm not convinced that the current style of play(particularly at the youth levels below U17) achieves that. I think it's changing slowly, and of course it'll take time. Check out SCBozeman's post in this thread to further add to my argument: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45408&perpage=15&pagenumber=3
I do see your point. And I'm pretty sure south Korea played that kind of uptempo, face-paced game I was talking about. But you missed my point somewhat. I'd like to see a mix of the athletecism needed to play a high-tempo game. And the skill to play a possesion game. American soccer should have a unique advantage in this area because our talent pool is so massive. In the future, we should have enough versatility to play our game any damn we want to and do well playing it. Let's call it Fusion Ball
The real madrid always had played offensive soccer. It's the philosofy of the club. Even the Central defenders, like Helguera and Hierro, can play the ball very well because they were creative midlefielders before they came to the team. Roberto Carlos is a very offensive defender the same that Salgado. And they are the defenders ... It's far more easy destroy that create. You can sacrify all for the result like the Italian teams, defending all the time and winning the 90% of the games by 1-0. In a extraordinary boring games. You can win because the offensive team take more risks, but you are destroying the sport for the result. For me, the only reason to play defensive is when you play against a very superior team. For example, if a small team try to play face to face against the Real Madrid, normally the Real will destroy them. But you see teams the like the italians and others - that have no excuse because they have a big money and very good players- playing boring extra-defensive play. You must play offesive and don't be a crawling and a cowardly. And when you see two offensive teams with great players like the Manchester and Real Madrid play against. You have as result the wednesday extraordinary game. A game to put in all the soccer schools. A game to show how beautiful is this sport. I think that USA teams must play like the Holland, Brazil, England or Spain leagues. The majority of the teams of those leagues play offensive soccer with his own variations.
Okay, which of the heresies is this one? It's not apostasy. Any help? At this point there'sr eally two different Freddy Adus. The Freddy who is an actual player whom we discuss. And Freddy, the fictional super-being brought up for comparative purposes ("What, he dove out of an Airplane at 10,000 feet and landed without a scratch?!? Man, not even Freddy Adu could do that!") This is obviously a case of the latter.
I think that U.S. Soccer should reflect U.S. tradition. We are a nation of (predominantly) immigrant population and their decendants. It is in our nature to take ideas from all sources and innovate. Others countries currently have an advantage over us because their soccer traditions / cultures / fan support structures are 100 years old or more. We have to start turning disadvantages into advantages. We are not constrained like countries such as England are constrained. They have a style of play and new ideas (such as a Swedish coach) are met with open suspicion. We are starting with a clean slate. We shouldn't be trying to adopt or copy any one style. Instead I would start with America's tradition of great athletes, add a dash of total football, sprinkle in some Latin flair, add some rugged English aggressiveness, mix in Italian style defensive organization and African willingness to attack 1 v 1, etc. etc. etc..... I think that the results will be fun to see. We need to develop the players and coaches while keeping an open mind. I will now stop beating a dead horse and step off my soapbox.
dear oh dear oh dear.. you reckon man utd reached the last 8 of the champions league every year for the last decade playing long ball?? haha course they didnt. In your little fantasy world they probably did. You actually think you can choose between playing the style of real madrid or man utd??? LOL..You gotta have players like zidane ,figo ,ronaldo ,ruud ,etc.. to play like those teams.. Have you got any of those players or players anywhere near them? nooooooooooooooooo get real you delusional fool.
Yeah its all Ifs and buts aint it?? If real madrid hadnt commited the foul outside the box ,becks wouldnt have scored the free kick.. if Barthez had been in better form he wouldve stopped 1 or 2 of ronaldos strikes.. if man utd hadnt beaten juve in the second round they wouldnt have been in the quarter finals to face Real.. blah ,blah,blah..
To be honest I don't think England's Swedish coach has presented any new ideas at all - if anything he's showing a lack of belief in the English team by basing the style on simply hitting long balls for Owen to run onto. England were better under Hoddle, but he was sacked for his religious beliefs, namely re-incarnation and his belief that disabled people etc were being punished for being bad in a previous life. Personally I think every national team should play to their strengths, whatever they are. There's no point saying "we should play like the Brazilians" if you don't have the players to play that style. You can't play with latin flair unless you have players with natural flair. You can't play a fast-paced game if your players don't have pace. Essentially you can't bash a square peg into a round hole. International football is not like club football - you can't buy players, you have to work with what you have. Saying that though, you can't have different tactics for different parts of a team. You can't, for example, mix Italian defence with total football as both styles rely on the whole team playing a certain way.
If this was the world rivalries forum I'd have that as my sig but as it's the USMNTF I'll excuse you in the fact that you probably know no better.