I can dream of a 4-2-3-1. ----------------------Howard----------------------- -----Wynne-------Gooch-------Boca----Spector------ -------------------Bradley-----Edu------------------ ------Donovan-----------Adu-------------Beasley---- -------------------------Jozy-------------------------- This happens I'll be very happy. The two backs can differ, or the back line, but those 6 are critical. If those 4 can develop, and Donovan and Beasley are on form, that is a team who can suprise.
We hardly romped through the semis. We tied Jamaica in our first game in Kingston on a Ching goal in the 89th. We beat El Salvador and then tied Panama 1-1 in Panama on a Cobi Jones goal in the 92nd minute. We were a couple of minutes away from being 1-2-0 to start the semis and might not have even qualified from the group. Hardly a romp.
we'll play that formation and bs will still call it 4-4-2, because dmb and ld will have to do some defensive covering of the flanks, and adu will sometimes be lateral to jozy. and that's not a predictive fallacy.
I dont care if it starts off as a 4-3-2-1 and it transforms into a 4-4-2, or a 4-5-1. If we have those players in the right posistions to succeed, thats what matters.
If the 2-3 are Bradley, Lewis, Mastro, LD and Edu with LD playing RM and Bradley,Mastro and Edu never approaching the other penalty area,as I expect they will be, I'd have to wash down the meal with Peptobismol.
I actually agree with you (shudders), but are in typical assholian form. I hate it that I agree with you in any way.
Bob won't play 4-2-3-1 because he needs two forwards to punt the ball toward. A single striker simply won't get to all these long bombs. Case closed.
You forgot the most important part -- having a second forward up there means there's a 2% chance that the US could actually win a head ball from its target forward, which is the entire premise around which the empty bucket is formed. Of course, that one time out of 50, there's nowhere for that second forward to go with the ball since our CM are back by our 18-yard-box and the target man is dazed from his 34th concussive header of a punt in the half, but that's just nitpicking.
You are nitpicking because, according to Karl K, Bob is readying his team for the Azteca where a rarified air will allow Tim Howard to score from his own penalty box on a long punt.
I'd say after watching our last few games that seems to be one of the most likely chances of us actually scoring.
BINGO! We've basically stagnated in terms of our tactical mindset since WC 2002 even though we've developed better players. It's not fair to compare how we did in the WC vs qualifying because WC groups will be VASTLY different from year to year, whereas our qualifying groups will always be pretty much the same. Measuring how well we did in qualifying or Gold cup is actually a better way to measure the national team's progress. The team did very well in the 2006 WC cycle, but ultimately failed to live up to expectations at the WC because of such a hard group. To truly gauge the performance of the national team, you would have to compare--if I may use a hackneyed phrase--apples to apples. Last cycle, the team did very well at home against all opponents, but play was highly variable on the away legs. This cycle, the goal should be to not only play well at home, but also play well away, especially in hostile venues like Azteca and Saprissa. When we play well there--not necessarily win, per se--but just play our game without being too defensive and reactionary, we'll know we're ready for the world cup no matter what kind of group we get put into. Anyways, I'm straying off topic... So to wrap it up, WCQ ARE predictive of how strong a team is as compared to other teams of different cycles. It's just that when the team gets to the WC, it's basically a tossup because of the highly variable groups.