USMNT WC Defender Thread

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: If I'd been following all the MLS teams and really paying attention, Yes.

the thing is, I've been watching the difference when Marshall's in and when he isnt. Stats dont tell the whole story, there's a big difference in how the Crew D operates.
Brunner is really good for a youngster, but we just have a decent MLS D when Marshall isnt playing. When he is, the back is almost impenetrable.
All air balls are his'n. On corners he's good as or better than McBride, whichever goal it's in front of.

 

I think we should wipe Norway off the face of the map so Hangeland has to play for the US.









or maybe not . . .


just trying to think outside of the box.

 

Is it really so impossible for one of our 3 rb's to move to the left? I'd think any of them would be an upgrade over Bornstein.

 

We should play 5 in the back if we're gonna have to rely on MLS defenders.

 

I like the idea of having a RB moving over to the left. DIdn't Spector have games at LB and also play alright there? I think he played there for West Ham.



Here's an outside the box suggestion. Bring back Convey!

 

Mo for USA soccer fan of the year!

 

Thanks for the nomination Barry, but it'll never happen. I've said too many angry things (like "pay-off", "gang rape" , "choke-hold" and "conspiracy") that are unsportsmanlike. I even forsook international soccer for about 25 hours after the azteca game. I still think I'm right but it is unbecoming of a US soccer fan. Something that should be left to the fans of those divers from the southern regions of the Americas and Europe.

 

Make a blanket statement with no evidence to support it... What - are we at church?!?

Dont make the mistake of thinking this is some sort of simple math problem. 3 is less than 4 so that is bad!

The argument that we HAVE to play with 4 because thats what 'everyone' else does - Come on! Are you serious?

3 at the back is something that has been played at different times by many of the top teams. There is 3 part article on the evolution of systems of play from John Bluem at NSCAA that is good reading if you are interested.

If you dont like it - fine, but we have good personnel to support it because we have a number of good options at defensive mid and outside mid, and we have few options at center back and left back.

What I hear you saying is that you would rather bring up and start someone who - at the very least - would be lucky to make the bench, but more likely would have a hard time even being brought into the MNT camp...

You would rather do that than shuffle the system in a way that can get our best talent on the field?

To me - that is ridiculous - so 'lets move past that and focus on more constructive solutions.'

 

I watched Castillo play and he's alright. He might as well be a damn winger though. Seriously, he spent more time attacking than defending. Plus, when the ball was being passed around at the back, he was on the attacking half of the field while the rb was a good 10 yards in his own half. He was pretty good going forward, but looked like he was out of position defensively. Probably somebody who could get burned in international play.




As for the 3 in the back solution, if it would work then why doesn't anybody use it? I can't ever remember a top team going 3 in the back consistently. There's multiple reasons why as has been pointed out in this thread.



Oh and Orozco was on the San Luis bench. If he isn't starting for them then maybe that's why he isn't playing for the USMNT?

 

Thats why I like the idea of playing 3 at the back and Castillo can slide in as needed - seems that it would play to his strengths and allow him to get forward without it being a shock to everyone.

Consistently is the key word... While it is true that 4 in the back has been commonplace since the 60's - many teams that play 4 in the back have used 3 at different times.
Dont assume I want to use it forever - I am just saying that it may be something to consider given the current personnel situations.

I also disagree with Pettyfog that it is a huge problem to make a tactical change to the system at this point... I change the system of play with my HS players all the time - often on the spot, and they dont have any problem with it. We are talking about the best of the best - maybe I am reaching - but I would think they could handle a change fairly easily.

In the end - a 4-4-2 can be played in so many ways that it is really 2 or 3 different systems based on what is happening.

a 3-4-3 or a 3-5-2 can all also be a 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1, and even the strange 4-2-2-2 (I have tried it - it was interesting) depending what is going on - so this 3 or 4 in the back thing may be pointless.

In the end - I do not like the idea of bringing up another dopey center back just because we assume that is what we must have. Lets find something that works to get our best talent on the field at the same time.
Bring up someone up that is going to be more of a liability simply because Bob is unwilling to consider a tactical change - I dont see how that is better.

 

According to the match stats Castillo played as a winger yesterday. Orozco has started every game for them, but missed the game before last due to a red card. Not sure if the coach was sending him a message or not.

Back to the title subject of this thread. Bad news for Gooch. Originally out 3-4 months, now appears to be closer to 6 months. The odds are getting longer whether or not the young man can make it for the Finals.

 

Look you guys... if you'd apply what you know about BB tactics, you'd maybe figger out that if he DID play a 3 man backline it would still look a lot like 4-4-2. Wouldnt it?

So what we're talking about is bringing in guys who dont have 'big time esperience' but that alright because they sit the bench in Europe?

- I'll say again.. Marshall's every bit as good at CB as Gooch, maybe better. The rest of it is mental.

 

Whoever replaces Gooch will be better than Bornstein at lb. So you're still a man short on the backline unless Bob starts experimenting with different options personnel-wise or formation-wise. I still think you could put together a decent back 4 from available options if you get a little creative.

 

I dont'consider Jonathan Spector bringing in "another dopey CB". I consider him a very good and qualified defender, who needs a spot out on the pitch, whether at CB (if DeMerit can't go) or LB.

As pointed out, if 3 in the back is such an epiphany, where are the great examples (beyond high school)?

Boca left to cover twice as much real estate as currently? Surely you haven't thought this quite through.

 

WB.. point of order: I assume the poster IS NOT talking about Spector or Demerit as 'dopey'. I take them as givens, so should everyone else.

 

3 at the back continues to be popular in the college game and in the women's game. The dynasty that is NC women has been built on 3 at the back.

It is true that it is out of fashion in the men's game - Mexico have used it probably most often...

Regardless - it is not about finding players to play a system - it is building a system to fit the players.

And - no - Boca wouldnt have to cover more ground - all depends on how it is played.

Marshall and Conrad are dopey... So is Gooch. There is a time and a place for him, but I dont think he is automatic all the time just because he is big and strong.

Ok - lets do this... what is the best centerback pairing in international football? Opinions?

 

3 in the back doesn't work in International Men's Football.

A 3-5-2 sounds good, on paper, but it requires the wingers to cover too much ground. It's also a formation that has problems against teams with good wingers and good attacking fullbacks as there isn't enough cover on the flanks. If your wingers are stuck defending against their wingers, then you're basically playing a 5-3-2, which is not going to generate any offense.

A 4-4-2 provides 4 players for flank support while still keeping a strong center and without giving up offensive options.

I have seen a 3 man backline played by top club teams but only when playing against inferior competition. i.e., when having only a 3-man backline is not really a defensive frailty. The USMNT will not be facing that situation - they will need to play disciplined and balanced all over the field.

 

I cant disagree with those points, but the weaknesses can be managed. I have played and seen it done several different ways. The way I liked it the most was to have the triangle in the center on a rotation in a way that the channels were covered and the outside backs were picked up if they joined the attack, but by doing this - the system was not really a 3-5-2 when you didnt have the ball in your defensive half.

3-5-2 is great for shutting down the counter and squeezing the space in a way that can create confusion when in the attacking half - also a strength is the ability to keep possession due to having numbers up in the middle.

You want to share the negatives - I just want to throw out the positives as well.

It is a choice to make if you want to go 5 in the middle. Do you then go 3 at the back or 1 up top. 1 up top springs you into a 4-3-3 if you have a guy who can hold the ball up. 3 at the back can make it look like 3-2-3-2 when you are in the attacking half and you have the ball...

I think I have already made this point, but a 4-4-2 can be totally different from one team to another and some would argue that you are not seeing a 4-4-2 anyway. All the systems can be like that.

I know I made this point, but I will make it again! It is not about finding players to fit a system, it is about finding a system that fits the players.

I do not want to bring inferior talent up simply because Bob is unwilling to tweak the system. There has to be a better solution.

I still would like to hear the best centerback pairing in international football.

 

Oh - and Petty... I dont think Spector is a liability. He is quality and more than just a big body attached to a big head...