I know, El Salvador is going to be a tough, grind it out road game. It seems obvious that their tactic is going to be to crowd the midfield and hope for a counter-attack goal. With that considered, why not try out something different to throw them off and to create tactical options in future matches? Making us less predictable and providing opportunities to select players based more on form rather than best fit with the single 4-2-3-1 scheme. So, my suggestion is trot out a 3-5-2: -------Guzan------ Spector-Gooch-Boca -----MB---Torres--- Sasha--Adu--Beasley -Dempsey-Donovan- The Salvies won't be sending players forward in great numbers, so 3 solid defenders in Spector, Gooch and Boca should be able to keep their strikers and attacking mids in check with the help of MB and Torres. Torres could act as more of the deep lying, holding player to win the ball and control the tempo - quick attacking pass or controlled possession. Sasha and Beasley would help defensively on the wings and provide width for attack. Both Dempsey and Donovan have proven to be very effective forwards and both are in good form. Adu would be in the best position for him - central without too much defensive duties, but also able to get the ball in the middle of the field to create for himself or others. These players around him would give him many great options. I think this has plenty of defensive strength for this match, but also gets some of our best attacking players onto the field with the freedom to create together. It might not be our first choice line-up for every match, but it would provide a different look for BB to make this team less predictable.
I think the US is better off pressing the advantages they have, rather than changing formations to try and play more "creative" soccer. I've seen enough matches in Central America to know that the atmosphere will be insane, the field crappy and the weather unbearably hot and jungle-humid. The US will, in my opinion, come out with a disciplined 4-4-2. The fullbacks will be important pieces tactically, providing width and service to maximize the physical advantages of Dempsey and Ching. They'll also be charged with tracking ES's wide players, who by all accounts are the focal point of their attack. Since a lot of compact, counterattacking soccer is expected from El Salvador, the US will move forward as a team to pin ES in their own end without getting stretched. A 3-5-2 will provide a lot of space to break out down the flanks, which I don't think is condusive to this game. Utilizing a player with 'limited defensive responsibility' only serves to limit the US physical advantage.
I disagree. I think the current 4-2-3-1 right now puts way too much pressure and responsibility on our 2 weakest positions - RB and LB. This forces draws too many players away from midfield to help and creates a scramble against better teams with good wing play. What I tossed out there has Sasha and Beasley on the wings to help Spector and Boca to cover the wing play. At the same time MB, Torres and Adu are in the middle to support the attack and defense from the middle. It'd probably play more like a 3-4-1-2 when defending and 3-2-3-2 when attacking, providing both cover and width. Of course it won't happen for this game, I know that. I'd just like to see it tried and was interested in what others think.
Could you imagine the uproar on BS if Bob started them in a 3-5-2 and lost? No thanks. I could maybe, MAYBE see a 4-2-3-1 because he used that in the semis but never on the road.
Let me stop you right there. 3-5-2 is a an man-marking scheme with no zonal coverage. 4-4-2 is zonal, what we have been doing. It is TOTALLY different in terms of responsibilities, of both defenders and midfielders, so it takes months to put this in place. This is a non-starter.
Playing with three at the back is pretty dangerous on the road, we used it vs Mexico and Germany back in '02, with different players. If we do use it, you gotta have Edu there next to Bradley playing as an auxilary center-back and Bradley willing to support the outside defenders. I think our formations right now is fine, we just need to attack a bit more, give more freedom to the attaking mids in our 4-2-3-1 and show Ching footage of RVN, Vieri or Ibrahimovic.
The only new players who may get into the starting eleven are Spector at right back and Mastroeni or Torres in place of Klejsten, although, I doubt if BB want's to mess with the chemistry between his son and Klejsten. I don't see BB changing to a 3-5-2. Come on, no one plays it any more. Too much shifting of responsibility between marking players and you also need a sweeper who knows how to step up to take advantage of off-sides. Neither Boca or Gooch regulalry play such a position. It worked for a few games in WC '02 because Pope was in his prime and could cover a lot of ground. Moreover, you give up space on the flanks that forces the rather immobile center backs for the US to be pulled outside, creating confusion inside. For some reason, I see many youth coaches persisting with this anamoly of a a formation in a three man zone alignment. It works below U-14 level against typical American teams that just boot the ball forward down the middle but anytime an opponent starts keeping the ball on the gound and interchanging positions, the lone center back is isolated versus two forwards and the coach starts wondering what went wrong.
While I've oft been a critic of BB's tactical inflexibility (4-4-1-1, 4-4-2 all the time) and would welcome some changes, I don't think a road WCQ is the time to do so. There is no way in hell we play 3-5-2 away from home. Heck, BB probably wouldn't do it even if we went down 2 goals.
I agree it won't happen, and I stated as much. We've already got a thread to discuss everyone's predictions on what will happen for the upcoming matches though - I responded stating that BB will use his 4-2-3-1 with the only changes being Guzan and maybe Mastro for Sasha. Everyone knows this is what BB is going to do, so predicting that is almost like saying the sun is behind the clouds in the middle of a sunny day. What I tossed out was a different idea on a way to try to break-down the bunker play that we know we will see. With the current system, both of the outside backs will need to push forward to help in the attack, with the CMs doing the same. So this will actually leave us with 2 CDs being the only players focused on defense only. That's why having a 3-man backline might actually provide more defensive cover, while also giving a good deal of creative freedom to our midfield. In addition, this formation puts our 2 best attacking, in-form players closest to the goal without defensive responsibilities.
you do not understand how a 3-5-2 works. It provides less flexibility for midfielders and defenders. The 3 defenders are all central, and it is totally reliant on the outside midfielders to defend the flanks. It basically makes your outside midfielders into full-backs. In a 4-4-2, the outside midfielders always have a defender behind them so they can take more chances. 3-5-2 is more conservative, not less conservative.
why try a formation the starters haven'tused?? changing versus s weak foe, unless you say usa is gonna move to a 3-5-2 in 2010 wc finals, i see as a mistake for me,sit mastroeni and have 3 attacking minded mids, with kljestan over mastro is my big change... if it ain't broke, don't fix it... you end up with 0-0 by exerimenting will cause more long range problems in the hex
I didn't argue that to be wrong at all, and I didn't say that I was going for a less conservative approach. I understand that this would put more responsibility onto the outside mids, but it would also provide more defensive cover. In turn, it would take some of the defensive cover responsibility off of the 3 CMs and free up the 2 forwards even more. BTW, the current scheme is not a 4-4-2, but really a 4-2-3-1/4-5-1. Donovan plays back more into the midfield exchanging with Beasley and Dempsey. This current formation/scheme is very very weak on the wings, putting the most pressure on the outside backs for defense and to provide offensive width. In order to make up for it, the CMs are draw out to help on the wings more.
No. Games in the hex, especially those played prior to clinching a berth to the World Cup, should NEVER be used to experiment.
I agree to a degree. It depends on how they play it. If the midfielders still push up a lot and you are really only defending with the three backs and the two CM's (one of the three extends out to defend the flank, and a CM goes in behind to cover the middle), it is about the same. Though you do end up with CD's in space a lot, which can be harrowing. If the outside midfielders play more conservative, it can look an awful lot like 5-3-2. Which is a ton more conservative. And I'll also disagree with Monkey Boy on the current formation: Donovan is a withdrawn forward, not a midfielder in my view (though it is a minor point). He spends a lot of time more advanced, makes runs behind the D (though not often enough for my taste), and doesn't have as much defensive responsibility as the midfielders. But I will admit that he has played as a CAM in a 4-5-2/4-2-3-1 before, and BB does still employ it some. And that the CAM/WF distinction is a fuzzy one, to say the least. I'd also throw out that I don't think the Kljestan/Bradley pairing isn't a dedicated D-mid to the degree I'd call them a separate line, they both get forward enough. Definitely less on the empty bucket Spectrum, and Kljestan even plays in front on Bradley at times (or Bradley in front of him), so it looks more like this: RB--CB--CB--LB ------DM------- ------CM------- RW-----------LW -----CAM/WF---- -------F--------- I see it all the time in Columbus with Carroll, Evans/Ekpo/Moffat, and Schelotto.
I guess someone didn't read the tactics thread where the Truco coach talked about defending the flanks.
I would have agreed with this formation if Dempsey was also in midfield so we could play our vaunted 3-6-1.
http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1679.../world-cup-qualifying-preview-el-salvador-usa A roster that consists of 3 strikers, 11 midfielders and 8 defenders -- that would seem to be the definition of a team looking to crowd the midfield. BTW, did you realize that there are flanks in the midfield?
Completely agree, and let me add some points. A 3-5-2 would add some midfield punch--I can see the US using a 3-5-2 to crowd the mid and cut off some passing lanes--A central mid with Kljestan, Bradley and Torres would be great for retaining possesion even if it looks like we are being "Outplayed"--A great example being the US v. Mexico in the 2002 World Cup. Yes, Arena trotted that out on the fly, and contrary to what some say it does NOT take months to figure a 3-5-2 scheme. The problem is that even if Bradley were to play a 3-5-2, it would be impossible with the personnel he has picked. 3-5-2 requires that the outside wingers also provide defensive coverage. Here, you are taking away our flanking overlap and forcing guys like Dempsey and Beasley to stay home and only play on a counter (Like Eddie Lewis in the 2002 World Cup against Mexico). With Beasley and Dempsey unable to have the total freedom to roam, you lose the best dimension of the US attack. I can see players like Bornstein, Holden, or Thorrington playing the wings in a 3-5-2. The only real player we have selected suited for a wing position in a 3-5-2 would be Hejduk (Who has played that part in the past). Likewise, you need some big, mobile centre backs in a 3-5-2 scheme, which would mean playing Edu or Mastroeni as a defender, which takes away any attacking option they have. Here, Marshall or Parkhurst would be needed to really shore up the back. Of course, there are advantages for the 3-5-2, because it does crowd passing lanes and grinds out results--And it also provides an outlet for some talented players talented players left out by the current scheme (Like Marshall, Bornstein, Thorrington, etc) who would thrive in a 3-5-2. Considering our lack of outside backs, as well as glut of central midfielders, a 3-5-2 may be the perfect formation for the Gold Cup.
It's about the players opening up like they did against Mexico, not a different formation. If Michael Bradley and his partner can control the midfield and get forward along with Beasley, Dempsey, and Donovan who are in great form, no formation change is needed.
Leaving the merits of changing to a 3-5-2, these aren't a bunch of grade schoolers we're putting out on the field. These guys are veterans of hundreds of top level professional matches. By this time in their careers, they damn well better have the tactical knowledge and understanding to be able to switch formations and alter their tactical approach on the fly.
this is really not true. At all. Switching from zonal defense to man to man marking takes a LOT of practice. You notice that the USA NBA players have not dominated world basketball? A big factor is that zone is allowed in international play. Can you see Gooch man-marking a 5'6" ES player all over the field? Who will play sweeper? Has anyone in the current team even played sweeper professionally? Do they know how to pull an off-side trap with a sweeper? These are not trivial points. They take a lot of practice and may even require different players. Revs played 3-5-2 with Parkhurst as sweeper. He is one guy who has experience in a 3-5-2 set-up.
No offense Bruce, but if you can figure it out I'm pretty sure a bunch of guys that do it for a living can too.
it is not a matter of figuring it out. They have to work together and understand each other's movements.
We basically play a 3-5-2 on offense already. When we are enjoying good possession, either our left or right back usually ends up going forward with the ball.