What Is Team USA’s Strongest Formation

4-4-2 with Donovan as attacking mid. McBride and Johnson/Wolff up top.

I agree that with only 4 midfielders then some of our best players don’t start, but we can’t sacrifice a defender and go with 3-5-1. Our outside defenders can’t hold their own by themselves at this level and I don’t have much confidence in the ability of our midfielders to defend adequately.

On the flip side, we don’t have a striker that is dangerous enough up top to man it alone — we would never score. So a 4-5-1 is out of the question.

Posted from  United States

I feel like I’m beating a dead horse with how often I make this point (here and elsewhere), but I want the most talent on the field at once. So I want Beasley on the RIGHT of midfield. Even the yanks-abroad.com guys mentioned something like “I hope Beasley is practicing his crosses from the right” So maybe my thoughts on this aren’t far-fetched.

My ideal formation is a 4-4-1-1 with Lewis at left back, Gooch/Gibbs in the center and Cherundolo at right back. A midfield of Convey left, O’Brien/Reyna central and Beasley on the right as mentioned above. Donovan as a withdrawn forward with McBride up top.

Cherundolo can get forward as we all know, providing a natural righ-sided player along the right flank. Beasley is better defensively than Convey allowing ‘Dolo to overlap with confidence. Beasely can then turn opposing left backs inside to their weaker foot.

It’s not written in stone that natural lefties must play the left side and natural righties must play the right side. I think most US commentators/fans have tunnel vision on this issue.

Bobby Convey has been THE form player in the US squad all year with Reading and in the last two matches. Denying him a spot on the field because of Beasely is a mistake when there are viable options that put them both on th field without leaving gaping exposures. I’ll take DMB on the right over Dempsey 100 out of 100 times.

Posted from  United States

Seamus: As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, I am in complete agreement with you on the 4-4-1-1 formation and the inclusion of both Convey and Beasley. The only quibble I would have would be Bocanegra over Gibbs, only because I haven’t seen as much of Gibbs, but I think both are solid.

How healthy is O’Brien? If he is 100%, I hope he gets some solid minutes in these friendlies. When healthy, he gets the nod over Mastroeni. O’Brien is the second most talented U.S. player behind Reyna (IMHO), and of course has experience playing top-flight competition. I do like Mastroeni’s aggressive tackling and ability to commit the professional foul when necessary.

Posted from  United States

I like Seamus’s formation. For one thing, it’d be a shame to leave Convey out of this team given his form over the past year. For another, it allows Donovan to play where he’s most effective – as an attacking mid/withdrawn forward, rather than being stuck out on the wing. I think DMB would make a more than capable right mid.

I also don’t think we’d have to worry about only having one out-and-out striker on the field. With Convey and DMB getting up the wings, and Donovan and McBride in attack, we should be fine.

Posted from  Ireland

4-5-1 with Donovan as a withdrawn forward. Ah crap, 4-4-1-1 sounds better to me.

Posted from  United States

Steve,

Bocanegra is a nice player, but Gibbs is supremely talented. He’s another player I wouldn’t deny a spot.

Matt,

You make a great point that I wanted to get to in my first post, and that’s the fact that with this formation we will have 4 talented attacking players getting forward. And if O’Brien is healthy we’ll have to top class mids with plenty of defensive ability in addition to passing, distribution, and holding the ball.

This is a lineup that can compete against any country, but things have to fall into place, most notably health and current form.

Posted from  United States

This has nothing to do with this post well maybe a little. Do you wanna know the reason why USA is not going to win this world cup? It is because they play like ROBOTS. Their is absolutely no creativity what so ever. Not 1 person has any kind of freedom. Their going to just try and play with Brute Force, athleticism, and Mechanics which works sometimes but eventually they will lose. When Americans learn that this sport is a players game and not a coachs game than maybe theyll have a shot. These players are programmed like computers.

Posted from  United States

I would agree that your post has nothing to do with much of anything.

Posted from  United States

Agreeing with Seamus on the formation, if things stay as they are…

Could go with a 4-4-2 formation, if EJ finds the form he had in early ‘05, and play Donovan and Beasley on the wings.

I could also see Bocanegra as our left back, so you don’t have to worry about both of your outside backs wandering up the field. Plus, that would leave Lewis, who can really play any number of positions, on the bench.

I still wouldn’t write Pope out of central defense, either.

Posted from  United States

Kris,

Sounds like you’re describing a traditional German squad. They’ve never won anything that way….

Posted from  United States

Seamus and Steve have the perfect default lineup and formation.

What we are all afraid to admit is that much of this depends on O’Brien. We shouldn’t kid ourselves into expecting him to start. We should hope that, by some miracle, he’s healthy enough to earn the spot. Without him, our lineup probably looks different. Having a lone attacking forward isn’t so appealing without O’Brien – Johnson would probably get the start up with McBride and Dempsey might find his way into the lineup more often. This could also impact Arena’s willingness to put both Beaseley and Convey in at the same time. But they should both be there, because Beas can handle the reassignment. He’s terrifying for opponents.

Posted from  United States

Did we write off 3-in-the-back a little too quickly?

In arguably our most important World Cup games, The Bruce elected to go with a 3-5-2 back in WC-2002.

The results were a 2-0 win over Mexico, and a 0-1 defeat against Germany, with much of the conventional wisdom labelling the Germans as “fortunate” to have won.

With the exception of Tony Sanneh and Brad Friedel, the rest of that starting line-up will be back, and in my opinion, improved. For example, instead of Eddie Pope at Center Back, we now have the option of playing the big double O.

So, my point is, if you were to ask WWBD? He’s shown his preference for 3-5-2 formations in big games in the past…

Posted from  United States

There are 32 countries biting their nails right now but the point about O’brien being an absolute lynchpin is a good one.

Withou his defensive abilities having beas and convey staring sounds much less appealing

Posted from  United States

I think we sold Sampson out too quickly – this squad would be best in a 3-6-1 formation.

I keed, I keed.

But I do agree with three in the back. The way we’ll win these matches is by holding in the midfield (where we’ve got some solid distributers and ball-winners) and utilizing the flank speed. It also kills me to see one striker get choked out – I can’t even watch. I want the matches to at least be free-flowing.

Posted from  United States

Let’s go with Seamus’ plan to use the best 11. I think that is:

Donovan
Run-DMB
O’Brien
Bocanegra
Gooch
‘Dolo
Reyna
McBride
Eddie Johnson
Mastroeni
Keller

I guess that means 3-5-2.

We do need some creativity though, so let’s hope to God that O’Brien is healthy.

Posted from  United States

Chuck,

I think a 3-5-2 is unnecessary witht the amount of talent on the flanks we already have. with my formation, if the we need numbers forward, Lewis and ‘Dolo can do the job. In this case, Reyna/JOB/Mastroeni will be back for cover–effectively 3 in the back.

What tactical reasons do you see that makes a 3-5-2 desirable? Numbers in the midfield?

Posted from  United States

Seamus,

Good questions…

I’m not necessarily advocating the 3-5-2, but I just think it may have been prematurely dismissed by some of us (myself included — see the original post).

It was interesting that The Bruce used it in a few key games, so I wanted to throw it out there and discuss the merits of the formation or even the logic that The Bruce might be using when he goes 3-5-2.

I think a 4-4-1-1, like you suggest, is good. And as BoB intimated in his reply, above, maybe the 4-4-1-1 is not too dissimilar to the 4-5-1 I argued in favor of.

The bottom line for me is that I like having the numbers in the midfield, regardless of how we get those numbers.

Posted from  United States

Another thing to keep in mind is that 4-4-1-1 can easily rotate into 3-5-2 and back if the match situation calls for it.

With a back line of Lewis-Boca-Gooch-Dolo, you can push Lewis up to the left wing, and Convey can fill in behind Donovan/McBride.

Posted from  United States

Don’t know how blackmouth has wiggled his way into the starting lineup. Seriously, like with Spector, I eagerly tune into Fulham matches to see his progress. And while he generally holds his own, he’s done poorly in matches against the big-time opponents of the EPL. Probably the best example of this was the Man U game where he gave Ruud way too much space on the ball and paid to the tune -if memory serves – of a goal, an assist as well as a JS Park shot that deflected off him into the goal. Throw in the apparent full recovery of Gibbs and Pope’s play in this year’s friendlies and I think you can rate the central defense in this order right now:

1. Oneywu
2. Gibbs
3. Pope
4. Bocanegra
5. Behrhalter

I agree with Seamus in not understanding the 3-5-2 in light the fact that you have Lewis and Dolomight playing forward out of the back. Add to that the fact you have 5 talented and experienced players from which to assemble your 2-man central defense and it seems even more far fetched. Can you imagine Bruce leaving any of those five behind? Would be pretty shocking, right? So he brings the 5 and then sits 4 of them? Or does he put Gibbs or Bocanegra at left back and move Lewis up? I don’t know about you but that thought doesn’t give me much confidence. No, I’d rather see 4 at the back. Down with the 3-5-2

Down with the 4-4-2 as well. Let’s be done with the idea that Johnson is worthy of anything more than McBride’s backup until he proves otherwise. For reference, please go back and take a look at him dribbling away from goal against Germany or Japan. Seriously guys, if he can’t make space for himself and drive toward the target against Japan, can we expect him to do it in the group we face? Sure, we all expect him to contribute and play a role and we hope he’ll break out, but let’s leave it at that for now.

Let’s also kill off the 4-5-1. Hey, I’ve been probably the biggest proponent on these pages, but the “lone striker getting choked out” comment really hit home.

So I’m really behind the 4-3-3 or the 4-4-1-1 hencefoward to be known as “The Seamus Plan”. Both of these formations give us the opportunity to put our best 11 on the field.

One argument is they could be virtually indistinguishable in practice. My argument is that Donovan is not such a virtuoso that we need him wandering around behind McBride looking for an opening like, say, Ronaldinho would. Rather, I’d like to take two of our best players – Donovan on the right and either Beasley or Convey on the left – and have them attack at one point until they can break it down.

Posted from  United States

Okay, call me a convert to the 4-4-1-1 after today’s piss-poor display. We have absolutely zero viable 2nd man for up top.

McBride
Donovan
Beasley Dempsey
Convey Reyna
Lewis, Gibbs, Oneywu, C’dolo
Keller

Posted from  United States

If O’Brien is healthy enough to contribute like he did in 2002, I think you do one of three things (no particular order):

1. 3-5-2 with Reyna, O’Brien, and Donovan in central mid; Gibbs/Boca/Pope with Onyewu and Cherundolo in the back; Beasley, Convey outside-mid; McBride and someone up front . . . don’t think I like this because I don’t think it allows C’dolo to be as offensive-minded with 3 in the back . . . or if you put C’Dolo at outside mid in that formation, it takes moves Beasley or Convey out of the line-up most likely, leaving a talented player of the field

2. 4-4-2: move Donovan up front, O’Brien and Reyna in central mid, and put Lewis at left-back (or maybe Convey with Dempsey as the other outside mid)

3. 4-4-2 keeping Donovan at attacking central mid (which is his best spot, but leaves us worrying about whether the second forward will step up or not) and putting Reyna or O’Brien at left-back . . . remember Reyna played a game back there in 2002 and O’Brien used to play that spot for Ajax

I don’t think anyone other than O’Brien, Reyna, or Donovan should be starting in the middle – Mastroeni doesn’t have the same ability to control the game as any of them.

Without O’Brien I think you have a 4-4-2 with Donovan at central mid, and Lewis at left-back

I think using a 4-4-2 with offensively talented players who can still play solid defense at outside back will maximum the use of our talent. Basically, I think it allows us to put a talented player in at left-back (O’Brien, Reyna, Lewis, Convey) that might otherwise be on the bench.

Posted from  United States

If O’Brien is healthy and fit…
McBride/Donovan
Convey/OBrien/Reyna/Beasley
Lewis/Gibbs/Oneywu/Dolo

If no O’Brien…
put Mastroeni in for O’Brien, and book it.

Posted from  United States

[...] Following the great response to Chuck’s excellent post USA World Cup Blog is still seekingposts from readers… [...]

Posted from  United States

Ok this is against the rules but what about the chelski formation? (4-2-3-1) This team has great attacking midfielders, where is where the chelshea formation gets it’s offense. mcbride is a target man, like drogba. as compared to the rest of the world, the US has great fitness and speed, which i think this formation exploits.

gk – keller
back four (i’ll let you folks debate that one)
mastroeni / o’brien + reyna in D mid
convey donovan beasley in O mid
mcbride target man

Posted from  United States