Im less concerned about attacking responsibilities then defensive ones in deciding which one to put in the midfield. As for Dempsey at forward, I think its a matter of playing him the right way. Not a McBride type, like he got roped into trying to be at Fulham.
There already is one available. Parkhurst Bench Bradley. I realize this will be my most controversial recommendation, but the kid isn't ready to be our defensive midfielder. Too many mistakes in terms of (1) giveaways, (2) defensive missteps, and most importantly, (3) poor positioning and far too much play-chasing. Agreed. There's only one reason he's playing right now Start Adu. As I said in one of the post-match threads, when Adu starts, he works within himself and the team and makes a big difference in how everyone around him plays. When he's a late game sub, he forces things he shouldn't. Instead of trying to reign Freddy in, we need to let him loose. I agree. He brings life to the team Start Edu. He's our starting Defensive Midfielder. Strong in defensive positioning and closing down attackers, and our best distributor not named Benny. He may even be better than Benny. Start Sacha. Last night was a good example of a couple things I've pointed out for months with Sacha. He attacks space better than anyone else in the pool. He is a more creative, attacking passer than anyone else in the pool. He is not dispossessed easily. And, he is better than you might think in defense. Sacha needs to be playing as our right midfielder, right now. I like his game. We need to see more but he may be ready Move Dempsey. Sacha starting obviously leads to the question of what to do with Dempsey. I move him centrally in front of Edu. Others would say this should be Bradley's spot. I think the two should battle it out, but this is the role Dempsey ruled in while in New England. He hasn't been that good in other positions Try Rogers. I'm not ready to give up on Beasley, but I will concede he needs to work himself back into shape. Rogers is an option we should look closely at. I also think we should give Colin Clark a look. I just don't see Lewis being a contributor in 2010, although he should probably start against Barbados. Still, we need to deepen the pool here, and Bradley hasn't accomplished that. I'm ready to give up on Beasley. If you look at his game closely there are only two positives. His speed and his work rate. He will track back and play defense as well as get forward. Downside is he's a poor dribbler, average passer and poor at crossing. Not good attributes for an outside mid. Watch him closely sometime and ask yourself "is this the best we have"? None of these changes should be seen as drastic. They are adjustments to a pool that's starting to select itself. They are adjustments towards a better attacking balance. They bring our best performers onto the field and put those players in positions where they can be successful.
Further to your comments on Dempsey, think he is best as utility man. Does not have the speed of Beas or LD to play 90 min on the wing. Not fast enough to be top striker for 90. Nor is he good with his back to the goal. But, he has experience at left mid, right mid, cam, and forward. He is not bad in the air, and has a little more meat and bones to battle with defenders (Beas, LD, Freddy much smaller). He has heart. And, since someone is always winded or injured, Demps is the best option. So, start him on the bench, but keep him ready. This way we can start midfiedl from l to r Beas/Adu/LD.
You're right. Let's keep doing what Bob did against England. That was much better. Like I said, it's something I'd like to try. When he was the best prospect we had in our pool, that's the role he was playing. Both club and country have since dicked around with him, and he's never looked as good, IMO. If it doesn't work, we have other options.
Is the kid ready to be anybody's d-mid? I've watched zero of his games at H'veen but I know he doesn't play d-mid for them. If Bradley has to be in the game, Bob should put him in what has become his natural position: ------------- Altidore ------------- Donovan ------ Adu - Bradley- Dempsey --------------- Edu
A few thoughts: 1. I don't want to see the US play without wings in the midfield. We're not good enough to attack without any width. I realize that that fact may require us to leave some of our better individual players on the bench in order to get wings on the field, but that's just how it's gonna have to be if we are going to be able to create an attack against good teams and if we are going to be able to bust CONCACAF bunkers. Let's not make up formations designed solely to get our best players on the field without any thought as to whether the formation will allow those players to work together effectively. 2. Dempsey needs a seat on the bench for a while. He has not looked good in any of the three warm-up friendlies. And he really doesn't play a position that helps us. We need a wing on the right side. His name is Donovan. 3. No question that Mike Bradley had a sub-par performance in the 3 warm-up friendlies. And no argument that he has been outplayed by Edu and Pablo. But he should be right behind those two guys. He's still above Clark. 4. I think Bob Bradley may be smarter than any of us when it comes to Eddie Johnson. Eddie probably is our most improved player over the last 12 months or so. And I give Bob all the credit for that. Bob has rolled that kid out time and again and actually has him looking like a useful player. Most of us would have given up on Eddie a long time ago, but Bob has shown a lot of foresight to stick with him. He's a phenomenal athlete and now looks like he'll continue to develop. He'll almost undoubtedly be beaten out by Altidore well before 2010, but he'll be a useful guy for the bench and throughout qualifying. Very useful.
Move that to a 4-1-4-1 and you'd get them on the pitch. ----------------------Howard-------------- ---Dolo-----Gooch-------Demerit---------Pearce------- -------------------Edu---------------------- ------Dempsey----Donovan---Adu---Kljestan------ -----------------Altidore----------- *I personally am not a big fan of the 4-1-4-1, but it's probably the only way to get Dempsey, Edu, Donovan, Adu, and Kljestan on the field like you wanted.
Demerit needs to be an automatic starter at CB. He's just simply tons better than Boca. Demerit is HARD. Demerit has speed. Demerit anticipates, wins passes before they even get to his man. He attacks that position and owns his part of the field. Demerit is a threat to score off set pieces far more than Boca, and I know Boca has bounced in the occasional header. I can't believe he's not a lock. Kleijstin is our RM. He's way better than Dempsey in that spot. You can argue to move Dempsey or not, but Sasha is by far better than Dempsey at that RM position.
On this, I totally agree. I guess it's a big point of contention, even with posters on BS, but I look at this problem like you. Just grabbing what people think are our 10 best field players in a vacuum, and throwing them out there without regard to what position makes them our theoretically best 10 is just silly. A really good central type player with no speed and no ability to draw players wide and get the ball into the middle quickly is not the answer out on the edge. It would be better to take a lesser accomplished player who actually plays that particular position better. I think there needs to be an end to just conjuring up formations to get specific people on the field, when it negatively impacts the entire team.
Well, Jerry White had a very good season in Denmark ... a wide right player. It was good to see him in this series. I recall every one of his touches vividly.
Too early to suggest Kljestan start after a solid half against an exhausted Argie squad. Mastroeni hasn't shined in the back when he's played there for the Rapids. My personal preference of center mids in terms of expereince senior internationals would Clark and Edu for now. Clark isn't in Bradley's league but he hasn't made the big mistakes over the aggregate of games played. Starting forwards would be Adu and Altidore. Left mid Lewis. Donovan on the right.
PS Here are a few formations I'd approve of: -----Altidore----Adu----- --Beasley--------Donovan -----Edu-----Bradley----- (would be ok switching Bradley and Dempsey) -----------Altidore------------ ----Adu------------Donovan-- --Edu------Bradley----Dempsey (Don't love it but it gets 4 of our best players in natural positions) -----------Altidore------------- -Beas--Adu----Bradley---Donovan ------------Edu----------------- (Once again, ok with Bradley/Dempsey, this is probably my favorite) ------Altidore-----Donovan------ ------------Adu----------------- --Beasley-------------Dempsey-- -----------Bradley--------------- (Weak defensively: could switch Edu for Bradley and Bradley for Dempsey) Any way you put it, the following players WILL play (correctly) the most minutes in 2010: Adu, Donovan, Altidore, Beasley, Dempsey, Edu, Bradley. That gives us 5 non-defensive subs who are trying to go to South Africa. You can pencil a healthy Clark in for now. Convey will go unless someone (Mapp? Rogers, who will get his shot at multiple spots?) can displace him on the left. Eddie Johnson unless another target forward (Cooper? Zimmerman? Flores and McLaughlin won't be ready for sure) can displace him. That leaves 2 spots, most likely to two of an attacking midfielder a right-footed midfielder, and a non-target forward. Those are the spots guys like Kljestan are fighting for, as well as Feilhaber, Rogers, Zizzo, Szetela, McCarty, and a whole host of other players are going for. And that's not because of Bradley (who I'm personally not a fan of, for organizational reasons). Almost any coach in the world would see it that way.
Yeah, kind of interesting that Alex Ferguson did the same thing on his way to a CL run. And they're only out of position if you play soccer as if it were foosball. If you let your players be dynamic and move where the situation calls for it, formations start to mean jack shit in a hurry. As for no Bradley, like I said, he remains an option. Which is exactly what he should be instead of the starting lock he's been for Bob.
I've been trying to express the Man Utd system with USA players for a few years now. When you have tweeners, then you let them play to their strengths and let them float between positions.
I disagree with that in a sense. Hes looked best when hes given the most freedom and least responsibility. Hes looked his worst when hes been forced into a central midfield role, where there is maximum responsibility. I personally prefer him in the withdrawn forward position in Bradley's chosen formation, because there is a lot of freedom to move around the field and get involved offensively, but little to no penalty for any defensive lapses or shortcomings. Honestly though I see Donovan and Adu as direct competitors for that withdrawn forward position, and can easily see it being a question of playing one or the other. Right now though I think moving Donovan into the midfield is the best option, as it shores up that part of the field. But if players like Rogers and Kljestan translate their games to the full national team level, then you start looking at wether Adu as a withdrawn striker and Donovan in midfield is better than Donovan at withdrawn striker, and Rogers in midfield. The nice thing at that point though is you are actually talking about depth. That said, this is all based on the notion of a fast transition attack, where you arent trying to maximize the amount of attacking talent on the field, but instead your trying to maximize the freedom your best 4 attackers receive to get in their best positions on the field. A more deliberate attacking style dictates a different set of considerations.
that's not true at all. Joe Cole's biggest problem is that he plays for managers that try to shoe-horn him in at Left-Mid. If he played for Sir Alex, he'd be considered as good as Rooney and Ronaldo. The beauty of what he does is that you can't defend Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, or Giggs with any single strategy. They pop up all over the field. They aren't wingers, strikers, attacking midfielders, or whatever. They are attacking players. Ronaldo, individually is brilliant - and he wouldn't be even half as effective without the freedom he's granted, and with out the freedom that the other Utd players are granted. Now you get to USA, with guys like Donovan and Adu as your front runners, but still other players with ability around them. Sacha, Beaz, Altidore, etc. Sure, play the central mids behind them, but why can't you let your attackers have free reign all over the fielf? why pidgeon hole them into a position and force them to stay there? We were most effective in the 2nd half vs Argentina when Adu and LD were doing whatever the hell they wanted to do - I don't believe that's a coincidence.
Well, except Adu and Kljstean are not tweeners. Donovan is, but you have Donovan at a natural position anyways. If you let them all do their thing, then this team lined up the way you have them gets killed defensively. Otherwise, you tell Adu and Kljstean that they have to take substantial defensive responsibilities, and you don't put Adu in a place where he can utilize his vision of the whole field. The Man Utd system isn't "put the 11 players you have in whatever position and tell them all to do what they want." It's fluid (somewhat), but its fluid in sequence. It's also difficult to execute due to communications issues even when your team is playing together day in and day out, nevermind when they come together for a handful of games a year. When Adu makes his run, who covers for him defensively? When Kljestian is bringing the ball up the right wing, what is Adu doing that is helping the offense? If the answer is "nobody" and "nothing" your formation is poor, even given that formations don't need to be entirely formulaic.
One of these four is not like the other. Man United don't actually play like you describe them. They play with an excellent distributor feeding a world class attacking midfielder and two solid, traditional forwards (one a speedster and another a classic English CF). Then they have role players who cover, protect defensively, and contribute when they can. The US lacks a Michael Carrick (until Bradley grows into the position, but you've taken him off the field entirely). You can mimic the classic forwards in Donovan and Altidore, and Adu is an attacking midfielder (of a different style than Ronaldo). Edu can then fill in one important role - holding the center while Bradley/Dempsey goes on organizer duty. But whose playing defense for Adu and Donovan? Kljsestan, out of position, all by his lonesome? Maybe you'd be getting somewhere with a 3-5-2, but you'd still need to show me the two defensive-minded wingers who can make it work. Beasley maybe on the left, but not Kljestan on the right.
It takes a certain type of player to be a freelancing attacker. Adu and LD both fit that mold, though each in his own distinct style. Dempsey does to a lesser extent, I feel. Sacha... not quite so much, he's more of a role-player, and Beasley and Altidore are not freelancers at all IMO. Each plays a relatively distinct role. This opinion of mine is not based purely upon their overall "quality" per se, but is based upon my perception of their styles and package of abilities and mentalities. A role-player can be a really damn good role-player, and even better at playing his role than the freelancer is at freelancing, if you follow. (Though it definitely takes a certain level of overall talent to be a freelancer.)
Like you I'm not in support of that system for us, but I speculate that Cherundolo could be the other. But Beasley and Cherundolo each running his own flank? I don't really like it. The other thing about the 3-5-2 is that i think people often forget just how much defensive responsibilities can overshadow a winger's attacking opportunities. Sure, get rid of the fullbacks, who needs them when we don't have two good ones (though Pearce I think is changing that situation), and we can just throw out our two best attacking wingers, and if they're fast enough and hard-working enough we can expect them to defend. But... if they're defending all the time, they're rarely in much of a position to attack. IMO the 3-5-2 is basically about dominating the middle of the field while basically conceding the wings. At the international level, speed is one of our biggest strengths, and speed benefits from width. The 3-5-2 I think has its merits when the overall talents of your player pool are a high degree of technical ability to work in crowded spaces and physical strength. (And while they don't exactly need to be speedsters, at least 4 of those center guys, two backs and two midfielders, need to be able to cover a fair amount of ground.) Then you can totally dominate the center of the field, and, obviously, dominating the center is more advantageous than dominating the flanks, all things being equal. The thing is, we don't have the guys to truly dominate the center, at best we can try to get the better of the center. And what do we give up for a slight edge there? Our primary attacking threat, our speed advantage.
I have to agree, for the US, this formation almost inevitably would end up morphing into a 5-3-2. That would expose an already embattled central midfield in the end.