So, in my post yesterday on the newly released US roster for the Cup qualifier on Wednesday against Mexico I stated that none of the inclusions or omissions surprised me because all of them related to problems I’ve had with the Nats since Bob Bradley took over. I wasn’t planning on writing this post so soon after saying that (I was planning on waiting until after the game to see if my complaints are even warranted), but I’ve been thinking about it since I said that and I’ve decided (or rather my impatience has decided) I just can’t wait.

My main problem around the Bob Bradley era version of the USMNT is actually a spill over from the Bruce Arena era, but it has been exacerbated by Bob. During the majority of Bruce Arena’s tenure he had Eddie Pope to call upon to play central defense. Pope proved on most occasions to be a smart, strong, speedy player who could hold our back line together as much with his brain as his brawn. He was a break from the long-standing mold of defenders produced in the United States that included Alexi Lalas, Marcelo Balboa, and Jeff Agoos, to name a few.  I hold Thomas Dooley to be an exception to this rule, but his memory went down in flames after he was asked to carry the world on his aged shoulders in the ‘98 debacle.  In 2006 Arena paired Pope with Oguchi Onyewu to create an interesting juxtaposition of playing styles in the middle of the field. It was an experiment that was never given time to adequately blossom. Teams took advantage of our weakness at outside back rather than play us down the middle, and Pope ended up red-carded for what ended up being out final game anyway. Pope’s retirement left us with some questions in the middle of the field…questions that fell to Bob Bradley to answer. Bob’s solution from the very beginning has been to use both Carlos Bocanegra and Oguchi Onyewu as the first choice pairing in all games of any consequence. Now, to be completely up front, I have no particular problem with either Boca or Gooch. They are both solid, gritty defenders who seem to lay it all out every time the step on the field. What I have a problem with is that they seem to be the exact same type of player. Both play in such a way that is more about strength and grit than reading the game, intelligence, or positioning. When I watch them play I see little finesse about our defense. Thank God for Tim Howard’s positioning genius and ability to play with intelligent reckless abandon. Just watch the Argentina friendly from a few months back to see how often he is forced to cover for them when their attempts to out-muscle leave them vulnerable to be split by a far more skilled player or players. These two are also largely responsible for the long-ball and counter-attack style that the US team plays. Instead of collecting the ball and being cool enough under pressure to give the midfielders a chance to check back, they tend to rid themselves of the ball with considerable gusto. This is a major reason why Brian McBride’s retirement was such a blow to the Nats, and why we continue to gripe about finding a player in his mold rather than developing a new system around the more ground-attacking minded squad we have. Our central defender’s tenancy to send the ball for a ride requires a forward who can collect long passes and hold the ball up long enough for the bypassed midfield to catch up.  Brian Ching, for all the flack he has caught for not being a major scoring threat since Bradley’s take over, is preferred by Bob for specifically these reasons, and is usually all alone when recieveing the ball.  This effectively takes him out of the attack on most plays because the defense has had time to organize and are usually keying on him because he’s the one holding the ball up to start the attack.

This is also part of our inability to use the wings to spread out another team.  Argentina spread us all over the field, as did England and Spain, as well as a host of other games I can think of in recent memory.  We have a few players who have come up through the system over the years who have been talented wingers, but wilted in long-run.  One of the reasons teams like England, Spain, the Netherlands, and even Mexico create such a broad pool of talented wide players is because they focus on that just as heavily as the center of the field.  The area you emphasize is the area that most readily develops.  What do we emphasize?  Defensive Midfielders.  What do we have a dearth of?  Exactly.  What does Brazil emphasize?  Attacking players.  Where have they always been vulnerable?  Defense and goalkeeping…it’s blindingly obvious.  Really, only DeMarcus Beasley has been a mainstay of the flank attack of the States with any kind of regularity, and even he has been in and out of form in long crests and troughs.  We simply don’t use the width of the field, and we rarely ever have.  Now we are resorting to using players who are not natural wide players to cover those positions, and get those players on the field (Donovan and Dempsey, anyone?).  But by puting these players who are vital cogs in our pool out there when we don’t use the wings, we are stranding skilled players away from the action and essentially taking them out of the game.  This all, of course, starts at the back.

(Wasted wide talent…)

The solution I’ve long been proposing has been bringing in and developing another group of central defenders that are cut from a different cloth.  Both Jay DeMerit and Michael Parkhurst are the type of players we should be looking at.  Michael, although often considered a bit undersized (despite his abundant success in face of the very physical play of the MLS), is a brilliant defender who makes his own success out of his ability to read the game, involve the midfield in the game, and his ability to position himself to break up the play before it happens.  DeMerit has had an up and down time with the Nats and with his current squad in the English Championship, but has been impressive in the few game situations he’s been asked to perform in.

And this leads into my third major gripe with the Bob Bradley version of the men’s national system.  Players who are seen as having “potential” are given very few chances to actually grow inside the system.  Most players called up on any regular basis have established themselves in one way or another.  Onyewu, Bocanegra, Cherundolo, Ching, Dempsey, Donovan, Howard, Beasley, and a small handful of others that have been given repeated call-ups paid their dues under Arena’s system.  The rest of the supporting cast has been called up on a somewhat rotational basis that makes only passing sense to anyone outside looking in.  If you believe the BB method, there is a huge talent pool in the United States, the second tier of which is either completely interchangable talent-wise or is so bad that we can’t seem to find adequate parts.  And whatever explanation you chose the general belief seems to be that they need to spend no time developing players at the national level.  Now, I don’t know about you, but the amount of actual playing time I see most of the fringe players (and some of our other regulars as well) in leagues outside of the MLS would suggest that their clubs aren’t spending too much time actually “developing” them.  I think that for the United States Soccer Federation to ignore internal development (which, let’s be honest, has kind of always been the policy…”Oh, let’s just let someone else worry about creating our players”) seems kind of blind and negligent. Freddy Adu and Jozy Altidore, along with Kenny Cooper, DeMerit, and Parkhurst have been the most glaringly obvious victims of this policy.

And this has been where the recent regeime has fallen down on us.  No one is going to develop our players for us.  Donald Rumsfeld once said you don’t go to war with the army you want, you go with the one you have.  Well, Donald and Bob are both thinking this way, and they are both wrong.  You go to war with the army you build.  Bob is playing, not with the team he inherited or the pool he’s got available to him, but with the one he’s building.  But he’s not conciously building one…and I believe it shows in the results.

When I originally envisioned this particular posting it was before the WC qualifiers had started.  I didn’t write it then because there were simply too many unknown quantities.  For instance, while I’m in complete support of bringing in players like Kenny Cooper, Jozy Altidore, and Freddy Adu into the mix of the first team because of the flashes they have shown when given the chance (or in Cooper’s case the sheer dominance he has displayed in his current goal-scoring form), but I hesitate to create a mental ‘best-case-scenario’ line up that includes them because we just don’t know.  The reality is that we as fans can only evaluate the effectiveness of players that Bradley Sr. actually chooses to play.  To assert otherwise is simply armchair arrogance.

What has prompted me to return to the idea of this article is my own internal need to comment on what I’ve been seeing happen in these initial stages of qualifying.   Wednesday night’s win against Trinidad and Tobago, and I’m not trying to take anything away from the T&T squad, but the win showed a level of play that I feel we should have been at MONTHS ago.  Our current attacking philosophy feels disjointed at best.  I think our reliance on the 4-5-1 type of formation doesn’t take advantage of the mindset that American players need to be groomed to have.  Our national team players are being drilled in a philosophy that, I think, is supposed to be defense-first and tactically sound, but instead is looking like conservatism-first.  Our players don’t seem to be playing with fire and determination.  Our players are picked apart on an individual basis because they don’t play with the fire of a combined unit.

I would advocate that the time has come for some tough love with players who only show ‘potential’.  Eddie Johnson, Brian Ching, Michael Bradley, and even Donovan, Bocanegra, and Beasley, and Dempsey need to be pulled out when their form is not good.  It hurts me to say that because I’ve always been a staunch supporter of allowing players to play through bad form.  But there’s an air of complacency that seems to have settled over the national team, which is ironic given the seeming hesitance of Bob Bradley to call up or field the same squad in repeated performances.

Landon Donovan was quoted after the Cuba game as saying, “”Something that gets overlooked is the goal is to win the game.  The goal is not to win the game 3-0 or 4-0, the goal is to win the game. Once you score a goal and if you’re winning in qualifying, the job then is to make sure the other team doesn’t score.  It’s not always as simple as, `Go attack, go attack, go attack.’  The goal is to win the game.”

In a way, he’s only half right.  The LARGER goal is to win the game.  And no, it doesn’t matter if the score is 1-0 or 10-0.  But this mentality ignores all the other things that go into the game…like focusing on maintaining position, possession, good shape, discipline, and playing with tangible grit.  If you take care of the game, the result will take care of itself.  Right now the USMNT is playing a reactive game.  This will not allow them to grow as a squad.

So what are my personal suggestions?  I would like to see the calm passing out of the back and good positioning of either Jay Demerit or Michael Parkhurst replace Carlos Bocanegra in the back-center of the park to offset the unquestionable physical and mental grit gifts of Oguchi Onyewu, who doesn’t truly provide those passing/positioning options. I would like to see us move away from the two-holding midfielder system OR (radical idea) play 3 across the back and add that extra to the attack while maintaining a duel-holding midfield presence.  I would like to see Bradley Sr. look at his playmaker options and develop that role within the US system.  I think it’s time to call up those I mentioned in the beginning of the article and allow them to develop IN the system rather than waiting until players appear to be the complete package.  I think it’s time to stop looking for a replacement to Brian McBride and start developing a coherent philosophy based around the players we have now.  We need to purposefully use the wings more and develop a true role for what we want those on the wings doing.  Given that we have very few true out-and-out wingers in the US national system (Beasley and Cherundolo are the only ones that come to mind) we need to create a clear idea of what our wingers do in the system because anyone we play out there is out of position and obviously no one has shown the instincts to play the position dangerously.

Just my two cents…

When I was in high school, we used to play a team that was so far away from us that our players brought pillows on the bus. We usually got out of class sometime just after lunch to make it to the opposing school in time for the game. Now, anyone who knows anything about trying to play a sport immediately after a long trip (especially in a school bus, which seem designed specifically for the purpose of torturing school children awake on the way to school) knows that you end up moving in a kind of haze for most of the game…especially soccer. Despite this however, we never got scored against when playing this team and we re-set records for goals scored in a game every single time we played them during my three years as a varsity player.

You know what though? We usually got barnstormed by whoever played us next. It was like playing this little cow-town team made us forget how to be organized, how to work together, that we were in fact a soccer unit and not some pick-up team where we could all press forward and try to get our names on the score sheet with impunity.

Barbados is a nation tied for 121st in the world according to the (admittedly dubious) FIFA rankings. I know this is World Cup qualifying and that we don’t want to end up in a situation we might regret later, but I seriously doubt that 1) beating them 8-0 has any long-term benefits for our national side, or that 2) we would have been in peril of losing this game if we had played a small percentage of lesser used (notice I didn’t say less skilled?) players. Why can’t Kenny Cooper and Sasha Kljestan and Jay Demerit beat Barbados?

What do we gain by seeing an already exhausted Clint Dempsey turn out against this side? AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY IS EDDIE JOHNSON STILL IN A USA UNIFORM? I’m almost happy that Tim Howard strained his back in training (relax, he’ll be fine I’m sure) so that Brad Guzan can get a full game in. I admit, I’ve already made critical comments about Bradley’s seeming unwillingness to field the same side twice in a row. I believe in continuity and I believe that’s why some national sides loaded with talent fail, because they just don’t play together enough (did someone just say “Spain”?). And Landon had been out for a while with a strained groin, so he deserved 45 or so minutes to get to run around, as did Beasley who’s coming off that injury. But what did we gain? Seriously? So I guess we’re safe just in case Barbados beats us 7-0 in the return leg…home field advantage is big after all, but for someone who spent the last 2 years digging into the depths of the player pool and who couldn’t field a non-transitional side against freakin’ England and Spain just within the last two weeks, I think this was a bit much.

I’m scared, is all.

I’m scared that Bradley is either going to turn into another Steve Sampson, who thought he had become a tactical genius when he began playing a ludicrous formation within months of the ‘98 World Cup, and was touting it as a success because we were beating CONCACAF minnows (and we all remember how that worked out for us, don’t we?), or that he’s going to continue making questionable decisions and will end up being replaced right before the cup in So. Africa, which would almost be worse. Am I missing something? Is there a method to Bradley’s madness? He acts like he knows what he’s doing. Maybe if he would just let the rest of us into his world…

What do you suppose he’s thinking about?

Wow, I haven’t been that excited watching a game for a long time…simply put…a much improved performance from a US side that was obviously both fatigued and fired up at the same time. As I sat watching the game (thank God for ESPN360) I was furiously scribbling notes so that I would remember everything I wanted to say. I’m not going to actually recap the game. I think most of us know by now it ended in a 0-0 draw. (If you’re interested in a quality recap, go here) However, I do have things to say about this match from my page of barely legible notes:

The Good: I think it only fair to start with the tenacity shown by our defenders. Danny Califf played a tough game. He wasn’t great, and probably shouldn’t be the top of the pecking order for center backs, but he presents himself as a solid back-up to the top choices. Cherundolo and Pierce both showed themselves to be solid and gritty in our own defensive third. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the monster game put in by Howard. Great positioning, great job organizing and communicating, and fantastic work keeping up the momentum of frustration after he had gotten under the Argentinian forwards collective skin. Julio Cruz worked hard the whole game and created some fantastic opportunities with both his skill and his runs, and Howard denied him every time. Donovan was stabilizing and brought an attacking mentality that has been missing without him. Dempsey was cheeky, if a little tired, and Beasley continues to be one of the hardest working men in the US player pool. Michael Bradley showed that he has composure on the ball, although he loses it way, way too much for my liking. And, even though this is a US break down I feel I have to say, every time an Argentinian player took their touches to control an incoming pass or to bring a ball down it was magic. I was absolutely captivated watching the skill, class, and composure that every player in blue stripes played with.

The Bad: Now, to be fair, most of my handwritten notes are negative points because I was enjoying the game and only scribbling when I was disappointed. I also am a coach, and having the vantage point that TV offers when you watch a game makes it easy to pick this stuff out, but it is what it is:

1) The field players of the US team were far to quick throughout the game to shield the ball with their first touch rather than open up to the field and try to play the Argentinians straight up through the midfield. It caused some slow build ups that allowed Argentina to get their men all behind the ball. The US has developed into a counter-attack team, which I’m not a fan of, and although the slower pace lead to a more possession-heavy game it made us a bit predictable. It wasn’t until Freddy Adu came on that he and Donovan really started striking at the heart of the defense and taking players on straight up. The middies needed to give the Argentinians a little less respect and time to close them down by opening up to the field and speeding the attack up a bit. Argentina kept the ball in front of them and moving at all times and their game was obviously much more fluid because of it. Argentina also took advantage of the quick restart in both their and the middle thirds, where the Americans set up almost every free kick no matter where on the field it was.

2) Our outside backs offered us little going forward. Steve Cherundolo and Heath Pearce both looked a little lost and hesitant on the ball when they took it on themselves to attack. I will give them both credit for taking to the attack and hustling like crazy to get back when they were caught high, Cherudolo especially, but they looked like they were of two minds of what to do every time they had the ball at their feet in an advanced position. Even Heath Pearce’s volley looked to me to be more of a panicked one-time touch than a planned volley on goal.

3) The United States was defending through the back the entire game. Argentina’s ability to strip us in the midfield combined with our inability to have a forward hold the ball for very long in the attacking third meant that every time we pushed up our guys were then caught racing back when Argentina countered, which they did with speed and skill. We gave up far to many dangerous fouls, especially late in the game, because our players were just running through the back’s of the Argentines. They teach you in HIGH SCHOOL that if you can’t defend the player from the side then you run past them and zone up on the defender who steps up to defend. Our defensive angles were atrocious from our midfielders. And after Mastroeni got thrown off (I’m not even going to go there) we were settling for lunges and long-balls until Adu and Kljestan came on and worked with Donovan to settle the attack down. In fact, there was one moment that stood out to me, after DeMerit came on, where I was getting frustrated that our defenders were just booting the ball for a clearance, which they did all night but got worse at towards the end, where Demerit stripped a player of the ball just outside the box and then made a 20 or so yard pass to a checking back Donovan, to feet, and I stood up and shouted “Thank You!” because Jay DeMerit was the only one who seemed to be able to distribute out of the back without winding up.

4) (Last one, I promise) I didn’t see the US playing the wings directly all that much. Where were the men checking to the touchline to give out attack width? Where was the play through the middle that goes wide to stretch the defense? Most everything went down the center, or straight up the touch line to then cut in. We weren’t stretching Argentina on what was a very large field on a very hot night, but they sure weren’t shy about trying to stretch us, and that’s what created several of those opportunities where Howard had to bail us out.

The Ugly: I don’t want to harp on Eddie Johnson anymore, but I feel I have to. The only thing I can figure out is that Bob Bradley is trying to play Johnson out of his slump. Maybe Bradley likes Johnson’s speed with our counter-attack style. Who knows? But after last night’s game, Johnson’s time has to be up. He gave us ZERO pressure on the ball in the attacking third after it was lost, he spent way too much of the game checking all the way back past midfield to receive a ball, only to lay the ball off to a defensive middy, and he showed no real tenacity toward goal. His poor first touch on his attack around the 65th minute put him in a rough spot, but then to lay that ball all the way back to the top of the arch?! Into the heart of the Argentine defense?! Rather than have a go at goal?! He could have gotten a corner, or a rebound, or a lucky ball snuck under the keeper, anything would have been better than that! Eddie Johnson does not offer our attack anything that another player doesn’t offer, and those other players offer more on top of it. Until Johnson shows improvement with Fulham, he shouldn’t be on the roster. And when/if he comes back, he should be a late sub until he shows more SMARTS in the game.

With all this out, I want to reiterate that I’m actually proud of the US’s effort in light of the recent friendlies, but I still maintain that we have a lot of work to do and a long way to improve in order to challenge on the world stage.

Cheers

(Images from ESPN Soccernet)