***Official Soccer Discussion Thread*** (7 Viewers)

[The Z Machine]

And Atlético sneak out a 1-0 over bottom dwelling Zaragoza. It was an ugly game. Diving and fouls galore. Stupid cards and not much action.

Reyes got a straight red in the 60th for shoving a Zaragoza player as he was running downfield. Then Kun (who didn't start) tried to start something with said player and had to be pulled back by Quique. Godín went out for about 3 minutes around the 80 min mark with a knee injury, leaving Atleti down to 9 men. Once again Forlán wasn't as involved as he should have been, with most of the offense going through Reyes and Simao. That's no terrible, but if you have the reigning WC Golden Ball player on your team, and you can't use him effectively, that's never a good sign.

In any case Atleti is in 4th and Villarreal can leapfrog them (game in hand) but they aren't in bad shape after 5 games. The table is falling out more or less as expected (with the exception of Real only scoring 6 goals in 5 games...).

 

[Christo]

I'm still pissed Blackpool blew a great home opportunity yesterday.

Oof. Just saw those highlights. Own goal plus letting the winner in in the 93rd minute.

 

[The Gator]

F'n Gator ruining the Arsenal result for me.....still haven't watched my gametape yet.

oops?I'll wait until Mondays to talk footy from now on, chief

 

[Kendall]

And Liverpool go out to Northhampton on PK's.Who do you think will replace Hodgson?

I really don't care. I just want Hicks and Gillet to be pilloried and forced to sell the damn club. I actually feel horrible for Hodgson, he's in an awful situation.

Completely agree, but you have to figure Hodgson is out before the sale of the team completes. If it ever does.I don't know the facts, but I thought I read that the club falls into the hands of Royal Bank of Scotland after X amount of time. I'm not sure of how the English loan system works. As far as I know there are no offers on the table since China pulled out. If friggin' China won't touch it who else is there. Come on Bill Gates...

RBS loans should come due in early October. There's talk of a brief extension if significant progress is being made on a new ownership group. Liverpool's board reports that they're working with "a small number" of buyers on a potential sale. Word on the Internet is that serious bidders are waiting until the loans are called to get the best deal on the club.All that is predicated on that fat ####### Hicks not managing to find funding to take control of the team by himself.

Somehow the board has rejected Hicks from taking 100% control. About the only positive thing they have done. But Bentley pretty much nailed it. Any serious bidders are going to wait until Oct 6 (either 6th or 9th) when RBS calls due on the loans and Hicks and Gillet are essentially out of the picture. RBS will probably just offload for the price of the debt then. Somewhere in the 300 - 350 mil range. Just absolutely ####### depressing. And yeah, I think Hodgson is gone with new owners. Just the nature of the turnover would likely be enough, but Pool have been pretty uninspiring and are in 16th.

 

[El Floppo]

Did anybody get to see Bolton v Man United?

Looking at the scoresheet, Holden continues to get 90mins in prem play... I'm guessing still as one of two attacking MFs, where he's looked good in the games I've watched. Any other USMNT guys getting such love from their coach?

edit- I also saw that Benny put in a hat-trick in Denmark. He's the PK taker, so that's showing some love too... (even if it was a league cup game)

 

[scoobygang]

Did anybody get to see Bolton v Man United?Looking at the scoresheet, Holden continues to get 90mins in prem play... I'm guessing still as one of two attacking MFs, where he's looked good in the games I've watched. Any other USMNT guys getting such love from their coach?edit- I also saw that Benny put in a hat-trick in Denmark. He's the PK taker, so that's showing some love too... (even if it was a league cup game)

Benny has been on fire for Aaruhus, but Aarhus is in the Danish second division. The rash of injuries at Fulham has at least gotten Eddie Johnson some playing time. He hasn't capitalized on it yet. Bocanegra keeps plugging along for a surprisingly good St. Etienne team. They beat Lyon for the first time in 17 years this weekend.Michael Bradley and Herc Gomez also scored this weekend.

 

[prefontaine]

edit- I also saw that Benny put in a hat-trick in Denmark. He's the PK taker, so that's showing some love too... (even if it was a league cup game)

Benny's in good form but it's also the second flight in Denmark so I'm not sure how much it means. He really needs to get out of there at the winter window. Other than those already in good spots with their clubs (Bradley, Dempsey, Boca) off-hand Edu seems to have settled in as a starter for Rangers. He came off the bench this weekend but I expect he will get the CL start again. It's nice to see this generation of mids at least appearing to develop well. Hopefully we can get some defenders doing the same in the next year or two. I'd really like to see us permanently move to a 4-3-3 to take full advantage of Holden, Edu, and Bradley. It's scary bc it leaves our fullbacks isolated a bit though.

 

[Christo]

edit- I also saw that Benny put in a hat-trick in Denmark. He's the PK taker, so that's showing some love too... (even if it was a league cup game)

Benny's in good form but it's also the second flight in Denmark so I'm not sure how much it means. He really needs to get out of there at the winter window. Other than those already in good spots with their clubs (Bradley, Dempsey, Boca) off-hand Edu seems to have settled in as a starter for Rangers. He came off the bench this weekend but I expect he will get the CL start again. It's nice to see this generation of mids at least appearing to develop well. Hopefully we can get some defenders doing the same in the next year or two.

I'd really like to see us permanently move to a 4-3-3 to take full advantage of Holden, Edu, and Bradley. It's scary bc it leaves our fullbacks isolated a bit though.

Developing those spots has to be Priority No. 1 for the next WC.

 

[El Floppo]

edit- I also saw that Benny put in a hat-trick in Denmark. He's the PK taker, so that's showing some love too... (even if it was a league cup game)

Benny's in good form but it's also the second flight in Denmark so I'm not sure how much it means. He really needs to get out of there at the winter window. Other than those already in good spots with their clubs (Bradley, Dempsey, Boca) off-hand Edu seems to have settled in as a starter for Rangers. He came off the bench this weekend but I expect he will get the CL start again. It's nice to see this generation of mids at least appearing to develop well. Hopefully we can get some defenders doing the same in the next year or two. I'd really like to see us permanently move to a 4-3-3 to take full advantage of Holden, Edu, and Bradley. It's scary bc it leaves our fullbacks isolated a bit though.

Who plays the middle? If it's Bradley (which it should be), where does Edu play? (not on the wing).

 

[scoobygang]

edit- I also saw that Benny put in a hat-trick in Denmark. He's the PK taker, so that's showing some love too... (even if it was a league cup game)

Benny's in good form but it's also the second flight in Denmark so I'm not sure how much it means. He really needs to get out of there at the winter window. Other than those already in good spots with their clubs (Bradley, Dempsey, Boca) off-hand Edu seems to have settled in as a starter for Rangers. He came off the bench this weekend but I expect he will get the CL start again. It's nice to see this generation of mids at least appearing to develop well. Hopefully we can get some defenders doing the same in the next year or two. I'd really like to see us permanently move to a 4-3-3 to take full advantage of Holden, Edu, and Bradley. It's scary bc it leaves our fullbacks isolated a bit though.

Who plays the middle? If it's Bradley (which it should be), where does Edu play? (not on the wing).

Arsenal's preferred 4-3-3 plays Cesc and Wilshere as the advanced two midfielders with Song behind them. Same with Chelsea (Lamps and Essien with Mikel behind). I assume it would be Bradley and Holden advanced with Edu behind (With Deuce, Jozy, and Landon up front).

 

[Desert_Power]

edit- I also saw that Benny put in a hat-trick in Denmark. He's the PK taker, so that's showing some love too... (even if it was a league cup game)

Benny's in good form but it's also the second flight in Denmark so I'm not sure how much it means. He really needs to get out of there at the winter window. Other than those already in good spots with their clubs (Bradley, Dempsey, Boca) off-hand Edu seems to have settled in as a starter for Rangers. He came off the bench this weekend but I expect he will get the CL start again. It's nice to see this generation of mids at least appearing to develop well. Hopefully we can get some defenders doing the same in the next year or two. I'd really like to see us permanently move to a 4-3-3 to take full advantage of Holden, Edu, and Bradley. It's scary bc it leaves our fullbacks isolated a bit though.

Who plays the middle? If it's Bradley (which it should be), where does Edu play? (not on the wing).

Arsenal's preferred 4-3-3 plays Cesc and Wilshere as the advanced two midfielders with Song behind them. Same with Chelsea (Lamps and Essien with Mikel behind). I assume it would be Bradley and Holden advanced with Edu behind (With Deuce, Jozy, and Landon up front).

Barca's 4-3-3 has the same general format(Xavi and Iniesta with Busquets behind) as well. I'm not sure how Bradley would do advanced like that.

 

[NewlyRetired]

edit- I also saw that Benny put in a hat-trick in Denmark. He's the PK taker, so that's showing some love too... (even if it was a league cup game)

Benny's in good form but it's also the second flight in Denmark so I'm not sure how much it means. He really needs to get out of there at the winter window. Other than those already in good spots with their clubs (Bradley, Dempsey, Boca) off-hand Edu seems to have settled in as a starter for Rangers. He came off the bench this weekend but I expect he will get the CL start again. It's nice to see this generation of mids at least appearing to develop well. Hopefully we can get some defenders doing the same in the next year or two.

I'd really like to see us permanently move to a 4-3-3 to take full advantage of Holden, Edu, and Bradley. It's scary bc it leaves our fullbacks isolated a bit though.

Developing those spots has to be Priority No. 1 for the next WC.

When you look around MLS and a bit overseas, we have a nice set of young central defenders coming of age of which 2 or 3 should be able to make the international grade.We have almost no wing fullbacks to speak of

 

[scoobygang]

Barca's 4-3-3 has the same general format(Xavi and Iniesta with Busquets behind) as well. I'm not sure how Bradley would do advanced like that.

Chelsea's scheme would seem to be the closest fit. Bradley is more like a Lampard, a midfielder who likes to make late runs into the box, than a distributor in the Xavi/Cesc mode. Of course, Chelsea's best distributor is probably Drogba, so we'd be putting a lot of pressure on Jozy to develop with his back to goal.

 

[El Floppo]

totally agree with andy here…

I love the formation you guys are describing, but those teams have very capable & mobile outside backs… US, not so much (mobile, maybe). Also- and correct me if I'm wrong on this- it seems like 2 of the 3 forwards play a more withdrawn role, and could almost be called attacking MFs most of the time (easier for Barcelona's two to be more advanced since Xavi and Iniesta are Rommeling the MF. This would work with the US players… but then we'd still be left with the dilemma of attacking and defending the flanks.

 

[scoobygang]

totally agree with andy here…

I love the formation you guys are describing, but those teams have very capable & mobile outside backs… US, not so much (mobile, maybe). Also- and correct me if I'm wrong on this- it seems like 2 of the 3 forwards play a more withdrawn role, and could almost be called attacking MFs most of the time (easier for Barcelona's two to be more advanced since Xavi and Iniesta are Rommeling the MF. This would work with the US players… but then we'd still be left with the dilemma of attacking and defending the flanks.

I think most of those teams feature one attacking FB. On Chelsea, it's always Cole (Ivanovic is practically a third CB). On Arsenal, they may switch off a bit, but it's increasingly been Sagna as opposed to Clichy. Same with Barca, where it's usually Alves with only a rare Maxwell foray into the box.I think the one virtue of Bornstein at LB is his ability going forward. I don't think he's any worse when he does that than when he stays home.

 

[Desert_Power]

totally agree with andy here…

I love the formation you guys are describing, but those teams have very capable & mobile outside backs… US, not so much (mobile, maybe). Also- and correct me if I'm wrong on this- it seems like 2 of the 3 forwards play a more withdrawn role, and could almost be called attacking MFs most of the time (easier for Barcelona's two to be more advanced since Xavi and Iniesta are Rommeling the MF. This would work with the US players… but then we'd still be left with the dilemma of attacking and defending the flanks.

I think most of those teams feature one attacking FB. On Chelsea, it's always Cole (Ivanovic is practically a third CB). On Arsenal, they may switch off a bit, but it's increasingly been Sagna as opposed to Clichy. Same with Barca, where it's usually Alves with only a rare Maxwell foray into the box.I think the one virtue of Bornstein at LB is his ability going forward. I don't think he's any worse when he does that than when he stays home.

This season the shape has changed a bit with Maxwell making many more runs forward and Busquets playing much deeper to cover as opposed to in the past, just FYI. Certainly it takes talent in the middle of the defense than the USA can hope to match to run that style though, and they shouldn't rely on both FBs to join in the attack.

 

[Kendall]

Hicks and Gillet. Kindly get the #### out.

 

[The Z Machine]

I think the one virtue of Bornstein at LB is his ability going forward. I don't think he's any worse when he does that than when he stays home.

LOL, so true.

 

[GoFishTN]

Hicks and Gillet. Kindly get the #### out.

There's just too much anti-Americanism in this whole thing for me. Not a supporter, but I would never be after seeing the flag burning. I know all the reasons, I still don't like it.

 

[Kendall]

Hicks and Gillet. Kindly get the #### out.

There's just too much anti-Americanism in this whole thing for me. Not a supporter, but I would never be after seeing the flag burning. I know all the reasons, I still don't like it.

There was a good article on Soccernet about American sports owners and likening the way they run teams akin to the way a lot of the wall street debt was racked up. I'm a proud American, but I hate money and how people with a lot of it forget about the product and solely look to maximize a profit. In this case, two men essentially bought a rallying point for a community that they have no part in with money they borrowed against the community, made no means to improve it because they forecasted that just holding onto for a few years and then reselling it would net them a profit. I mean really, these two men bought something they knew nothing with money that wasn't theirs, did nothing to improve it, alienated their customers and you're telling me this is a good business model? Sorry, this is slightly incoherent, but its amazing to me that would have a world finicial system that enables people to do things like this. Article

 

[Christo]

Hicks and Gillet. Kindly get the #### out.

There's just too much anti-Americanism in this whole thing for me. Not a supporter, but I would never be after seeing the flag burning. I know all the reasons, I still don't like it.

There was a good article on Soccernet about American sports owners and likening the way they run teams akin to the way a lot of the wall street debt was racked up. I'm a proud American, but I hate money and how people with a lot of it forget about the product and solely look to maximize a profit. In this case, two men essentially bought a rallying point for a community that they have no part in with money they borrowed against the community, made no means to improve it because they forecasted that just holding onto for a few years and then reselling it would net them a profit. I mean really, these two men bought something they knew nothing with money that wasn't theirs, did nothing to improve it, alienated their customers and you're telling me this is a good business model? Sorry, this is slightly incoherent, but its amazing to me that would have a world finicial system that enables people to do things like this. Article

Don't have time for those articles now so it might address this issue. But the article I posted earlier in the thread talked about how they would not have been allowed to do what they did with Liverpool with any major sports franchise in the US.

 

[Christo]

And to address the anti-Americanism, the article I posted talked about how the supporters of other American owned teams in England have had no problem with American ownership. Aston Villa was one that was pointed out, IIRC.

 

[scoobygang]

There was a good article on Soccernet about American sports owners and likening the way they run teams akin to the way a lot of the wall street debt was racked up. I'm a proud American, but I hate money and how people with a lot of it forget about the product and solely look to maximize a profit. In this case, two men essentially bought a rallying point for a community that they have no part in with money they borrowed against the community, made no means to improve it because they forecasted that just holding onto for a few years and then reselling it would net them a profit. I mean really, these two men bought something they knew nothing with money that wasn't theirs, did nothing to improve it, alienated their customers and you're telling me this is a good business model? Sorry, this is slightly incoherent, but its amazing to me that would have a world finicial system that enables people to do things like this.

Article

The problem is that it's awfully hard to separate the valid criticisms from the xenophobia. Manchester United has done fine under the Glazers, but they face protests too. Presumably because the Glazers have borrowed against the team. But there has been no evidence that the Glazers have hurt the team. I think the allegations that Hicks and Gillette have done "nothing to improve" Liverpool are bunk. They spent as much as anyone outside of Chelsea and Man City in the past few years. Robbie Keane. Glen Johnson. They overpaid for Aqualani after they lost Xabi Alonso.

 

[Kendall]

There was a good article on Soccernet about American sports owners and likening the way they run teams akin to the way a lot of the wall street debt was racked up. I'm a proud American, but I hate money and how people with a lot of it forget about the product and solely look to maximize a profit. In this case, two men essentially bought a rallying point for a community that they have no part in with money they borrowed against the community, made no means to improve it because they forecasted that just holding onto for a few years and then reselling it would net them a profit. I mean really, these two men bought something they knew nothing with money that wasn't theirs, did nothing to improve it, alienated their customers and you're telling me this is a good business model? Sorry, this is slightly incoherent, but its amazing to me that would have a world finicial system that enables people to do things like this.

Article

You dropped some of the bigger purchases that Liverpool has made, but pretty much every player bought was with money from players sold. Glen Johnson was part of a Peter Crouch credit from Portsmouth, Aqualani with half the money from Xabi Alonso, the Mascherano money spent on Poulson and Meireles. I can't find the transfer histories readily, but I believe Liverpool has a net profit (players sold > players bought) since Hicks and Gillet have come on board.

 

[Kendall]

Couple with moves this year like Aquilani going on loan to get his salary off the books. Ugh. I think the bigger part is a lot of the unkept promisies. The source of the money that Hicks and Gillet bought the club with wasn't disclosed until after the sale was final. They came in with big talk about rebuilding the stadium and using that as a drive for new investment in the club, three years later, not dirt has been turned.

Christo > Not sure if I read your article, I'll have to go back and find it.

 

[Kendall]

Basically, I would have no problem with the transfers resulting in a profit if the money were going into other aspects to improve the club instead of going to pay off bank loans that the owner had no right to get in the first place. I find the banking/loan system just as cupable in this situation for giving these choads the money.

 

[prefontaine]

Barca's 4-3-3 has the same general format(Xavi and Iniesta with Busquets behind) as well. I'm not sure how Bradley would do advanced like that.

Before I even say this, clearly MB is no Xavi, but although Xavi plays in front of Sergio, he really doesn't get all that advanced. He periodically makes runs into the box but it's pretty surprising how little he really shoots or even makes a primary run (he often makes the secondary one though). But anyway, I wasn't really thinking of either Barca or Arsenal when I said that. We don't have the players to play the high possession, short passing style. I think a more intriguing example is Man City. Against Chelsea they ran something like:----------------------Tevez (Jozy)Milner (LanDon) --------------------- Silva (Demps)------------Barry (Holden)---- Yaya (MB)----------------------De Jong (Edu)This is neither the announced formation (they called it a 4-4-2 with Silva withdrawn though I didn't see who they technically listed as the right winger) nor what they really did -- Silva actually stayed more centrally and they made the tactical choice to abandon the right wing and not challenge Cole. But this is pretty similar to how the US could employ it. City actually didn't press the fullbacks too far forward either. As I watched this game unfold, I thought the formation and tactics would work really well with the US personnel atm. But I still worry about the fullbacks just bc there will be times they get isolated and they have been pretty consistent in suckitude in such situations.

 

[ffldrew]

One of the worst goals ever allowed by Marseilles - if I'm the keeper I'm killing a teammate.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Schweinsteiger rescues Bayern today with a pk in the 56th minute to equalize and the game winner in the 89th.

 

[The Z Machine]

Real Madrid almost failed today. Di Maria saved them.

 

[El Floppo]

Barca's 4-3-3 has the same general format(Xavi and Iniesta with Busquets behind) as well. I'm not sure how Bradley would do advanced like that.

Before I even say this, clearly MB is no Xavi, but although Xavi plays in front of Sergio, he really doesn't get all that advanced. He periodically makes runs into the box but it's pretty surprising how little he really shoots or even makes a primary run (he often makes the secondary one though). But anyway, I wasn't really thinking of either Barca or Arsenal when I said that. We don't have the players to play the high possession, short passing style. I think a more intriguing example is Man City. Against Chelsea they ran something like:

----------------------Tevez (Jozy)

Milner (LanDon) --------------------- Silva (Demps)

------------Barry (Holden)---- Yaya (MB)

----------------------De Jong (Edu)

This is neither the announced formation (they called it a 4-4-2 with Silva withdrawn though I didn't see who they technically listed as the right winger) nor what they really did -- Silva actually stayed more centrally and they made the tactical choice to abandon the right wing and not challenge Cole. But this is pretty similar to how the US could employ it. City actually didn't press the fullbacks too far forward either.

As I watched this game unfold, I thought the formation and tactics would work really well with the US personnel atm. But I still worry about the fullbacks just bc there will be times they get isolated and they have been pretty consistent in suckitude in such situations.

I have a feeling this would end up being more of a 4-5-1 given Bradley Sr and the US's need to cover the flanks... and that basically puts us back to where we currently are, except that Holden gets on the field instead of one of our horrible #2 forwards- and that's a plus IMO. The minus is that Jozy plays better with a strike-partner up front and hasn't shown that he can handle being the lone gunman.

now that I've written that out... I could see it played (and this might be what you meant originally) where those 4 MFs rotate the diamond around to cover the strong-side, allowing any of the 4 attacking players to get forward to help Jozy based on who's there at the time. Edu would hold as a defensive MF and ideally stay central.

Could be really interesting to see, but would need game-time practice for them to figure it out the way those top clubs handle it. Not sure the US will ever get that time to suss things out.

 

[Eephus]

No matter how you structure the USA midfield, I think you'll still be hampered by the comparative lack of talent at striker and fullback. Playing as a lone striker magnifies the importance of Altidore and I'm not sure he's up to at this stage of his development. He might be able to be productive against CONCACAF level competition but I think he'd struggle against tougher sides.

I don't think there's any defender currently on the USA squad who can provide any attacking threat up the wings. Are there any U21s or someone like Eric Lichaj who can play this role? I don't expect Maicon but someone who could keep the opposition honest would be nice.

 

[El Floppo]

No matter how you structure the USA midfield, I think you'll still be hampered by the comparative lack of talent at striker and fullback. Playing as a lone striker magnifies the importance of Altidore and I'm not sure he's up to at this stage of his development. He might be able to be productive against CONCACAF level competition but I think he'd struggle against tougher sides.I don't think there's any defender currently on the USA squad who can provide any attacking threat up the wings. Are there any U21s or someone like Eric Lichaj who can play this role? I don't expect Maicon but someone who could keep the opposition honest would be nice.

on both points.don't know about the youth squads, but Kevin Alston? (NE Revolution) is a guy that's caught my eye when I've seen him play outside back. Tenacious on D and solid skills with the ball at feet. might be a bit short (IIRC, he's got good hops)... and there's probably a reason why we haven't seen him on the USMNT yet. dunno.

 

[prefontaine]

I have a feeling this would end up being more of a 4-5-1 given Bradley Sr and the US's need to cover the flanks... and that basically puts us back to where we currently are, except that Holden gets on the field instead of one of our horrible #2 forwards- and that's a plus IMO. The minus is that Jozy plays better with a strike-partner up front and hasn't shown that he can handle being the lone gunman.

This is the basic formation we used in the World Cup when we were in must score situations, only sub Benny for Holden. The 3 man midfield got gassed against Ghana by extra time though. It's a lot of work for them but I think the high pressure situation and desperate need to score probably was more the reason for that than the formation. But like you say, despite this being the formation that brought us back against Slovenia and Ghana, Bradley has never started a match like this. He went back to his tried 4-4-2 and started Gomez against Algeria and Findley against Ghana. And against Brazil we threw out more of a 4-4-1-1. I'm not sure if it's stubbornness or he sees something different than we do. I do agree with you that leaving Jozy up top by himself seems like not such a good idea and think we clearly need to run a formation where he has more support.We have a year or so before the Nats are playing a game that matters though. And another 4 to develop players to fit whatever system we are going to run. It's easy to sit here and pick out what works for the guys we have now etc, but we all know that development, injuries, form, etc can screw that all up. I mean, the 4-4-2 (or 4-2-2-2) seemed to be perfect for us until Davies's crash.

 

[The Z Machine]

I agree w/ Eephus. It would seem that the US has the most talent in the midfield. Thus playing 5 players there makes sense from that standpoint. Furthermore, the most dynamic midfielders (LD and Deuce) are capable of playing on either wing or the central attacking MF. Thus, the other 3 MFs are going to be in the defensive and central MF.

Two of those 3 MFs are Edu and MB. They bring the most in terms of ability to play solid defense and cover ground in the middle of the park. MB marshals the troops very well, and Edu has shown the poise to play against top-level competition. The only question is who plays the 5th MF? Holden? This doesn't mean that Edu and MB play flat with each other, as Edu would do better to hang back a bit more than MB, who's going to end-line to end-line as much as possible.

Ideally, a 3rd winger would emerge, freeing LD or Deuce to move inside. But I don't see that.

That's effectively a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. While the 4-1-2-2-1 outlined above can work, I think the US would be better to play narrower on offense, as it plays more to the strength of the existing talent.

 

[prefontaine]

No matter how you structure the USA midfield, I think you'll still be hampered by the comparative lack of talent at striker and fullback.

Isn't this the truth. This seems like it has always been a problem for us. Why have we always had such problems developing these spots? Maybe these are the kind of athletes that all play American football as WRs and DBs.

 

[Offa]

The problem is that it's awfully hard to separate the valid criticisms from the xenophobia. Manchester United has done fine under the Glazers, but they face protests too.

Your accusation of xenophobia is ludicrous. Where are the protests against the Emirati Sheikh Mansour, or the Russian Roman Abramovic? Surely if the problem was foreigners, those people would be even more disliked than a couple of American owners. The reason Chelsea and Man City fans aren't in revolt against their owners is because they're doing well financially. Man Utd and Liverpool aren't.

 

[Desert_Power]

I agree w/ Eephus. It would seem that the US has the most talent in the midfield. Thus playing 5 players there makes sense from that standpoint. Furthermore, the most dynamic midfielders (LD and Deuce) are capable of playing on either wing or the central attacking MF. Thus, the other 3 MFs are going to be in the defensive and central MF.Two of those 3 MFs are Edu and MB. They bring the most in terms of ability to play solid defense and cover ground in the middle of the park. MB marshals the troops very well, and Edu has shown the poise to play against top-level competition. The only question is who plays the 5th MF? Holden? This doesn't mean that Edu and MB play flat with each other, as Edu would do better to hang back a bit more than MB, who's going to end-line to end-line as much as possible.Ideally, a 3rd winger would emerge, freeing LD or Deuce to move inside. But I don't see that.That's effectively a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. While the 4-1-2-2-1 outlined above can work, I think the US would be better to play narrower on offense, as it plays more to the strength of the existing talent.

Why not really play to our strengths and playing 3 in the back that don't push forward with Bradley and Edu as deep-playing DMs? I know a three man back line isn't really conventional, but I think it couldn't be worse than pretending we have fullbacks worth being on the field. We would also get more of our most talented players on the pitch and it has to be a better option than our ultra-defensive version of the 4-4-2 that we run.

 

[scoobygang]

Why not really play to our strengths and playing 3 in the back that don't push forward with Bradley and Edu as deep-playing DMs? I know a three man back line isn't really conventional, but I think it couldn't be worse than pretending we have fullbacks worth being on the field. We would also get more of our most talented players on the pitch and it has to be a better option than our ultra-defensive version of the 4-4-2 that we run.

I don't think this is a terrible idea. Bornstein might be a better wingback than a pure fullback. I have no idea if someone could do that on the right side (maybe God suddenly grants Marvelle Wynne some skill or something). But I could see Gooch with maybe Ream and Gonzalez as a three man back line. But it might look something like this (too bored to format, sorry). Howard Ream Gooch Gonzalez? Edu Bornstein Holden MB Deuce Landon JozyWe would "tilt" the formation, where MB would switch to the side of the wing back getting forward.

 

[El Floppo]

I agree w/ Eephus. It would seem that the US has the most talent in the midfield. Thus playing 5 players there makes sense from that standpoint. Furthermore, the most dynamic midfielders (LD and Deuce) are capable of playing on either wing or the central attacking MF. Thus, the other 3 MFs are going to be in the defensive and central MF.Two of those 3 MFs are Edu and MB. They bring the most in terms of ability to play solid defense and cover ground in the middle of the park. MB marshals the troops very well, and Edu has shown the poise to play against top-level competition. The only question is who plays the 5th MF? Holden? This doesn't mean that Edu and MB play flat with each other, as Edu would do better to hang back a bit more than MB, who's going to end-line to end-line as much as possible.Ideally, a 3rd winger would emerge, freeing LD or Deuce to move inside. But I don't see that.That's effectively a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. While the 4-1-2-2-1 outlined above can work, I think the US would be better to play narrower on offense, as it plays more to the strength of the existing talent.

Why not really play to our strengths and playing 3 in the back that don't push forward with Bradley and Edu as deep-playing DMs? I know a three man back line isn't really conventional, but I think it couldn't be worse than pretending we have fullbacks worth being on the field. We would also get more of our most talented players on the pitch and it has to be a better option than our ultra-defensive version of the 4-4-2 that we run.

I played a 3-5-2 in college and really liked it:-------------------- sweeper -----------------------------------RB----------------------LB------------ (Boca, Gooch, Marshall/Spector/Ream/Gonzales etc plus speedy back)-----------------------DM-------------------------- (Edu, Jermaine Jones, etc)-- RM-----------------CM---------------------LM-- (Deuce, MB, Holden)-----------------------AM-------------------------- (LD)------------- F -------------------F ---------------- (Davies, Jozy)Puts a lot of pressure on the 3 backs, especially in a zonal marking setup (we played man-to-man)- would be a flat-back 3 in the pros probably- potential for lots of train-wrecks with that. Also puts a lot of pressure on the wing MFs who have to bust their butts all game. Attacking MF plays all over the place, but mostly in support of the attack. Defensive MF is a standard holding MF and the Central MF plays like a true #10

 

[The Z Machine]

Why not really play to our strengths and playing 3 in the back that don't push forward with Bradley and Edu as deep-playing DMs? I know a three man back line isn't really conventional, but I think it couldn't be worse than pretending we have fullbacks worth being on the field. We would also get more of our most talented players on the pitch and it has to be a better option than our ultra-defensive version of the 4-4-2 that we run.

I don't think this is a terrible idea. Bornstein might be a better wingback than a pure fullback. I have no idea if someone could do that on the right side (maybe God suddenly grants Marvelle Wynne some skill or something). But I could see Gooch with maybe Ream and Gonzalez as a three man back line. But it might look something like this (too bored to format, sorry). Howard Ream Gooch Gonzalez? Edu Bornstein Holden MB Deuce Landon JozyWe would "tilt" the formation, where MB would switch to the side of the wing back getting forward.

Ugh. I don't like it at all. It's tough to work that sort of game at the international level IMO, as there's not enough time for a team to gel around this style. It's too divergent from the roles that most of the players are used to. It gives me the serious willies.Anyway, I know Greece often runs 5 men back-lines with the wing backs ranging up field quite a bit. Seitaridis ran the right wing decently in that formation. That said, I don't want to base the US's play off that of Greece. That's a recipe for mediocrity or worse.

 

[The Z Machine]

I played a 3-5-2 in college and really liked it:-------------------- sweeper -----------------------------------RB----------------------LB------------ (Boca, Gooch, Marshall/Spector/Ream/Gonzales etc plus speedy back)-----------------------DM-------------------------- (Edu, Jermaine Jones, etc)-- RM-----------------CM---------------------LM-- (Deuce, MB, Holden)-----------------------AM-------------------------- (LD)------------- F -------------------F ---------------- (Davies, Jozy)Puts a lot of pressure on the 3 backs, especially in a zonal marking setup (we played man-to-man)- would be a flat-back 3 in the pros probably- potential for lots of train-wrecks with that. Also puts a lot of pressure on the wing MFs who have to bust their butts all game. Attacking MF plays all over the place, but mostly in support of the attack. Defensive MF is a standard holding MF and the Central MF plays like a true #10

Yikes.I would think a good conventional 4-4-2 would exploit this over the course of the game. There would be space for diagonal runs and through balls here. No offense, but I think that Germany would demolish this setup for the US.

 

[El Floppo]

I played a 3-5-2 in college and really liked it:-------------------- sweeper -----------------------------------RB----------------------LB------------ (Boca, Gooch, Marshall/Spector/Ream/Gonzales etc plus speedy back)-----------------------DM-------------------------- (Edu, Jermaine Jones, etc)-- RM-----------------CM---------------------LM-- (Deuce, MB, Holden)-----------------------AM-------------------------- (LD)------------- F -------------------F ---------------- (Davies, Jozy)Puts a lot of pressure on the 3 backs, especially in a zonal marking setup (we played man-to-man)- would be a flat-back 3 in the pros probably- potential for lots of train-wrecks with that. Also puts a lot of pressure on the wing MFs who have to bust their butts all game. Attacking MF plays all over the place, but mostly in support of the attack. Defensive MF is a standard holding MF and the Central MF plays like a true #10

Yikes.I would think a good conventional 4-4-2 would exploit this over the course of the game. There would be space for diagonal runs and through balls here. No offense, but I think that Germany would demolish this setup for the US.

the system actually worked really well against a traditional 4-4-2- the three backs covered the attacking two allowing the extra DM to push up more into the MF to help overload it. but against a team that runs more of a diamond getting players forward, it's got problems. would end up looking more like a 4-4-2 with the DM dropping way back and pushing the RB/LB further wide where they'd traditionally go.

 

[Native]

Why not really play to our strengths and playing 3 in the back that don't push forward with Bradley and Edu as deep-playing DMs? I know a three man back line isn't really conventional, but I think it couldn't be worse than pretending we have fullbacks worth being on the field. We would also get more of our most talented players on the pitch and it has to be a better option than our ultra-defensive version of the 4-4-2 that we run.

I don't think this is a terrible idea. Bornstein might be a better wingback than a pure fullback. I have no idea if someone could do that on the right side (maybe God suddenly grants Marvelle Wynne some skill or something). But I could see Gooch with maybe Ream and Gonzalez as a three man back line. But it might look something like this (too bored to format, sorry). Howard Ream Gooch Gonzalez? Edu Bornstein Holden MB Deuce Landon JozyWe would "tilt" the formation, where MB would switch to the side of the wing back getting forward.

Ugh. I don't like it at all. It's tough to work that sort of game at the international level IMO, as there's not enough time for a team to gel around this style. It's too divergent from the roles that most of the players are used to. It gives me the serious willies.Anyway, I know Greece often runs 5 men back-lines with the wing backs ranging up field quite a bit. Seitaridis ran the right wing decently in that formation. That said, I don't want to base the US's play off that of Greece. That's a recipe for mediocrity or worse.

20,000!!

 

[Desert_Power]

I agree w/ Eephus. It would seem that the US has the most talent in the midfield. Thus playing 5 players there makes sense from that standpoint. Furthermore, the most dynamic midfielders (LD and Deuce) are capable of playing on either wing or the central attacking MF. Thus, the other 3 MFs are going to be in the defensive and central MF.Two of those 3 MFs are Edu and MB. They bring the most in terms of ability to play solid defense and cover ground in the middle of the park. MB marshals the troops very well, and Edu has shown the poise to play against top-level competition. The only question is who plays the 5th MF? Holden? This doesn't mean that Edu and MB play flat with each other, as Edu would do better to hang back a bit more than MB, who's going to end-line to end-line as much as possible.Ideally, a 3rd winger would emerge, freeing LD or Deuce to move inside. But I don't see that.That's effectively a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. While the 4-1-2-2-1 outlined above can work, I think the US would be better to play narrower on offense, as it plays more to the strength of the existing talent.

Why not really play to our strengths and playing 3 in the back that don't push forward with Bradley and Edu as deep-playing DMs? I know a three man back line isn't really conventional, but I think it couldn't be worse than pretending we have fullbacks worth being on the field. We would also get more of our most talented players on the pitch and it has to be a better option than our ultra-defensive version of the 4-4-2 that we run.

I played a 3-5-2 in college and really liked it:-------------------- sweeper -----------------------------------RB----------------------LB------------ (Boca, Gooch, Marshall/Spector/Ream/Gonzales etc plus speedy back)-----------------------DM-------------------------- (Edu, Jermaine Jones, etc)-- RM-----------------CM---------------------LM-- (Deuce, MB, Holden)-----------------------AM-------------------------- (LD)------------- F -------------------F ---------------- (Davies, Jozy)Puts a lot of pressure on the 3 backs, especially in a zonal marking setup (we played man-to-man)- would be a flat-back 3 in the pros probably- potential for lots of train-wrecks with that. Also puts a lot of pressure on the wing MFs who have to bust their butts all game. Attacking MF plays all over the place, but mostly in support of the attack. Defensive MF is a standard holding MF and the Central MF plays like a true #10

I would imagine Bradley playing a DM role similar to what he does now, without a big offensive hole in front of him. I don't know if that is how a 3-5-2 is typically run, but I'd think we'd need it to cover the back 3. More like a 3-2-3-2. Yeah, no chance of this being implemented.

 

[El Floppo]

I agree w/ Eephus. It would seem that the US has the most talent in the midfield. Thus playing 5 players there makes sense from that standpoint. Furthermore, the most dynamic midfielders (LD and Deuce) are capable of playing on either wing or the central attacking MF. Thus, the other 3 MFs are going to be in the defensive and central MF.Two of those 3 MFs are Edu and MB. They bring the most in terms of ability to play solid defense and cover ground in the middle of the park. MB marshals the troops very well, and Edu has shown the poise to play against top-level competition. The only question is who plays the 5th MF? Holden? This doesn't mean that Edu and MB play flat with each other, as Edu would do better to hang back a bit more than MB, who's going to end-line to end-line as much as possible.Ideally, a 3rd winger would emerge, freeing LD or Deuce to move inside. But I don't see that.That's effectively a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. While the 4-1-2-2-1 outlined above can work, I think the US would be better to play narrower on offense, as it plays more to the strength of the existing talent.

Why not really play to our strengths and playing 3 in the back that don't push forward with Bradley and Edu as deep-playing DMs? I know a three man back line isn't really conventional, but I think it couldn't be worse than pretending we have fullbacks worth being on the field. We would also get more of our most talented players on the pitch and it has to be a better option than our ultra-defensive version of the 4-4-2 that we run.

I played a 3-5-2 in college and really liked it:-------------------- sweeper -----------------------------------RB----------------------LB------------ (Boca, Gooch, Marshall/Spector/Ream/Gonzales etc plus speedy back)-----------------------DM-------------------------- (Edu, Jermaine Jones, etc)-- RM-----------------CM---------------------LM-- (Deuce, MB, Holden)-----------------------AM-------------------------- (LD)------------- F -------------------F ---------------- (Davies, Jozy)Puts a lot of pressure on the 3 backs, especially in a zonal marking setup (we played man-to-man)- would be a flat-back 3 in the pros probably- potential for lots of train-wrecks with that. Also puts a lot of pressure on the wing MFs who have to bust their butts all game. Attacking MF plays all over the place, but mostly in support of the attack. Defensive MF is a standard holding MF and the Central MF plays like a true #10

I would imagine Bradley playing a DM role similar to what he does now, without a big offensive hole in front of him. I don't know if that is how a 3-5-2 is typically run, but I'd think we'd need it to cover the back 3. More like a 3-2-3-2. Yeah, no chance of this being implemented.

fwiw- What we played was more of a 1-2-1-3-1-2... ... but yeah, I agree that Bradley Sr would want to plug the middle defensively like you're showing... it would at least get another guy forward compared to the 4-2-2-2 the US is running now.edit to clarify "we".

 

[prefontaine]

I don't think this is a terrible idea. Bornstein might be a better wingback than a pure fullback.

We should definitely build our formation around Bornstein's strengths But I don't think a 3-man back line will ever return on the int'l level. It would put tremendous pressure on the two outside backs in particular. The int'l winger simply cannot be given time and space. It could be used for short periods when the other team does not have time to tactically discuss how to tear it apart but I just don't believe it can be used as a base formation. I could see a 3 man flat line with two wing backs essentially but that doesn't eliminate our need for fullbacks and replaces a mid with a central defender which doesn't much help us. If only there was a viable formation that just lacked a spot for Bornstein.

 

[prefontaine]

the system actually worked really well against a traditional 4-4-2- the three backs covered the attacking two allowing the extra DM to push up more into the MF to help overload it. but against a team that runs more of a diamond getting players forward, it's got problems. would end up looking more like a 4-4-2 with the DM dropping way back and pushing the RB/LB further wide where they'd traditionally go.

But international players can actually make dangerous crosses gb. You can't ignore the wings like this.

 

[Desert_Power]

the system actually worked really well against a traditional 4-4-2- the three backs covered the attacking two allowing the extra DM to push up more into the MF to help overload it. but against a team that runs more of a diamond getting players forward, it's got problems. would end up looking more like a 4-4-2 with the DM dropping way back and pushing the RB/LB further wide where they'd traditionally go.

But international players can actually make dangerous crosses gb. You can't ignore the wings like this.

Would this really make us that much more susceptible than we are now with our terrible play at the fullback position? We already have to use two DMs to cover the back line because of it and handicap the offense while our defense still can't hold up on the highest level. I'd rather get a formation out there that actually plays to our best players strengths than tries to cover up their weaknesses and get a more talented 11 on the pitch together. I don't know of 3 backs that have the talent level to work in this, but I think our backs are pretty terrible to begin with on an international level.

 

[Desert_Power]

Why not really play to our strengths and playing 3 in the back that don't push forward with Bradley and Edu as deep-playing DMs? I know a three man back line isn't really conventional, but I think it couldn't be worse than pretending we have fullbacks worth being on the field. We would also get more of our most talented players on the pitch and it has to be a better option than our ultra-defensive version of the 4-4-2 that we run.

I don't think this is a terrible idea. Bornstein might be a better wingback than a pure fullback. I have no idea if someone could do that on the right side (maybe God suddenly grants Marvelle Wynne some skill or something). But I could see Gooch with maybe Ream and Gonzalez as a three man back line. But it might look something like this (too bored to format, sorry). Howard Ream Gooch Gonzalez? Edu Bornstein Holden MB Deuce Landon JozyWe would "tilt" the formation, where MB would switch to the side of the wing back getting forward.

Ugh. I don't like it at all. It's tough to work that sort of game at the international level IMO, as there's not enough time for a team to gel around this style. It's too divergent from the roles that most of the players are used to. It gives me the serious willies.

I feel like people are a bit too negative on the ability of players to play multiple positions and roles with in a team.