Saturday, October 10, 2015

Your USMNT Line-Up v Mexico

Not what I wanted in midfield shape, but I see the thinking behind how this can work. Looks like Klinsi thinks we need goals plural to win, and I think he is right on that aspect.








- Greg Seltzer

19 comments:

Yankeedom said...

Mexico wanted it more to start the game, but the US has grown into the game. We're still leaving ourselves way open on the counter though. Hopefully US addresses this at HT. Looking forward to the 2nd half.

dikranovich said...

USA kept its poise despite giving up the first goal, and now Mexico is playing into the hand of the USA. More possession for Mexico, more chances for USA. Momentum was on our side going into the half, let's see if captain Bradley can keep it going.

JBS said...

So...Thomas Schaaf for USMNT manager? Brendan Rogers?

dikranovich said...

Tough loss, but the fight was there. the players have not quit on the coach, nor should US soccer.

There is something missing within US soccer, and it is worth more discussion, as we try and move this ship forward.

DrewVT6 said...

Dempsey sure was ugly tonight.

Kirk Diggler said...

#FireKlinsman

Course it won't happen.

What a sad game. Completely out possessed. Beasley, Beckerman and even Clint might be done. JK isn't man enough to make the tough decisions. Jones was gassed. Fabian is not a good defensive player. Midfield needs an overall. Tell me we could not have used Benny tonight. Jozy blows. Bobby Wood accomplished more in 10 seconds than Jozy does the whole game.

Fire Gulati.

Andy Palmer said...

Let's be clear: Jozy had a good game. He held the ball up well, won some important free kicks in dangerous areas, and had some good shots on goal. It's a lot easier to "look good" when you're playing against defenders who have been battered by Jozy for 98 minutes and even easier when they have Yellow cards.

Beasley showed some sparks going forward, but defensively was found lacking. Johnson didn't even show those sparks going forward. Beckerman lacked the mobility or incisive passing to make a difference and Jones didn't show consistent energy or quality, nor is he a winger.

Jones should have been in the middle, if not replaced in the middle by Williams. Yedlin should have started, giving us TWO speed options for counter-attacks. We ended up being a lopsided 4-3-3 at times because Jones simply isn't a wide player.

Klinsmann didn't set up the team to win, nor did he adjust when things were obviously going poorly. Waiting as late as he did to substitute just showed that he was out of ideas.

Overall, I'd have expected to see this same kind of performance back in the Bruce Arena days, though Bruce would've adjusted better.

downintexas said...

Greg.

What do you think, did Klinsman tell Jones and Zardes to switch, did the two of them switch, or did captian Bradley tell them to switch? All are welcome to weigh in

Greg Seltzer said...

Klinsi made the switch. Not sure it achieved much, as Jones is not a wide player on either side.

DaM said...

@greg exactly! This was my thought when I watched us fail to look like a cohesive team in the olympic qualifying match at Honduras: "hmmm lots of people playing out of their natural position and too many defensive midfielders. It's almost like Klinsman picked this lineup".

Fast forward a couple of hours and we have the same issues. I also think it's pretty funny that Klinsman preaches form as an excuse for not bringing Landon to the world cup and relies on a clearly out of form clint dempsey for this match.

The klinsi era has been rife with favoritism, faulty, unevenly applied logic and the same "look" as we had for the prior 4 years. I would have expected the same performance from this team in the Bob Bradley era. Bruce Arena never would have made so many roster mistakes.

dikranovich said...

jones probably did at least as well on the wing as bedoya would have done, and probably a little better. JJs work rate was second to none last night, and when it was needed, he found his second wind. Jones was probably also on the right, so he could tuck in and give Fabian room on the wing. The attacking that our wingbacks did do, came from the side which jones was on.

Coach klinsmann has a chance to continue building on a foundation, which was not set by him, and will not end with him. It's easy to forget this, when we are so into the moment.

It's not fair to say that Greg seltzer is what is wrong with US soccer, but maybe the debate and the lack of resolution, is emblematic of a larger issue that might be the crux of our troubles.

Greg Seltzer said...

*jones probably did at least as well on the wing as bedoya would have done, and probably a little better.*


Ummm, no. You cannot be serious.



*Jones was probably also on the right, so he could tuck in and give Fabian room on the wing. The attacking that our wingbacks did do, came from the side which jones was on.*


Yes, this is the familiar excuse for a lesson that is not being learned about lopsided tactics. The wingbacks did precious little getting forward on either side and it hurt.



*Coach klinsmann has a chance to continue building on a foundation, which was not set by him, and will not end with him. It's easy to forget this, when we are so into the moment.*


This team has clearly regressed since World Cup and this is precisely due to the maneuverings of the manager. The one period of exception was the Netherlands and Germany games, which were won by the type of tactics used at World Cup. The diamond does not work for this team, period. Constantly shuffling the back line has not worked, as it usually does not. And the team operates better and gets more from Bradley when he is not pushed so far up the field, as evidenced again last night.

LB said...

This isn't the whole story but it's to me the most important one: JK is tactically inept. Mexico has more talent than us but JK is not lining up our own talent in a way that maximizes it. His tactics and his player selection are consistently inadequate and often galling.

One of the diamond formation's weaknesses is a lack of width. Mexico plays a system with two wingbacks. *Aguilar and Layun had so much space to operate in* that they often pressed so far forward as to form a 5 man forward line in what was effectively a 3-2-5 formation. Aguilar and Layun did not have to worry about their defensive responsibilities b/c the US had no width or counterattacking speed. Jones and Zardes, not natural wingers to begin with, were often pinned so far back that they effectively formed a back 6 for us. When Jones and Zardes tried to remain further up the field and not defend deep, Aguilar and Layun overran our fullbacks.

These are serious design flaws that would've been predictable to any coach with even a rudimentary understanding of tactics. But JK has explicitly said he doesn't think formation matters. This is what you get from a coach who believes that and who refuses to adapt or learn from his mistakes.

It's not just this Mexico game. JK has been repeatedly out-coached since the World Cup and as a result the team has been badly out-possessed and out-shot, not just by teams that are better than us (Mexico, Belgium, Germany) but also by teams that should be equal to or worse than us (Honduras, Haiti, Panama).

dikranovich said...

I just think you are wrong Greg. And your assertions, about something like "lopsided tactics". It doesn't hold water.

In one way it is easy to say we have regressed since the World Cup, but a lot of teams have also, good teams who actually lifted the trophy. The Dutch have regressed since the World Cup, and they have also changed coaches. Sometimes holland is like a revolving door for coaches. Tinkering away from the sidelines, trying to find that perfect formula.

There has to be a better way to see they game, a way which will free up the fan and viewer from drawing immediate conclusions about what they find to be right and wrong, with the team, or the game.

It's a lot like when you watch a game with someone who does not follow much, and they get caught up on hand balls and offsides, and in the process, miss the beauty of the game, and the moment that is occurring. Then they talk about how good the women's national team is.

Dany Tzvi said...

the tactics and the player selection (including what positions guys are in) is the greatest failing of this team.

Beckerman was useless
Zardes is not a CM / Jones is not an outside mid, so whatever zardes and jones were supposed to be neither of them accomplished much of anything
Bradley is not a 10
yedlin should have started

the formation was a disaster and it usually has been. we have always played better in a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3, you know, the formations that every team in the world uses. im getting real sick of the 4-4-2 and related stuff.

Dr.Jon said...

I agree with the sentiment on both sides here...

He went with what has worked in the past, he gambled on experience, and yes Jozy did a workhorse effort but was ineffective if Clint and the MF didn't take advantage. That was not the same Clint that caused havoc to defenses, that was not the same MB90 who ran roughshod over Mexico. FWIW I would NOT have played Jones, Beckerman AND Bradley at the same time, or really Beckerman at all except a MF destroyer late in the game to seal the deal. I probably would have played a 4-2-3-1. (see though there is no room for #10 Bradley and Clint in that lineup.)

In a way it is good. Klinsmann stood by his veterans and they failed. Time to move on.

Leggett - Wooten - Bardes

Bradley - Williams
Shea - Besler - Cameron - Yedlin

Bottom line with 8 players dropped, if we don't see a radically different USMNT for WCQ then I too will start to lose faith.

Greg Seltzer said...

@ dikranovich:

I just think you are wrong Greg. And your assertions, about something like "lopsided tactics". It doesn't hold water.


- If I am not mistaken, he or someone in the squad has used that exact terminology before. And even I am remembering wrong off the top of my head, calling a converted forward and a sudden-shift #8 midfielder lopsided as wing bookends might be too gentle. Those things do not match, clearly. Stop wasting time with piffle and stick with your good points.


In one way it is easy to say we have regressed since the World Cup, but a lot of teams have also, good teams who actually lifted the trophy. The Dutch have regressed since the World Cup, and they have also changed coaches. Sometimes holland is like a revolving door for coaches. Tinkering away from the sidelines, trying to find that perfect formula.


- Yes, and yes. I agree. And the reason these two teams have regressed is messing with the stuff that already worked. Both teams have become fascinated with forcing some stray idea into place when it clearly does not suit the team, tactically or mentally.


There has to be a better way to see they game, a way which will free up the fan and viewer from drawing immediate conclusions about what they find to be right and wrong, with the team, or the game.


- There are definitely times this observation is correct, and even against me sometimes. That is the never-ending battle with human nature we all fight. But I will tell you what we all picked up on that Klinsi did not: this aint workin. We lost the big one again. Meanwhile, he is talking about how we could have scored a third before them. At some point, he has to see there has been a miscalculation of some sort. That is how I feel about it. I am hardly alone on it.

And your last remark, just leave it out. You have attempted to talk about people more than enough, stick to the game from now on. Thank you.




-----------------
-----------------


Dr.Jon said...

He went with what has worked in the past...

Greg says:

Well... he went with WHO worked in the past, but certainly not what. Vive la difference.


Dany Tzvi said...

dr. jon, not having room for bradley in the 10 is not a big loss imo. put him in the 8 and tell him to keep it simple. i like the 98% passing michael bradley a lot better than the 2 or 3 dribbles / game bradley. when the unlocking play is there, he'll find it, versus when we put him in a position where he is expected to find the unlocking play with a plurality of his touches on the ball. that's just not the type of player he is.

Greg Seltzer said...

The thing about Bradley is he produces about as many run of play assists form the #8 slot as he does from the #10 slot - he does not need to be pushed up to produce. Think of all those mid-range to long lovely lobs he provides when a little deeper. And he is much more effective shooting the ball as the late man rushing to the box.