what country do you think the US resembles the most in terms of style? And, based on that country’s history, does such style bring good odds of bringing the US a major trophy in the next 7-15 years…. (trophies like World Cup, Copa America, Confederations cup and even U-17 or U-20 WCs…..) On a somewhat related note, after watching about a half of all WWC games (although usually not the whole 90), I found it interesting most countries’ teams in the WWC do seem to copy the style of their male counterparts, even in defeat…Two quotes from this article http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/6961273.htm “Oops, the Germans are bigger and stronger in the air. How about a tactical switch? How about some combination play? How about some creativity and technical superiority?” “It's not "unlucky" to exhibit poor technique, poor judgment or poor effort. I sure saw a lot of bad technique and sloppy effort in the attacking third of the field by the Americans at PGE Park on Sunday.” Also (not as relevant to the USMNT, but sometimes it happens) From http://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2003/10/07/time_to_bring_on_us_changes/ "But the most important change for the US must relate to the mental approach to soccer. The US has dominated the women's game by using high-pressure defending, incessant running, and physically intimidating foes. When this strategy fails, there is no safety net, no style of play in which the team can comfortably regroup." Aren’t these precisely the main complaints we make of the USMNT on our worst showings? I know the USMNT (thankfully) has bad performances much less often than before, but it still happens with some regularity, especially against elite opposition….Perhaps the answer lies on whether we slowly change our style of play, or whether we believe that we could keep the same style and with better players coming through the ranks we will reach the pinnacle in the future….I thought perhaps the questions in the first paragraph would be helpful on deciding the future road to be taken (at least in our minds, since USSF officials don’t base their policies on BS threads)
I don't know there has ever been a team as boring as the US Nat'l team, and that is not a good thing when looking toward the future.
Well, if you look back at the Arena era, it would appear that Bruce has had the ability to change formations and personnel to suit the opponent. I'm not sure what other country that would resemble, since I'm not aware of another country that does it as much as the US. I guess the style is an adptation to having a fair number of very good players, but no real superstars. The US women play a different style, kind of a geriatric boot and scoot. They never change this, no matter the opponent, and will probably keep doing it until all the players are in wheelchairs.
The US women's team had a number of problems, all related to their previous success. It resulted in a number of decisions that produced the stale performance, but htats not eally what this thread is about, thats for another forum. The men's team issue isnt style of play, but the execution of the style. When there is good off the ball movement and a reasonable amount of passing from the back, then everything is good. Unfortunately as of late they have turned in pretty stagnant performances where players are a bit too much like the plastic guys on a Foosball table. IMNSHO at least.
There really are three major styles out there. 1. One is the english style bypassing the midfield, long balls from the back a direct approach and if the passes connect its very effective and results in a lot of action. To play this style you need very good long ball passers and very good forward to handle that long ball. 2. Two is the latin style, short passing game,slow build from the back, lots of possesion, again if the skills are super its beutiful, if the skill is lousy it will look like a boring game you don't get to see much but the middle of the field. 3. Third style is east european, mostly played by countries who undestand the game very well but do not have the players to face the top 10 teams of the world and go "face to face". This countries employ a defense first style with quick counter attacks which works very well for them. They frustrate the opposition and relay on that one goal that could give them a good result. With this system you need players with good ball distribution and technique. American style is neither, our country is a mixture of cultures, kids (players) with different backrounds. Bruce Arena is a good coach with a good understanding of the game and he has a difficult task at hand. While coaching DC United he employed a dutch system mixing the passing game with long balls , it was very effective and the team won two MLS Cups. Same system worked during the WC and we nearly got to the semifinals. However this year 2003 was disappointing our players forgot how to pass, how to hold the ball, how to run into open spaces. Our play in the Conf Cup has been the worst i have seen from this team, its is not the result that i am talking about but how they played.
I think those may be the most oppositional styles, but most countries play somewhere in between what you have described. Germany, for example, is in no way described by any of those three styles. Italy also escapes those terms. Those are two of the biggest teams in the history of world soccer, so I think you may have to expand beyond there only being three ways teams play. The US style is most characterized by high pressure tactics and team play over individual skills, in my opinion. When it's working, it can be very effective, by giving the opposition very little time on the ball, and generating chances from a variety of positions as players work together to attack. The drawbacks are, when we face the very top teams, those teams can often still be effective with little time on the ball and move things around quickly, negating our pressure tactics. We also have trouble scoring against well-organized differences with few players able to break much down one on one. Our biggest upcoming hurdle is learning how to play against teams that respect us more. Solid pressure defense and teamwork are very effective means of beating a team that is attacking you and confident coming forward. But, playing a quality team that hangs back and stays organized will give the US fits trying to break them down.
I was just quickly describing 3 major styles of play, some fall in between as is the case with US Nats style of play. US Nats seems to have better success against teams that play the latin style the short passing possesion play.
I do understand that the US is not exclusively a one-style kind of team...Modern soccer does not allow for such a thing to happen as much....Even Brazil is an example of that, often playing a tactical version of the game which looks similar to what the Italians use when leading....However, i tend to agree with the sentiment of this quote: From http://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2003/10/07/time_to_bring_on_us_changes/ "The predicament of the women's game is symbolic of soccer in general in the US. The emphasis long has been on power and speed, based on the Anglo model. The prevailing instinct of US coaches and players is to rely on persistence and size. Prospective talent is recruited on muscle and speed, while the intangibles are often ignored. This method of selection penalizes players and stunts the growth of the game, because these players eventually will meet their physical match." I think we tend to resemble the English style of soccer most of the time - about 60%-80% of the games- as summarized by #1 in your post, adding that physical strength is also a big part in making this style successful...This might have a lot to do first with the US players' abilities (even if they are improving fast) and also because it provides us with an advantage -particularly in the area where we are located- primarily playing Central American and Caribbean nations, which tend not to match our physicality, and/or air game....Now I know performances such as those vs. Portugal and Germany in the 2002 WC points to some kind of flexiblity....While we will still be able to adopt similar tactics in the future, its effectiveness i think will have to depend -a lot- in keeping or improving the technical skills of our players, because i think some of the element of surprise we were able to employ back then will have been lost
U.S STYLE OF PLAY This is just a thought being that my soccer knowledge is limited in terms of style of play and formations....the way I see it is our strengths are in the GK and defensive positions while our weaknesses are in the mid-field and forward positions. ei: lack of dominant 'skilled' players. Borrowing form Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" when in battle (games), show that you are weak were you are strong, and show that you are strong were you are weak. This being said would a formation with say 4 or 5 forwards 3 or 4 midfielders and 2 defenders work? We could just flood the other teams defensive third and attack like hell...yeah we might give up some goals but our GK's are good enough (world class!) to stop alot of shots and the constant pressure would minimize a lot of attacks . While our 2 defenders in the back could match up man to man on the other teams two forwards. Most sports come down to "imposing your will on the other team, making them play your style" Would this style work...I realize that there would be alot of 5-4 games but would it work....AGAIN JUST A THOUGHT......please share your thoughts.
All the other team would have to do is bunker and counter-attack. Given our difficulty in scoring against a bunker defense we'd actually have a lot of 1-4 losses with that approach rather than the 5-4 victories you suggest.
Exactly...There used to be 2-3-5 formations all the way to the....50's-60's? Someone please correct me if necessary...Once it was found out that people could sit on defense and counter with favorable 3 on 1s or 4 on 2s the number of players put on the attacking third of the field came down...Now most teams use only 2 forwards, 3 if enterprising, and 1 if they are weak or play much superior opponents....
That's were I took the example from...wasn't it origionally used buy an Italian coach?...or was he the one that changed to a more defensive style?
I think "traditional" style of play is in the past. I just watched a German league game last weekend(Werder Bremen and Wolfsburg) played a highly entertaining game that ended 5-3. Both teams had players from Brazil and Argentina. Was it a Geman style game? No. It was skilled, technial, fast paced, fun soccer. All of the major leagues are similiar... Depending on the opponent and players available, all good teams will play a different style to win the game. Do some countries still lean towards a specific style? Sure. Do they change their style? The good nations do... Also, style is a product of the skill set of the player pool available in a nation at the time. Remember Brazil in 1994. They played a very tactical type of game focused on keeping the team together on defense. A lot of Brazilians hated it until they won the WC... ...in 2002. The Brazilians were back to their style of play. However, I would suggest that they won the WC based upon the play of their goalie and defensive midfielder (Gilberto) as much as the 3 Rs. Try watching a MFL match. The games have changed in the last 5-10 years. They are more fast paced, physical, and direct than before. Of course, they still tend to more posession and build up. We are still a generation or two away before the US produces the skill set required to play the free flowing game of Brazil, Argentina, Italy, and Germany. However, with the foundation set in the 70s and 80s by NASL and youth leagues, you are seeing an experience coaching base who knows soccer. I loved comments that the US "style" is boring. I have seen plenty of boring possession games in my life and plenty of boring direct or counterattacking games. Lastly, if you had to pin me down on a style, I would say we are more close to Germany than English. Highly tactical, physically superior, strong will, and direct. Our challenge at the moment is that teams can catch up tactically and physically quicker than the US can develope the appropriate skilled players to counter those changes.
I don't know if there has ever been a team as classless as Mexico. Our "boring" style has out played Mexico for the past 3 years.
IMO very few teams have a defined style of play. Italy, Germany, Holland, Brazil, and Argentina are the most traditional and continue to have a defined style of play that sets them apart from the rest of the teams. BTW.., The US = Germany Lite
The US = Germany Lite [/B][/QUOTE] And we all can agree that the US's "German Lite" gave the German's "German Heavy" a very good run for its money in Korea. There must be a beer analogy there somewhere...
I todays soccer world I dont belive you can say that one style is "German" or "English" or "Dutch" or "Latin" with the spread of players and coaches all over the globe; Brazillan players in Germany, Dutch coaches in South Korea, Latin players in American playing an "English" style. Now each nation playes the style that best fits the players they have. This is the trick for coaches in todays soccer world. Their are exceptions of this of course. I think of Enlgand with just now, their first foregin coach and Owen Hargreeves, this first player for England who has never played a game in the Football League. And not many European players look to move to South America to play club ball. Or not, just what I think.
I think you are very wrong. Yeah, England has Sven, but I doubt they will hire a "Carlos" for some time. I can't see Germany hiring an Argentinian to coach, either--but I could see Germany hiring a DUtch coach. What I mean by this is that these traditional powers may stray a little bit, to "spice up" their existing style. What you won't see is Brazil with an English coach for a while either. Despite globalization, many footballing nations are really proud of their country's style of play. It's part of the national identity--one of those things that "no one can take away from us"---kinda like how Brazil will not export certain exotic fruits--they could make money on doing so, but they consider them national treasures. The problem I have with the USA trying to "imitate" another country's style is this---one of my club former players that plays for a (pre-season) top 5 D1 program has a coach who is clueless--he tells his players in pre-season: "We are going to play in the same style that Manchester United plays. Same formation, same tactics." What the coach fails to realize is that if you do not have the technical ability--to be able to accurately send a 30-40 meter pass, be able to trap this same ball, if you don't have a positional sense for that level of game, if you aren't that good at heading, AND the players you have are natural small-ballers, dribblers and short passers, your game is going to implode. The reason the English style works (generally) for the English, is because they are English. They grew up practicing trapping the 40-meter boot, heading this same ball, and the like. What I mean is that if you try to imitate a style that is not suited to your players' natural makeup (this is why Bora was onto something when he said we should try to play like the French, as he saw a blend of Latin/European and thought that would suit us), everything will implode. It's simply trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
Darn, i must be the only poster who believes we resemble the classic English style of soccer the most. Not all the time, but more often than not....
Re: Re: US Style of Play Originally posted by nicodemus I guess that makes Mexico about like Belgium lite then, since we've owned them lately. Mexico = Argentina Lite