Yeah, I don't think you can judge Kljestan by his play yesterday although he was fine at times. Where he was not so great was when he was stuck on the touchline and that obviously isn't his game
But we've seen Bradley and Jones in front of Edu or Bradley and Jones in front of Beckerman, and once Edu in front of Bradley and Jones, or some other combination where Bradley and Jones are given primary responibility for possessing the ball and generating the attack. I can think of one game where this combination worked. Scotland. (But even there chances were created by turnovers and quick transition, not slow buildup). That's now an outlier. Otherwise these midfield combinations in whatever slight variation Klinsman employs have not worked. The general point is that Jones and Bradley together has neither held the ball well nor generated attack through possession. And the repeated use of central players out wide Kljestan, Torres also has been pretty futile so far. What in our play the last two years suggests we should keep doing this?
My take: the repeated use of central players wide is because we haven't had a naturally wide player worth a damn since Eddie Lewis and DMB in his prime. It's up to the fullbacks on this team to provide the width. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and is certainly on trend in a world of inverted wingers and wide players cutting-in from a 4-3-3. However, we need additional width *somewhere* higher up the field. Could be a wide midfielder, could be a wide forward, but an open channel like the right side yesterday is a recipe for disaster.
Jones is a 6 1/2 but that misses the point. Schalke is a fairly typical for the modern era team - one true winger in Farfan and one really attacking fullback on the opposite end in Fuchs. Plus, a very good pair of creative/attacking mids in Holtby and Draxler (both stars in waiting and capped German internationals). JJ's job is to fill in the gaps that are created by Schalke attackers. The problem with the US at the moment is that there're no Holtby, Draxler, Hunterlaar, et al. on this team, which forces JJ to take on the additional attacking responsibilities and that's where he comes up short.
Can't say I agree with what your saying here, exactly. It's easy to say we cant hustle our way out of things, but when I look at a front line of Altiodore, Dempsey, and Johnson I dont see 3 guys who are exactly known for their effort. And hustling more and getting bigger could have helped, if you built a lineup with that intent. You would need a real target forward (Altidore is big, but plays smaller then he is), as well as a lineup with the intent to get free kicks and send in crosses, then to crash the box. If you want to be big and hustle and run over your opponent, commit to that fully, dont do that only in midfield and pick different qualities elsewhere on the field. So I think if I were to put in a criticism it isnt that one approach or the other cant work, its that Klinsmann is going in several different directions with his team selection, and what you see on the field is an incoherent mess. Gonzalez is a somewhat limited player in my eyes who is VERY good in his area of specialty, defending deep and cutting out all service into the box. But playing a high line with Gonzalez in the lineup makes no sense to me. Hes not agile or fast, and can be exploited by mobile strikers. If your going to play Gonzalez play a deep line and drop into your own box, let him win everything in that inclosed space, then break out on your opponent on the counter. B-J-W could be more effective then it was, but not on the road in central america in the heat when they are flying in on a short week from Europe in February. They just arent going to have the legs to be disruptive enough, and as you point out arent creative enough to make a difference without creating chaos in the midfield of the opponent. At this point I dont think Klinsman has a coherent view of how he wants the team to play, and the result is a disjointed mess.
We were 9-3-2 in 2012 playing primarily Bradley and Jones backed by {Edu, Williams, Beckerman}. They are our 2 best CMs and our best transition attackers/transition defenders. No one else is even close.
That record completely misrepresents the way the team played during that time period. It's like pointing to a 20 win pitcher and saying he's the Cy Young when he had an ERA of 4.50, a WHIP of 12/9 and gave up 40 HRs.
I love that line "record completely misrepresents...", it is brilliant. Goebbels would be proud. If you are going to use the Cy Young analogy don't be lazy go all the way. How is this: In 2012 a record of 9W 3L 2D with 1.64 goals for, 0.85 goals against including 2W-1L-1D away in Europe, 1-0 win at Azteca and winning our WCQ group 4W-1L-1D with a 5 GD! That sounds like Perdo's 1997 Cy Young year to me!
True, as a whole Klinsmann's results haven't been bad. Even a 2-1 loss to a good team on the road is not in itself cause for alarm. But it's not the case that we've had success attacking primarily through Jones and Bradley together. In qualifiers w/ Jones and Bradley and a d-mid: Home to A&B 3-1. Not awful but hardly something to write home about. Road tie w/ Guat. 1-1 Again, not terrible but not a success. Jones was frequently placed in a position to be playmaker on the right, which he couldn't do. then there's Road loss Jamaica 1-2 was not Jones and Bradely and a d-mid, but had edu and jones with beckerman. Different players same formation, and it really didn't work. We played three friendlies before qualifying. Scotland, Brazil, Canada. Jones and Bradley paired in the middle worked in Scotland, then didn't work in either Brazil or Canada. (Slightly different sets in both games, but both midfields put lots of playmaking/distribution duties on Jones and Bradley, and neither worked at all.) Two other friendlies had better results (Italy and Mexico) where the strategy was committed defense with occasional counters. (Really occasional in the case of Mexico. ) Neither had both Bradley and Jones. Italy had Edu and Bradley with Williams playing a pinched in right. This generated some attack. Mexico had our midfield defending the whole time and almost no attack at all. Our other qualifying wins weren't Bradley and Jones and usually had more balance in the midfield. With Bradley and Jones, the US has been okay to bad. More importantly, the combination has never lead to a result that has suggested a slow build/possession oriented running through those two players would work. So, again, why keep trying it? And yes, it is true that Bradley and Jones are our most accomplished central midfielders on club level right now. But that doesn't mean they work in tandem or that the two can run the kind of attack that Klinsmann seems to want to run. And while Jones has a long accomplished club career, his worked for the US is mixed. Perhaps this is b/c the roles he's been asked to play, but that just goes back to the question, why keep putting someone in a position where he seems so ill suited.
And it still misrepresents our quality of play. If you're happy with our performances in the games that matter, I don't know what to tell you. I'll tell you that our 2012 record isn't going to make me feel better if we end up at 1 point through 3 matches. The goal of all those stupid friendlies should have been to solidify weak spots and get the 1st team some PT together. That didn't happen. Those wins, including (and especially considering how indifferent Italy was til we scored, and how lucky we got against Mexico) the Italy and Mexico ones, were utterly and completely meaningless. Process over outcomes. Our process failed us during the semifinal round, and it failed us Wednesday.
Until you can objectively quantify "quality of play" I can't agree of disagree. Since only you know what you mean I assume your conclusion is correct. I will say that if we end 2013 with a similar winning % as 2012, which also misrepresents our quality of play, I personally will be dancing naked in the streets!
The only way I could see Jones and Bradley with a defensive midfielder behind them working is if it's done EXACTLY like the Scotland game. Winning that game really didn't matter to me. What I liked was the model that Juergen Klinsmann had constructed. The shape was a something of a 4-3-2-1/4-3-3. Jose Torres played a very David Silva-esque role that I think would suit him better than trying to be the midfield hub, and a lot more than trying to be a #10. He drifted across the pitch and created overloads in different areas, drawing pressure from Scotland's midfield and allowing Jones and Bradley to storm forward unchecked into the final third, with Donovan pinching in from higher on the right and Boyd up top. This completely overloaded Scotland's defense, and it showed. Like I've said. When Bradley and Jones get the chance to go at an unprotected defense, they're actually dangerous. But we need to find a way of getting past the midfield. Jose Torres helped us work the ball around Scotland's midfield. Against Russia, we completely bypassed the midfield and played direct to the strikers, with the second ball falling to our late midfield runners. So we'll see. I personally want to see this: I keep pimping out lineups like this, but we LOOKED GOOD against Scotland that game, and we've yet to see another team like it. The closest we came was against Brazil when we played Maurice Edu in an advanced midfield position, played Michael Bradley deep, and kept Donovan out wide and up against Marcelo ( who he has NEVER actually been able to beat). Not a recipe for success.
Only 1 clean sheet(against Canada) has been kept with both starting under Klinsmann. Under the previous regime the only clean sheets with them both starting were against Canada, Guadeloupe, Panama, Jamaica, Colombia. Start 1 but not both and pair with Edu. Ditch the 433 until the backline improves.
US shipped 4 against Brazil using a similar system to what was against Scotland. The problem is the backline which needs more cover than 433 provides.
Well, yeah, if we end 2013 with that winning percentage, I'd piss myself with drunken happiness, since we'll be playing much better teams in games that actually matter and will have qualified relatively comfortably.
I think this is a good point in the sense that it is easy to underestimate the difficulty Klinsmann has putting together a midfield for the US. Lots of combinations will work well in some narrow circumstances then fall apart if the game goes in unexpected ways. In terms of Jones specifically, I don't know. I don't see what he's done for the US that suggests he has to be in the lineup every game. Maybe I'd be more impressed if I watched him with Schalke. In all seriousness, I think he'd make a great backup for Bradley. (Which would be nice to have.) As to his replacement. Depends. If the US is going with a 3 man central midfield I'd like to see Kljestan, Torres or Feilhaber at least get a look as the third midfielder. If Holden returns to form, then him, obviously. This might not work, but I'd like to see it tried more often. (Case in point: Back in Klinsmann's first game (Mexico friendly)we started Jones and Bradley in front of Beckerman with Torres outside. Bad. In the second half Klinsmann switches Torres inside. He brings on Shea and Rogers. So instead of three central workhorses the midfield has a hub and wing/attackers on the field. All of a sudden we start generating chances. Granted, lot's more was going on, so this needs to be put in context. Bradley and Jones were both out of form, and neither Shea or Rogers are dependable full time players. Even so, it's weird that Klinsmann goes back to something like the the first half set lots. I don't remember seeing Torres (or Kljestan for that matter) in that kind central of role since.) If the answer is to go to a 4 man midfield (a d-mid, Bradley with hybrid attacking/wingish players on the right and left) then I'd rather see Gomez, Zusi, or Pontius get a chance. Or move Dempsey back and put Gomez up top as the second forward. If Donovan returns, then him.
If Jones absolutely had to be on the field then something like(4411). ------------------------Altidore ------Dempsey---------Jones------------ ---------------Bradley------------edu--------johnson with the deep mids shifting left to cover for Dempsey(as was done at Fulham) would at least give more coverage to the backline At Mexico Torres was Jones' spot with Jones and Beckerman deep-lying. Same concept.
Which is exactly what I said. The result was exaggerated greatly because of a very tired Scotland team. But it was the first match where the U.S. had a MODEL of some sort. They had a shape that looked cohesive and a team that ran it incredibly well. Our different players could fit into that system very well. A defensive midfielder with two central midfielders in front of him, two attacking midfielders pulling the strings, a sturdy center forward with good movement (whoever the hell you want to believe that is), and two dangerous overlapping wing-backs. Since that match, we've seen very few other lineups that follow that model. The Brazil game immediately following was the closest we got. That game saw nothing like the movement we had against Scotland, with Edu and Jones, the double 8's for that day, barely getting forward, Donovan hugging the touchline, And Gomez completely isolated. The Canada game was even more disappointing, even though we threw Clint Dempsey into the mix. He kept coming deep for the ball and receiving from our central midfielders when Jose Torres was doing the exact same job. Donovan got his feet chalky again, and Herculez Gomez had a lovely chat with two centerbacks and no partner to help him out.