What formation suits USA best?

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by Kevin8833, Aug 26, 2007.

  1. Kevin8833

    Kevin8833 Member

    Jun 18, 2007
    Estero, FL
    I know based on matchups and things you want to change your formation based on that, and who you have, but with the types of players USA has, what formation do you think would be best suited for us to use? In my opinion, I would like to see the 4-3-2-1 christmas tree formation with the depth at center mid and wings that we have. I would also like to see 3-5-2 tried but it may be hard to find 3 defenders who can play in a 3 man back line. What are your opinions?
     
  2. IndividualEleven

    Mar 16, 2006
    4-4-1-1
    4-5-1
    or
    3-5-2

    Strengths of the team:

    Goalkeeping with Howard, Marcus H., and the young ones:

    Solid central mids in Feilhaber and Clark with excellent prospects like Sturgis, Edu, Szetela, and McCarty:

    Solid wingers in Beez and Donovan and prospects like Zizzo and Rogers:

    Players who can play wingback like Beez and Cherundo.
     
  3. Trav-Man

    Trav-Man Member

    Jun 7, 2007
    Dallas, TX
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If we had the defenders I would say a 3-5-2 but I just don't think we have a backline that is capable of handling the load right now. I would say 4-4-2 right now despite the lack of a good striker.
     
  4. Beazley17

    Beazley17 Member

    Dec 30, 2006
    South Florida
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would really like to see a 3-5-2 but not sure if are defense could cut it in the world cup. But this is what i would use to do it.


    --------------------------------------Howard---------------------------


    Cherundolo----------------------------Onyewu-----------------Gibbs----


    ---------Donovan-----Dempsey---------Adu---------Rico--------Beaz


    --------------------Johnson-----------------------Altidore-------------


    Want to put Feilhaber but if we put him in over Clark not many defensive options to track back.
     
  5. Kevin8833

    Kevin8833 Member

    Jun 18, 2007
    Estero, FL
    The only 3 man backline that could work in my opinion is Parkhurst or Conrad in the middle, gibbs on the left, and possibly spector on the right (Cherundalo is to small for this position I feel, Simek may be a good option though). The line up used by highschool teams across America could be affective for us in my opinion(Diamond back 3-1-4-2):

    --------------------Howard-------------------

    -------------------Parkhurst------------------

    ------------Spector----------Gibbs------------

    ----------------------Clark--------------------

    Donovan(C)---Dempsey----Feilhaber-----Beasley

    ------------------Adu-----Altidore-------------

    -This is the best 3 man backline that I believe we can put togeter, and I feel would be very strong. Clark(Probably the most vital position in this formation and how I would use it) would play as a stopper/destroyer, sit back, win the ball and spray it around with occasional runs forward but his first priority all game long would be defense infront of the back and to sweep up and win balls in the midfield, and also to help out the back 3 anytime needed. Parkhurst would be the organizer which we all know he is so good at and Gibbs and Spector play the sides and man mark, with their size, athleticism and skill they should be very good in these positions. Also all 3 backs and Clark will be a large improvement in playing the ball out of the back rather than senseless kickball, this should add a lot of quality to our team.

    - Donovan and Beasley are the sidemids because of their pace and workrate, they will get back and defend and also be dangerous in attack, with enough skills to keep possession and both possess all the qualities needed in this alignment out of a side midfielder.

    - This alignment gives Dempsey and Feilhaber the ability think offense first and use their skills and creativity to help in attack, of course they would have to get back and defend whenever we lose the ball, but have less worries with clark behind them, this allows them to be more creative and get forward to combine and bring lots of skill and flare into the attack.

    - I know Adu is not a natural forward, but I feel he is to good not to be on the field, with his skill, explosion, knack for the net, and familiarity with Altidore this could be a lethal forward tandom, and I believe he would be very well suited with a stronger Altidore and he would be the smaller, skilled creating forward, Altidore is the goal scoring finisher, no questions asked as to why I have him in the lineup I assume.

    Subs: (Use the 3 of the 5 obviously)
    Reis- Goalie-In my mind our 2nd best keeper, and familiar with organizing a 3 man backline.
    Conrad- Defense-Smart, collective defender who can go in and either stabilize or come in late in a game to hold a lead with great experiance and high soccer IQ.
    Convey- Midfield- Would be effective on either side mid or a centermid in this alignment and can come in and maintain a high quality of play and good workrate, a very strong player to have coming in off the bench.
    Bradley- Midfield- Could come in as either a destroyer or center mid to hold things down in the middle of the field if needed at some point, specifically when holding a lead.
    Johnson-Forward- Would be used more late in the game to try to exploit his pace to get behind the defense and hopefully score some goals but needs to be more aggressive to goal, and take people on 1 vs 1.

    - This alignment gives us a stable back with lots of quality who I believe can be very good and gives us more options in attack this way, Clark as a destroyer gives us the freedom to attack with less restriction (from the mid up specifically), while possessing lots of quality to hold possesion and be dangerous in attack but still solid in defense. With this alignment we are finally pushing the game to the other team instead of sitting back and surviving hoping for a counter, we should use our workrate, speed, and athleticism to our advantage, and I feel this lineup does so, with this lineup I believe we would be very succesful. Plus in my opinion this is the best way to get the highest number of high-quality players we can on the field at the same time.

    - The key to this lineup is Clark holding down midfield, spraying the ball around and helping out the back 3, I feel he is a very strong player and is up to this very challenging and important task.

    - I give Donovan back the Captain's arm band and challenge him to prove to everyone that he deserves it. Afterall, he is still our best player in my opinion and has the qualities of a captain.
     
  6. rw&b_kickers

    rw&b_kickers New Member

    Aug 24, 2007
    4-5-2 - that's pretty much the only way we'd have a chance in some games.

    But since I don't see them giving us an extra guy anytime soon, i'd have to say they go with the traditional 4-4-2. 3-5-2 is my favorite lineup, but they couldn't pull it off.

    I do like the 4-5-1 as well, but it hasn't seemed to work so well in the cases we've tried. Our lone guy seems to be sitting around like an idiot while play continues in the midfield.
     
  7. toddk15

    toddk15 Guest

    11-0-0. Since the Nats best players are GK's.
     
  8. maturin

    maturin Member

    Jun 8, 2004
    4-4-1-1 as follows:

    --------------Howard---------------
    Dolo-----DeMerit----Conrad---Pearce
    Donovan--Feilhaber--Clark----Beasley
    --------------Dempsey--------------
    --------------Altidore---------------

    Bench:
    Hahnemann
    Gooch
    Boca
    Spector
    Olsen
    Adu
    Ching
     
  9. etastic

    etastic New Member

    Jul 14, 2007
    Washington, DC
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The formation without any Americans in it.
     
  10. BigGuy

    BigGuy Red Card

    Apr 12, 2007
    I would just say concerning formations that we have to play with 4 backs. When we have the ball one of them can get into the attack. When we lose the ball when the back is into the attack a far side mid plays defensive so we can have 4 backs right after we lose the ball until that back get's back.

    Other wise quick striking and counter attack teams are going to beat us.

    Other then that playing with 4 mids on attack and both strikers have to help on defense if we lose the ball one in front of the other in are defensive half of the field.

    Our best way to play is quick strike and accounter attack because of the speed we have and our size which is relatively small. Except when we bring our backs up on set plays.

    If we can not do that by the second pass after we won the ball then we move to a possession game.

    That is the way we should play and that is the way we should have played in 2006WC.

    For some unknow reason we did not play this way and we had a short WC.
     
  11. nicamex1935

    nicamex1935 Member+

    Jul 10, 2007
    Club:
    Club América
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    The formation that beats us (Mexico) sounds pretty good but it doesn't seem to work with many other teams though does it? :)
     
  12. hairynippleman

    Jun 13, 2007
    how about a formation in which we got all new players? i think that one would be best.
     
  13. Kevin8833

    Kevin8833 Member

    Jun 18, 2007
    Estero, FL
    You are a moron your screen name only proves it more so as I said in previews posts if you think we suck so bad do not watch USA, and more importantly stop posting such negative things just don't waste your time if you think so lowly of the team.
     
  14. FCmagic01

    FCmagic01 Member

    Nov 10, 2006
    a 4-3-3

    Howard
    Dolo-DeMerit-Boca-Bornstein
    Feilhaber-Adu-Clark
    Donovan-Altidore-Beasley

    Dempsey on as a super sub.
     
  15. Scorpion26

    Scorpion26 Member

    May 1, 2007
    NY
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    These I think would work well for US

    3-5-2
    4-1-2-1-2
    4-2-2-2
    4-4-2
    4-3-3
    5-3-2
     
  16. mcnaulty21

    mcnaulty21 Member

    Feb 6, 2007
    Wisconsin
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wouldn't that be a 0-0-0 then?
     
  17. FC Tallavana

    FC Tallavana Member+

    Jul 1, 2004
    3-6-1

    ;)

    But if we went back to 98 with our projected 2010 pool it'd look something like this...

    ---------------------Howard
    --------Spector------Gooch-------Gibbs
    --------------Bradley-------Feilhaber
    ----Donovan--------------------------Beasley
    --------------Dempsey-------Adu
    ----------------------Altidore


    Call it a 3-4-3 if it makes you have less nightmares.

    :)
     
  18. hairynippleman

    Jun 13, 2007
    i can guaruntee i am both smarter than you and possess a greater understanding of the game than you. is it not possible to watch and cheer for a team while also understanding that they may not be good? is it a rule to post only "positive" comments on bigsoccer regarding the us national team? improvement and change is brought on by criticism. if we do not criticize american soccer then there will be no reason to change the system currently in place and improvement would be impossible.
     
  19. Kevin8833

    Kevin8833 Member

    Jun 18, 2007
    Estero, FL
    Obviously there are always things to complain about but there are positives to for example we are developing higher skilled players and that is an improvement but obviously there are still many things wrong I agree. I just don't get the negativism I guess?
     
  20. Beazley17

    Beazley17 Member

    Dec 30, 2006
    South Florida
    Nat'l Team:
    United States


    Yeah, lately all you have been posting are negative comments and its starting to get really annoying
     
  21. Bob Morocco

    Bob Morocco Member+

    Aug 11, 2003
    Billings, MT
    Really because when I read, "how about a formation in which we got all new players? i think that one would be best", smart and in-depth analysis displaying a greater understanding of the game aren't the first things that come to mind. You can criticize all you want but where are your brilliant, realistic alternatives?
     

Share This Page