USA a good side, but need tactical tweaks
The US 4-4-2 line-up
United States fans seem to go into every World Cup thinking that the rest of the world is underestimating them – which has traditionally been fair.
This time, however, ranked 14th in the world and widely expected to qualify from their group, it’s a different challenge for the US – everyone expects them to be a good side.
Firstly, a nod to a great article that analyses the USA’s tactics in greater detail than this piece shall, at the Shin Guardian. It breaks down the game against Turkey in excellent detail, examining the difference between the first-half and second-half shape, and summarising what Bob Bradley should do at the World Cup.
For those uninitiated, Bradley has played various shapes over the past two years, but appears to have settled upon his favoured 4-4-2 / 4-2-2-2 system for the World Cup. The basic shape of the team is this – a normal back four where the two full-backs have plenty of license to get forward, two deep-lying central midfield players, very attack-minded wide midfielders / wingers, and two strikers.
The attackers
The use of four out-and-out attacking players means the US are able to do what they are good at – attacking, and attacking at speed. The expected front four is Landon Donovan on the right, DaMarcus Beasley on the left, and Clint Dempsey dropping off the main striker, Jozy Altidore. Dempsey and Donovan are certainly first-rate players, whilst there are question marks about the other two.
But the positive is that Beasley and Altidore both perform specific roles, and therefore side is well-structured in attack – Altidore holds the ball up (although he does like to turn and go towards goal), Beasley offers natural width, leaving Dempsey and Donovan space to create.
The US' 4-4-2 / 4-2-2-2 depicted (thanks to TheShinGuardian for permission)
Against Turkey, the two forwards (pink) and the two central midfielders (yellow) played on the same axis, making the US quite easy to play against
Put simply, in no situation will it be beneficial for Dempsey to be playing right alongside Altidore, which pretty much summarises why two-striker systems have become so unpopular in recent years. As Sir Alex Ferguson has said, “If you play with two strikers, you only have one point of attack, whereas if you have one guy dropping off, you have two points of attack”. The danger would be Dempsey dropping too deep and leaving the fairly limited Altidore up against two centre-backs, but the US must look to stretch the opposition defences.
Further back
The obvious shield for four such attack-minded players is a defensive central midfield partnership of Michael Bradley and Ricardo Clark, both of whom perform fairly unspectacular jobs in the middle of the park, and cover for the attacking runs of the full-backs. Clark appears to be the weak link in midfield, getting drawn to the ball too easily and leaving space in behind, and it wouldn’t be a huge surprise to see him replaced with Jose Torres.
The full-backs have a lot of license to get forward – perhaps too much, considering the limitations (and fitness concerns) of the centre-backs, Onguchi Onyewu and Jay DeMerit. Jonathan Spector has been caught out more than once in the recent friendlies, and may now be replaced by Steve Cherundolo.
Two central midfielders playing on the same axis can leave a big gap in front of the US defence
This can draw a centre-back out of the backline (red arrow), forcing the full-backs to tuck in centrally to cover (blue arrows), leaving the opposition wingers in a huge amount of space, ready for an easy ball (purple)
Conclusion
The US are clearly the second strongest team in their group, although the schedule of matches may be slightly unkind (see the conclusion of the Slovenia article).
Bradley needs to show his tactical ability to vary the side for each individual match, reacting to the different shapes of his three opponents. The key is bringing the best out of Dempsey and Donovan. This side can’t rely on a great defence, so goals will be needed, and those two players will be the best players on the pitch for the Algeria and Slovenia games.
I love your website, but you’re wrong here.
Expect Dempsey and Donovan to start on the wings with Buddle partnering with Altidore up top for one.
Also, Spector will definitely not start following his recent mishaps.
Nice article, and about sums it up. Defense is definitely the weak link on the team.
However, I definitely don’t think we’ll see Dempsey start at forward or Beasley start at all. DMB hasn’t started a competitive match for the USA in a year, and you’ll likely see Dempsey at the left attacking mid role. Altidore will likely be paired with either Edson Buddle, the current top scorer in MLS and a decent quality forward, or Robbie Findley, a young, raw, really fast guy to stretch opposing defenses and give the attacking mids space to roam.
Altidore has some creativity but hasn’t found the net much lately with the US or Hull, but the consensus is he’s a big boy and a handful to play against. He’s poor in the air but if he can get himself into position to score on the ground, Donovan and Dempsey will find him.
Donovan will play on left, Dempsey on the right in mid. Then Altidore and Buddle(most likely on Saturday)
Edu could also replace Clark.
The worse part of the USA’s game is the space they will give Forwards if they get between the Midfielders and Defenders.
Hopefully DeMerit will be the one closing on the forwards in that space otherwise the game could be over quick.
I think there is a better chance Dempsey starts on the left and Buddle starts up top. DeMarcus hasn’t played well in years but Bob still trusts in him so it wouldn’t be a shock to have the side start the way ZM has predicted.
And based on our recent friendlies, I’d like to see Goodson start against England since he can battle Crouch in the air.
For me, Torres or Maurice Edu are better options to pair M.Bradley in the center. Bradley can really spread the ball so Edu would be a nice combo and Torres is also quite capable of getting the ball moving forward.
Will probably be Dempsey on the left wing as he has natural attacking towards the goal tendencies, and Donovan on the right side as a more traditional winger (but still with license to cut in) putting crosses into the box with his favored right foot. Also the CM partnership for England will probably be Edu-Bradley, and Torres should get a start alongside Bradley vs. either Algeria or Slovenia, maybe both depending on how he plays.
Nice piece. The formation looks a similar one to the Republic of Ireland’s under Trapattoni. Glenn Whelan and Keith Andrews are told to sit deep, giving Duff and Lawrence/McGeady license to attack on either flank and support Keane and Doyle.
Nice piece, but I’m not sure why you think the “expected” front four is Altidore/Depmsey at striker and Dovovan/Beasley on the wings. Bradley has experimented with Dempsey up top following Charlie Davies’ accident, and showed and inclination to push him up late in games in the Confederations Cup, but his favored position remains on the wing. The second half against Turkey and the Australia match show why. More likely the emerging Findley or Buddle will partner Altidore. If Dempsey does start at striker, Stuart Holden is more likely than Beasley for the open winger spot at this point in their careers.
I attended the USA Czech game and was shocked that Bob Bradley doesn’t know the U.S. starting lineup is two weeks before kickoff.
For my money the best 11 is:
Gomez – Altidore
Dempsey – Torres – Bradley – Donovan
Bocanegra – Demerit – Onyewu – Cherundolo
Howard
Dempsey in a forward position has not worked out for either Fulham or the USMNT this season and both have tried it several time. I don’t see the point in trying it again, he seems to lose his mojo when compared to when he can run at the defense. Bob Bradley hates Beasley and Holden is good but not quite ready yet. Torres is more confident on the ball than Clark and doesn’t make the same mistakes (Clark’s mistakes are pointed out in the link you provided). Torres deserves a starting position. The position most in doubt for me is the second striker, both Gomez and Buddle have been finding net and Findley has tons of speed, but I haven’t seen enough of them with the team to figure out who fills that spot.
switch gomez with buddle, and i wholeheartedly agree. gomez seems to be good in the supersub spot, why not use him as so?
I just feel like Gomez was never given a fair shot at a start and has better positional sense than Buddle with good finishing. Gomez scored one against Australia against Buddle’s two while Buddle played 78 minutes and Gomez came on in the 82nd. In the Czech game, Buddle had many more chances because he played with Torres and Holden (the creative players on the team) while Gomez played with Pierce and Bornstein. Just from what I have seen of Gomez he is one of the best finishers but not too flashy. If anything, I think Bradley was looking for a reason to leave Gomez off the roster but Gomez stepped up nicely.
If Gomez was given a full 45 minutes with the first team during the friendlies I think more people would be supporting him, although no disrespect to Buddle, as him and Gomez are the best American finishers.
I am not shocked, for two reasons.
First, the injuries to Charlie Davies, Brian Ching, Oneywu have really made these lineup alternations at the last minute necessary. And then you have Edson Buddle who, having expelled some of the demons that has held his career back, is just on fire. He HAD to make the squad. (FYI — in the summer of 2003, when Edson was 22, I saw him on the Columbus Crew play the then Bundelsiga Hamburg in a friendly. Edson scored 4 goals that game, and simply manhandled Hamburg; this was before alcohol and other problems derailed his career).
Second, Bradley is playing mind games, not showing his hand at all. He knows exactly what his lineup against England is going to be, and he is going to have very good reasons for it.
Given the Americans’ lack of quality forwards and with two decent attacking midfielders on the bench, this team is begging for a 4-2-3-1 with a front four of Donovan-Torres/Holden-Dempsey-Altidore. An added bonus would be the interchangeability of the three supporting Altidore.
I agree this side is crying out for 4-2-3-1. It would be the best formation for accommodating Torres. At this late point, given Bradley’s caution, I’d be shocked to see him try it.
I’d like to see Finley start up top against England, because as Shin Guardian noted, he stretched Turkey’s defense, and also got behind Australia’s slow center backs and was willing to drop back and press. He allows the USA to play as they did in the Confederations Cup, even if he lacks Davies finishing ability.
Bocanegra’s lack of match fitness is worrying. I don’t think he’s quite ready to handle 90 minutes of Aaron Lennon running at him, and if we need one player to last 90, it’s him.
Bradley regularly switches Dempsey to the 2nd striker position around the 70th minute, that’s when I’d expect to see him there.
The 4-2-3-1 is what John Harkes called for on ESPN’s show today.
It won’t happen.
Honestly I think you’re right about this one, though I think Bradley is going to play Donovan on the left with Stuart Holden on the right.
I’d like to see Dempsey in a false nine role against England with a midfield of Clark, Bradley, and Feilhaber. I think it would take them by surprise a bit.
I would really prefer Dempsey as a second striker or the center of a 3 in a 4-2-3-1. The strikers other than Altidore are very limited and unlike other limited strikers like Heskey, they don’t bring the rest of the team into the game.
Also, if Torres isn’t going to play, which unfortunately seems the case, please at least play Edu over Clark; Clark is just too much of a liability.
Altidore has the physical tools and skill but questionable savvy and work rate. He has the pieces, but he hasn’t quite put them together. It’s a lot to ask consistency of a 20 year old who still has a lot to learn, much less to play as the single forward a World Cup match against England.
Just banging on what others have pointed out; I don’t see DMB seeing the field unless there is a horrible injury crisis. Dempsey can drop into the wing and be just as effective and Stuart Holden has looked very dangerous when asked to play wide left. In the middle, I think Clark is a last-gasp option if the US are really going to look to play in their own third; Edu is just too much of a more dynamic option. When they need a touch of creativity out of the central mids, look for Torres to step on for whomever is going to partner Bradley. Also I think you underestimate the frequency that Bradley wanders up field; he is easily the player most likely to have a pop from 25-30 out on this team. Another player likely to see action over DMB is Benny Feilhaber who is the most calm American player on the ball; the US have a tendency to be hurried and nervous in possession, and against Slovakia, I think he may be used to absorb the like-for-like pressure the US may face on the wings.
And I’m still not certain that Gooch is ready to start at the back. Clarence Goodson has looked okay and is a big enough body to wrestle with England’s centerhalves on set pieces. Gooch getting out jumped at the far post by a player a half foot shorter than him against the Czechs was despicable and a sign of how far from 100% he still is.
So yeah, revised 11:
—————Altidore——-
———-Buddle/Donovan————-
–Dempsey—————–Donovan/Holden-
—————Edu—-Bradley——-
-Boca—Goodson—-Demeritt—Dolo-
——————Howard————-
Hi, this isn’t relevent to this article but is there a chance of an article about South Africa’s team before the opening game tomorrow? Thanks.
Already posted =)
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/09/south-africa-2010-world-cup-tactics/
Oh right, thanks.
Reading this, I’m reminded of a friend who told me about why he stopped subscribing to The Economist… he read an article about culture in the US and realized that it was horribly flawed. He could only surmise that if the reporting on the US was that bad, then the reporting that the Economist was doing on other regions must be even worse.
I was really looking forward to this piece on the US, and now that I see it, I realize that your research isn’t very extensive. I can only dream that Capello is making the same assumptions as you.
There is little chance that Dempsey is played as a forward (only when Holden or Beasley comes in as a sub for one of the forwards), and even littler chance that Beasley starts… he may not even get sub minutes. The only real questions are:
1. who partners Jozy, Buddle, Gomez or Findley? (I say Findley because he tests the defense with his speed… Gomez plays a sub role and Buddle is a stand in for Jozy)
2. Does Gooch or Goodson start in the center?
3. Who partners Bradley in the center, Clark, Edu or Torres? (Torres looked the best to me in the friendlies, but lots of people think Edu will start the england game for his physical presence)
While I am sure ZM will defend himself – just consider this – hes pumping these articles out at 4-5 a day. So he ll likely watch one game (or a few highlight clips of friendlys) and then start researching (looking at friendly fixtures, lineups and news bits on them).
If he doesn’t know the national team well, nor the players he ll make errors when predicting who will start.
But keep in mind his focus is rather on tactics than on players. You seem to base your feedback solely on that part, the names. But what do you think of the analysis of formation and tactics? If you have insight, please share =)
Indeed. This series of articles has admittedly been quite lightweight, but then previewing a game is difficult enough if you’re approaching it from a tactical basis, let alone a whole tournament…
But then it’s the only way to fill from the end of the season until the World Cup, and it’s good to see that people appreciate them. There’ll unquestionably be errors in places, but I can say that it’s far more accurate than the magazine previews/pullouts of the World Cup that have been released recently, because it takes in the friendlies and the squad announcements, whereas magazines are often published three weeks in advance and lack that knowledge.
Can’t promise the detail of having 32 experts writing on a team each, but hopefully it’s been useful in some way!
I’ll run to ZM’s defense here. Why? Because the USA team has been in incredible flux. In fact, I’d say even more so than maybe any other side and thus is very difficult to write about.
The only real “mistake” ZM made was with Beasley. Other than that, frankly, what the USA is going to do is completely unclear. I follow the team very closely and I am at a loss to say what the USA is going to do in terms of formation and personnel selection in this tournament. The USA is going to have Howard as keeper, play 4 in the back, and Michael Bradley will play in the center of midfield.. Dempsey and Donovan will start, but after that….where folks line up,and what other players play, is completely unknown.
The USA has favored a plain 4-4-2 with Donovan left and Dempsey right, and two forwards. That’s what I would expect. I said above that a 4-2-3-1 wouldn’t happen, but now I am having second thoughts. It might be a mistake, in the Donovan (or Torres) would have to play in the hole, and neither is really a field general. But, really, it’s possible.
I will start by saying I love you!! This is by far the best soccer site I have visited. I have been looking for tactical analysis for eons to hone my soccer knowledge and I have found Eureka.
I have not been watching the friendlies like I should be but I am fairly certain of a couple of things:
1- Never mention Demarcus Beasley and the USMT. He is loathed now as he is not near the player he was in 2002. Putting him in the starting XI is bad karma.
2- I think Bradley aka the Tactical Mental Midget is hell bent on having speed up front and will surprise with starting Findley alongside Jozy. Buddle is closest in ability and style to Jozy and his questionable fitness leaves him the best sub in the event Jozy cant/wont go 90.
3- Ricardo Clark is a card machine and scares the bejeezus out of most USMT fans.
Ideally you would have Jozy and Dempsey upfront with Holden and Landon on the wings. MB as the deep lying playmaker/ball winner, and an Edu or Feilhaber alongside.
Spector I have a feeling could be a wildcard as a RB.
Please keep up this wonderful work. I will be commenting on more in the future.
You might want to inform your friend that cancelling a subscription to an entire magazine because of one ‘flawed’ article is a bit reactionary and OTT. But flattered that a website that’s been up and running for four months is in the same zone The Economist is!
Besides, I did include a link to an article that I specifically said was more detailed than this one.
I watched the three US friendlies which is a decent amount of ‘research’, Dempsey played as a forward in the game against Turkey so it wasn’t a crazy selection, and against England surely Dempsey dropping off a striker makes more sense than playing Buddle or Findley alongside Altidore?
Besides, as repeated so often, the great thing about the comments section is that fans can provide more detailed analysis than the initial article sometimes offers, – which you’ve done very nicely – although it’s always welcome when people simply do that rather than threatening to stop visiting the site.
The problem is that Dempsey sucks up top and Buddle is in the richest vein of form imaginable.
I love the work you’ve done but having Beasley in the starting eleven smacks of not having done any homework. Please just put Dempsey there, stick Buddle up top, and give me five bucks when I’m proven right on Saturday.
Dempsey playing up top in that Turkey game was a fun experiment to just see if Bradley could replicate his role at Fulham. I’d say, from the first half, that wasn’t really working. He was pushed out to the wing and was far more affective in the second half. You are correct, playing Buddle and Altidore together is a bit “same song”y, but the other option would be to play Donovan as the off-striker which would negate the positives he provides in defense (“full of hustle”, etc…). Bottom line is it would have been very exciting to see what a tactical gambler would have done with this talent pool, but Bradley falls into the same old boring Bora school of American coaches, tied to the 4-4-2, afraid to dare his players to be creative.
In my mind, the recent friendlies were about:
* finding which defenders were in the best form
* figuring out where Dempsey should play (and when)
* checking out the three forwards, who have only a handful of caps (none of played a role in qualifying)
* finding a partner for Bradley in the midfield
As an aside, Bob Bradley is apparently a huge fan of Arrigo Sacchi’s AC Milan: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/sports/soccer/06bradley.html That probably explains the attachment to 4-4-2.
You misunderstand the strength of a site like this. ZM puts his take out there and then it’s discussed/corrected by those with more specific expertise about a particular team. This site is the best of the tactical previews I have yet found BECAUSE of the comments.
ZM doesn’t get everything right – how could he? It has never seemed to me that he has portrayed himself as omniscient. Where he knows teams well he gives worthwhile analyses. I am glad he has at least started off the discussion of all the World Cup contenders he does not know well.
As an Australian I could easily see where ZM fell short in his analysis of our team; the added comments made it more correct. On the same basis I have been fascinated by the comments added to his efforts about our group opponents Germany, Ghana and Serbia.
So keep up the good work ZM. And let the comments flow in [but without the churlishness that Tom has to my mind mistakenly expressed].
I would completely disagree that it would be better with Dempsey dropping off as striker would make more sense than playing Buddle or Findley..I am practically Driving the Buddle bandwagon at this point in time, he obviously isn’t the most talented player around, and he has struggled with injuries throughout his career, but put bluntly, I can’t remember the last time I saw a player in the type of form that Buddle is in right now. The ball has been finding HIM lately, not the other way around..It is honestly incredible to watch…Everytime I tell myself that he can’t keep this up, he scores again…World Cup break? Ok, the MLS is one thing, but the WC is a whole new monster….Bang bang two goals against Australia (Obviously I know it was just a tuneup) it is shocking…
Buddle should pair Altidore with Herculez Gomez coming off the bench as a super-sub..
————————–Buddle—————————————-
—————————————Altidore————————–
——-Dempsey—————————————–Donovan———
————————-Edu/Torres—-Bradley—————————-
–Bocanegra————Goodson——-Demerit————–Cherundolo——
I’ll start with the obligatory ‘your site is awesome’ comment. But to put the criticism in perspective, you have to assume that a significant proportion of your readership is American, as it is an English language site and American soccer fans, for obvious reasons, are incessantly exposed to the English journalism. Putting Beasley in that lineup is tantamount to pairing Terry with Upson in England’s forthcoming article (unless you’ve said your piece on England with the couple of articles in May). Of course people will jump on that, and understandably so.
As has been said, the smart money’s on Donovan and Dempsey starting on the flanks, with Altidore and Buddle up top.
Do your homework. Beasley is getting nowhere near that field.
So much hate for beasley, although it is warranted- he hasn’t done much at the club or national level. Anyone remember when it was him and Donovan as the up and coming flag bearers for the US?
I don’t hate Beasley. Bob Bradley won’t play him on the left wing though. For some reason Beasley rates below Jonathan Bornstein on the coaches list of left sided players. Stuart Holden also would likely get the start for that left mid position on the diagram above before Beasley will see the field. All of this is mute though because Dempsey will be in that slot.
So basically I think people are looking at the diagram and saying “Beasley is probably third in line to play left mid” and scratching their heads.
You mean, Beasley hasn’t done much recently… He was good enough to play for PSV Eindhoven for Gus Hiddink in Champion’s League semifinals and later, Rangers Champion’s League matches.
Beasley is the only genuine left-wing option the USA has. He can provide width on the left side of midfield (and a certain kind of balance) no one else can. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him come in as a late sub if one of the USA’s opponents has a fatigued (or poor) right-back. If Findley isn’t playing up top he might be the best option off the bench to stretch defenses, and create space for other players. Not that I’d look forward to seeing him…but he does bring an option no one else does.
Holden is better overall at this point, but he’s more useful for putting in crosses from the right.
Beasley is left footed, but for his club teams I’ve seen him played on the right and as a forward. But Seybold is right, Beasley almost always plays on the left. He offers work rate, pace, defense, decent finishing, and has taken free kicks and corners. He’s also slight of frame and not physically imposing.
And I forgot to mention: Beasley is out of form and without a team.
This will be an ignorant question, but whatever. Can you explain alittle more about how the players playing on the ’same axis’ represents a problem and exposes them? I understand for the most part, but would love more detail in how and why this is.
Sorry for the ignorance in a basic tactical nuance
It can create a bit of a problem if opponents have a player ‘between the lines’ of defence and attack, because there’s no designated player to pick him up. That seemed to be a bit of a problem in the Turkey game – had one midfielder been given a deeper role, perhaps that player would have picked up the opponent more easily.
Defending in solid lines can work perfectly well, of course, but usually the lines are rather closer together.
In other words, one but not both of the central midfielders can attack in a 4-4-2. If both read the situation wrong and attack, the defense is in trouble. In a 4-4-2 with diamond midfield or a 4-3-3 it is always clear which central midfielder will defend.
Also soccer is a game of triangles. If you have four defenders and three midfielders, there is less area in the middle of the naturally formed triangles than with four defenders and four midfielders where there is more area contained in naturally formed squares given the same distance between midfield and defense. The trade-off is that a four man midfield can stretch much wide than a three man midfield and the three man midfield concedes space on the sidelines.
ZM, as well as several other football critics, give the impression that England and USA will have a walk in the park in the first round; that they will breeze through the group stage.
I am not very sure of that and assume that looking at other teams with some contempt may lead to complacency, something that surely does not guarantee good results.
Anyway, the tactical analysis is amazing as always
Thanks
TBF in the conclusion of the Slovenia article I put forward a theory why Slovenia may qualify.
In terms of pure talent the US are stronger.
Sorry guys, didn’t mean to sound so mean-spirited, but I was disappointed with the article because it showed such ignorance of the US team. I expected a better analysis since I’m assuming ZM is English and would want to know as much as possible about the English team’s biggest threat in the group stage. And ZM, wasn’t threatening to stop visiting the site, but was just wanting to add my criticism of an article that I was disappointed with.
As for the tactics, ZM doesn’t discuss the primary character of Bradley’s two striker system that was exemplified by the Altidore-Davies partnership that emerged in the Confederations Cup, where Altidore plays the hold up striker role and Davies played the speedy role. It’s not just a plain two striker system, which is why the discussion of Dempsey partnering Altidore was so annoying; it only happened in one game and clearly didn’t play to Dempsey’s strengths. This is also what makes the discussion of ‘names’ so important; Findley fits into the role of the speedy striker, with only Gomez being another striker possibly having the pace to fullfil the role. This speedy striker role is one of the keys to Bradley’s system, and was expecting some discussion of this in the article.
Glad to see someone thinks the same way. I think Findley is going to be the surprise starter. Bradley subs Jozy nearly every game so I do see Buddle serving as his replacement.
They key to a US victory is going to be how Dempsey can take advantage of the bombing Johnson when he is pushing on attack. The US is going to need at least 2 goals to get 3 points. A tough but not impossible task.
Still see us losing a 2-1 game as we give up the winner minus a man.
I agree to a point, Tom, but the Altidore/Davies system only really existed from the Confederations Cup until Davies injury in October. I agree that style is ideal, and I hope Findley plays for that reason, but that system really only existed for 4 months out of 3+ years that Bradley has been in charge. It wasn’t seen from October 2009 until a few glimpses in recent weeks. I can’t fault ZM for not mentioning it–I suspect Bradley called up Findley in the hope he might be able to play the Davies role, but not with any certainty. Until the 2nd half of the Turkey match, we hadn’t seen that system in over 6 months.