France keeps too much possession in the rival's half for it to be called a bunker. Bunker has three characteristics, in my opinion: a) low possession % (40% or less); b) when in possession, the ball is circulated mostly in one's own half; c) the main role of midfield is to cover the holes in defense. The idea being to draw the other team into your half, to strike with the other part of the strategy: the counter. The best bunkering NT in the world is Switzerland, right now. Also, keep in mind it's a strategy to be used against teams stronger than you. I wouldn't expect us to bunker + counter against Mexico, but I'd expect us to do so against France, Uruguay, Spain, Argentina, etc.
I'm not against defense first, or countering (every good team counters) or quite a few changes. I'm not against even going route 1 (though we don't have the players) or against a very good press, punting it long a lot. I just don't want a core strategy that doesn't have as some part of the offensive plan a possession plan. I don't need to dominate possession, but I don't want our core offense to be one that throws the ball back or pursues a strategy that has a high turnover rate. We don't need to play high possession or play that way all the time, but we need to have it in our bag and not as something we toss out there once in a while. I don't want to go into any game in a full on bunker for the whole game. As a late game device with the lead -- sure. I don't think we need to. We can play defensive, but attacking with only two or three guys, only countering, I don't think it's the best choice and even if it were, I guess even if we pulled an upset, I just don't know where you go from there.
A bunker and counter has two aspects for me: Most of the team doesn't leave the bunker. It's not just a low block; it's a low block where the non-attackers stay very deep, not committing to the offense in order to never allow space. On defense, they don't extend or get drawn out at all, if done right. On offense, a bunker and counter is basically a counter - only offense. Since they don't want to commit numbers to attack, once the counter is dead, you WANT to give the ball back. Because you don't have the numbers to possess, and the only way to score is give the ball back, pull them forward and grab a turnover to counter behind. Watch when El Salvador plays us -- they will spend a lot of time with only 2-3 guys actually attacking. No one is coming behind. I don't really like our passive low block, either, but that's not a bunker. But when we keep the CMs back defensively, it is defensive. France plays conservatively. They try to score on quality advantages instead of numbers. They don't bunker at all, and their offense really isn't a counter-only offense. They will play in possession. But at it's heart, bunker and counter is a strategy that your defense never leaves the bunker, even in attack, and on attack, you actually want to give the ball back if the counter isn't there. Because you're not going to commit more than a few guys so once their defense is back, there's no point. Your offense is totally driven on turnovers.
France had 31% possession today in their W1-0 vs Argentina. Keeping the ball and SLOWLY moving it around does nothing in the contemporary game.
I mean names from credible sources. We got quite a few of those very quickly and it seems to just have fizzled out
The only thing I've seen recently which seems less a sourced rumor than guessing is that they are waiting for Renard to finish the Olympics.
I like what they did against France. They set up in a picture perfect low block, I mean it looked immaculate, and used that to get their feet wet both in the tournament and against a superior opponent. But then they slowly started to build out of it, they didn’t resign themselves to defending for 90 minutes. In hindsight, this might have been the way against Morocco as they really want to play against the ball and pounce on mistakes. Could’ve taken that away and made them break us down and ultimately they’re the team that has to worry about mistakes.
Wouldn’t happen in a million years but imo this squad could use a dose of ol’ timey Big Sam. Kit them out in cloth sack until they actually win something while you’re at it!
We played Guinea with Dietz in midfield, though. Against Morocco we had two midfielders who can’t run at all. Just a bullet directly to our own foot.
Apparently BILD has an article that Pelligrino Matarazzo is in talks with the US to take the job and Hoffenheim in talks with candidates to replace him. https://m.bild.de/sport/fussball/ku...tionaltrainer-werden-66ace39eedc0f10a82c85fa2 Behind a paywall
There are not many US coaches w/ Top 5 Euro Experience. I guess it makes sense. I wish his win % was a bit better and it would be nice if he had ever won a trophy.
I would be OK with this however I wish he would hold off for another three years since the next coach they pick is going to be in three years. someone already mentioned this and I know they would never do this, but wouldn’t it be amazing if they let Emma Hayes coach both men and women’s teams pay 10, million a year . Of course she would have to win the Olympics first
Can't say I have much understanding of the German media environment. How reliable is a report like this from Bild? Aren't they sort of tabloid-y?
Matarazzo was on my list of coaches that US soccer insiders had mentioned as an option, but he wasn't really being talked about by any of them as a serious candidate. For example, Doug McIntyre lumped him in the category of coaches that were "currently employed and/or unlikely to leave their current jobs." And Henry Bushnell said the following about him: "He indicated that the club game was where he wanted to be. That's the chief reason he probably won't be the next USMNT coach." So this would really be a surprise. On the other hand, if you look at how inexperienced the vast majority of international managers are, especially the ones coaching teams of our quality, our best shot of capturing a manager with decent club experience (a little under 4 seasons in the Bundesliga + half a season in Bundesliga 2) may very well be appealing to the national pride of the only American with that type of resume, even if he is happily employed already.
I'm sure other people know more about this, but apparently Hoffenheim's ownership group is putting the club through a "restructuring" process. The sporting director was recently let go. Maybe the timing here is working right for Matarazzo to try something else?
By the way, not sure if this is related to this at all, but I just noticed this story about Hoffenheim from two days ago: https://www.socceramerica.com/ameri...on-headlines-with-earthquake-in-front-office/ Pellegrino ‘Rino’ Matarazzo guided TSG Hoffenheim to its best Bundesliga finish in four years and a return to European competition. Yet this week the club dismissed Alexander Rosen, its managing director of 13 years, three other front-office leaders, and technical director Bastian Huber. Kicker Magazine called the front office “earthquake” puzzling in light of Hoffenheim’s seventh-place finish outperforming clubs with larger payrolls and higher spending on player acquisitions. So there does appear to be a major shakeup happening there for reasons that aren't clear to anyone right now. Since most of the reporters dismissing Matarazzo's odds of becoming USMNT manager were doing so because he was in a good, stable situation, I wonder how much that changes the calculus. edit: Beat me to it.