Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Thanks, Mulli. We've had this discussion before. We don't have the team that Italy has, or that Mourinho has had. With the US squad, if we put up a lone striker, we're begging to be shut out. We simply don't have the quality to create enough opportunities for a lone striker. I mean, granted, we don't have the quality to create enough opportunities at all, but still.
You are ignoring the fact that if we play with 2 strikers we are likely keeping a better player on the bench. Goals can be created and scored from out of the midfield.
Altidore up top with a MF of Donovan, Adu, Dempsey, Bradley and either Clark, Edu, Feilhaber, Convey or Beasley can create much more scoring chances than any lineup that includes Twellman, Noonan or Rolfe who would only be on the field because they are "strikers" by position. Positions on a soccer field are fluid anyway...in the attack you'd probably see Adu move up into a more traditional striker role as well as Donovan and Dempsey.
Here is Soccer By Ives guess at our lineup versus Mexico...
I'd love that 2nd lineup, plays to the strength of every player. A healthy Beasley replacing Convey and a healthy Cherundolo replacing Moor would make that even more attractive. Bornstein available to compete with Pearce would be great as well (Pearce may be a better player but in Bradley's scheme Bornstein seems a better fit). You could very easily replace Edu with Clark in that second lineup and not lose anything either. In the attack that system fluidly could transition to a 4 - 3 - 3
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
A 4-2-3-1? Is that even a real soccer formation? I'm not joking--I don't know. Still, it seems gimmickey (sp?) at best. I mean, that's not only breaking the normal formations, but doing it multiple times, before the ball is even kicked. I can certainly understand something more along the lines of a 4-4-1-1, with Donovan playing an attacking midfielder ahead of the rest of the midfield. I've certainly heard of that, and IF that was his main mission, then I could understand it. IF, because if we put him there and he doesn't attack, then our offense is probably nil. I don't know about the kind of lineup you listed, but it sounds strange and outlandish. Tell me I'm wrong and explain the rationale, if you'd be so kind. I just don't know.
And, as a side note, when are we going to actually start training strikers properly instead of breaking all individuality out of these kids? I honestly think that our training camps, from youth soccer on up, have broken these kids down so much with the focus on team work that they have trained away the killer instinct that strikers must have to score. Am I crazy in thinking that?
__________________
The Arizona Cardinals...hitch a ride on the bandwagon while there's still room!!!
and
Break the circle of suck, Bidwill, or feel my wrath--Stout, 26 Feb 2006.*
*--Note: this part of Stout's signature line is on hold. It has not yet been deleted, but once the Cardinal's make the playoffs, it shall be removed. Thank you, and I now return you to your regularly sheduled thread.
Every formation with four on the back line and 1 up top is a 4-5-1. The difference between a 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1 or the 4-4-1-1 is the role/priority given to each midfielder within the 4-5-1 formation.
Zeno has two mids with defense as their main priority. Both Bradley and Edu are currently being asked by their club team to perform this role, so I understand how this could fit the talent we have.
The key to any 4-5-1 (or its variations) does not depend on the striker but on the wings. They have to be able to create an attack and be able to finish on the far post equally as well. To be able to accomplish this they need pace and stamina because their responsibility will be to change the formation from a 4-5-1 to a 4-3-3, and then back again. With Demsey, Beasley, Adu and Donovan... the MNT has four quality W/AM that have speed/stamina/ability to create/finishing ability to pull this off. This is why IMO this strategy works well with the US talent AND lack of talent.
The main reason for the 4-5-1 is simply the absense of a real finisher. As Zeno mentioned, it would be foolish to have a weaker talent on the starting XI while one of your better players sits on the bench. Until we develope, or let a foreign club develope, more quility strikers... breaking from the traditional 4-4-2 may be necessity.
Thanks, Cardfan! That made a ton of sense. Sorry for questioning the formation, Zeno. It just looked really strange to me, but that was a good explanation. I'm still not enamored of the 4-5-1, but you guys make some good sense in defense of it.
__________________
The Arizona Cardinals...hitch a ride on the bandwagon while there's still room!!!
and
Break the circle of suck, Bidwill, or feel my wrath--Stout, 26 Feb 2006.*
*--Note: this part of Stout's signature line is on hold. It has not yet been deleted, but once the Cardinal's make the playoffs, it shall be removed. Thank you, and I now return you to your regularly sheduled thread.
Every formation with four on the back line and 1 up top is a 4-5-1. The difference between a 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1 or the 4-4-1-1 is the role/priority given to each midfielder within the 4-5-1 formation.
Zeno has two mids with defense as their main priority. Both Bradley and Edu are currently being asked by their club team to perform this role, so I understand how this could fit the talent we have.
The key to any 4-5-1 (or its variations) does not depend on the striker but on the wings. They have to be able to create an attack and be able to finish on the far post equally as well. To be able to accomplish this they need pace and stamina because their responsibility will be to change the formation from a 4-5-1 to a 4-3-3, and then back again. With Demsey, Beasley, Adu and Donovan... the MNT has four quality W/AM that have speed/stamina/ability to create/finishing ability to pull this off. This is why IMO this strategy works well with the US talent AND lack of talent.
The main reason for the 4-5-1 is simply the absense of a real finisher. As Zeno mentioned, it would be foolish to have a weaker talent on the starting XI while one of your better players sits on the bench. Until we develope, or let a foreign club develope, more quility strikers... breaking from the traditional 4-4-2 may be necessity.
BENCH- Michel, Rojas, Pinto, Cacho, Dos Santos, Naelson, Villaluz
I'm glad to see Dos Santos start on the bench, his speed could give Onyewu & Bocanegra fits...Ochoa is an incredible GK, hopefully we can test him early and often and make the pressure pay off. Vela is going to cause problesm and to me is the most dangerous Mexican player tonight on offense.
BS on the Dempsey goal being disallowed. It should be 3 - 1 at half....total garbage call.
Anyways it was great to see Altidore score. Convey & Corrales don't look very good IMO--Moor blew it on Mexico's goal but redeemed himself on that great cross to Altidore.
The US passing in the midfield is really bad right now...they can't string more than 2 passes together with any consistency. The bottom line right now is our defense is outplaying their offense and our players are making the most of limited opportunities.
Oh and I hate ESPN's 30 on 30 sportscenter...if I wanted to hear about stinking basketball I'd flip channels. Don't subject me to highlights of that crap.
Moor was responsible for goal #2 as well. Poor marking on 2 set pieces killed us.
I did think when Feilhaber came in the second half that the midfield looked much better--it really does surprise me he can't get on the field for a bad Derby side.
I never want to see Corrales or Moor back on the field for the US Nats. Pearce is either in Bradley's doghouse or he looks terrible in training--I can't understand why he wasn't even on the bench, especially considering he could play Left Back and Left MF. I read earlier Spector wasn't in camp because the US made a deal with West Ham not to call him in for this game so he could be available for the Olympic tourney. Spector has to be considered at one of the outside back positions.
Agree with everything. Moor made the same mistake... twice and both times were costly. With Cherandolo and Spector, Moor may never get another cap. Late in the game Corrales let the Mexican wing run free, then fouled him just outside the box. Pearce or Bornstein need to take that position.
Bradley played with his head up his... and Demsey look like he was late for the plane back to London. You can argue Clark did not play badly... because he hardly played at all. Maybe two touches in over 70 minutes and you are a mid... sheesh.
Jozy played well as did the others not mentioned by name. Great to see the youngters getting caps.
and Demsey look like he was late for the plane back to London.
umm what? i think you could pose an argument that dempsey was one of the better players on the pitch, he was creative.. had some nice balls to the outside... as far as his goal being dis-allowed i can't see how a player being off side is a BS call.. it is what it is, sure you could argue that he came back on side, but he still received the ball from an off side position and you have to call that...
moor sent in some nice crosses and Jozy could have had a few more... his one finish was pretty..
donovan did ok... made some plays with his speed and switched up with dempsey a bit and i liked that... bradley played well...
howard is the freakin man... nobody else really stood out too much.. remember this is still a meaningless game and bradley screwed up imo by his subbing and his starting defense and how you could have clark, corralles start is beyond me...
I just love it when USA plays Mexico. Sure I enjoy it when USA actually pushes themselves and play outside the country vs quality teams, but you can't argue that Mexico vs USA isn't special.
by the way.. i LOVED the instant replay system they had.. felt like the Matrix or something and you could really see the breakdowns in the defense which was typically moor... but i haven't seen that before...
announcers did OK... not great but they were solid... I think I may be the only one that actually enjoys it when Eric Wynalda calls a game, glad they kept Julie out of the play by play....
umm what? i think you could pose an argument that dempsey was one of the better players on the pitch, he was creative.. had some nice balls to the outside...
... bradley played well...
What I noticed was Dempsey collecting the ball, 25-30 yards out, with his back to the keeper... then immediately running 5-10 yards in the wrong direction and kicking it out wide. The one time he collected, turned and fired... the ball was in the onion bag. Of course it didn't count because he was caught just prior in an offside postition. I quess I'm quilty of focusing on reasons why he is not a striker but a great attacking mid.
Bradley played well...??? On that, I think we watched a different game. His tackles were off and going to ground a few times gave Mexico numbers on the attack. The midfield could not maintain posession because a number of his passes were just pitiful. I agree that pairing him with the "invisible man" did not help, but I expected more from him. Quite a bit more.
Linear Mode
