Some additional thoughts - focusing on the Regista and the USMNT http://positionalplayscholar.com/in...-important-role-for-the-usmnt-future-regista/ Interested in others thoughts
Would you conclude that this iteration of the USMNT isn’t much worse than the 2010 and 2014 WC squads because those teams didn’t employ a “DLP” and therefore weren’t worth a damn anyway? Because that is completely delusional.
The only way to become one of the best sides in the world is to produce some of the best players. Deciding to employ a regista for the senior nats regardless of the composition of the pool does nothing for that aspiration.
Since you asked, too cookie cutter. going in I know I"ve got these guys who can do game breaking stuff: Pulisic, Morris, Dest, Adams and Brooks. Brooks is our DLP together with Adams and Dest starts plays down the right side. We are not good enough for a regista. Instead we should be concentrating on finding the right 8 because we have a big hole at that position (largely because of Egg's system). Look at the value of Pomykal with the u20's - he was Captain, actually.
I think there's a lot of ways to accomplish an objective, so I'm generally flexible in terms of being willing to see the positives of a coaching approach (in sharp contrast, I think, to most here). That said, there's one or two things I really strongly believe about personnel on the pitch, given the USMNT's level and goals. And that is that we really can't afford to have many, if any, players who can't hold their weight defensively. In order to reach the level I want for the USMNT, do we need players who can help us get the ball through or over the midfield? Yes. Is a midfield metronome incredibly helpful? Also, yes, though I'd argue far from necessary -- and I don't think these skills sets need to be situation in one person. The result is this: if we have a player who can play regista and hold their own defensively, I'm good. But if having a regista on the pitch requires us to carry a subpar defensive player, I think you have to look at spreading that responsibility out. I think Bradley is undeserving of his whipping boy status, and I love Jackson Yeuill's effort and play ... but neither is performing at a level, especially defensively, that says "this player needs to be on the pitch." With Tyler Adams, Weston McKennie and, I think, Paxton Pomykal, we are better off putting out a VERY strong defensive midfield and distributing the distribution responsibilities across the three of them (and helping with Dest). It's all trade-offs. You don't play a true 10 if you don't have a true 10. You don't play a regista if you don't have a regista. And you don't play either if they can't play defense. We already have a striker (who we don't want constantly tracking back) and a willing but small Pulisic (who we don't want tracking back). We can't have a third player with subpar defense. You simply can't be that good with that many one way players (and that includes defense only guys like Lovitz). I have no problem with increasing our effectiveness with the ball, practicing patterns of play to create opening from the run of play that aren't counterattacks -- I think it's vital. But I would not rigidly stick with a role if all the players who can play it can't hold up their defensive responsibilities ... and I'm not sure we have anyone who can.
Fair response. I think my point is that I am confident between McKennie (less so), Adams, Pomykal, - we'll fill that hole. I think for the US to be who they want to be and progress significantly from where there were this fall in terms of maintaining possession and then being able to score in possession- finding that Regista will be key. If they can't find that person or develop that person- we'll likely be stuck in some version of this fall. Hence the title of the post- that its potentially the most important role for the US (with this style and system in mind).
I would suggest based on our performance against Mexico in the GC- ppl are over stressing the defensive side. We gave up 1 goal. Yet our attack, ability to possess, and even transition quickly to counter were all suspect. We only succeeded in Mexico in going long- which says to me need that DLP role- which the primary responsbility is to help possess and build out of the back. I'm not necessarily saying it was Bradley's fault we didn't possess that game but given that was the biggest weakness in that game- I don't think the answer is to take away a role designed to improve it.
While I agree that Bradley -- and the defense -- weren't a particular problem in the Mexico game, I'm not really making my argument on specific performance. I don't think the passes you describe need to be centralized in a single player. And all the players best suited for the role are always going to be on the suspect side of defense for a central defender who also tends to play the stay at home role. We're going to have Adams, McKennie, Pomykal -- these are the types of players who generate defense into offense. They also all have some level of passing skills but I would never want to place one as a centerpiece or have them stay home. I think we'll be far more effective allowing them to range, and jointly sharing in the distribution role. I don't hate the regista role. If Bradley were younger or Jackson Yeuill were more athletic, I might be more on board. I just anticipate that we will have better overall options that running it. If we continue with it, I have no doubt that some of the guys you mentioned could play that role reasonably effectively; I'd just hope that we don't slavishly stay committed to having a player like Adams or Pomykal stay back and stay stationary. On the other hand, if through injuries or other elements, Yeuill is our best option coming WCQ, then the regista role makes a lot of sense, because while I question his upside, role-wise, it's a nice fit for him.
I think a national teams coach job is to take the best 11 he can put together and then utilize a system that maximizes the strengths of the overall skill set. I think it is folly to marry a system that requires "X" type of player unless a plethora of international quality exists in the pool for said "X." In the case of our pool I think we would be best served to play direct, press high, and play the fastest center backs we have. Play relentless and hound the frick out of them. If they want to bunker and blast the ball out without trying to play it out we just keep coming at them. If you want TA sitting at midfield as a regista pinging the ball all over the pitch, then okay, Brooks will chip in with a nice pass on occasion, but having him requires a fast partner.
In the article, for me the key that creates problems for the US is twofold. First, as stated in he article, "The Regista often needs at least one defensive minded partner, so you will rarely see them in a midfield system that allows them to be isolated in man to man defense." Playing with a regista and then two 8/10s does not allow for this. Secondly, we don't have anyone who is good enough to make the defensive sacrifices worth it. None of the guys we've played as that deep play-maker actually create much of anything. If we had a midfielder who could efficiently move the ball forward quickly and create danger from deep positions, I'd still want him to have defensive cover, but I'd value the contribution more. We also keep leaving out the importance of on the ball skill for the role as maintaining possession if you're going to play with the ball in the back has to be a top priority, which is why I do think people give our midfielders way too much crap for passing back and sideways. When you get the ball in those deep central spots the most important thing you can do is keep it.
I agree with a lot of this. Which is why I said this role is possibly one of the most important to the US soccer's future. That role needs to be developed and found. I think the defensive liability is a relative thing. Busquets, Fabinho, and fernandinho are not currently defensive liabilities. Klopp paired Fabinho with a partner until his game got up to speed. I think the challenge for Berhalter with this role will be finding the balance. For all of Yuiell's praise against Canada- he was a pretty poor DLP that game- but was decent defensively. I most hopeful answer is Adams can do that role. Secondly- I agree that pairing a DLP with two 8/10's is probably unwise unless we have a really good two way DLP- which we don't have. I think that is why McKennie next to Yuell worked fairly well. I would expect or hope they keep someone like McKennie or Adams next to the DLP until they find or develop one that is more two way than Yuiell, Bradley, or Trapp. That pair's a more 6/8 player with a DLP and that should work defensively- It may not be ideal offensively. I say that because the reason GB wants two 8/10's is to compensate for not having a true number 10. So having a 6/8 hybrid will take a little away from that (theoretically). In short- my overall point is that to be who they want to be into the future (time TBD) - I think finding a high level player to take on that role will be key.
Isn't that kind of like saying, we'll play like Barcelona as soon as we develop our own Messi? And then designing a team around this mythical beast we do not have.
Kinda- but there are lots of levels between where we are and Barcelona. I would see it more as a continuum than a categorical thing. But in that same mindset- Do we say because we don't have a Messi- then we shouldn't try to have a number 10? I have never heard anyone say it that way. I think the DLP role can be as standard as a winger. The better the winger, the better the team. In this case- I think the DLP is just more important that we get a high level one than a high level winger or a high level 8.
Thing is, strategies change and the game always evolves. The popular strategies of today aren't the same as 5 years ago and will be different 5 years for now. So planning for a player for a specific system to come down the pipeline when in all actuality we will be employing a different strategy in a decade is a bit of a fool's errand. You construct a team from parts you have, not parts you hope to have in a future where your whole strategy may be revamped.
That's exactly right. Had some educated manager looked at our pool and seen a couple of outstanding defensive midfielders and a fantastic regista, it would make an awful lot of sense to play with that tactic. Instead we get:
They don't change THAT much. For example the DLP as a standard has been around since the 90's. The characteristics of that role may change a bit but that role being a consistent role is pretty standard. But I think that is part of the challenge of any soccer system whether your Ajax, Barcelona, Spain, Netherlands, or the US. You have to develop a system and set of what players you want to find and develop and then continually check that like a strategic plan. But that method is what is producing the right players for the right style or many clubs and countries. As far as creating from what you have vs what you want- that's the same ole system vs talent argument. I'll use the Herb brooks quote again (movie version) Craig Patrick: You're missing the best players. Herb Brooks: I'm not looking for the best players, Craig, I'm lookin' for the right ones. I think both methods have merit. I also think, once you select a style and start developing players to fit the roles of that style then the difference between those two methods is less stark. The example I used about Pep with the DLP is an example. Barca embraced developing particular roles. All three of Xavi, Iniesta, and Busquet were developed in the mold of a DLP. But Pep played them all together. The Barca style then evolved a bit but within a consistent framework. Because they developed those particular type and style of payers- Pep had more freedom to pick the best players and play them together. When you do as the US currently do- you tend to develop and promote players that do not fit a consistent style OR do not fit a strategic style. Each youth team is selected and chosen to win that youth game or tournament. So where - the team as a whole may be not suited for a possession game and better suited for a high press or bunker style- that one great DLP gets left off and a destroyer 6 is chosen instead. Its not that we didn't have that DLP in the pool. Its that maybe we had poor passing CB's in that particular generation. So then US soccer promoted and worked to develop a destoyer 6 and CBS that cant pass... because they were not choosing and developing talent toward a strategic direction.
Dude you put some nice work into this. Well done. Whether or not people agree, it's at least worth addressing some of the points you've made, which are pretty well thought-out and supported. I'll start by saying that there are several flavors of the regista / DLP role, just like there's different flavors of the 10, the 9, etc. Some are ball circulators / protectors who orchestrate midfield; some are more box-to-box CMs or DMs that can hit the field-spreading pass. I think it's important to choose a style that works for us. You don't need to possess the ball to control a game or dominate a team; you can control where the ball is played without having it, like France did in WC18. And that's much more en vogue today than trying to out-possess opponents (look at the dominant clubs today). So in a way, that plays to US strengths as we've historically been an athletic team. So I think of how the regista role can work for us, acknowledging that it's not going to look like Xavi, Pirlo etc. The US has a good track record of developing speedy forwards and wingers and we can probably rely on that to continue; having a deep player that can spring those players with long balls is a good idea. For some other ideas about how the regista role might look in a more "American" flavor, I offer Xabi Alonso and Paul Pogba: Xabi Alonso vs. Pep's Bayern; Real mangled them 4-0 in Munich. Alonso moved to Bayern the next season Pogba's goal in the WC final starts with his brilliant through ball to release Mbappe down the right wing #MundialTelemundo ¿Gol de campeonato? @paulpogba aumenta la ventaja y #FRA pone una mano sobre la Copa del Mundo. pic.twitter.com/JSV2gEsNmB— Telemundo Deportes (@TelemundoSports) July 15, 2018 Obviously playmakers, but less "midfield maestros" or metronomes. I could see the USA playing this way.
Very much appreciated and responses like this are why I write these blog posts. I get an idea or (an idea gets stuck in my head) and I want to understand it better so I research, watch for it with teams I follow, and then want to do get all of that out. What I really want are responses like this that help me think about it more and a little differently. Roles and player profiles are interesting. On one hand, they are helpful to set up a basic team structure or philosophy. And as I've said, they help clubs and national programs develop types of players that can play a certain way. But no role is categorically the same. It can be very difficult to say "this thing" is a number 10 or a Regista because of the variability in players, coaches, and teams. Passing skill, volume, and efficiency are characteristics, for example, that I equate with the DLP. Fabinho - on a high pressing team has a passing completion percentage in the high 80's. He's labeled a #6 and you can even find articles talking about his skills as a DLP. Then you mention Drogba and Xabi- who make Pirlo or Kroos style playmaking passes but have passing percentages in the lower 80's - more like advanced playmakers. Are Drogba and Xabi DLP's? OR are they something else? Another example? wijnaldum 90% passing completion percentage... as a #8 in a high pressing team. In my mind, that role's numbers should be more around Kante's (84% ish). It gets back to that coaches can take these roles and tweak them. The players tendencies and skill also factor in. There isn't a substitute for watching and breaking down games. I watch a good bit of soccer- but I don't have the time to watch it THAT much- and so look to highlights and stats regarding players that I don't watch as much on a consistent basis. Good points.. I'll have to watch those to in particular and see if I would categorize them as Regista's or something else... Or rethink my idea of what those roles are... Appreciate it!
With the holiday period upon us, I thought I would rewatch the 0-3 Mexico friendly and got thru a good deal of the first half. We were bad at everything. A clear outline of our play on the positive front would appear here and there but the team coped badly with so many facets of the game, I would not know where to start. We played haltingly in even the most basic elements of the game. A regista would have made no difference at all. Mexico move like one body while our team looked like a scattered herd of cows.
That second game- I completely ignore. It was an aberation, practice game. The GC game would be worth rewatching as would the first Canada game.
The 0-3 result came against the Mexico first team who played their second game in the window against Argentina and were blown out of the water. The GC game was against a Mexico B squad.
Rep to the op, for the effort. Imo, if the goal is---as the op prefers---to build a possession-oriented team then the first priority ought to be to get possession-oriented players. In the case of the US, that would mean dropping a number of regulars. There hasn't been the courage of conviction to do this.