This morning I watched Chelsea put together another frustrating 0-0 outing against a middling team (to a team that's allowed more goals than anyone outside the bottom 5). It highlighted what's become a semi-annual theme for this team: the January lull. And the reason for that, I think, is the way Chelsea's teams have been constructed. More than any other big side in Europe, Chelsea relies on African players as core pieces. Now, when most soccer fans think of Chelsea's success in the Abramovich era, they think of John Terry and Frank Lampard. And those two have certainly played a valuable part. But I'd argue that the most indispensable pieces haven't been Terry and Lamps, but rather Didier Drogba and Michael Essien. The case for Drogba is pretty straightforward-- he's an absolute beast. On his day, he was (and still is, really) unplayable. Drogba is big, he's great in the air, he moves exceptionally well for a guy his size, he has one of the best shots in Europe, and he can create opportunities out of thin air. Essien's case is a bit harder to make now, since he seems to spend 2/3 of every season injured. But, 3-4 years ago, you could make a pretty good case that he belonged in the top 10 players in the world. Essien was fantastic-- he covered a ridiculous amount of ground, was a very good tackler, got forward well, scored goals, and could play any position, from attacking center mid, to right back, to center back. Most guys who can play that many positions are at best decent at all of them-- Essien was passable as a center-back, good as a right-back, and easily one of the 5 best central midfielders in the world. He was a special player.
So why is relying on these two guys such a huge problem? The answer is, simply, the Africa Nations Cup. The ANC is the worst tournament in global soccer. Where most international tournaments occur every 4 years (World Cup, Euro) or, at worst, semi-irregularly (Copa America), the ANC happens every other year. And, where rational tournaments play during the summer, the ANC is in January. In other words, smack in the middle of the season for all of Europe's biggest leagues. Meaning that, every other year, top teams ship all their African players (because just about every African player good enough to play for an elite European club is also playing for his national team) away for the month of January. For most clubs, that meant, at worst, 1 central player, and maybe a peripheral player or two (Barca in its day would lose Samuel Eto'o and, for a brief minute, Yaya Toure and/or Seydou Keita; Arsenal would lose some combination of Emmanuel Adebayor, Alex Song and Kolo Toure, who were never all key players at the same time; etc.), Chelsea would lose 2 of its most important players, plus a few guys who were in and out of the first XI (John Obi Mikel, Salomon Kalou).
This post isn't really as responsive to today's match as it is to the last few years (Essien didn't go to Africa this year, as he's retired from the international game, and just came back from a knee injury anyway), but the idea hit me over the head again today, as I watched Chelsea struggle to unlock a pretty weak defense and wondered what might have been different if Drogba, instead of the struggling Fernando Torres had been leading the line.
Showing posts with label Soccer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soccer. Show all posts
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Chelsea-Man United Post Mortem
On Saturday, Chelsea had a huge away match against our biggest rival, Man United. And on the scoresheet, it was ugly. We went down 3-0 at half, and never really looked like we'd win the game. But I went back and watched the game again and, in retrospect, it was as encouraging a performance as a 3-1 loss can possibly be. So here are my key thoughts from the match:
1. Chelsea were the better team-- Everyone makes this claim about their team pretty regularly, but in this case, the stats back it up. Chelsea had 22 shots to United's 14, 8 on target to United's 6, and 10 corners to United's 4. The difference in the game was one thing: United took its chances and Chelsea didn't. That's a problem on its own, but this was not a game where Chelsea got bossed or looked out of its element-- the team outperformed United, and were unlucky not to at least draw the game.
2. Andre Villas-Boas got his tactics right-- This is huge. The 33 year old manager put the squad in a position to win the game. And that's all a manager can do-- he can't make his defenders mark, he can't put the ball in the net for his forwards, and he can't make passes for his midfielders. But AVB put the squad in a position to win, and, when some things weren't working out, he made changes.
3. Fernando Torres is improving-- All anyone will talk about after this game is Torres's horrible miss. Everyone's seen it by now: he took a through ball, took a quick touch past the keeper... and shanked the ball wide with the net open. What everyone is ignoring is that he scored a brilliant goal to open the second half, and put himself in a position to score. This is three strong performances in a row now for Torres, and he got on the scoresheet against the defending champs this time. There have been two big problems for Torres: he lost his confidence after failing to score for awhile, and he's never really gotten the explosive speed he had before the World Cup back since he hurt his knee last summer. The speed is coming back now, and I think the confidence is at least moving in the right direction. If he comes back, this is a different Chelsea team.
4. Frank Lampard isn't good enough to start for this team-- It's always hard to push out a club legend, but this game really underscored the truth: Lampard, at 33 years old, just isn't a starter for a title-winning team anymore. At his best, he was a box-to-box player who ran all day, scored 20 goals a season, and provided thrust in the middle of the field. Now, he's lost the ability to outlast his opponents, and it's made him a pretty middling player for this team. He can't keep up with quicker midfielders, and his passing isn't good enough that he can operate as a playmaker. The United game made this painfully obvious: he didn't have the movement to close down space in the middle of the field, he wasn't quick with the ball, and the team improved when Nicolas Anelka replaced him at half. I don't think Lampard should be forcibly sold-- you can't get rid of a guy like him against his will-- but I think he's a squad player at this point.
5. What this team needs is... Frank Lampard-- Not today's Frank Lampard, but 2006 Frank Lampard: the Frank Lampard who brought energy to the middle of the park and chipped in regular goals. A month ago, if you'd asked me what this team needed, I would have said Luka Modric. Modric still wouldn't hurt. But Juan Mata is a guy who's very capable of playing as a creative central player (even if he plays in a more advanced role than Modric). What the team needs is a box-to-box guy. Strangely, it's not Modric the team needs, but Scott Parker, who's only a couple of years younger than Lampard, but is visibly more energetic and better able to provide the energy in midfield that this team needs. I think Moussa Sissoko from Toulouse would be the ideal signing, but he may be a year or two away.
6. This is not a 4-3-3 squad anymore-- The United game made it clear that a 4-3-3 doesn't really suit this team's strengths. Especially with Michael Essien out, three central midfielders are not optimal for this squad. Instead, at this point, I think a 4-2-3-1 is ideal. At the moment, that would mean Meireles and Ramires in front of the back four, with Sturridge, Mata and one of Anelka or Malouda behind Torres. Once Drogba comes back, he'd rotate with Torres, while Essien would work into the Meireles/Ramires rotation in central midfield. That formation would be the ideal combination of central thrust and attacking link-up play for the personnel on this team. The squad's improved performance when Lampard came off and the team went 4-2-3-1 just underscores the need to move to this formation on a permanent basis.
1. Chelsea were the better team-- Everyone makes this claim about their team pretty regularly, but in this case, the stats back it up. Chelsea had 22 shots to United's 14, 8 on target to United's 6, and 10 corners to United's 4. The difference in the game was one thing: United took its chances and Chelsea didn't. That's a problem on its own, but this was not a game where Chelsea got bossed or looked out of its element-- the team outperformed United, and were unlucky not to at least draw the game.
2. Andre Villas-Boas got his tactics right-- This is huge. The 33 year old manager put the squad in a position to win the game. And that's all a manager can do-- he can't make his defenders mark, he can't put the ball in the net for his forwards, and he can't make passes for his midfielders. But AVB put the squad in a position to win, and, when some things weren't working out, he made changes.
3. Fernando Torres is improving-- All anyone will talk about after this game is Torres's horrible miss. Everyone's seen it by now: he took a through ball, took a quick touch past the keeper... and shanked the ball wide with the net open. What everyone is ignoring is that he scored a brilliant goal to open the second half, and put himself in a position to score. This is three strong performances in a row now for Torres, and he got on the scoresheet against the defending champs this time. There have been two big problems for Torres: he lost his confidence after failing to score for awhile, and he's never really gotten the explosive speed he had before the World Cup back since he hurt his knee last summer. The speed is coming back now, and I think the confidence is at least moving in the right direction. If he comes back, this is a different Chelsea team.
4. Frank Lampard isn't good enough to start for this team-- It's always hard to push out a club legend, but this game really underscored the truth: Lampard, at 33 years old, just isn't a starter for a title-winning team anymore. At his best, he was a box-to-box player who ran all day, scored 20 goals a season, and provided thrust in the middle of the field. Now, he's lost the ability to outlast his opponents, and it's made him a pretty middling player for this team. He can't keep up with quicker midfielders, and his passing isn't good enough that he can operate as a playmaker. The United game made this painfully obvious: he didn't have the movement to close down space in the middle of the field, he wasn't quick with the ball, and the team improved when Nicolas Anelka replaced him at half. I don't think Lampard should be forcibly sold-- you can't get rid of a guy like him against his will-- but I think he's a squad player at this point.
5. What this team needs is... Frank Lampard-- Not today's Frank Lampard, but 2006 Frank Lampard: the Frank Lampard who brought energy to the middle of the park and chipped in regular goals. A month ago, if you'd asked me what this team needed, I would have said Luka Modric. Modric still wouldn't hurt. But Juan Mata is a guy who's very capable of playing as a creative central player (even if he plays in a more advanced role than Modric). What the team needs is a box-to-box guy. Strangely, it's not Modric the team needs, but Scott Parker, who's only a couple of years younger than Lampard, but is visibly more energetic and better able to provide the energy in midfield that this team needs. I think Moussa Sissoko from Toulouse would be the ideal signing, but he may be a year or two away.
6. This is not a 4-3-3 squad anymore-- The United game made it clear that a 4-3-3 doesn't really suit this team's strengths. Especially with Michael Essien out, three central midfielders are not optimal for this squad. Instead, at this point, I think a 4-2-3-1 is ideal. At the moment, that would mean Meireles and Ramires in front of the back four, with Sturridge, Mata and one of Anelka or Malouda behind Torres. Once Drogba comes back, he'd rotate with Torres, while Essien would work into the Meireles/Ramires rotation in central midfield. That formation would be the ideal combination of central thrust and attacking link-up play for the personnel on this team. The squad's improved performance when Lampard came off and the team went 4-2-3-1 just underscores the need to move to this formation on a permanent basis.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Klinsmann So Far: My Review
US Soccer is now a few games into the Jurgen Klinsmann era, and the results so far have been... less than inspiring. On the surface, two losses to Belgium and Costa Rica, and a draw against Mexico don't look so hot. The press and Twitter are starting to buzz about whether Klinsmann is the right guy to take the US forward after all. Even though I was initially very skeptical of the Klinsmann choice, I'm definitely open to the idea that I might have underestimated. So I'll run down my thoughts so far.
First things first, three friendlies is NOT a sufficient sample size to decide much of anything. Friendlies are friendly for a reason-- the result is secondary to learning things about your team. And probably the biggest positive for me has been Klinsmann's willingness to bring a wide range of players into the mix. Against Mexico, Edgar Castillo and Michael Orozco Fiscal got into the mix at the back, and Jose Torres got another run out in midfield, along with Kyle Beckerman. Edson Buddle was included up top. Brek Shea got looks against Costa Rica and Belgium. Even Jeff Larentowicz was brought on in the last game. Now, the counter-argument is that the experimentation didn't necessarily do all that much good-- Shea was one of our better attacking players in both games he played, but Torres was OK against Costa Rica but pretty bad against both Mexico and Belgium. Orozco Fiscal was mediocre both times he ran out. Buddle was terrible against Mexico. Castillo was so bad in his two appearances, I found myself wishing for the Jon Bornstein days. But even though none of the new(er) faces, besides Shea, showed much, that doesn't mean that trotting them out wasn't valuable. The more guys get on the field, the more we know about them, and seeing a wide range of players was very useful, as much for figuring out who definitely can't make the cut (Castillo) as for figuring out who might. Klinsmann was also willing to experiment withe personnel-- he tried Timmy Chandler at left back to get him and Steve Cherundolo on the field at the same time. Cherundolo's probably still a better right back at this point, but Chandler mostly held his own on the left, which was doubly impressive given that Belgium deployed one of the world's best young wide players in Eden Hazard on his wing.
So we've definitely gotten a look at a pretty broad range of guys, which I think is indisputably a good thing. Now, on the downside, I think Klinsmann is trying to coach the squad he wishes he had rather than the one he has. Against Mexico, he trotted out an odd 4-1-4-1, with three central midfielders in the middle, and a fourth deployed out wide, with a fifth sitting in a holding role. The result was (predictably) Bradley and especially Jones struggling to create much on the attack, and Torres drifting out of the game. Against Costa Rica, we got a weird 4-3-3, with Donovan lined up as an attacking center mid next to Torres and Maurice Edu behind them. Against Belgium, it was back to the 4-1-4-1, with Dempsey and Torres in the advanced central midfield role, and Edu sitting behind them (at least this time there were two real wide players in Shea and Robbie Rogers on the field instead of 5 center mids; ignore for a second that Rogers stinks).
My problem with these formations is that they're essentially built for attacking teams with midfielders who can retain possession under duress and unlock defenses with their passes. Spain can pull it off because Xavi never gives the ball away, and Iniesta, Xabi Alonso and Busquets are all very, very comfortable on the ball. The US's strength is our center mids' discipline and energy. But they're unremarkable passers at best, and they will make mistakes if they're pressured. Our biggest weakness is a lack of a natural playmaker, and no natural goalscorers up top.
These limitations scream out for a 4-2-3-1. Which four are at the back is an open question-- Carlos Bocanegra's been playing well in the middle (though he's getting up there in years; hopefully one of Omar Gonzalez or Tim Ream will develop into a reliable option there by 2014), and Cherundolo still deserves his spot at right back (though by the time the next World Cup rolls around, it'll almost definitely be Chandler's spot, as Cherundolo will be a geriatric 35 by then). Otherwise, I think Clarence Goodson is probably the front-runner next to Boca, as he's good in the air and is usually in position. Left back is still a problem-- Bornstein still stinks, and Castillo may be worse. Eric Lichaj is injured now, but he's probably the most promising option there. In the two holding spots, I like the idea of an Edu-Bradley partnership. They've both played pretty well in their last few appearances (Edu especially), and their passing isn't bad for that spot. Then, I like the idea of putting Jozy Altidore up top with Clint Dempsey in the central attacking mid role behind him-- Clint Dempsey's our most creative player, our best dribbler, and also probably the best goalscorer. I think the hole is the best place for him. But we do have a problem out wide-- Shea is showing me some nice qualities, but the other spot is wide open. Landon Donovan is still the best option there, but he'll be 32 by 2014 (old for a wide player, especially one who relies as much on his speed as Donovan), so I'd prefer to see him phased out. Ideally, Freddy Adu will develop into a viable option in the hole, and then Dempsey can be shifted out wide (he's only a year younger than Donovan, but he's better technically, which I think will allow his game to age better). While there are still a few years before the next World Cup, I'd like to see Klinsmann tailor his system to the personnel he's got rather than vice versa. Spain's 4-3-3 is great when you've got Xavi, Busquets and Iniesta in midfield. It's less great when you've got Edu, Jones and Bradley. Klinsmann should recognize those limitations and build his system around the players he's got, not vice versa.
First things first, three friendlies is NOT a sufficient sample size to decide much of anything. Friendlies are friendly for a reason-- the result is secondary to learning things about your team. And probably the biggest positive for me has been Klinsmann's willingness to bring a wide range of players into the mix. Against Mexico, Edgar Castillo and Michael Orozco Fiscal got into the mix at the back, and Jose Torres got another run out in midfield, along with Kyle Beckerman. Edson Buddle was included up top. Brek Shea got looks against Costa Rica and Belgium. Even Jeff Larentowicz was brought on in the last game. Now, the counter-argument is that the experimentation didn't necessarily do all that much good-- Shea was one of our better attacking players in both games he played, but Torres was OK against Costa Rica but pretty bad against both Mexico and Belgium. Orozco Fiscal was mediocre both times he ran out. Buddle was terrible against Mexico. Castillo was so bad in his two appearances, I found myself wishing for the Jon Bornstein days. But even though none of the new(er) faces, besides Shea, showed much, that doesn't mean that trotting them out wasn't valuable. The more guys get on the field, the more we know about them, and seeing a wide range of players was very useful, as much for figuring out who definitely can't make the cut (Castillo) as for figuring out who might. Klinsmann was also willing to experiment withe personnel-- he tried Timmy Chandler at left back to get him and Steve Cherundolo on the field at the same time. Cherundolo's probably still a better right back at this point, but Chandler mostly held his own on the left, which was doubly impressive given that Belgium deployed one of the world's best young wide players in Eden Hazard on his wing.
So we've definitely gotten a look at a pretty broad range of guys, which I think is indisputably a good thing. Now, on the downside, I think Klinsmann is trying to coach the squad he wishes he had rather than the one he has. Against Mexico, he trotted out an odd 4-1-4-1, with three central midfielders in the middle, and a fourth deployed out wide, with a fifth sitting in a holding role. The result was (predictably) Bradley and especially Jones struggling to create much on the attack, and Torres drifting out of the game. Against Costa Rica, we got a weird 4-3-3, with Donovan lined up as an attacking center mid next to Torres and Maurice Edu behind them. Against Belgium, it was back to the 4-1-4-1, with Dempsey and Torres in the advanced central midfield role, and Edu sitting behind them (at least this time there were two real wide players in Shea and Robbie Rogers on the field instead of 5 center mids; ignore for a second that Rogers stinks).
My problem with these formations is that they're essentially built for attacking teams with midfielders who can retain possession under duress and unlock defenses with their passes. Spain can pull it off because Xavi never gives the ball away, and Iniesta, Xabi Alonso and Busquets are all very, very comfortable on the ball. The US's strength is our center mids' discipline and energy. But they're unremarkable passers at best, and they will make mistakes if they're pressured. Our biggest weakness is a lack of a natural playmaker, and no natural goalscorers up top.
These limitations scream out for a 4-2-3-1. Which four are at the back is an open question-- Carlos Bocanegra's been playing well in the middle (though he's getting up there in years; hopefully one of Omar Gonzalez or Tim Ream will develop into a reliable option there by 2014), and Cherundolo still deserves his spot at right back (though by the time the next World Cup rolls around, it'll almost definitely be Chandler's spot, as Cherundolo will be a geriatric 35 by then). Otherwise, I think Clarence Goodson is probably the front-runner next to Boca, as he's good in the air and is usually in position. Left back is still a problem-- Bornstein still stinks, and Castillo may be worse. Eric Lichaj is injured now, but he's probably the most promising option there. In the two holding spots, I like the idea of an Edu-Bradley partnership. They've both played pretty well in their last few appearances (Edu especially), and their passing isn't bad for that spot. Then, I like the idea of putting Jozy Altidore up top with Clint Dempsey in the central attacking mid role behind him-- Clint Dempsey's our most creative player, our best dribbler, and also probably the best goalscorer. I think the hole is the best place for him. But we do have a problem out wide-- Shea is showing me some nice qualities, but the other spot is wide open. Landon Donovan is still the best option there, but he'll be 32 by 2014 (old for a wide player, especially one who relies as much on his speed as Donovan), so I'd prefer to see him phased out. Ideally, Freddy Adu will develop into a viable option in the hole, and then Dempsey can be shifted out wide (he's only a year younger than Donovan, but he's better technically, which I think will allow his game to age better). While there are still a few years before the next World Cup, I'd like to see Klinsmann tailor his system to the personnel he's got rather than vice versa. Spain's 4-3-3 is great when you've got Xavi, Busquets and Iniesta in midfield. It's less great when you've got Edu, Jones and Bradley. Klinsmann should recognize those limitations and build his system around the players he's got, not vice versa.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Mata to Chelsea: My Take
Chelsea officially added Valencia winger Juan Mata today, strengthening the squad further in the run-up to the season. Really, this is the first buy that will actually help the squad immediately-- the keeper Thibaut Courtois from Genk is one for the future (and was loaned to Atletico Madrid right away); Oriol Romeu couldn't break into Barca's squad, so he'll have trouble unseating Chelsea's central midfield veterans, and Romelu Lukaku is probably the fifth choice at striker right now, and is still only 18.
Mata, on the other hand, slots in instantly. He's still young (23), and since breaking into Valencia's squad four seasons ago, has scored between 8 and 11 goals every year, and had double-digit assists twice in three years. For the 4-3-3, he's just what the squad needs. Now here's the problem. Right now, the team has, by my count, 8 guys who can play in the front 3 slots: Drogba, Torres, Anelka, Sturridge, Malouda, Kalou, Lukaku, and now Mata. Of those, FIVE are ideally central forwards (all but Malouda, Kalou and Mata), and three (Drogba, Torres, and Lukaku) can't really play out wide. So by my reckoning, this means one of Malouda, Sturridge or Kalou will be starting wide left, one of Torres, Drogba or Lukaku will be starting centrally, and one of Mata, Anelka, and Kalou again will be starting wide right. But Drogba is still probably the most effective central striker in the squad, and Torres cost 50 million pounds, so he'll be in the lineup most games too. That leaves a whole bunch of bodies for only a few slots. And there's still no creativity in midfield.
I think the next move here is clear-- trim some fat by dumping Anelka, Kalou and Alex (Ivanovic can slide over to RB, so he's cover at two different spots). Then use that money in part to finance a deal for Luka Modric. Now all of a sudden, you've got a pretty formidable lineup:
Cech; Cole, Terry, Luiz (or Ivanovic), Ivanovic (or Bosingwa or Luiz); Ramires, Lampard, Modric; Malouda (or Sturridge), Torres (or Drogba), Mata. Then you've got a bench of Hilario, Bosingwa, Mikel, Essien McEachran, Sturridge, and Drogba. Of course, this means leaving Benayoun, Lukaku and Gael Kakuta out of most squads, but I think this should probably be Drogba's last year in the squad (and maybe Malouda and even Lampard's too), so you can plug them in next year and hopefully not miss much.
But I think Chelsea are a creative mid from having easily the best squad in the Premiership; and I think Modric is that creative mid.
Mata, on the other hand, slots in instantly. He's still young (23), and since breaking into Valencia's squad four seasons ago, has scored between 8 and 11 goals every year, and had double-digit assists twice in three years. For the 4-3-3, he's just what the squad needs. Now here's the problem. Right now, the team has, by my count, 8 guys who can play in the front 3 slots: Drogba, Torres, Anelka, Sturridge, Malouda, Kalou, Lukaku, and now Mata. Of those, FIVE are ideally central forwards (all but Malouda, Kalou and Mata), and three (Drogba, Torres, and Lukaku) can't really play out wide. So by my reckoning, this means one of Malouda, Sturridge or Kalou will be starting wide left, one of Torres, Drogba or Lukaku will be starting centrally, and one of Mata, Anelka, and Kalou again will be starting wide right. But Drogba is still probably the most effective central striker in the squad, and Torres cost 50 million pounds, so he'll be in the lineup most games too. That leaves a whole bunch of bodies for only a few slots. And there's still no creativity in midfield.
I think the next move here is clear-- trim some fat by dumping Anelka, Kalou and Alex (Ivanovic can slide over to RB, so he's cover at two different spots). Then use that money in part to finance a deal for Luka Modric. Now all of a sudden, you've got a pretty formidable lineup:
Cech; Cole, Terry, Luiz (or Ivanovic), Ivanovic (or Bosingwa or Luiz); Ramires, Lampard, Modric; Malouda (or Sturridge), Torres (or Drogba), Mata. Then you've got a bench of Hilario, Bosingwa, Mikel, Essien McEachran, Sturridge, and Drogba. Of course, this means leaving Benayoun, Lukaku and Gael Kakuta out of most squads, but I think this should probably be Drogba's last year in the squad (and maybe Malouda and even Lampard's too), so you can plug them in next year and hopefully not miss much.
But I think Chelsea are a creative mid from having easily the best squad in the Premiership; and I think Modric is that creative mid.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
EPL Week 1/NFL Thoughts
EPL Week 1
The English Premier League kicked off its season this weekend, which marks the beginning of the new sports year. This summer was particularly brutal for me, in large part because 1) I was in Kansas, which has some of the nicest people in the world, but where I didn't really know anyone and didn't find people to watch sports with, and 2) It was one of those off summers where no major sporting events were going on. No World Cup, no Olympics, just the moderately small-time Copa America, where the US got pounded by Mexico and Bob Bradley got the boot. Once the NBA Finals (which were phenomenal this year) ended, there was nothing. Not even NFL and NBA free agency, since the leagues were both locked out most of the summer. Sure, there was baseball, but 1) The Orioles will never, ever go to the playoffs, 2) The season has too many games, and 3) Baseball is mostly boring.
So I'm thankful that sports are officially back. But, despite that, the first week of the EPL season was brutal. There are still 2 more matches left (Spurs-Everton and Man City-Swansea), but the early ones were snoozefests. Arsenal played a typical Arsenal game-- held the ball for 60 minutes without putting a shot on target, Gervinho gave Joey Barton a love tap on the face and got himself sent off on his debut, and Arsenal looked like a candidate to finish 8th with Fabregas and Nasri on the way out. United also played a typical United game against West Brom-- didn't look particularly good, struggled the entire time, then got bailed out by a late own goal. Liverpool managed to draw Sunderland at home. Sure, Luis Suarez missed a penalty... but he dove flat on his face to win it, so he got what he deserved. Have I mentioned that I can't stand Luis Suarez? The guy spends more time on the ground than Cristiano Ronaldo, and is possibly even more arrogant. But, on the field, Luis Suarez is a good player, but he can't carry Cristiano Ronaldo's bags. As much as I love Diego Forlan, I pull against Uruguay because I want Luis Suarez to lose.
But the real clincher this weekend was the Chelsea match. They're my favorite team, but I'm afraid that they're headed for (another) downer of a season. This was an ugly performance. Not just because the team dropped points at Stoke (they're a tough road match), or because there was no score. Heck, even Fernando Torres looked pretty good today. No, the big issue was the lack of invention in midfield that got me. Since I've been following them, Chelsea have been a ruthlessly efficient team. The midfielders have been powerful, clinical and strong-- guys like Makelele, Essien, Lampard, Ballack and company covered ground. And Drogba has always been a beast up front, terrorizing center backs with his size, strength and speed. But there's never been much in the way of creativity. Against tightly-disciplined sides like United, they dominated play more often than not, but a creative player to unlock the defense was always lacking. Lampard's a fine midfielder, and he scores a lot of goals, but he's not a playmaker. Neither is Essien. And the only effort Chelsea made to bring in a creative midfielder, Scolari bought Deco's corpse, which played well for about 3 weeks, got tired, and then found itself buried on the end of the bench. Anyone watching knew the squad needed that creative spark-- a Modric or a Sneijder or a Pastore (though I think Pastore is a big risk). Instead... they added another striker. And while I love Romelu Lukaku's potential, this gives the team, by my count, five central strikers (Drogba, Torres, Anelka, Sturridge, Lukaku), only one of whom can play in his natural position at a time. Meanwhile, the creative midfielders include... Yossi Benayoun. And only him. Benayoun's OK when he's healthy (OK, not special; for a Champions League team, he's a squad player), but he's coming back from a torn achilles. If this squad doesn't pick up another creative mid, I'm afraid it'll be a lot more of the same-- a lot of possession, danger on set pieces, rock-solid defending and goaltending, but none of the spark that you need to win trophies. Ideally, I would unload Anelka, buy Modric or Sneijder, and go with a 4-3-3 (or 4-2-3-1, depending on how high you play the wide forwards) with a back four of Cole/Terry/Luiz/Ivanovic (Bosingwa), a midfield trio of Lampard, Essien (or Ramires until Essien's back from injury) and Modric/Sneijder, and a central striker (rotation of Drogba and Torres), with two of Malouda, Sturridge, and Salomon Kalou playing in the wide-forward spots. Then I'd sell Anelka and ship Lukaku out on loan to pick up some experience. That lineup gives you a nice balance of wide and central players, goalscorers, destroyers, and creators, and some push from the back too in Cole. As is, though, the squad is shallow and lacks invention. Without another creative piece, they won't challenge for the league.
NFL
At the same time, the NFL preseason is up and running. I've never really liked the preseason. To me, the games are worthless and a waste of time. The league insists on four preseason games because NFL fans are so rabid, they'll still go out to the stadiums even though the games don't matter and convince themselves that their third-string QB is the best thing since sliced bread. I really realized just how much of a joke it is when the Redskins hired Steve Spurrier. Under Spurrier, we buried everyone in the preseason. Danny Wuerffel (Wawful to Skins fans) looked like Peyton Manning 2.0 all preseason, Sugar Shane Matthews tore defenses apart, and the University of Florida national championship duo of Reidel Anthony and Jacquez Green was massive. Then the REAL season started. All the coaches who ran the Madden playbook in the preseason dusted off their real plays, starters got to stay on the field for more than a drive, and the Skins fell off a cliff.
So this preseason, I'm "paying attention" mostly to see who gets hurt (Mikel Leshoure, my backup fantasy running back, is already on the shelf for the year) and which players I remember from college are on NFL rosters (Josh Portis, infamous at the University of Maryland for coming in for 5 plays a game to run right, then cheating on a quiz and transferring to California University of Pennsylvania, is on the Seahawks now). So even though the Skins beat defending AFC champ Pittsburgh in the first preseason game and Rex Grossman tore it up, I'm still thinking we're gonna stink this year because 1) Rex Grossman is horrible, and came into camp fat, and 2) There really isn't a single impact player on either side of the ball for this team. I wouldn't mind a 2-14 season (so long as at least one and preferably both of the wins was over Dallas), so long as it meant drafting Andrew Luck. But, knowing our track record, we'll go 5-11, pick 6th, and trade for Tarvaris Jackson next summer.
The English Premier League kicked off its season this weekend, which marks the beginning of the new sports year. This summer was particularly brutal for me, in large part because 1) I was in Kansas, which has some of the nicest people in the world, but where I didn't really know anyone and didn't find people to watch sports with, and 2) It was one of those off summers where no major sporting events were going on. No World Cup, no Olympics, just the moderately small-time Copa America, where the US got pounded by Mexico and Bob Bradley got the boot. Once the NBA Finals (which were phenomenal this year) ended, there was nothing. Not even NFL and NBA free agency, since the leagues were both locked out most of the summer. Sure, there was baseball, but 1) The Orioles will never, ever go to the playoffs, 2) The season has too many games, and 3) Baseball is mostly boring.
So I'm thankful that sports are officially back. But, despite that, the first week of the EPL season was brutal. There are still 2 more matches left (Spurs-Everton and Man City-Swansea), but the early ones were snoozefests. Arsenal played a typical Arsenal game-- held the ball for 60 minutes without putting a shot on target, Gervinho gave Joey Barton a love tap on the face and got himself sent off on his debut, and Arsenal looked like a candidate to finish 8th with Fabregas and Nasri on the way out. United also played a typical United game against West Brom-- didn't look particularly good, struggled the entire time, then got bailed out by a late own goal. Liverpool managed to draw Sunderland at home. Sure, Luis Suarez missed a penalty... but he dove flat on his face to win it, so he got what he deserved. Have I mentioned that I can't stand Luis Suarez? The guy spends more time on the ground than Cristiano Ronaldo, and is possibly even more arrogant. But, on the field, Luis Suarez is a good player, but he can't carry Cristiano Ronaldo's bags. As much as I love Diego Forlan, I pull against Uruguay because I want Luis Suarez to lose.
But the real clincher this weekend was the Chelsea match. They're my favorite team, but I'm afraid that they're headed for (another) downer of a season. This was an ugly performance. Not just because the team dropped points at Stoke (they're a tough road match), or because there was no score. Heck, even Fernando Torres looked pretty good today. No, the big issue was the lack of invention in midfield that got me. Since I've been following them, Chelsea have been a ruthlessly efficient team. The midfielders have been powerful, clinical and strong-- guys like Makelele, Essien, Lampard, Ballack and company covered ground. And Drogba has always been a beast up front, terrorizing center backs with his size, strength and speed. But there's never been much in the way of creativity. Against tightly-disciplined sides like United, they dominated play more often than not, but a creative player to unlock the defense was always lacking. Lampard's a fine midfielder, and he scores a lot of goals, but he's not a playmaker. Neither is Essien. And the only effort Chelsea made to bring in a creative midfielder, Scolari bought Deco's corpse, which played well for about 3 weeks, got tired, and then found itself buried on the end of the bench. Anyone watching knew the squad needed that creative spark-- a Modric or a Sneijder or a Pastore (though I think Pastore is a big risk). Instead... they added another striker. And while I love Romelu Lukaku's potential, this gives the team, by my count, five central strikers (Drogba, Torres, Anelka, Sturridge, Lukaku), only one of whom can play in his natural position at a time. Meanwhile, the creative midfielders include... Yossi Benayoun. And only him. Benayoun's OK when he's healthy (OK, not special; for a Champions League team, he's a squad player), but he's coming back from a torn achilles. If this squad doesn't pick up another creative mid, I'm afraid it'll be a lot more of the same-- a lot of possession, danger on set pieces, rock-solid defending and goaltending, but none of the spark that you need to win trophies. Ideally, I would unload Anelka, buy Modric or Sneijder, and go with a 4-3-3 (or 4-2-3-1, depending on how high you play the wide forwards) with a back four of Cole/Terry/Luiz/Ivanovic (Bosingwa), a midfield trio of Lampard, Essien (or Ramires until Essien's back from injury) and Modric/Sneijder, and a central striker (rotation of Drogba and Torres), with two of Malouda, Sturridge, and Salomon Kalou playing in the wide-forward spots. Then I'd sell Anelka and ship Lukaku out on loan to pick up some experience. That lineup gives you a nice balance of wide and central players, goalscorers, destroyers, and creators, and some push from the back too in Cole. As is, though, the squad is shallow and lacks invention. Without another creative piece, they won't challenge for the league.
NFL
At the same time, the NFL preseason is up and running. I've never really liked the preseason. To me, the games are worthless and a waste of time. The league insists on four preseason games because NFL fans are so rabid, they'll still go out to the stadiums even though the games don't matter and convince themselves that their third-string QB is the best thing since sliced bread. I really realized just how much of a joke it is when the Redskins hired Steve Spurrier. Under Spurrier, we buried everyone in the preseason. Danny Wuerffel (Wawful to Skins fans) looked like Peyton Manning 2.0 all preseason, Sugar Shane Matthews tore defenses apart, and the University of Florida national championship duo of Reidel Anthony and Jacquez Green was massive. Then the REAL season started. All the coaches who ran the Madden playbook in the preseason dusted off their real plays, starters got to stay on the field for more than a drive, and the Skins fell off a cliff.
So this preseason, I'm "paying attention" mostly to see who gets hurt (Mikel Leshoure, my backup fantasy running back, is already on the shelf for the year) and which players I remember from college are on NFL rosters (Josh Portis, infamous at the University of Maryland for coming in for 5 plays a game to run right, then cheating on a quiz and transferring to California University of Pennsylvania, is on the Seahawks now). So even though the Skins beat defending AFC champ Pittsburgh in the first preseason game and Rex Grossman tore it up, I'm still thinking we're gonna stink this year because 1) Rex Grossman is horrible, and came into camp fat, and 2) There really isn't a single impact player on either side of the ball for this team. I wouldn't mind a 2-14 season (so long as at least one and preferably both of the wins was over Dallas), so long as it meant drafting Andrew Luck. But, knowing our track record, we'll go 5-11, pick 6th, and trade for Tarvaris Jackson next summer.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Klinsmann It Is
This morning, the US men's team officially announced the hiring of Jurgen Klinsmann to replace Bob Bradley. A lot of people think this is a good move. US Soccer head Sunil Gulati's been trying to get Klinsmann for a good five years now. Personally, I'm... skeptical. And here's why.
First the pros: Klinsmann is not a random big-name foreigner plucked out of thin air. He lives in Southern California (he took a lot of flak when he was coaching Germany because he commuted from LA), he know the US game (he played in semi-pro men's leagues in California under an alias after formally retiring), he speaks very good English (he announces games for ESPN), and it's obvious from those analyses that he really understands the game (which isn't a given for a former great player; Pele was the best player of his generation, and arguably of all time, but anyone who's heard him talk about soccer knows that his predictions are... pretty much always wrong). He's also got innovative ideas for the youth setup which, as Dylan and another college friend of mine, Kei Saotome, have pointed out is crucial to developing top talent.
But I think those pros are outweighed by the cons. The reality is that, for a coach with a big reputation, Klinsmann hasn't actually accomplished much at all. As I pointed out in an earlier post, finishing 3rd at the World Cup on your own turf when you're Germany is, at best, par for the course. And his results outside the World Cup weren't exactly stellar (a big part of the reason that World Cup was regarded as such a succses is that the team played like such garbage in the run-up to the tournament). Then he took over Bayern Munich and was fired before he even finished his only (pretty disastrous) season. Although he understands the game, he hasn't shown me much to suggest that he's a great tactician. And, obviously, being a great player is no guarantee of success as a coach. For every Johan Cruyff or Pep Guardiola, there are five Diego Maradonas who fail as coaches. And some of the best coaches in the modern game either had completely unremarkable professional careers (Guus Hiddink, Alex Ferguson) or barely had pro careers at all (Jose Mourinho). Frankly, I'm worried that Klinsmann will struggle tactically, and the team will regress.
Now, here's the tricky part. Usually, when I'm critical of some idea, I have what I think is a better plan in mind. Here, I really don't. I can't think of anyone I'd necessarily rather have at the helm right now, and while I don't think firing Bob Bradley was the wrong move (even though I do think he was fine as a coach), I'm not sure of who I think should take over. Part of me would prefer Jason Kreis, but he's a gamble for different reasons than Klinsmann. And I think Marcelo Lippi (another name being floated) would have been a huge mistake. So, while I'm not impressed with the Klinsmann hire, I'm not upset about it either. I guess I'm skeptical, but will wait and see...
First the pros: Klinsmann is not a random big-name foreigner plucked out of thin air. He lives in Southern California (he took a lot of flak when he was coaching Germany because he commuted from LA), he know the US game (he played in semi-pro men's leagues in California under an alias after formally retiring), he speaks very good English (he announces games for ESPN), and it's obvious from those analyses that he really understands the game (which isn't a given for a former great player; Pele was the best player of his generation, and arguably of all time, but anyone who's heard him talk about soccer knows that his predictions are... pretty much always wrong). He's also got innovative ideas for the youth setup which, as Dylan and another college friend of mine, Kei Saotome, have pointed out is crucial to developing top talent.
But I think those pros are outweighed by the cons. The reality is that, for a coach with a big reputation, Klinsmann hasn't actually accomplished much at all. As I pointed out in an earlier post, finishing 3rd at the World Cup on your own turf when you're Germany is, at best, par for the course. And his results outside the World Cup weren't exactly stellar (a big part of the reason that World Cup was regarded as such a succses is that the team played like such garbage in the run-up to the tournament). Then he took over Bayern Munich and was fired before he even finished his only (pretty disastrous) season. Although he understands the game, he hasn't shown me much to suggest that he's a great tactician. And, obviously, being a great player is no guarantee of success as a coach. For every Johan Cruyff or Pep Guardiola, there are five Diego Maradonas who fail as coaches. And some of the best coaches in the modern game either had completely unremarkable professional careers (Guus Hiddink, Alex Ferguson) or barely had pro careers at all (Jose Mourinho). Frankly, I'm worried that Klinsmann will struggle tactically, and the team will regress.
Now, here's the tricky part. Usually, when I'm critical of some idea, I have what I think is a better plan in mind. Here, I really don't. I can't think of anyone I'd necessarily rather have at the helm right now, and while I don't think firing Bob Bradley was the wrong move (even though I do think he was fine as a coach), I'm not sure of who I think should take over. Part of me would prefer Jason Kreis, but he's a gamble for different reasons than Klinsmann. And I think Marcelo Lippi (another name being floated) would have been a huge mistake. So, while I'm not impressed with the Klinsmann hire, I'm not upset about it either. I guess I'm skeptical, but will wait and see...
Thursday, July 28, 2011
More Bob Bradley Thoughts- How To Develop Talent
So my good friend from college, Dylan Langley, brought up a good point in response to my earlier post about the Bob Bradley firing-- I pointed out that the US doesn't have the players to play a possession game, but didn't really address why. I think Dylan had it right when he argued that our youth development system in the US lags behind those of the best soccer countries, and that, with 300 million people, we should be able to compete for a World Cup. The US has definitely made remarkable progress over the last 20 years. In 1990, our national team was complete garbage. In 1994, we got out of the group stage, but we were still not very talented (playing at home helps). Our best players were in and out of the worst teams in Europe's best leagues. Cobi Jones, Alexi Lalas and John Harkes made teams that were on the fringe of the English Premier League and Serie A, but they all went off and joined MLS within a few years. Eric Wynalda was on a fringe German club, but none of them were any better than marginal out there. As late as 1998, the only position where the US was producing top-notch players was in net (where Brad Friedel and Kasey Keller were two of the better goalies in Europe). Fast forward to today, and Clint Dempsey is a standout in England's top league (nowhere near the league's best players, but he's a regular for a decent team, and arguably their best attacking player), Stuart Holden was named the player of the year for another decent team in England's top league, and Oguchi Onyewu and Jozy Altidore have even spent time under contract at Champions League clubs (though neither made an impression). Talent-wise, we're still nowhere near Spain, but we're miles ahead of where we were a decade ago.
Dylan's argument is that we should overhaul the youth setup so that we develop real star players. I agree with that part. I think where we disagree is over whose responsibility that is. I think the national coach has a pretty specific job- get the squad prepared to play at every tournament, manage egos and personalities, and choose effective tactics. The coach doesn't get enough practice time with the players to develop them, and I'm not sure a centralized youth setup controlled by the national coach is the way to go. If you look at the countries that produce the best talent, pretty much all of them do so through their club youth systems. Brazilian and Argentinian teams have traditionally had less money than the big European teams (though the Brazilian league especially has taken HUGE steps lately), but the pipeline of top talent coming out of their academies is absurd. Every year or two, a new "next big thing" comes out of there. Just since 2000, Ronaldinho, Robinho, Pato, and Kaka have come out of the Brazilian pipeline. Now, they have Neymar and Ganso. And what's even more remarkable is how many of those players fill up rosters in second-tier European leagues-- there are Brazilians who don't get in the national team, but play central roles at Russian clubs, Turkish clubs, Portuguese clubs, and even Japanese clubs. Obviously, the US has a long way to go to get to that level-- in Brazilian barrios, the kids all play soccer exclusively, while in the US basketball is still king. But there's not a limited supply of athletes, and many of the best soccer players couldn't play anything else (can you imagine Messi trying his hand at basketball? Xavi playing football?), so that's really not an excuse.
So I think the solution is for MLS clubs to start producing star players at their academies, who move up the pipeline to MLS, and then eventually head over to Europe. A lot of them already have academies producing promising young players. There's no Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, but Juan Agudelo came through the Red Bulls academy and is a promising prospect; Andy Najar is going to play for Honduras, but he came through the DC United academy, and his development is a promising sign that MLS academies are starting to churn out players. Of course, building a proper youth setup is hard. Chelsea's thrown money at their youth system for years, and haven't produced a first-teamer from their academy since John Terry, and he's 30 (though Josh McEachran has promise). But that doesn't mean that it's not worth trying, and when an academy works properly, it's a thing of magic (Barcelona's academy just in the last decade-plus has produced Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Pique, Pedro, Busquets, Puyol, and Victor Valdes. That list includes 2 of the 3 best players in the world, and at least 3 of the top 10. That's absurd. So I think it's those academies that are the future of US soccer. But I'm not sure that the national team coach's job is to develop that youth setup. I think that part is on the clubs.
Having said all of that, I don't think letting Bob Bradley go was the wrong move. I'm inclined to think that national coaches grow stale after one World Cup cycle. For whatever reason, players stop responding to them, and new coaches are needed to take the next step. Part of that, in my view, is that each cycle requires quite a bit of change to the core of the squad. Occasionally, a player will start two World Cups in a row. If he's really exceptional, he can make it 3. But the core of the team has to change, and national coaches, especially ones who have had some success with one group, tend to cling to that core for too long. It happened with Mario Lippi, who won the World Cup with Italy in 2006, retired, came back in 2008, and then steered the team to a disastrous performance in 2010 with the same core that had won him the title four years before. I think the US needs new blood, and it needs a fresh face to introduce it. The back four needs a total revamp- Steve Cherundolo is still (for now) the best option at RB, though Timothy Chandler looks like the pick for the near future, while Eric Lichaj may be an answer at left back. But new center backs need to be plugged in. And by the next World Cup, Landon Donovan will be 32 (old for a wide attacker), while Clint Dempsey will be 31 (a little easier since he can play centrally and doesn't rely as much on his speed as Donovan). Jozy Altidore will have to be replaced or get squeezed out, and the central midfield situation will need to be sorted out. I'd like a fresh pair of eyes behind the bench to do that.
Dylan's argument is that we should overhaul the youth setup so that we develop real star players. I agree with that part. I think where we disagree is over whose responsibility that is. I think the national coach has a pretty specific job- get the squad prepared to play at every tournament, manage egos and personalities, and choose effective tactics. The coach doesn't get enough practice time with the players to develop them, and I'm not sure a centralized youth setup controlled by the national coach is the way to go. If you look at the countries that produce the best talent, pretty much all of them do so through their club youth systems. Brazilian and Argentinian teams have traditionally had less money than the big European teams (though the Brazilian league especially has taken HUGE steps lately), but the pipeline of top talent coming out of their academies is absurd. Every year or two, a new "next big thing" comes out of there. Just since 2000, Ronaldinho, Robinho, Pato, and Kaka have come out of the Brazilian pipeline. Now, they have Neymar and Ganso. And what's even more remarkable is how many of those players fill up rosters in second-tier European leagues-- there are Brazilians who don't get in the national team, but play central roles at Russian clubs, Turkish clubs, Portuguese clubs, and even Japanese clubs. Obviously, the US has a long way to go to get to that level-- in Brazilian barrios, the kids all play soccer exclusively, while in the US basketball is still king. But there's not a limited supply of athletes, and many of the best soccer players couldn't play anything else (can you imagine Messi trying his hand at basketball? Xavi playing football?), so that's really not an excuse.
So I think the solution is for MLS clubs to start producing star players at their academies, who move up the pipeline to MLS, and then eventually head over to Europe. A lot of them already have academies producing promising young players. There's no Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, but Juan Agudelo came through the Red Bulls academy and is a promising prospect; Andy Najar is going to play for Honduras, but he came through the DC United academy, and his development is a promising sign that MLS academies are starting to churn out players. Of course, building a proper youth setup is hard. Chelsea's thrown money at their youth system for years, and haven't produced a first-teamer from their academy since John Terry, and he's 30 (though Josh McEachran has promise). But that doesn't mean that it's not worth trying, and when an academy works properly, it's a thing of magic (Barcelona's academy just in the last decade-plus has produced Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Pique, Pedro, Busquets, Puyol, and Victor Valdes. That list includes 2 of the 3 best players in the world, and at least 3 of the top 10. That's absurd. So I think it's those academies that are the future of US soccer. But I'm not sure that the national team coach's job is to develop that youth setup. I think that part is on the clubs.
Having said all of that, I don't think letting Bob Bradley go was the wrong move. I'm inclined to think that national coaches grow stale after one World Cup cycle. For whatever reason, players stop responding to them, and new coaches are needed to take the next step. Part of that, in my view, is that each cycle requires quite a bit of change to the core of the squad. Occasionally, a player will start two World Cups in a row. If he's really exceptional, he can make it 3. But the core of the team has to change, and national coaches, especially ones who have had some success with one group, tend to cling to that core for too long. It happened with Mario Lippi, who won the World Cup with Italy in 2006, retired, came back in 2008, and then steered the team to a disastrous performance in 2010 with the same core that had won him the title four years before. I think the US needs new blood, and it needs a fresh face to introduce it. The back four needs a total revamp- Steve Cherundolo is still (for now) the best option at RB, though Timothy Chandler looks like the pick for the near future, while Eric Lichaj may be an answer at left back. But new center backs need to be plugged in. And by the next World Cup, Landon Donovan will be 32 (old for a wide attacker), while Clint Dempsey will be 31 (a little easier since he can play centrally and doesn't rely as much on his speed as Donovan). Jozy Altidore will have to be replaced or get squeezed out, and the central midfield situation will need to be sorted out. I'd like a fresh pair of eyes behind the bench to do that.
Was US Soccer Right to Fire Bob Bradley?
So the big news out of the sports world today is that the US Men's soccer team fired its coach, Bob Bradley. I think people generally fall into two polar camps when it comes to Bradley. There are those who think he does a very good job and understands the American player exceptionally well, and others who think he's a doofus who can't do anything right. The second camp has two primary lines of criticism- one is that the US isn't creative in the attack and plays an ugly "boot the ball up the field and pray" style, while the other is that Bradley is inflexible in his player selections and formation choices. I think the first line of criticism is completely wrong, while the second has some merit. In this post, I think I'm going to sum up what I thought of Bradley's tenure as a whole, and then talk about what I think he did right and wrong.
As a whole, I think Bradley did a good job. The results kind of speak for themselves. He won a Gold Cup. He took the team to the final of the Confederations Cup, beating Spain along the way. He qualified for the World Cup easily. And he won his group at the World Cup. That makes him easily the most successful coach in US soccer history. Did he have some luck along the way? Sure. He also had some bad luck (refereeing decisions against Algeria and Slovenia in particular at the last World Cup tended to go against the US). But he put the team in a position to succeed. And they did a pretty decent job. I think what was ultimately behind that is that he understood the players he had, and put them in a position to be successful. He didn't try to turn Michael Bradley (a holding midfielder by nature) into a playmaker, or try to make Landon Donovan a central playmaker when his best spot was on the wing. The team played a compact, counterattacking style, and it played that style pretty well.
Which is why the first line of criticism that you hear is so misguided. The US plays boring soccer under Bradley, they would say. The midfielders don't possess the ball. There's no creativity in the attack. All of that is true. But that's 100% not on Bradley. Could the US play possession and score exciting goals against, say, Belize? Sure. It'd be a lot of fun and we'd all love it. Now imagine if they tried to do the same thing against Brazil. The result would be an epic disaster. Like when the MLS All-Stars played Man United last night, but probably an order of magnitude worse. But why is that the case, one might ask. Spain plays beautiful, flowing possession soccer and scores boatloads of goals. Well, the difference is that Spain has David Villa and Fernando Torres scoring those goals, and Xavi, Andres Iniesta and Xabi Alonso setting them up. The US has... Jozy Altidore up top, supported by Clint Dempsey and Landon Donovan. If they're lucky, Stu Holden isn't injured. The big difference between Spain and the US is simple: Xavi and Iniesta are brilliant passers who go full games without giving the ball away. The US has... Mike Bradley, Maurice Edu and Jermaine Jones. Who give the ball away on half of their passes, and aren't creative. So, where Xavi can make defenders pressuring him look foolish, the US's center mids are prone to cough the ball up if they try to possess under pressure. And if that happens even against a team like Mexico (to say nothing of Brazil or Spain), the results are going to be devastating. Especially when your center backs are Clarence Goodson and Carlos Bocanegra instead of Lucio and Thiago Silva. The US under Bradley played a system that fit its personnel. Players were disciplined, defended diligently, and attacked opportunistically. We packed the midfield and created opportunities on counter-attacks and set pieces. And, for the most part, it worked in a way that trying to pretend we had creative midfielders wouldn't have.
On the other hand, Bradley did have a tendency to trust the same players game in and game out. Everyone watching knew that Jonathan Bornstein was a disaster at left back. To a slightly lesser degree, so was Jonathan Spector. If those were really his least bad options (and quite possibly they were; post-Patella tear Oguchi Onyewu isn't good in the middle, and Jay DeMerit is over the hill, so Carlos Bocanegra might actually be desperately needed at CB), he needed to adjust his lineup; either shift a holding mid out to cover the left back, or have the left midfielder (usually Dempsey) track back and support him. If they were supposed to do that, I didn't see it, since every time one of Bornstein or Spector was in the game, they ended up getting beaten like a drum by any half-decent winger (the latest example was against Mexico in the Gold Cup final; once Steve Cherundolo got hurt and Eric Lichaj had to shift to right back, Mexico had a field day funneling its attacks up the right side, taking advantage of Bornstein. And it wasn't a single game-- it was something that has been happening since Bradley took over, but he really hasn't solved.
So the question is, what can we really hope for from a new coach? Well, a coach can only do so much. The key is players. And even having a guy who's great at developing talent isn't all that much of an advantage, since national team coaches don't get enough time with their teams to do a lot of player development. So the next coach has to be, first and foremost, a tactician who can motivate players to do great things. Unfortunately, the best tacticians are super expensive, and aren't too desperate to come to the US. Guus Hiddink is happy in Europe. Jose Mourinho has no reason to coach any national side at this point, and especially the US. And other top tacticians are either unavailable, not interested, or both.
So where does that leave us? Well, the only realistic options are bringing in a young foreign coach who has some interest in managing here, or bringing in another American who knows the American players and their strengths. I definitely lean toward the latter, and here's why. The prototype for the former approach is Jurgen Klinsmann. He was a legend for Germany, but since retiring, has come to the US, even playing in men's leagues in Southern California under an assumed name. He's still young (turns 47 in two days), and has had some coaching success. Well, at least on the surface. All of that falls apart under some scrutiny. Klinsmann's tenure as Germany coach is actually completely unremarkable. His reputation is built solely on the fact that he took Germany to a third-place finish at the 2006 World Cup. But that "success" falls apart under scrutiny. Germany actually played really badly in the run-up to the World Cup. The complaint was that they lacked talent. But the reality is that the German national team is ALWAYS better than the sum of its parts (heck, before the 2010 World Cup, who thought Mesut Ozil and Thomas Muller were top-quality players?). Just look at their World Cup history-- they finished 3rd in 2010, 3rd in 2006, runners-up in 2002, quarterfinalists in 1998 and 1994, and champions in 1990. In that context, 3rd place is about par for the course. Or at least it would be before you consider that the 2006 World Cup was held in Germany. Just so it's clear how much of an advantage that is, hosting any international event is HUGE. You don't have to travel to another country. The crowd is overwhelmingly in your corner in every game. And you're familiar with the stadium. Until 2010, a World Cup host had NEVER failed to get out of the group stage. In 2002, South Korea got to the semifinals as hosts (and even a down Germany is MILES more talented than South Korea, whether Guus Hiddink is coaching or not). France never won a World Cup until they hosted it. Conclusion: Hosting is HUGE. In that context, Germany's performance doesn't look all that impressive. Then, in his next managerial job, he took over Bayern Munich (by far Germany's biggest, most prestigious club, and always one of the best in Europe), and was run out before he could finish one season. At Bayern, if you don't win the league, you're a failure. Klinsmann bombed out of the Champions League at the quarterfinal stage, and his squad was in third place in the Bundesliga when he was sacked. So why do we want Klinsmann? Because he likes America, speaks good English, is famous, and his Germany squad didn't implode playing at home in 2006? Doesn't sound like much of a foundation for success...
I say bring in some fresh blood-- someone who understands American players and is an innovative tactician. I think it's our best bet for the next cycle.
As a whole, I think Bradley did a good job. The results kind of speak for themselves. He won a Gold Cup. He took the team to the final of the Confederations Cup, beating Spain along the way. He qualified for the World Cup easily. And he won his group at the World Cup. That makes him easily the most successful coach in US soccer history. Did he have some luck along the way? Sure. He also had some bad luck (refereeing decisions against Algeria and Slovenia in particular at the last World Cup tended to go against the US). But he put the team in a position to succeed. And they did a pretty decent job. I think what was ultimately behind that is that he understood the players he had, and put them in a position to be successful. He didn't try to turn Michael Bradley (a holding midfielder by nature) into a playmaker, or try to make Landon Donovan a central playmaker when his best spot was on the wing. The team played a compact, counterattacking style, and it played that style pretty well.
Which is why the first line of criticism that you hear is so misguided. The US plays boring soccer under Bradley, they would say. The midfielders don't possess the ball. There's no creativity in the attack. All of that is true. But that's 100% not on Bradley. Could the US play possession and score exciting goals against, say, Belize? Sure. It'd be a lot of fun and we'd all love it. Now imagine if they tried to do the same thing against Brazil. The result would be an epic disaster. Like when the MLS All-Stars played Man United last night, but probably an order of magnitude worse. But why is that the case, one might ask. Spain plays beautiful, flowing possession soccer and scores boatloads of goals. Well, the difference is that Spain has David Villa and Fernando Torres scoring those goals, and Xavi, Andres Iniesta and Xabi Alonso setting them up. The US has... Jozy Altidore up top, supported by Clint Dempsey and Landon Donovan. If they're lucky, Stu Holden isn't injured. The big difference between Spain and the US is simple: Xavi and Iniesta are brilliant passers who go full games without giving the ball away. The US has... Mike Bradley, Maurice Edu and Jermaine Jones. Who give the ball away on half of their passes, and aren't creative. So, where Xavi can make defenders pressuring him look foolish, the US's center mids are prone to cough the ball up if they try to possess under pressure. And if that happens even against a team like Mexico (to say nothing of Brazil or Spain), the results are going to be devastating. Especially when your center backs are Clarence Goodson and Carlos Bocanegra instead of Lucio and Thiago Silva. The US under Bradley played a system that fit its personnel. Players were disciplined, defended diligently, and attacked opportunistically. We packed the midfield and created opportunities on counter-attacks and set pieces. And, for the most part, it worked in a way that trying to pretend we had creative midfielders wouldn't have.
On the other hand, Bradley did have a tendency to trust the same players game in and game out. Everyone watching knew that Jonathan Bornstein was a disaster at left back. To a slightly lesser degree, so was Jonathan Spector. If those were really his least bad options (and quite possibly they were; post-Patella tear Oguchi Onyewu isn't good in the middle, and Jay DeMerit is over the hill, so Carlos Bocanegra might actually be desperately needed at CB), he needed to adjust his lineup; either shift a holding mid out to cover the left back, or have the left midfielder (usually Dempsey) track back and support him. If they were supposed to do that, I didn't see it, since every time one of Bornstein or Spector was in the game, they ended up getting beaten like a drum by any half-decent winger (the latest example was against Mexico in the Gold Cup final; once Steve Cherundolo got hurt and Eric Lichaj had to shift to right back, Mexico had a field day funneling its attacks up the right side, taking advantage of Bornstein. And it wasn't a single game-- it was something that has been happening since Bradley took over, but he really hasn't solved.
So the question is, what can we really hope for from a new coach? Well, a coach can only do so much. The key is players. And even having a guy who's great at developing talent isn't all that much of an advantage, since national team coaches don't get enough time with their teams to do a lot of player development. So the next coach has to be, first and foremost, a tactician who can motivate players to do great things. Unfortunately, the best tacticians are super expensive, and aren't too desperate to come to the US. Guus Hiddink is happy in Europe. Jose Mourinho has no reason to coach any national side at this point, and especially the US. And other top tacticians are either unavailable, not interested, or both.
So where does that leave us? Well, the only realistic options are bringing in a young foreign coach who has some interest in managing here, or bringing in another American who knows the American players and their strengths. I definitely lean toward the latter, and here's why. The prototype for the former approach is Jurgen Klinsmann. He was a legend for Germany, but since retiring, has come to the US, even playing in men's leagues in Southern California under an assumed name. He's still young (turns 47 in two days), and has had some coaching success. Well, at least on the surface. All of that falls apart under some scrutiny. Klinsmann's tenure as Germany coach is actually completely unremarkable. His reputation is built solely on the fact that he took Germany to a third-place finish at the 2006 World Cup. But that "success" falls apart under scrutiny. Germany actually played really badly in the run-up to the World Cup. The complaint was that they lacked talent. But the reality is that the German national team is ALWAYS better than the sum of its parts (heck, before the 2010 World Cup, who thought Mesut Ozil and Thomas Muller were top-quality players?). Just look at their World Cup history-- they finished 3rd in 2010, 3rd in 2006, runners-up in 2002, quarterfinalists in 1998 and 1994, and champions in 1990. In that context, 3rd place is about par for the course. Or at least it would be before you consider that the 2006 World Cup was held in Germany. Just so it's clear how much of an advantage that is, hosting any international event is HUGE. You don't have to travel to another country. The crowd is overwhelmingly in your corner in every game. And you're familiar with the stadium. Until 2010, a World Cup host had NEVER failed to get out of the group stage. In 2002, South Korea got to the semifinals as hosts (and even a down Germany is MILES more talented than South Korea, whether Guus Hiddink is coaching or not). France never won a World Cup until they hosted it. Conclusion: Hosting is HUGE. In that context, Germany's performance doesn't look all that impressive. Then, in his next managerial job, he took over Bayern Munich (by far Germany's biggest, most prestigious club, and always one of the best in Europe), and was run out before he could finish one season. At Bayern, if you don't win the league, you're a failure. Klinsmann bombed out of the Champions League at the quarterfinal stage, and his squad was in third place in the Bundesliga when he was sacked. So why do we want Klinsmann? Because he likes America, speaks good English, is famous, and his Germany squad didn't implode playing at home in 2006? Doesn't sound like much of a foundation for success...
I say bring in some fresh blood-- someone who understands American players and is an innovative tactician. I think it's our best bet for the next cycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)