Charlie Steiner
Footballguy
@Charlie Steiner great post.
You may have noticed that your question/thesis presents a bit of a conundrum.
The US has more than enough players to play a hard, gritty, style like the old days.
When JK was hired, he was asked to elevate the program since hard/gritty only goes so far.
The conundrum is that when you try and improve that hard gritty style, you some times have to ignore the "donkey's" like Lalas, Hejduk, Zardes etc etc that define the low skill/I will do anything to win style. But when those players get marginalized, you lose a bit of an identity.
We are in a VERY bad spot right now in this long term transition as we are kind of stuck in between having the hard nose, lower skilled players and having enough higher skilled, less gritty players to make a difference.
A coach who could some how blend the two facets would be ideal, but that might be more fantasy than reality.
As shown in these friendlies we are still eons away from the top sides in terms of speed of thought. It is so clear to see how long it takes a US player to see a passing angle compared to a top 10 countries players.
I haven't gotten up to speed on the details of the JK era, but was 'elevate the program' really ever detailed, or was that just a nebulous term that got thrown around? This is why I keep coming back to Zlatan; before he came to the US, he probably paid zero attention to what was going on here, but shortly after arriving, paying attention to it, he perfectly nailed what's missing. If JK couldn't do anything about that, what went wrong? To me, I think it was because he took it for granted that if they 'worked' hard, they would figure out the rest. If that's the case, that was his fatal miscalculation, and why I believe a guy like Zlatan, who's not afraid to call things the way he sees them, is what we need. To me, when it comes to 'skill', the gulf between us and the rest of the world is smaller than it ever has been, and should be something that can be imported to the US. Pulisic has said great things about the Footbonaught machine that Dortmund has; a machine like that should be reasonably recreated in the US. I'm reminded of the old coaching cliché: coaches put in what God left out. With the increasing presence the US has in international soccer, we have access to more and more of the same means of training that the world's best have, so to me, closing the technical divide is the easy part, which brings us back to the 'speed of thought' part.
If young players like Sargent and Amon can work so well off each other, I don't think it takes Pele to create an attack. I think it's more of a mindset of understanding your position and the situation. That's probably what made Total Football work for the Netherlands; everyone understood what they were trying to do and their individual role within that. To me, those are things that kids should be learning from about 8 years old or so. Situational awareness is a big unspoken component of baseball (I only know this because of how much my son has played); every player is told from a young age to anticipate what they're going to do if the ball is hit to them, as well as what their job is wherever the ball is hit. Soccer shouldn't be any different. For those of you who played soccer, was situational awareness part of your thinking? Soccer should be an even simpler game that baseball. In baseball, you throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball. In soccer, you kick the ball, you head the ball, you chest the ball. The rest is situational awareness. Again, back to Nagbe. If he has the ball and a defender is coming to close him down, his first thought seems to be 'how am I going to get around him?', whereas Adams' (again, I love his motor and believe he can become a fixture, but is still a ways away from that) first thought in that same situation against England seemed to be "OH ####! I NEED TO GET RID OF THIS BALL!".
Maybe 'speed of thought' isn't the real problem as much as what you and Floppo are saying about clarity of tactics. In the last round of friendlies, I noticed a trend: opponents consistently successfully attacking our LB. I'm sure we were hit from every angle, but the most dramatic ones seemed to come from that side, via a long pass that no one seemed able to react to in time. It just seems like there should be some sort of counter to that ploy, or is defending long crosses harder than it seems?