When Jurgen Klinsmann became U.S. Men's National Team head coach more than a year ago, there was a widely-held belief that he was going to usher in a new era of attack-minded American soccer, and he would do away with the perceived ultra-defensive approach Bob Bradley was deemed guilty of subjecting U.S. fans to.
Anyone who has watched Klinsmann's U.S. team play over the course of the past year knows that the wave of attacking soccer we thought we might see never happened, and if anything, a case can be made Klinsmann has been even more defensive-minded than Bradley.
That isn't the general public perception about Klinsmann's tenure, at least not yet. And how has he avoided that label to this point, despite such clear evidence that he has embraced a philosphy that surely does resemble the one we saw during the Bob Bradley era? Klinsmann has avoided the label by trotting out any number of formations, from 4-3-3, to 4-1-3-2, to 4-2-3-1. He has managed to play a bit of a shell game by moving players around in a way that they manage to still play a very similar style to the one seen during the Bradley era while avoiding lining up in a 4-4-2 with two deep-lying midfield.
This became very clear during the last U.S. national team match, the vital 1-0 victory against Jamaica. The Americans played a 4-4-2, though anyone associated with diseminating that information for the national team made it clear to state that it was, in fact, a 4-1-3-2. That might seem like semantics, but not if you're trying your best to distance yourself from the approach of the previous coaching regime.
And what exactly is the difference between the 4-1-3-2 we saw the U.S. play against Jamaica and the 4-4-2 of the Bob Bradley era? The reality is there wasn't much of one.
In theory, the main difference is that, in Klinsmann's system, the one midfielder is assigned the deep-lying anchor role, the No. 6 role as it were, which Danny Williams played against Jamaica, while another midfielder plays in the more advanced No. 8 role, which Jermaine Jones played. In Bradley's 4-4-2, the two central midfielders alternated between covering the defense and surging forward into the attack, with both players having similar responsibilities. The system earned the label "The Empty Bucket" from critics of Bradley's coaching approach who felt playing two defensive-minded midfielders in the middle led to defensive-minded soccer.
It might seem like there is a pretty distinct difference between the system, but it really isn't when you are using the same kind of players in both cases. If you play a natural ball-winner in the more advanced role they don't magically become a playmaker, and anyone who has watched Jones handle a more advanced role has figured out long ago that this transformation isn't happening. Also, Williams wasn't exactly chained the space in front of the centerbacks against Jamaica. He did well to get forward and join the attack, and looked more impressive as an attacking option doing that than he ever looked during the multiple times he was deployed as a right winger in past matches.
In other words, we were told that the U.S. was playing a 4-1-3-2, when for all intents and purposes, we were watching a 4-4-2.
Klinsmann does deserve some credit for really trying to implement a 4-3-3 during his first year in charge, but it has become clear that deploying that system just isn't practical for important qualifying matches. It is clear he has already started to work on variations of the 4-4-2, but a lack of wide midfield options has made it difficult to really play a style that can be considered attack-minded. This, along with Landon Donovan's many absences from the national team over the past year, has led to Klinsmann using players like Danny Williams and Jose Torres as "wide' midfielders.
So what does it all mean? What exactly is the point of going down this road? It is to let you know that, while you may hear any number of formation variations, there is a reason the current U.S. national team approach might seem familiar to you. It will seem familiar because some things haven't changed since the time Bob Bradley was head coach. We still don't have a dominant American playmaker who can be plugged into the middle of the park, and the U.S. pool is still overflowing with central midfielders who are more defensive-minded than attack-minded.
So we have a new coach, trotting out seemingly different formations, but the soccer looks the same, and many of the players look the same. That isn't a knock on Klinsmann as much as it's stating what might be lost on some who have actually bought into the notion that the U.S. national team has undergone some sort of transformation.
Ultimately, Klinsmann is a prisoner of the talent pool at his disposal, no matter how he tries to spin it and no matter how many varied formations he trots out. Could there eventually come a day when we actually start seeing real changes and a real shift in philosophy with the U.S. national team? Sure, but that day hasn't come yet and it doesn't appear to be on the horizon.
So before you go saying "Man, I'm glad the days of the 'Empty Bucket' are over", you might want to consider that those days are very much still here. And rather than looking at the 4-4-2 with two defensive midfielders as some sort of curse, we might want to consider the possibility that, at least for the immediate future, it is the best system and approach for the kind of players we have right now.
Bob Bradley realized that a long time ago, and Klinsmann clearly has realized the same thing, though it seems he isn't in a hurry to admit it.
Mexico can’t control possession against Brazil on an neutral venue. Many teams can be Brazil on occassion, USA has beaten them before. Thats different than controlling possession or beating them consistently.
Agreed, Klinsman has failed.
Another good article….it surprises me that one thing that doesn’t get enough discussion is klinsi’s maddening penchant for playing people out of position….this has had a direct impact on our qualifying record, cohesion, and I think retrenchment by klinsi to Bradley tactics just to get a friggin result.
Klinsi needs to channel his inner Berthelot and Nietzsche..apply some pragmatism for these next games that matter. I would rather not make a tactical point with a formation on the pitch at the expense of an actual point in the qualifying process.
The US does not have the range of offensive talent necessary to produce consistent results and will remain hampered by that fact regardless of the manager. Exhibit A is not the US, though, it’s Brasil. Brasil has a wide range of attacking talent, at a level well above the US, but has continued to play with two defensive mids in the middle and has been incredibly inconsistent. Brasil has creative central mids, but they are out of favor. Now if Brasil can’t make a defensive mid style work consistently with its superior talent, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the US is inconsistent and doesn’t score goals with regularity. The best the US can do for now is put its best players on the field at the same time and pressure higher and more often. That is what Klisman has stressed, and I’d argue that this team has more upside that Bradley’s side as a result. But no one should expect we run out and win every game 2-0 or 3-1.
The long term trend I see from Klinsi is us moving from an initial continental 451 type approach a la Portugal or something, tilted forward, which was creating lots of possession but only so many chances and very few goals, towards a 451 that tilts backwards, has 3 DMs, and 2 CAMs pushed somewhat wide in lieu of wingers.
Offensively, the problem is there is not a 10 setting up people nor are there true wings tearing up the flank. Like we saw with Jamaica, even when we have possession we don’t create tons of chances. People underrate the virtue of the Arena/ Bradley 442 counterattack approach, as well as the value of a generation of quality wing play, dating back to the 2002 team.
In terms of defense, we’ll see when a Klinsi team plays Mexico or Costa Rica on the road what we’re dealing with. Bradley had a pretty good “d” rep until they got their heads handed to them in some road qualis and the Italy Confed game. Then a counternarrative of teams that showed up flat and got their tails kicked abroad starting paralleling. And there were the infamous collapses from the lead, Brazil Confed, Mexico more than once.
Issue I see — best wings: Dempsey/ Donovan (played there a lot at South Africa); best forwards: probably still Dempsey/ Donovan. Best CAMs: same??? Can’t play ’em everywhere. Personally I think the best approach was the Bradley South Africa concept of starting them wide then pushing them up late. I think we could get away with playing center mid defensive if the wing quality went up.
FWIW1: a strong offense could be our best defense. I don’t need 3 DMs if I park on their end with a possession offense.
FWIW2: if Klinsi doesn’t have a set formation or is more defensive than advertised then he’s not really inculcating a system and he’s only as valuable as his learning curve/ coaching/ results. The qualifying results so far are no better and perhaps worse than the post-94 cycle teams.
FWIW3: when you have several years to explore the talent pool the argument that I can’t find people to play a certain way seems less defensible and more like Porter U23 excuses. It’s his team and if the pool drives him to tears rather than him hammering something out, how good a coach is he?
All cylinders? By that you mean a German host team failed to make their own final?
Ives you have really stepped your game up in the last week, bravo sir.
Anyone who laughs at the idea that Klinsmann’s teams are more defensive than Bradleys needs to look at their goals per game stats over their first year in charge. It’s not even close. But hey let’s ignore facts and listen to Klinsmann ramble on for five hours in various interviews and podcasts, contradicting half the crap he flung at us just the previous week.
This is a guy who said his ideal central midfield was Jones and Edu (EDU!!) just a few months ago, with no mention of MB90…
great article!! point well made.
Attacking options I should have said. And he used the tone that belittled Klinsi because of his options and made Bradley look sympathetic because his options weren’t as good.
Getting scored on is not a reflection on attacking prowlers, otherwise Antigua would be the most attacking team left. Most of the goals scored in under 20 mins were straight through the middle because under Bradley, players didn’t press. They filled spaces to create a wall. Klinsi has encouraged his team to step up. That’s more offensive defense than under Bradley. Klinsi is building from the back.
“You actually inadvertently prove the point. Under Bradley there was a much greater commitment to attack by putting more attack minded players on the pitch and having more players get forward.”
That’s simply not true. Under BB, we didn’t allow the routine 15-20 minute goal because we were busy attacking.
Often, they were obvious and simply defensive/concentration lapses.
How soon we forget…
Although JK might give players instructions on using a certain formation, the players themselves usually fall back (or forward) into a position they are familiar and comfortable with. Sometimes the less disciplined players will lose patience and creep out of position, slightly at first, and more later. I have seen Jose Altidore come back to the the midfield area when playing as a lone striker. Conversely I have seen players (midfielders) fall back into defensive positions when in fact they needed to be closer to the strikers.
You eventually learn a formation, but that comes later than sooner when you play one formation for your club and another for your country. This is especially true of the younger players. They play one position for the club another for the country and usually when they play out of position for the country they make mistakes.
When the US played in Olympic Qualifying, several players complained later they wer playing in unfamiliar formations and tended to creep back or forward to a more familiar position, which put them out of formation for the formation Porter wanted them to play in. Disaster when Canada and discovered US players out of position and US loses 2-0. Same with El Salvador. Both inferior teams but were able to exploit US gaffes. JK plays older and more experienced players and cna get away with formation switches. But when younger players come in and when players are often paired with unfamiliar/new team mates they frequently are uncomfortable to play out of formation they are used to.
When JK gets more of the younger/newer players LEARNING how to play effectively in the new formations they do not normally play, only then will the US come out of their “conservative” shell and play exciting aggressive football.
Yeah Gotaku is a super long shot but I want to players to be invited and make it public if they deny it. Thomas Delaney denied a U-23 olympic call up but is still open to the US if denmark doesnt work out.
Gotaku was called into the last WQ qualifier but didnt get put in, so he still isnt cap-tied. Always a chance but highly unlikely
Ives, why did you feel the need to write this article? I understand your view on the slow development of the usmnt along with the limited player pool. However, it seems as if you’re not only bashing on the team but contradicting yourself as well. Just because you received several comments praising your recent posts doesn’t mean you need to come out with something so out of the ordinary. This is nothing against you or your articles; I check your site daily.
Klinsmann has done more positive than he has done negative. He had no choice but to work with what Bob left him. What Klinsmann has done is kept most of what was already solid and worked to find solutions to positions where dependability was scarce (LB, CB, ST, True Winger). We can all agree that he has fixed the first three previous issues (bringing in Johnson, Cameron, and Gomez), with wingers being the last real problem for us to fix. The way Klinsmann said he’d implement a positive-styled approach on the field has to do with the risk-taking that he is reminding the players of every single time they’re together.
How Klinsmann hopes to solve the “last” issue (True Winger) involves his extremely careful dealings with Brek, and I know both of them will show their worth for devoting so much time, effort, and drama. As of now, this is the lineup I’d trot out.
Altidore Dempsey
Johnson Williams Bradley Gomez
Lichaj Bocanegra Cameron Cherundolo
Howard
(SBI- How exactly was this piece “bashing the team”? Not really sure how you gather that from the piece. Obviously, based on your comment you actually think he deserves credit for any positive development related to the national team since he took over (like Fabian Johnson, who was coming to the USMNT whether Klinsmann was coach or not). The point of the piece was to point out that things haven’t changed nearly as much as some people want to think. Clearly you’re in the group that believes there have already been dramatic changes relating directly to Klinsmann’s actions. We’ll agree to disagree on that.)
In regard to the game against Jamaica in Jamaica, I would say that looked very close to the old 4-4-2 under Bob Bradley. However, in many of the other games the US has played under Klinsmann, I do not remember seeing that style of play.
For me Bob Bradley employed a style that was a continuation of what Bruce Arena employed. It was a defensive minded 4-4-2 that counterattacked and placed a great deal of emphasis on scoring off of set pieces, especially corner kicks. We also tried to use large physical center forwards like Brian Ching and Brian McBride to head in crosses.
We did not try to maintain possession and we usually did not press high, we also usually kept a deeper back line. We played compact but usually we started applying pressure around the half field line or slightly past. I think the overall strategy made sense considering the talent of the players vs. the level of top teams in the World. Even though we could have played differently in qualifying and friendlies, the end goal was to have a system that could take us out of the Group stage of the World Cup. Bruce Arena accomplished that in the 2002 World Cup.
Under Klinsmann I see a very different philosophy, although I agree the game in Jamaica looked like the old defensive style. I see big differences since really the Bruce Arena Era as I think Bob Bradley continued with a very similar style, and probably Steve Sampson’s approach was the same if I really think about it.
1st, Klinsmann has for the most part chosen to play a possession based rather than counterattacking style. That is the big difference in my mind. Sometimes he has played more defensively and some times more attack minded, but he has emphasized trying to maintain possession regardless of how much the team pushes forward.
2nd Klinsmann has generally played more compact. Our front lines and back lines have been much closer together than I remember in the counterattacking style, when we used to advance up the field, the team loosened up and the back line stayed back.
3rd Klinsmann has generally played with pressure rather than sitting back and waiting for the other team to make a mistake and counter attack. The US has been more aggressive trying to win the ball back.
4th Klinsmann has not emphasized set pieces and corner kicks and there have been many fewer goals off of headers in the box from corner kicks.
5th Klinsmann has not been aiming to just get it down the wing and cross it into the box. There has been more of an emphasis on one touch passing, give and goes, and trying to place a clever pass through the defense. He has spent more time trying to get the team to break down a defense.
I do agree however, that the personnel that Klinsmann has used in some matches, especially the match down in Jamaica, was very defensive minded. This has contributed to less offense.
However, although we are not scoring very often, I do believe that under Klinsmann we have had a lot more shots on goal from the run of play than under Bradley, Arena, or Sampson, or even further back Bora Milutinovic. Many of the games I have seen we have had a lot more opportunities to score from the run of play, we just haven’t been able to put it away. I would be curious to see what the stats show from the Bob Bradley years.
I also think we have seen a lot more possession by the US team. In addition I feel like I have seen more one on one individual plays, clever passes, and attempts pick our game technically. I also think the US has tried to play faster, sometimes successfully. Ok, that’s enough of me talking. Sorry for the verbal explosion, but this is an interesting topic.
nope. Holden was hurt by DeJong, so along with Gooch and Davies, Bradley’s team had to deal with the loss of three starters straight up its spine during the WC buildup
When did he say Klinsi’s attack is better? If he did he’d better review the numbers. Averaging 50% fewer goals a game under Klinsmann; I don’t see how anyone could construe that as a better attack. If anything, this article is unfair to Bob Bradley, not Klinsmann.
the truth is everyone thought klinsmann was going to bring a new kind of play, from a totally different perspective, but unfortunately he didn’t. From the style of play to the players on the field the USMNT are only a step away from what they were under BB’s rule.
We know (or should know) that with our player pool and MLS is really improving and that it is possible to bring a different touch to the national team. Adu did it for BB against Panama and Zusi did it against Jamaica, Ben Olsen did it with his selection in the MLS allstar game had non of the prior USMNT selections (Beckerman, Recardo clark, Shea, Agudelo, Rimando, Buddle etc) with the exception of Donovan, wondo and later Zusi yet he was able to trade punches with league champs Chelsea (friendly/pre-season doesn’t matter it’s chelsea…a team better than most if not all the national teams in CONCACAF).
Yet Olsen used US players like Morrow(SJ), Demerit(Van), Beitashour(SJ) Defense…Donovan, Zusi (SKC), Pontius(DC), Farfan (PHI) and Alonzo Midfield….Wondo and Johnson forwards…in diferent combinations and had a respectable showing agains an elite team.
There is a receipe/combination of MLS players and our foreign base players that BB and Klinsmann can’t seem to find and thats because both coaches still stick to the same core group of players ….Dempsey, Donovan, Altidore, Boca, Dolo, Jones, Bradley, Howard*, Edu….same players with different coach = only slightly diferent execution. The best players don’t necessarily make the best team
You actually inadvertently prove the point. Under Bradley there was a much greater commitment to attack by putting more attack minded players on the pitch and having more players get forward. Under Klinsi true we don’t get scored on early as often but we also don’t score as many goals (more than 50% fewer) because he has every player but Santos Laguna’s backup striker behind the ball.
And they won IN AZTECA. So SSSSSHHHHHHHHH
Ives, by reading your response to every post that points out anything favorable about JK, it is obvious that ou have made up your mind on the subject. While some of your responses I agree with, I think the most important idea that comes out is your OPINION of JK.
Maybe instead of ranting about the Lichaj and Sasha exclusions you could actually ask some questions and find out the facts that are not obvious to all of us. I agree with many of your thoughts but I want answers not more opinions. Just my two cents thanks for the voice
(SBI-I have asked Klinsmann plenty of these questions, and his answers have been well-documented, if not all that enlightening. And to be clear, nowhere in my post do I say “Klinsmann won’t wind up changing anything.” It’s clear that some people are acting as if dramatic changes have already taken place when there simply hasn’t been much change at all. I find that to be very interesting, which is what led me to write the piece. I didn’t write it so everyone could agree with me, but so we could have a real discussion about it. Obviously some people Klinsmann’s magic is already sinking in, and there are people who look at his tenure to date and see not much in the way of real, tangible change. Nothing wrong with having a healthy conversation about that.)
excellent post
another difference is lack of true counter attack to scare back the opposition and especially their own outside backs, keep them at home.
vs. Jamaica in Columbus, Dolo/Zusi did some of this and more up that right flank. Without LD, the US don’t counter well under Klinsmann whatever ‘system’ is used; all Bradley teams were focused on being good at that with or without LD. And so far Klinnsman’s teams don’t get wide and challenge the end line to cross in the ball as much either seems to me
+1
oh boy
Ives, the difference I see is the Beckerman/Williams role, whatever the formation as you keenly note
it’s that destroyer role in front of the back four first and foremost for that role, basically not as flat with the 2 central mids as with Bradley though surges by either central mid did occur with Bradley’s teams; seems Beckerman/Williams are more anchored right in that pocket above the 18
but I agree with all your smackdown. On style change, it has been handcuffed by player selection and deployment seems to me. Remove those handcuffs and the team will be freed…that’s the idea at least I think, but need the right players deployed correctly and I don’t know if Klinsmann even knows what that lineup is yet, still searching it appears
I have no idea if he is the #10 we’d like but seeing how he’s one of the few players in the pool actually playing in Champs league he definitely deserves a few chances. Heck it wasn’t too long ago that many people didn’t think Michael Bradley should be on the team and we know how that’s worked out.
I tell ya what, I’d take him in a heartbeat over Torres who is not ready for the role despite the numerous opportunities.
Ives again I have to wonder if you’re just out to throw criticism on Klinsi. You keep repeating that Klinsi’s attack is only better because he has players peaking under him. That’s a poor excuse as every previous manager can say that including Arena or Klinsi about the current German team. And while the likes of Jozy and Bradley are better now, we have not seen tangible results on the national team. Jozy has stopped scoring and Bradley has always been our best CM player. Dempsey has played wonderfully, but Donovan has gone downhill. It’s balanced. If anything, Klinsi is rebuilding our defense when Bradley had a stacked one of Dolo, Gooch, DeMerit and Boca all at their prime.
It is a good point about using defensive midfielders because we play to our strength but other than that this is a serious letdown from most of the quality Ives puts out. If Klinsmann is just playing to our strengths, and has realized something that Bradley realized a long time ago, why are we SCORING FEWER GOALS AND GETTING POORER RESULTS then we were before? It it due to injuries, poor player selections, a decrease in the ability of the player pool? That is the real story under Klinsmann, how we are different under him than under Bradley, not how we are similar.
Goals against average:
2009: 1.5 goals/game
2010: 1.5
2011: 1.2
2012: 0.8
Ives you don’t see any way Klinsi’s team is more on the same page than under Bradley? Have you already forgotten how often under Bradley we let a goal in within 15/20 mins? How is that a team playing on one page? Klinsi has plugged the early leaks and chaos.
I agree with the general spirit of the post. My criticism I guess would be that it tends to conflate “offensive” and “defensive” with “possession-heavy” and “possession-light,” in other words, to suggest that a team that keeps the ball is “offensive” and a team that doesn’t is “defensive.” Bradley’s teams didn’t typically control the ball — in fact, sometimes it seemed like they were actively trying to give it away — and yet they were extremely offensive in the sense that they scored a lot of goals. Klinsmann’s teams try to control the ball more, but they’ve also tended to be more defensive, in the sense that they have gotten their best results by grinding out 1-0 wins.
Which leads to a second point. There definitely has been a great deal of continuity from Bradley to Klinsmann, which isn’t surprising, considering the continuity in personnel. But Klinsmann has made some important tactical changes. The main problem facing the US when he took over was that we gave up more goals (a lot more goals) than any other team that regularly gets out of the WC group stages. By re-organizing the midfield, Klinsmann has largely solved this problem. His moves have created new challenges, but in my opinion the disease was worse than the cure.
why do people keep overlooking the fact that Gatt has been injured often? and once again when he got a call up. and gyau?! he is a nice prospect, but he is hardly playing at the club level. let the kid get his club situation worked out!
if you want pace, and i know people will flame for it, call in Beasley. no matter what people say, the guy is playing well and can be a good depth option for the USMNT right now.
i’d also say someone like Adu would make more sense right now than Gyau. i’d also play Corona before Gyau. i’m big on Gyau, but i just don’t think he’s ready to step up and fill a void yet.
That’s fair. The results have been mixed. For me, the big game was the loss to France. The first half was defended repeatedly near the halfway line; it struck me at the time as Bradley’s teams always seemed to bunker in the box under pressure. It was only one half, and they couldn’t keep it up for the whole game, but I saw it as a change.
The new players at key positions changes things too: williams, chandler, and esp Johnson all made/make a big difference.
I think it’s a more than fair analysis of the team and JK’s era thus far. I think it’s pretty clear that Ives knows we have yet to see our full team play together with our top players for a long string of games. I think he more than understands that a new style will take time. But I think Ives makes a good point that, as of now, it’s not quite what a lot of fans were hoping for. Maybe those fans had too high of hopes. Maybe JK gave them too much hope with some things he said. Maybe JK himself had too high of hopes. Either way, it would be premature to write off JK at this point. I hope to see some better selections from JK though and I hope the next two games, and the hex if we make it, we start seeing a more confident and assertive US team.
anyway, love this new feature! i could discuss/debate/learn/read about the USMNT until my eyes fell out.
do you really think Kljestian is the #10 the US has been waiting for??!!?
SBI, do you have knowledge that Scotland was actually sunburned and hungover, because I would 100% agree with that!
i think Klinsy squads have been better at holding possession but not really any more offensive. Hopefully this is just step 1 in jurgen’s master plan.
(SBI-Yes. They wanted no part of being in Florida and the heat killed them. They played like it too.)
Our talent pool is better. Three influential players (Gomez, Johnson, and Williams) were not in the Klinsmann call-ups. In addition to Zusi, and Geoff. However, I do criticize him for not calling up Kliejstan and more offensive minded players. I would love to see Gatt or even a Gyua to add some much needed pace. What I don’t want to see is Edu, and Beckerman both called up. One is understandable, but both would be a crime.
correct we can not out possess and out play Spain and Italy so we bunker and counter attack, that makes sense…
but when we are going up vs. Panama, Canada and Jamaica we shouldn’t have to play to same way!!!
Also I don’t really feel secure winning 1-0 all the time. For once it would nice to win some games 2-0 or 3-0. To do this we need more support for the attack. Weather it comes from the outside or middle it does not matter but the huge gap between forwards and d-mids just isn’t cutting it.
Kudos. First comment that made sense in pointing out a tactical difference in the Klinsman vs Bradley era.
No, it’s diminished. Bradley proved to be open to calling up a wide range of players, more than any other US MNT coach before him. You need only to look at the roster for the Copa America to see that…and he was roasted for his selections.
Be glad to , how about we split your salary 50-50?
3…I counted 6 against Mexico: Torres, Williams, Jones, Beckerman, Edu & Cameron
Got to agree with Ives – I was going to write much the same article.
This is ‘the Bucket’ with positive propaganda.
I do appreciate that Klinsmann is a better interview than Bradley; but to think he’s done something much different in the tactics over the year+ he’s been in charge is giving him more credit than deserved.
I fear you vastly overrate the above players. Dempsey and Donovan are long in the tooth. Williams had one good game. The rest are ok players … But nothing special. We have no Dempseys or Donovan’s in the pipeline. The only young special talent we have is maybe Fabian Johnson and Altidore maybe Sean Johnson.
don’t forget mexico, they seem to have their number.
Am I the only one who got a bad taste in their mouth from this article? I never post on here and I do read this site frequently but this rubbed me the wrong way.
What, by your criteria SBI, would it take in the same time span Jurgen has had with the same talent pool he has for you to say change has occured?
How many times did our posession in games reach anywhere near what it did against jamaice or our passes completed when Bradley was at the helm? How much variation in the player pool has happened since Bradley left? Does Klinnsman get no credit for these things?
How quickly people forget that BB lost his job for losing the Gold Cup in a wide open 4-2 match, in which he rolled out an overly aggressive lineup. Playing without a true left midfielder was a disaster with mexico bombing up that side every time they got the ball.
All in all BB put out more attacking lineups than Klinsman has. I agree with Ives point. It doesnt matter what you call it. Putting 7 defensive midfielders on the field at the same time is not an attacking line up.
We have good d mids and no great attacking c mids. So put two guys in the middle and tell them to lock it down. Then put guys wide that can get up and down, or at least get the outside backs involved overlapping. And put two guys up front that can finish.
Dempsey Jozy
LD MB Williams Zusi
Klinsman doesn’t really have an attacking central midfielder who can distribute.
Bradley had Holden but chose to play Clark and flushed away any chance of a quarterfinal birth in the wc.
Two things that come to mind I compare the Bradely 4-4-2 to the Klinnsman 4-4-2 are the lack of wingers and changes in defensive responsibility. And if you’re going to differentiate the two systems with tactical formations, it would make sense to call one a 4-1-3-2 and the other a 4-4-2. Under Klinnsman, the outside midfielders are given less defensive responsibilities and more pressure is put on the fullbacks to handle themselves with Danny Williams sliding over to help instead of the wide midfielders. This is something we didn’t see under Bradley mainly because our fullback options were more Bornstein-esque and less awesome-Johnson. The result is the wide midfielders tracked-back less and didn’t tracked-back as deep versus Jamaica commiting them more to the attack. But when you’re looking at possession and offensive tactics only, yeah, the two systems are really similar. But that’s all we really see when Jaimaica had so little of the ball the first 70 minutes.
Great points Ives,
Unfortunately, the current starting rotation in the men’s national team pool is pretty much set in stone.
Jurgen’s talk of pushing players for spots and positions has yeilded well.. pretty much the same rotation employed by Bradley.
Jurgen has obviously attempted to inject some new spirit by affording as many US-eligible players the opportunity to show their worth.
Unfortunately, the Core group that exists was relatively successful in in major tournaments over the last 8 years.
One by product is that the bushes were beat and the structure is being established to develop some sort of talent pipeline.
JK’ legacy may very be decided by the type of national team pool he helped to create.
One that deftly employs scouting, evaluation and positional battles.
Bradley, Cherundolo, Donovan, Johnson, Dempsey Howard, Altidore and several others actually make up a pretty strong/experienced core.
If some player (Shea, Williams et.al) finds time amongst that group then he will definately lead the US towards its goals in ’14 and beyond.