For the sake of argument, I'll concede this point. But if that's gonna be the first XI, then you HAVE to play a 4-3-3/4-5-1, with Dempsey and Johnson flanking Altidore. Even Altidore and Dempsey flanking Johnson would be acceptable. But playing Johnson as the nominal right wing in a 4-4-2 in front of Chandler playing his first real match was dumb.
If you wanted Edu instead I'd understand, he was ok yesterday, but I don't get Gomez. I think the best thing Klinsi has done is the dedicated DM.
Yeah I don't know if you saw the slip of paper that someone tweeted that JK drew up, but it confused me. He basically expected Chandler to be able to run up and down the right wing all day, which as we saw was about 180 degrees from what happened. I really hope we can get a LB that is solid so Fab can play further up the field, we desperately need some kind of creativity in the midfield.
Williams was caught either way right/left of the middle of the pitch so many times, just rewatch the game and you'll see just how many times Honduras ran from literally the edge of the center circle to basically 5 yards outside the 18 yard box without ANY pressure at all.
after sleeping on it, and thinking long and hard.... I think it all comes down to JK just putting players in a position to fail. He started a Williams who isn't even starting or getting much PT for his club team.. as a result he didn't perform well. He put a Jozy Altidore who yes, has been killing it in Holland... as a long striker who would have to 'work' and makehimself any chances he'd get. I love the guys talent...but that's not him! He asked again, too much out of him. He subs in Edu for Williams, who had a better game in that amount of time than Williams did! He should have started Gomez, who would have been more used to this style of weather, play, and better at earning fouls and spreading the field. Gonzo in? Why? I get JK is big on rewarding guys for hard work and performances in friendlies and camps...but some times he has to really play guys who are needed... not just those that 'earned' it like maybe Gonzo did, or Jozy. I was happy with his attack oriented line up...but it was the subs of Sacha in for EJ which did a lot of damage to the attack. Why? Because of him earning some minutes because of his club performances? I just think he will reward a player with PT... even if it doesn't make sense... just to motivate the player! He's a positive guy, as I tend to be...but sometimes he needs to do what he did in the past... churn out an ugly win with a more defensive minded strategy! I don't get it...but it's ok. This was the first real game where I didn't understand his line up, and some player selection. He gets the Costa Rica game to show he's made a mistake and he can make up for it.
Wasn't able to see the game, but I get it. JK is a danger and has always been. Costa Rica got their draw yesterday, the USA didn't. Will we see the same result at home vs CR? Maybe.
Considering Bigsoccer's aversion to Kljestan, this is probably the most controversial of your 3 player suggestions, but it's the one I totally agree with. Kljestan and Bradley as the 6 and 8 should work similarly to Kljestan and Biglia at Anderlecht.
A few thoughts: - with Bradley and Arena it was clear what we were doing tactically. Usually but not always a 442. People criticized the empty bucket formation, but the players knew there roles and it was often effective. Klins prefers using 3 center mids in order to play more of a possession game (4 when Klejstan went on for EJ). Problem is that our players are not well suited to this. In the long run his use of the bully pulpit to change soccer in America is all positive. In the meantime, expect some losses. - as for the 11 he picked one could nitpick but he played 11 of the best players available to him. the problem was formation/tactics. - also, we're at a low point talent wise and need to snap out of it fast. Not sure why but we've been poor since the great 2009 Confed Cup and decent 2010 World Cup. This is probably the bigger issue. - I'm seriously concerned about us qualifying. This is not an overreaction to yesterday but a broad based trend of 3 years of poor play. I've not been concerned about us qualifying (except for a few brief moments) since 1990. - other results in the Hex yesterday show that this isn't always easy.
If the goal is to be able to bang away results in CONCACAF, Kinnear is your man. Not exactly a visionary but a wonderful coach nonetheless. He's right up there with Arena, Bradley as one of the best American coaches ever.
Maybe Castillo would been a good option for yesterday's game, at least as a sub, he's a fast and fit and seems to be in pretty good form. Kljestan and Bradley had a really good game together as dual CMs last cycle against Mexico. I think in that game Kljestan actually played deeper than Bradley, who made a lot of great runs forward. The key with Kljestan is that he's a CM, not any kind of attacker or winger, where seems to be constantly played by Klinsmann.
If I had to guess at why Kljestan tends to play farther forward for the Nats, it's his historical sloppiness with the ball. He's often praised for his passing, so it makes sense to try to take advantage of his strengths and mitigate his big weakness by moving him farther forward so a hospital pass doesn't turn into a dangerous counter. The best arrangement might even be Johnson and Altidore flanking Dempsey. Johnson was the nominal left wing, and I thought he did decently in that role. The real issue was that there was no right wing (maybe nominally Jones) in front of Chandler.
We have to assume that JK will respond to this loss with major changes in the line-up. Castillo at LB with Johnson in front of him gives us more "on paper," but Boca better be in the line-up or we will be coming in primed for a colossal fold. Playing Costa Rica at home, you know we will come out with more urgency (could there have been any less yesterday?). I have never bought Jones plus-minus ratio as a huge plus. The guy is all over the place for the Nats, is rarely there to make clean defensive plays when needed. His chip assist WAS a thing of beauty...but what else did he do? How many times did we lose possession trying to dribble into the middle third of the field? Edu played the cleanest I've seen him play in regards to distribution. But he was never going to change the outcome of the game. Chandler, now cap-tied, should be fully tied to the bench (how do you say, "sorry dude" in German?), with a healthy Dolo playing the much smarter game. Everyone has bemoaned the age issues of playing Dolo and Boca...totally uncalled for, as they have the experience that was so obviously lacking in Honduras. Dolo's injury came at the worst time for this match. And when you can play, you can play, regardless of age. Use these guys, JK, you might not get (M)any more chances.
before i harp too much on the coach I must say that Klinsmann had a good starting lineup in terms of the players and some players simply did not play up to their potential. i excuse klinsmann for that. however, where klinsmann erred in this formation was the use of Bradley/Jones/Williams. None were given a clear role and they basically roamed around the field aimlessly box to box. All this game needed was for Williams to have a big performance and the rest of the team would have had to run less and pass better. Unfortunately williams collapsed onto our CBs and had errant passes all over the place. Not only were the passes errant, but the ones he completed actually killed the momentum of a attacking play out of the US defense forcing other midfielders to run twice as much and continuously move out of position. on the other hand bradley had a decent game considering the failing parts around him. he was composed mostly and had some good positive passes. unfortunately he was the victim of other overworked midfielders and too often tried to thread impossible passes. lastly, Klismann, lets focus on tactics and role definition. stop killing htese guys with fitness work. the guys are fit, they didnt show it in the game because i think they had heavy legs from travel and excessive fitness training.
Yeah, the notion that our players were somehow not fit before he took over is one of the weirdest, most bizzare things about his tenure.
Very true, Kljestan was god awful wide left, you could tell he didn't really know what to do. I don't mind Jones as a dual 8, but at least yesterday he thought it meant he never had to track back, which he rarely, if ever, did. I really pray that Holden comes back towards the end of this year (not expecting him to really).
WOW, I disagree 100%. Bradley is a box to box mid and Jones is a DM. By adding a 2nd DM (Williams or Edu) we provide no service to the forwards. Only play with one DM add a 2nd forward and play 4-4-2. I think we'd see more meaningful possession and more goals. We'd give up little in defense since there isn't much ball pressure to begin with.
His passing has been fine with Anderlecht ... of course, this also assumes the proper spacing and off-the-ball movement that the US has lacked recently. Or Johnson and Gomez flanking Altidore. I know, a goal off the board but Dempsey provided very little else. Which was by design and one of many screw ups by this coaching staff. It's like an old adage, "Do something different and succeed and you're a genius. Do something different and fail and you're a moron". By that measurement ...
In the sense that he's finally gotten rid of the semi-frequent bad giveaway that he used to do with the national team? Or, that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. I don't think the three-CM midfield has ever really worked for us, yet JK keeps running it out there. The nominal RM always looks terrible.
Ya, he's been playing well as the second fiddle to Lucas Biglia, a rumored $8M target of Arsenal and other teams. Biglia runs the central midfield there and Sacha plays off him. But he also makes nice through passes, attacking late runs, etc. Anderlecht loaned Demy de Zeeuw from Spartak in the winter and that may see Sacha's PT go down but that deal is probably made with the eye for the future as Biglia is almost sure to depart sooner or later. Back in 2006, when Klinsmann wasn't even a nominal candidate for the US job, I laid into him pretty heavily after the 4:1 loss at Italy. I thought that team was just clueless on the pitch with every player in the wrong position and without any reasonable team concept. (mind you, Germany had a pretty successful 2005 Confederations Cup behind it by that point and were scoring in bunches then, so JK and JL earned themselves a right to experiment a little) The top German commentators were basically calling for his head but Germany had a following friendly with the US. The coaching staff went toward a more traditional formation and assignment scheme, the US brought its A/B squad and was lucky not to lose by a dozen (Cherundolo's 70 yard goal on Kahn made the score slightly less ugly) and the change was not made. In retrospect, it may have helped Germany more than Bayern or the US.
Jones is a DM for Schalke, but Klinsi does not play him that way. If you want him there instead of Williams, ok.
It was pounded into my thick skull that 5 man midfield variations (including a 4-3-3, which often morphs into a 4-5-1) work best when you expect to possess the ball more and have the ability to create chances through that possession. So there are two questions the US Staff should ask before it runs out a 4 man midfield: 1. Does it expect to hold most of the possession? 2. Will the players on the field be able to attack through possession? I think both questions get to the core of why we have seen the US team struggle with the 4-3-3/4-5-1 under both Bradley and Klinsmann: 1. The US does not hold most of the possession - Honduras. 2. When it does, the players in the formation are not ideally suited to attack through that possession - Canada. The adjustment that should be made if the answer to question #1 is "No" is to run a more vertically oriented formation like a 4-4-2. The adjustment that should be made if the answer to question 2 is "No" is to field midfielders who can create through possession. Sacha is the best I have seen in the US pool in working off the ball to keep possession and create space for opportunities. Corona works better in tight spaces than any of Jones, Williams, or Bradley. Someday Holden may come back, and then the US could consider his spot in that type of midfield. Until then, the midfield trio of Jones-Bradley-Williams has shown it cannot maintain possession under pressure, and when it does maintain possession, it lacks the punch to use possession to create chances.
Given that is the first time we have seen the J-B-W trio and given the environment (at Honduras in 89% humidity) it seems premature to reach that conclusion. Sacha's poor performance in the v Honduras match is not going to move him up the depth chart.
The idea behind the 4-5-1 is simple. Three CM's vs two CM's of the standard 4-4-2. I wouldn't say it's something to use when you expect possession. It's more of a tool to help with possession and playing through their central midfield. That's the way I understand it anyway. I agree with your assessment. If we can't play through their lines using 4-5-1 variant, it makes perfect sense to play more direct in a 4-4-2.