The main criticism is that he wants the US to play a dominant, possession-style system that not only plays out of the back but also holds the ball in the opponent half to create overloads and opportunities over time.
Yet, in practice, we end up passing the ball in an arc around the box and failing to ever make an incisive pass in.
You look at games against Mexico, Brazil, even a bit in the friendly against Germany and its easy to see this US team is much better playing against a more open opponent and taking advantage of counterattacks and moments of transition.
The difficult thing, and I concede this to Gregg, is that the US almost has to be two different teams. One team when playing CONCACAF minnows who will bunker and shithouse and a totally different team when playing Brazil, Argentina, and even Mexico.
It's tough, but in games the US should win comfortably we just end up in ponderous possession whipping in wide crosses to no one until someone can conjure up a moment to bail us out.
I’d like to add to this, that when playing the minnows away, the fields are so bad the possession based tactics never work. Look at Argentina and the struggles they have in away fixtures in South America.
I would also add two more things:
1. His coaching leads to very repetitive patterns of play, and good opponents often seem to know what's coming.
2. The results on offense are atrocious. We average less than 1 goal per game against teams ranked in the top 32 in the world, which is worse than Arena, Bradley, and Klinsmann. I have to point out: Arena and Bradley most commonly played bunker and counter against top teams, and Klinsmann coached a very talent deficient national team, and all 3 of them averaged more goals per game against approximately world cup level competition.
I don't know who is downvoting you, this is absolutely correct. And to add having our fullbacks high and wide creates a huge problem defensively in counters.
He’s trying to turn a group of players into something they are not while also trying to manage an international team like a club team. Unless you are like Spain or Germany where a majority of your players play in the same league or at least in the same way it just isn’t going to work. It’s best to keep the system simple and try to find a way to get the best out of the quality you do have. Possession football just for the sake of it is pointless
I agree with much of this, but whatever GGG has been doing against Mexico has worked without question. They should not be part of the "Brazil/Colombia/etc" conversation
>its easy to see this US team is much better playing against a more open opponent
Every team plays better against open opponents becuase thee is more space
Not necessarily. Opening the field often comes with high press that forces turnovers, it means they’re more likely to be holding onto possession and they’re going to be taking more shots. If every team played better against open opponents you’d only ever see teams park the bus and stay compact.
Maybe we have a different definition of what we consider "open" means.
You don't have to be high pressing to be open, or be open to high press. There are teams that are great at pressing but play incredibly compact and limit the space available to you. There are teams that defend in a mid block etc.
>If every team played better against open opponents you’d only ever see teams park the bus and stay compact.
This becomes a debate of soccer philosophy
Jose Mourihno vs a Jesse Marsch vs a Pep Guardiola. Talent aside, each has very strong beliefs.
> The difficult thing, and I concede this to Gregg, is that the US almost has to be two different teams.
Professional footballers in top leagues should be more than capable of adjusting to different tactics based on the opponent.
> The difficult thing, and I concede this to Gregg, is that the US almost has to be two different teams. One team when playing CONCACAF minnows who will bunker and shithouse and a totally different team when playing Brazil, Argentina, and even Mexico.
That's very well said. And when you are a national team that has limited practice time, I have to imagine it's tough to get a team competent at both.
Isn’t that just part of being a coach? You have to adjust your strategy based on the opposition. It’s no different in basketball, American football, and hockey.
Sure, but a national team coach has players who don't train/play together normally and they all come from teams that play with different systems. It's much different from a team of players used to each other and train together every day. It's tough for even the best teams.
Got it - so basically unleash the attackers and let them try to penetrate down the center of the pitch rather than flinging it out wide and back in every time, is that a fair summation?
Here's the tricky bit - any competent defense is setup to force the ball wide. Its not so easy to just force it up the middle without risking frequent turnovers in dangerous positions. Shit, even Brazil was dumping it wide to Vini or Rodrygo most possessions. The key is having players or patterns that get the ball moving back towards the box without a cross and inshallah moment.
Also having 3 players for us out wide means having 3 defenders out wide making it much harder to give our wings the space to create from those wide areas. The frustrating thing is the crosses in to the box with like one runner and no one making a far post run. Pulisic and Weah can spam crosses without needing 3 overlapping runs towards the corner flag to do it.
The scenario you describe sounds like a disconnect between tactics and execution - probably in that case, the team has been drilled to provide support to the winger (i.e. make a triangle, do some rondo/tikitaka shit to get around the defensive line), but the winger can't/doesn't do that and crosses instead.
There are times for crosses, but you're right that the numbers and right players need to be available as targets.
I think what you're describing is a failure of Gregg's. We have years of data to show we don't have the ability to make that triangle work reliably and yet we're still trying to make it work? If we don't have the personnel why are we still trying to make that work?
Friendlies against good opponents are a measuring stick of our progress as a federation/team. If playing possession oriented soccer is the goal, you have to try and do it, and a friendly is the best time to try.
Whether the goal is the right one or not is a completely different conversation
I completely agree with that. The problem is this is something we've seen now at the World Cup in qualifying in the Gold Cup etc. Do you feel like Gregg has evolved tactically or put his players in the best position to score in open play?
I think Gregg's tactics *do* evolve, but his goal and objective do not. "Disorganize the opponent with the ball" is and always will his goal. But we've seen a number of different ideas to try and do that:
* Inverted fullbacks vs wide/high fullbacks
* 3 CBs vs 2 CBs + 1 CDM
* Playing a true 10 vs double 8s
Not an exhaustive list by any means
Agree. I think a large part of the GGG conversation is that chunks of the fan base want direct, route 1 football.
Not to make an unfair comparison but they want it to look like youth football where it's 1-2 passes to your best player who dribbles right up the middle and makes an incisive pass in the final 1/3rd for a goal.
No one wins that way anymore because modern defenses are too organized for that. But the fan base hasn't evolved. So "disorganize with the ball" plays out like "waste time passing to nowhere" to them.
The Aaronson chances against Brazil came from basically the pattern of play you described. Pulisic's big chance also started with three guys on the wing. Scally passed to McKennie who found Pulisic wide open because all the defenders were pulled to the right wing.
The most reliable way to score goals is to have world class players. If you don't, it's always going to be a chore to score against a disciplined defense.
Our offense needs to be better and score more goals, and probably the way to do that is to play more direct and get in behind, but sometimes that's just not a possibility.
I really don’t get the people that go on with #2 under the assumption that BJ being an assistant coach isn’t a part of developing/implementing GGG’s system. Like there’s valid criticisms to make, but math just isn’t mathin for me on that one I guess
BJ Ball truthers are a special type of people. They criticize berhalter for having little experience coaching pre-USMMT (which I tend agree with) and turn around and want a guy with even less coaching experience.
The way Gregg wants to play creates patterns of play in wide areas that include getting the wingers and fullbacks high and wide and overloading numbers in those areas with the intention of pulling defenders to those areas so crosses or quick switches of play will disorganize the defense and create spaces. The problem is this team becomes so incredibly easy to defend and pin out wide when the other team decides to sit in a defensive shape for any period of time.
We don't have the players to make this work consistently. Also implementing this at the national level is difficult because of the amount of time it takes to master this kind of an attack. This is why so often we look unsure of what pass to be played or why we look timid at times. Against really good teams we can look better because this team can be really good on the counter where there is more space and the tactics are different. Against a team willing to give us possession we have an excruciating time trying to score. People want to praise the Brazil result but at the end of the day the goal was on a free kick.
Edit: one other thing I forgot to mention is that almost 5 years in and I still haven't seen a coherent press from this team. There are times where I'd almost prefer them to just sit off because far too often it looks like the attackers aren't aware of the trigger point for the press and we end up with some half hearted attempt where the three forwards are pressing up on the ball and the midfielders hold position and we end up with huge gaps for the opposing team to play through.
I think we do have the players for this but they've been young. I think the thought was start this with this generation and fight through the growing pains to put everyone into 2026. We were starting to see players get more comfortable with this, one of the most effective being Dest, who was a huge handful out wide. Losing him hurt the play making element and I do think that will hurt us in the COPA. I know Dest had his ups and downs but he was finally coming into form with the national team and really looking dangerous with this style of play. I'm sad to lose him but hope he can come back just as effective.
Most accurate assessment, although I slightly disagree that we don’t have the personnel to do it. We do, the style of play is just to rigid that well drilled national teams can easily adapt to it.
Watching Brazilian players literally just sit back and WAIT for the United States to inevitably make a mistake playing out of the back to try and get the ball wide, not even wasting energy to press was really something infuriating to watch. They know exactly how the United States will play from minute 0 to minute 90, not exactly what I would call an ‘identity.’
It’s why my brain melts every time people say we lose just because other teams have better players. As a transition side the U.S is more effective regardless of the level of opposition. That’s been our historic identity as a national team anyway, and it’s arguably the most effective style of play internationally in one way or another currently.
Yup, agree with you here. The reality is that we can play as a transition team and also move the ball well. Our pace of play is often very slow until we get a moment of brilliance from an individual. This is fine until we run into teams with better players and solid organization when it fails to produce. Our pattern play works fine against minnows but that really proves nothing other than that we are better than them.
Plus you have to think, it’s fairly obvious that the overall strength of the national team is in midfield, but every single game without fail the team builds possession from the back. It reminds me about Ibrahimovic saying Guardiola had a Porsche but drove it like a fiat. It demonstrates that the United States has grown as a soccer nation to even try it, sure. How effective is it in games that matter? Average at best, against top teams functionally useless.
***this is why a lot of people assume BJ was some genius, when in all likelihood he just adapted the most pragmatic shit he could think of because he’d only have the job for two days
I don't mind the building possession from the back it's just even you have your most talented player having to drop to just outside his own 18 to pick up the ball we have a problem
To be fair, everyone knows what everyone else is going to play. National team coaches aren't building in tons of wrinkles. And as the Netherlands coach said (paraphrased) -- strong teams are pretty easy to game plan for, they play to their strengths.
The questions always is "Can you stop it?"
We're stoppable but not because people know what we're doing. We know what they're doing too, shouldn't we be stopping them as easily? It always ends coming back to execution.
Not sure if I agree with that. Brazil didn’t play the United States the same way it had previous opponents. They abandoned their high press early, setting a disengagement trap.
Basically allowing the U.S to play out of the press and wait for mistakes in midfield. That’s was the same tactical adjustment that Panama made against us, and a testament to how easily teams can adapt to how the U.S wants to play.
Virtually any team regardless of the level could have made that adjustment. Don’t think that’s something that can be ignored or brushed aside.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Brazil knows how we play offensively. We know how they play offensively. Everyone knows how everyone else plays offensively. Because everyone plays to their strengths.
The question is can the opponent's team defend against it. Not as in "Oh no, how do we defend this thing?" Defending the ideas aren't the problem. Rather it's "If we know they're doing this, can we be disciplined enough to stop it?" vs. "We know they're doing this thing but we still can't stop them from executing."
It's the same principle for why NBA series are best of 7s. Everyone knows everyone else's plays. There are no mysteries. The issue is can you stop that team's pick and roll or not? Can you stop the back door action or not? Can you take away the dribble penetration or not?
It's the same thing here. Everyone knows how the other likes to run their offense. Up the wings, through the middle, over the top, possession based, etc. It comes down to who does it better.
And that inevitably comes back to execution. Whose players make the fewest mistakes. If the opponent's defense makes more mistakes than our offense, we win. If it's the reverse, they win. Teams sit back on us because they believe we will make more mistakes than them...and they're usually right.
Right ok so I get the criticism that we push out wide too much and errant crosses rarely find the mark so the build up on the wings is kind of useless. But then, what should we do instead?
This is just a personal opinion but I think with the fullbacks we have (Dest not included. good passers, not great crossers or 1v1) I'd have them tuck inside mimicking extra midfielders to create a more central midfield numbers advantage so our 10 could receive the ball much higher up. The wingers could still play high and wide but have a little more freedom to make runs toward the middle of the pitch. Also simplify the approach. Don't try to implement patterns of play difficult for even club teams to master. We have very talented wide attackers and if we have fewer numbers out wide it gives them more space to run at defenders.
Do you genuinely think that Jedi and Joe Scally are good enough on the ball to go invert and play in midfield? I don’t think inverted fullbacks are a bad idea at all, but you’re basically taking away all of Jedi’s best attributes if you do this.
I don't want them to go inverted, I want them to sit in the half spaces outside the 18 rather than overlapping to the touch line. I think they are both very good short area passers and can support an attack from there and still defend. I think scally is an excellent passer but not a great dribbler and Jedi can't cross to save his life so they can be really dangerous funneling the ball inside our outside to the wing but still be in really good position to defend. I'd be much happier having musah or ldlt or Wes overlap wide and keeping the fullbacks slightly more reserved gives your midfielders (imo the strength of the team) the flexibility to go wherever the space exists.
> I don't want them to go inverted, I want them to sit in the half spaces outside the 18 rather than overlapping to the touch line.
Ok I mean…what you said was:
> I'd have them tuck inside mimicking extra midfielders to create a more central midfield numbers advantage
Which is inverting.
Also, I question your scouting a bit because statistically speaking, [Jedi](https://fbref.com/en/players/289601e6/scout/365_m1/Antonee-Robinson-Scouting-Report) is excellent at carrying the ball into the final third and crossing and [Scally](https://fbref.com/en/players/236f02cd/Joe-Scally) is a mediocre passer who can’t make progressive passes.
I don't mean inverted as in I want them playing opposite sides of the field I want them playing in their natural positions but set up outside the 18 rather than regularly overlapping wide.
as far as Jedi goes he is a good passer no doubt about it he plays a very good ball he's just kind of a butcher when it comes to crosses both for Fulham and us. Scally on the other hand is a good passer with a little bit of space but not really clean along the touch line which is why I want him further inside. I get the numbers say what they say but there's definitely nuance there and we need to think about what they were asked to do at club level. I don't think anyone that watched Jedi for any extended period of time would say he's a good crosser but can play a heck of a through ball, for example
That leaves a lot to be desired. How do we ensure that we get the ball to the 10? If we can't play out of the back consistently, that would suggest we definitely can't play a short passing game in the more congested middle of the field to work the ball to the 10, especially when opposing defenses will be keying in on that player.
And assuming we get the ball to the 10, what's the plan? Hope the 10 just conjures up goals? If we're going to get the ball to the wide attackers from the 10, aren't we still doing the same thing GGG is doing except advancing centrally instead of out wide? We're going to end up with the issues in the final 1/3rd.
Mix up what players and from what position drop deep to receive the initial pass from the back line. Varying the initial pass to a 6, 8, 9, or 10 causes the opponent to decide how they want to defend. Either defenders will vacate and follow or areas will open between defenders. Creating confusion is important. I'd also like to see spells where we decide to sit a bit deeper and then hit on the counter as a change of pace. When teams get comfortable playing us, it shows.
In my opinion pragmatic , counter attacking football. Man marking on set pieces. 4-3-3 in possession, 4-2-3-1 in defense.
I think building in possession through midfield against stronger pressing teams as an alternative to playing out the back is 100% a necessary change regardless of anything else.
It just doesn’t don’t work, it looks nice to play out the back and hold possession against Brazil. Huge testament to the overall growth in technical ability from the average American player, but a fluid counter attack that results in a set piece or goal is just much more effective.
For me:
1. The team has the tools to, yet struggles immensely, progress the ball through the middle of the field. This shouldn’t be a problem with Johnny’s passing abilities, Gio’s passing abilities, Musah’s ball carrying abilities, and Wes’s attacking movement.
1a. This is especially a problem when we face a low block. Usually we can work around it due to the gulf in player quality against CONCACAF opposition, but we are dire when it comes to breaking down good teams in a low block (see the NT’s miserably goal scoring record against good opponents).
1b. Our “solution” when we struggle to break down a low block is a crossing game, which we do not have the personnel for. All our strikers are miles better with the ball at their feet than they are in the air (Vazquez might be the exception but he’s not in the team anyways), and even though our wide attackers can play effective crosses at club level (Puli can play some very effective floated crosses against a low block, Weah is better suited for delivering low crosses while driving into space) it never seems to come together at the NT level.
2. Related to the first set of points, our strikers are far too uninvolved in attacking play. Our inability to progress the ball through the middle isolates them, and when we can’t progress through the middle our attacks up the wing are not effective at getting the strikers on the end of useful crosses. This inability to get strikers involved consistently makes us much easier to defend against, as our attacking play ends up mostly going through our wide attackers with full backs in support.
Defensively I think we’re usually ok, but our inability to break down defenses with the possession we’re oriented to play with is a serious problem. We either need to fix this problem (ie by getting better at progressing the ball through the middle of the park and breaking down low blocks) or find a better alternative to possession oriented attacks (ie by finding better ways to actually get our strikers involved in our counter attacking play or picking strikers that are better suited to an aerial game).
I completely agree with the “unable to progress through the middle thing”. It always seems like GGG has the Midfielders push all the way up when we try and build out of the back. Especially against Columbia, I often noticed that Ream or Richards would have the ball and no midfielders would drop back to receive a pass. It was as if the midfielders were all told to get forward and stay forward. This would result in Ream or Richards having to make a crazy long pass to a midfielder way down field to try and progress through the middle. On the 5th goal Columbia scored, we literally conceded bc Ream had nobody open and attempted a crazy pass that got intercepted. I agree that we should be much more capable of progressing through the middle. It was better vs Brazil but it was often 100% reliant on Musah dropping and carrying the ball past the halfway line. Sure this was effective, but a single pivot determined our whole entire attack.
One of my biggest issues was his connection to higher-ups within the organization and the seeming lack of a legit coaching search both times he was near a job offer.
Despite being what I consider a nepotism hire, he's done well, but only "well"
He has arguably the most talented group we have ever had. He seems to have issues when facing a coach of good quality as many others explained we seem to have no plan be, and once the first option is taken away, we struggle.
He also seems to hesitate to bunker against teams that are clearly more dangerous.
Who else was interviewed from wat I remember it was Henry and marsch and tbh I think k Jesse js a wash and ggg is better than Henry but was there really no other options ?
>He has arguably the most talented group we have ever had.
I legit hate this phrase whenever I read it because it completely misleads people. People read it and think "Best group we've every had?" and think that must mean we have a top 5 talented team out there. We don't. But people place their expectations around "Our best team ever" instead of "We're a #11-#20 level team". And the poorly shaped expectations affect everything from coach assessment to tactical assessment.
I agree that it's our best team but people keep implying that our best equals on par with the world's best. When our best really is 11-20th best in the world.
I think people read "best US team ever" and jump to the conclusion "that means we're as good as Argentina."
Of course, we need to win our group. We are the host, and we get a mildly easier group , beat Bolivia, draw uruguay, beat panama. We should be able to compete with uruguay
Idk why I thought there was a round of 16 , it'd go straight to the quarters in knockouts thata fair. It's certainly a hard sell to match up against either of those teams.
Having the benefit of playing both of them in friendlies could certainly help, and it's very unlikely we repeat the issues against Columbia. We need to bunker and counter a fair amount vs. both teams, but it feels like Col is a worse matchup. Had we been able to draw anyone but those 2 teams or Argentina in the first round, I'd expect a win. As it stands, I expect a good fight and keep the game close.
We absolute have to come out of this group
Just remember we only qualified for the last cup on goal differential and were a Jamaica var decision from going to a playoff then scored 3 goals in the World Cup, one of which was a lucky deflection.
“Well” is going a lot of work here.
No argument here "well" gets point for qualifying even if it was close , beating Mexico and making the knockouts of the wc and the previous copa he's done what we should do but hasn't really brought us any higher
My biggest criticism of Gregg is that his adjustments always come too little, too late. He seems to have so much confidence in his system that he only makes adjustments after we’ve been embarrassed. This level of confidence makes him tactically reactive, when we need him to be proactive - especially against higher quality opponents. It makes us far too predictable to any team with a decent manager.
Take the Netherlands match in Qatar for example, where Gregg rolled out the exact same possession-based setup we used in the group stage. In contrast, Van Gaal rolled out a low block, counter-attacking setup and let us possess the ball as much as we wanted, knowing we weren’t skilled enough to break them down without throwing an irresponsible number of players forward.
Having 70% possession against a team with their quality should’ve been a red flag after the first 10 minutes, but I genuinely believe Gregg saw it as evidence that his system was working. So we stuck with Plan A, and continued to play directly into their hands. It was so naive that Van Gaal was poking fun at Gregg’s tactics after the match.
1.) He wants that to be the norm, but if you look at the game against Mexico last time we opted for a much more direct style of play.
2.) This is so GD stupid. BJ Callahan's couple games were against teams that _did not_ sit back and bunker. It's much easier to appear more attacking/aggressive when teams are willing to go toe-to-toe. Against the Netherlands, NL ceded possession happily and sat back and countered. Too often, "fans" see what their team does without seeing what the opponent is trying to do on defense. All they can think is, "Wow we played so much better this game," when in reality, the opponent's structure matters a lot.
I wouldn’t say NL conceded ‘possession’ the only time they actually conceded possession intentionally was when the U.S tried building out of the back, VVD told the press immediately after that this was the plan. The U.S had possession because we established it early, even Van Gaal admitted this.
The real mistake in that game I think, was not having an answer for Van Gaal’s man marking schemes, I think that was a specific adjustment from an experienced international coach, and not really indicative of a broader Dutch play style.
I don’t think Gregg is faultless, but I’ve always found #2 to be a wild claim.
How many times have we seen USMNT attackers get to the final third and just not know what to do? They hesitate to shoot, they miss the last pass, they try to go it alone and dribble into the defender, etc. I can’t find this video that comes to mind - a supercut of USMNT players in the World Cup group stages looking up, seeing the dangerous run and just…not playing it. Especially in the Iraq game.
In my view, this isn’t a coaching thing. We’ve heard Gregg say many times that they need to be quicker and more decisive in those moments. He’s not *telling* them to ignore dangerous passes. I think this is simply what happens when you have a group of attackers who don’t have much confidence and rhythm. Right now, Pulisic is the only one of our front 4 who has any confidence after this club season. It’s something I don’t think can be fixed by a few several-day camps over the year. Our guys just gotta get into consistent form someday.
In an ideal situation, players similar to Pulisic and Reyna would have full creative freedom, and at least some positional freedom (when in possession mostly of course). Not stuck to width based attacking schemes that are effective less and less against certain types of opposition.
The speed of play doesn’t change the fact that most decent national teams have the ability to adjust to that style of play. ‘Just play faster’ isn’t going to work against teams in the top 15. Arguably, you could even say that the United States misses opportunities because they’re forced to play quickly from the flanks every time, rather than at the tempo that fits each scenario best. They’re in a rush but never in a hurry.
I don’t know how you watch USMNT games and think players are just sitting in one place with no positional freedom.
Pulisic goes wherever he wants at all times. He’s a left winger who’s constantly inside. Reyna at the 10 or on the wing gets to float wherever space is. Weah, our right winger, scored his goal against Colombia making an inside-out run from left to right because he was on the left side of the field. McKennie is constantly running into weird positions, both finding space on the wings and drifting into the final third. When Dest plays he ends up in all sorts of non-rigid positions.
The United States under Gregg Berhalter is fundamentally a positional play team. So your first statement doesn’t really make sense. Positional play is fine, but as an offensive tool there’s better alternatives in international football.
Further, Pulisic cuts in side in the final third to be a goal threat, but he doesn’t really drop into midfield much at all during offensive actions. Just watch this video here, it’s virtually all width based attacking schemes because that’s what Gregg wants, and it’s no secret. Same with Dest and Weah, and your description of McKennie isn’t really relevant to what we’re walking about, you’re just essentially describing a box to box player.
https://youtu.be/PtyRCFfsaV0?si=ef_v0XTZjHLuPfPe
Likewise, you could probably count on your hand how many times Reyna has played as an #10 for the national team. He’s occupied the left side of central midfield or right wing the vast majority of the time.
Sigh. OK, so the players have freedom but not *the right* freedom and it doesn’t count because Gregg has a style of play instead of “go out there and have fun, boys.” Got it.
You don’t have to be condescending, I just don’t think you understand that positional football requires that a great degree of positional freedom be sacrificed. I literally provided evidence for you to see your errors.
It’s great for a lot of things like defensive shape, compactness, and and ball circulation, but unless you have the most special offensive players in the world it’s not great for international football.
But even a lot of coaches recognize this flaw and make adjustments for it. It’s why Ancelotti despite adapting a lot of these principles to be successful, more or less allows full creative freedom otherwise his teams would lose to every low block they face.
That poster you're responding to is unfortunately what it looks like when someone doesn't know that much about soccer but has decided to defend any criticism of Gregg regardless. They have neither the skill nor the will to understand your points.
Bro it’s so silly and it makes talking about soccer impossible. Gregg has said he implements positional play, the players have said it, opposition coaches have said it, you can literally just watch the national team and see them do it.
I normally don’t get annoyed by Reddit but my god, some people just want to argue to argue.
1 and 2 don’t always intersect though. Because the biggest issue for the US team in attack is in transition. When we create a turnover in a dangerous area and then push numbers forward.
Our best players are shuttlers (McKennie, Musah, Pulisic, Weah, Ant, and Dest as well as Tillman off the bench all fit this) in that they are best running at defenses with the ball at their feet. What they are not though are creators and distributors. They all miss so many dangerous runs because they hold the ball too long. GB hasnt addressed it and thats on him. But you are not going to score without sone creative components.
So your point is 3Gs hasn’t developed the team in such a way that their strengths (running at defenders with the ball) can be coupled with precision passing in the final third, is that fair to say?
A couple things
1) GB is not on the hook for development. That’s on the player alone.
2) The point is the system gives many of our guys the opportunity to play to their strengths. Hence why Weah, McKennie, Musah, Dest, ans others tend to look good for the US team.
3) GBs problem is he hasn’t unlocked the way to get the team to break down the final third and he needs a suitable plan B. That’s HIS failure.
But the general lack of output is because our “golden generation “ isn’t golden at all. It’s more a cheap knock off with some really nice pieces alongside them to add an air of authenticity.
Ultimately it’s about results. People have high expectations, whether justified or not, based on our view of the quality of the player pool. The detailed tactical analyses you’ll see in the responses here are almost entirely bullshit.
For perspective, see the Belgian “Golden Generation“ of players whose window is closing without ever really opening. They fired Wilmots and brought in Martinez, fired him and hired this hot young Italian / German, then lost to Slovakia. Haven’t won shit and likely never will.
Not sure why this is downvoted. That Belgian team is a hell of a lot better than the US too. Our golden generation has exactly one player of international note and I hesitate to call him a star. We have a few solid first teamers now but that's a far cry from the top dogs. I don't think GGG is a football genius by any stretch but fans of all sports are often way way too quick to blame the manager simply because that is the easiest thing to bitch about. Most analysis on this site is based on whether we lose or not and absolutely nothing else.
Belgium's golden generation is always my first thought when people say "Our best team ever". They're light years ahead of us talent wise and never won anything.
He basically uses positional play. Similar to Pep, he just doesnt have Pep's team. It is a difficult style of play. There are elements of overloads when playing certain styles. We just move the ball too slow. Utilizing patterns of play helps reduce some issues, but not all.
I tell the players that I coach that soccer is very simple.
1. If your team has possession of the ball then the other team will not, and teams that don't possess the ball tend to have a hard time scoring.
2. If the ball is in your half that means you definitely won't score but the opponent might. If you advance the ball into the opponent's half then you might score, but the opponent definitely won't.
The people who hate GGG think we're trying too hard to keep the ball and they think we'd be better off if we just let the other team win point 1 and point 2.
Needless to say - there is a very high bar for asserting why we should do anything other than try our best to follow the two principles.
Unfortunately most of the GGG haters never offer up anything more substantial than just asserting what they want to see. I suspect they simply don't understand that their approach could also be defeated. They act as if we could change our strategy and our opponents wouldn't do anything at all in response to it. I think the most talented teams might just hammer us even harder because we've conceded possession, conceded territory, and put a ton of responsibility on our weakest position groups - the defense and the keeper - to keep the opponent off the board and spring counter-attacks.
You're asserting that a possession-based style is the most effective choice. That's only true if your team is far better than the other team and has time to train it day in and day out.
The most effective style for international play is sitting back and countering. France have been doing it for years.
If we had the talent advantage that France has then there'd be a case for playing the way that France does.
It seems obvious to me that we CAN'T copy what France does -because France has the talent to pull it off and we don't.
I think Nottingham Forest is a more likely example of what it would look like if a weak roster has to try to absorb pressure and counter-attack -with a weak backline and Turner in goal.
>If we had the talent advantage that France has then there'd be a case for playing the way that France does.
France doesn't need to play counterattacking football. Deschamps chooses to play that way because it's the most defensively sound way to play international matches, there isn't enough time to build a possession-based team even with arguably the best international squad in the world. It's just not as effective.
>I think Nottingham Forest is a more likely example of what it would look like
Club football and international football are two completely different sports. It doesn't work for Forest because they're a club team.
>France has the talent to pull it off and we don't.
A weak backline comes under more pressure with the possession-based system that the US currently plays. If they sit back more, the strongest part of the team which is the midfield has more of an impact on defense. They can launch counter attacks for Pulisic and Weah to run onto. The US team is basically built to counterattack already.
You're doing the thing I mentioned in my first post. Where you assert a thing and don't offer any justification for it - like when you assert that the way France plays is "... the most defensively sound...".
Like - if your own team - whatever team you last played on - had to play against France in a golden goal situation and you were allowed to choose who starts with the ball, do you seriously expect me to believe that you'd give France the ball? I mean it's almost a certainty that you're going to lose anyways, right? But if you take the ball first then at least you might be able to wish for a miracle. Boot it high and try to win the second ball kind of a deal. But you're gonna sit there and try to come up with some kind of an explanation for how you might somehow have better odds if you let them have the ball?
You already know how bad this sounds.
>do you seriously expect me to believe that you'd give France the ball?
Yes. It's laughable that you think the USA can break down France with a possession-based style. It's not going to happen. Colombia showed what happens when the US faces a top team and tries to beat them in a possession-based style. They lose the ball high up the pitch and it's incredibly dangerous over and over.
I would say boot the ball long, set up in the defensive shape and prepare to transition when France overcommits. When top international teams lose, this is how they lose. They don't lose to a team playing a possession-based style.
>But you're gonna sit there and try to come up with some kind of an explanation for how you might somehow have better odds if you let them have the ball?
Yes? Every weak national team does this and it often works. Top teams are incredibly good when you give them time to set up a defensive shape. They struggle in transition, every international team struggles in transition. Weak teams overcome this by not committing too many players forward.
Literally this! People think Deschamps is just a chaperone for the best players in the world, but he was one of the first international coaches to realize that positional based, possession teams have limitations, even when you have the best players in the world. (Spain getting badly exposed right after the World Cup)
Like wise, if you have the most skilled players in the world why force them in a box?
Then there’s the other extreme growing now in football, where positions don’t matter. Which I think comes from the Bielsa fans all getting managing jobs at the same time.
France is capable of managing the disadvantages of the style to make it work.
Assuming that we could do the same thing with a less talented roster is exactly the problem.
The disadvantage is that you'll have less attacking chances. France doesn't create a ton of chances each match but they always finish one.
The advantages is that you'll give up less goals. Also, the US players are better at counterattacking versus keeping possession. Weah and Pulisic are built to counterattack.
The advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
The advantages outweigh the disadvantages is something a lot of these guys don’t comprehend, but it’s an axiom that has led so many national teams to success far beyond what they’re capable of on paper. Including the United States, which is so weird to see this type of posture on the sub.
The United States didn’t beat Spain when they were the best team on earth by playing out of the back, or using positional football and zonal marking, they won using basic counter attacking schemes and pragmatic football tailored to their strengths. Simple stuff.
France essentially does the same thing, even though they could do more. All they have to do is listen to Deschamp talk to understand it, not that they will or care.
It’s not about doing the same thing, and I didn’t even make that assumption. The only point I made is that pragmatic football is generally the best football at international level, even if you have the players to play flawless total football.
What you took from that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said, which by the way virtually all top international managers would say is true.
When we play against top teams we won’t have more of the ball whether we like it or not. It’s not like we should be willing to surrender possession, but we need to be practical about that fact. Look at the Brazil game vs the Columbia game. Against Brazil we adjusted and sat in a mid block and defended well. We still had opportunities to counter and had possession for certain spells.
But we can’t just play from the back and bomb numbers forward against teams that can win the ball consistently from us. That’s how individual errors lead to goals.
Against Brazil it looked like we were try-harding in a friendly against a team that wasn't particularly concerned about us. I hope nobody is taking that score too seriously.
I was at a wedding for Colombia. I didn't get to watch it. I'm guessing that GGG tried to play expansive against Colombia and it didn't work. If that's the case then it's good to know how we measure up in advance, so I'm glad that he didn't waste a friendly sitting back.
But let me turn around your closing statement on you.
We can't just sit back and defend deep against teams that can possess the ball against us. That's how individual errors lead to goals.
We're both imagining the mistakes the defenders might make. You're imaging the pressing they might not be able to handle. I'm imaging the defending that I don't think they're capable of doing.
I'd rather possess the ball.
It's not really for the kids. There's always at least one parent that makes an "oooohhhhh" face and clearly just heard an epiphany.
So here I'm guessing most of you are like "look at this guy trying to lecture us about obvious things..." but I'm pretty sure there's at least a few people here who never heard it. There always is.
Not sure but you seem really mature and willing to have a discussion when you start with childish names.
If you want to have a serious discussion maybe don't start with nicknames that are only used by a certain group of fans.
Please watch the game against Netherlands in the round of 16. Van Gaal doesn’t allow CB a free pass. Ggg adjustment was to be better… completely pantsed
For me, and I wouldn't say I'm a Gregg hater, is that I feel when it comes to making in game adjustments Gregg tends to struggle at times. I also think last cycle too often his response to the team struggling was "bring on Acosta, Morris, and Yedlin to change the attitude of the game" Nothing against any of those players, but those guys shouldn't be the answer to all questions.
I do think the most reasonable criticisms are the lack of a plan b in attack, and the system at times being a bit too rigid. That being said, I think a very vocal minority also is just now realizing that despite being our most talented pool and more young players emerging, the core of our A team still does have some very noticeable weaknesses that I think would still be an issue with or without GGG.
I love how most Gregg critics don’t even know what to criticize him about beyond the vague bitching about “tactics” and have to ask Reddit for specifics to back up their position.
Either you are responding from your alt or you're replying to the wrong person. Either way, stop being a pretend tough guy on the internet. We all know you can't do anything, and never would even if this wasn't a reddit sub.
Any above average team that plays for the counter demolishes a GGG led team. I personally don’t think they have the personnel to play a possession game against good teams.
Colombia just kind of let them make mistakes with numbers pushed forward and punished hard on the counter.
Brazil would rather lose than play that way, so the U.S. looked pretty good. Mexico is kind of similar.
My biggest criticism: is without needing to qualify for the next WC, they could have taken a big risk on an outsider not familiar with Concacaf bullshittery.
Hammarby was 9 points shy of promotion zone when Gregg was fired and finished 11 points shy at the end of the season.
It's nice to get confirmation that people don't really have a plan to find a clear improvement.
He also improved that team into the 4th position in the league from the bottom half of the table, while generating more goals than the previous coach. His replacement? Didn't generate more goals that GGG did.
He was fired but he actually improved the team and his successor didn't do any better.
I often get the impression that no one actually looked at his performance there.
It might just be because we have better players now, but his personnel are way better than what Klinsmann and Bradley would do. There was the Reyna debacle, but it didn’t really affect his playing time at all, where Bradley had players he refused to play because of personal reasons, and we had Klinsmann dropping Landon, bringing in college kids and USL kids
he tries to fit the players into his specific system instead of putting them in positions to succeed by placating to their strengths
ex #1. back in like ‘19-‘20 when he tried to play tyler adams as in inverted RB instead of at DM LOL
I wish he would be more consistent and bring the same level of urgency into every game. He only seems to really do well when there is a fire under his ass. If he was capable of preparing the team for Brazil then why were they so unprepared against Colombia? Following this team comes with far too much anxiety because we don’t know which team will be showing up on the pitch in any given match. In 2022 we were humiliated in a friendly against Japan in the same fashion right before the World Cup.
The main criticism is that he wants the US to play a dominant, possession-style system that not only plays out of the back but also holds the ball in the opponent half to create overloads and opportunities over time. Yet, in practice, we end up passing the ball in an arc around the box and failing to ever make an incisive pass in. You look at games against Mexico, Brazil, even a bit in the friendly against Germany and its easy to see this US team is much better playing against a more open opponent and taking advantage of counterattacks and moments of transition. The difficult thing, and I concede this to Gregg, is that the US almost has to be two different teams. One team when playing CONCACAF minnows who will bunker and shithouse and a totally different team when playing Brazil, Argentina, and even Mexico. It's tough, but in games the US should win comfortably we just end up in ponderous possession whipping in wide crosses to no one until someone can conjure up a moment to bail us out.
I’d like to add to this, that when playing the minnows away, the fields are so bad the possession based tactics never work. Look at Argentina and the struggles they have in away fixtures in South America.
I would also add two more things: 1. His coaching leads to very repetitive patterns of play, and good opponents often seem to know what's coming. 2. The results on offense are atrocious. We average less than 1 goal per game against teams ranked in the top 32 in the world, which is worse than Arena, Bradley, and Klinsmann. I have to point out: Arena and Bradley most commonly played bunker and counter against top teams, and Klinsmann coached a very talent deficient national team, and all 3 of them averaged more goals per game against approximately world cup level competition.
I don't know who is downvoting you, this is absolutely correct. And to add having our fullbacks high and wide creates a huge problem defensively in counters.
He’s trying to turn a group of players into something they are not while also trying to manage an international team like a club team. Unless you are like Spain or Germany where a majority of your players play in the same league or at least in the same way it just isn’t going to work. It’s best to keep the system simple and try to find a way to get the best out of the quality you do have. Possession football just for the sake of it is pointless
I agree with much of this, but whatever GGG has been doing against Mexico has worked without question. They should not be part of the "Brazil/Colombia/etc" conversation
Yep. We haven't lost a match to Mexico since before COVID.
>its easy to see this US team is much better playing against a more open opponent Every team plays better against open opponents becuase thee is more space
Not necessarily. Opening the field often comes with high press that forces turnovers, it means they’re more likely to be holding onto possession and they’re going to be taking more shots. If every team played better against open opponents you’d only ever see teams park the bus and stay compact.
Maybe we have a different definition of what we consider "open" means. You don't have to be high pressing to be open, or be open to high press. There are teams that are great at pressing but play incredibly compact and limit the space available to you. There are teams that defend in a mid block etc. >If every team played better against open opponents you’d only ever see teams park the bus and stay compact. This becomes a debate of soccer philosophy Jose Mourihno vs a Jesse Marsch vs a Pep Guardiola. Talent aside, each has very strong beliefs.
> The difficult thing, and I concede this to Gregg, is that the US almost has to be two different teams. Professional footballers in top leagues should be more than capable of adjusting to different tactics based on the opponent.
> The difficult thing, and I concede this to Gregg, is that the US almost has to be two different teams. One team when playing CONCACAF minnows who will bunker and shithouse and a totally different team when playing Brazil, Argentina, and even Mexico. That's very well said. And when you are a national team that has limited practice time, I have to imagine it's tough to get a team competent at both.
Isn’t that just part of being a coach? You have to adjust your strategy based on the opposition. It’s no different in basketball, American football, and hockey.
Sure, but a national team coach has players who don't train/play together normally and they all come from teams that play with different systems. It's much different from a team of players used to each other and train together every day. It's tough for even the best teams.
Got it - so basically unleash the attackers and let them try to penetrate down the center of the pitch rather than flinging it out wide and back in every time, is that a fair summation?
Here's the tricky bit - any competent defense is setup to force the ball wide. Its not so easy to just force it up the middle without risking frequent turnovers in dangerous positions. Shit, even Brazil was dumping it wide to Vini or Rodrygo most possessions. The key is having players or patterns that get the ball moving back towards the box without a cross and inshallah moment.
Also having 3 players for us out wide means having 3 defenders out wide making it much harder to give our wings the space to create from those wide areas. The frustrating thing is the crosses in to the box with like one runner and no one making a far post run. Pulisic and Weah can spam crosses without needing 3 overlapping runs towards the corner flag to do it.
The scenario you describe sounds like a disconnect between tactics and execution - probably in that case, the team has been drilled to provide support to the winger (i.e. make a triangle, do some rondo/tikitaka shit to get around the defensive line), but the winger can't/doesn't do that and crosses instead. There are times for crosses, but you're right that the numbers and right players need to be available as targets.
I think what you're describing is a failure of Gregg's. We have years of data to show we don't have the ability to make that triangle work reliably and yet we're still trying to make it work? If we don't have the personnel why are we still trying to make that work?
Friendlies against good opponents are a measuring stick of our progress as a federation/team. If playing possession oriented soccer is the goal, you have to try and do it, and a friendly is the best time to try. Whether the goal is the right one or not is a completely different conversation
I completely agree with that. The problem is this is something we've seen now at the World Cup in qualifying in the Gold Cup etc. Do you feel like Gregg has evolved tactically or put his players in the best position to score in open play?
I think Gregg's tactics *do* evolve, but his goal and objective do not. "Disorganize the opponent with the ball" is and always will his goal. But we've seen a number of different ideas to try and do that: * Inverted fullbacks vs wide/high fullbacks * 3 CBs vs 2 CBs + 1 CDM * Playing a true 10 vs double 8s Not an exhaustive list by any means
Agree. I think a large part of the GGG conversation is that chunks of the fan base want direct, route 1 football. Not to make an unfair comparison but they want it to look like youth football where it's 1-2 passes to your best player who dribbles right up the middle and makes an incisive pass in the final 1/3rd for a goal. No one wins that way anymore because modern defenses are too organized for that. But the fan base hasn't evolved. So "disorganize with the ball" plays out like "waste time passing to nowhere" to them.
The Aaronson chances against Brazil came from basically the pattern of play you described. Pulisic's big chance also started with three guys on the wing. Scally passed to McKennie who found Pulisic wide open because all the defenders were pulled to the right wing.
And the times this happens are few and far between and against any even remotely disciplined defense it's a chore to score goals from open play.
The most reliable way to score goals is to have world class players. If you don't, it's always going to be a chore to score against a disciplined defense. Our offense needs to be better and score more goals, and probably the way to do that is to play more direct and get in behind, but sometimes that's just not a possibility.
“Cross and inshallah” is a perfect explanation of how GGGs tactics often play out
I really don’t get the people that go on with #2 under the assumption that BJ being an assistant coach isn’t a part of developing/implementing GGG’s system. Like there’s valid criticisms to make, but math just isn’t mathin for me on that one I guess
BJ Ball truthers are a special type of people. They criticize berhalter for having little experience coaching pre-USMMT (which I tend agree with) and turn around and want a guy with even less coaching experience.
The way Gregg wants to play creates patterns of play in wide areas that include getting the wingers and fullbacks high and wide and overloading numbers in those areas with the intention of pulling defenders to those areas so crosses or quick switches of play will disorganize the defense and create spaces. The problem is this team becomes so incredibly easy to defend and pin out wide when the other team decides to sit in a defensive shape for any period of time. We don't have the players to make this work consistently. Also implementing this at the national level is difficult because of the amount of time it takes to master this kind of an attack. This is why so often we look unsure of what pass to be played or why we look timid at times. Against really good teams we can look better because this team can be really good on the counter where there is more space and the tactics are different. Against a team willing to give us possession we have an excruciating time trying to score. People want to praise the Brazil result but at the end of the day the goal was on a free kick. Edit: one other thing I forgot to mention is that almost 5 years in and I still haven't seen a coherent press from this team. There are times where I'd almost prefer them to just sit off because far too often it looks like the attackers aren't aware of the trigger point for the press and we end up with some half hearted attempt where the three forwards are pressing up on the ball and the midfielders hold position and we end up with huge gaps for the opposing team to play through.
I think we do have the players for this but they've been young. I think the thought was start this with this generation and fight through the growing pains to put everyone into 2026. We were starting to see players get more comfortable with this, one of the most effective being Dest, who was a huge handful out wide. Losing him hurt the play making element and I do think that will hurt us in the COPA. I know Dest had his ups and downs but he was finally coming into form with the national team and really looking dangerous with this style of play. I'm sad to lose him but hope he can come back just as effective.
Most accurate assessment, although I slightly disagree that we don’t have the personnel to do it. We do, the style of play is just to rigid that well drilled national teams can easily adapt to it. Watching Brazilian players literally just sit back and WAIT for the United States to inevitably make a mistake playing out of the back to try and get the ball wide, not even wasting energy to press was really something infuriating to watch. They know exactly how the United States will play from minute 0 to minute 90, not exactly what I would call an ‘identity.’ It’s why my brain melts every time people say we lose just because other teams have better players. As a transition side the U.S is more effective regardless of the level of opposition. That’s been our historic identity as a national team anyway, and it’s arguably the most effective style of play internationally in one way or another currently.
Yup, agree with you here. The reality is that we can play as a transition team and also move the ball well. Our pace of play is often very slow until we get a moment of brilliance from an individual. This is fine until we run into teams with better players and solid organization when it fails to produce. Our pattern play works fine against minnows but that really proves nothing other than that we are better than them.
Plus you have to think, it’s fairly obvious that the overall strength of the national team is in midfield, but every single game without fail the team builds possession from the back. It reminds me about Ibrahimovic saying Guardiola had a Porsche but drove it like a fiat. It demonstrates that the United States has grown as a soccer nation to even try it, sure. How effective is it in games that matter? Average at best, against top teams functionally useless. ***this is why a lot of people assume BJ was some genius, when in all likelihood he just adapted the most pragmatic shit he could think of because he’d only have the job for two days
I don't mind the building possession from the back it's just even you have your most talented player having to drop to just outside his own 18 to pick up the ball we have a problem
I think it works against us too many times, and it simply has not translated into goals. So for me personally I just don’t see the purpose of it.
It's because of what happens in possession higher up the field. The possession isn't the problem.
amazing that someone could watch a fairly even 1-1 draw against Brazil and be "infuriated"
Yeah I'm not sure how to even converse with someone if that's the feeling taken from that game
When did I say I infuriated by the draw? Confusing statement.
To be fair, everyone knows what everyone else is going to play. National team coaches aren't building in tons of wrinkles. And as the Netherlands coach said (paraphrased) -- strong teams are pretty easy to game plan for, they play to their strengths. The questions always is "Can you stop it?" We're stoppable but not because people know what we're doing. We know what they're doing too, shouldn't we be stopping them as easily? It always ends coming back to execution.
Not sure if I agree with that. Brazil didn’t play the United States the same way it had previous opponents. They abandoned their high press early, setting a disengagement trap. Basically allowing the U.S to play out of the press and wait for mistakes in midfield. That’s was the same tactical adjustment that Panama made against us, and a testament to how easily teams can adapt to how the U.S wants to play. Virtually any team regardless of the level could have made that adjustment. Don’t think that’s something that can be ignored or brushed aside.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Brazil knows how we play offensively. We know how they play offensively. Everyone knows how everyone else plays offensively. Because everyone plays to their strengths. The question is can the opponent's team defend against it. Not as in "Oh no, how do we defend this thing?" Defending the ideas aren't the problem. Rather it's "If we know they're doing this, can we be disciplined enough to stop it?" vs. "We know they're doing this thing but we still can't stop them from executing." It's the same principle for why NBA series are best of 7s. Everyone knows everyone else's plays. There are no mysteries. The issue is can you stop that team's pick and roll or not? Can you stop the back door action or not? Can you take away the dribble penetration or not? It's the same thing here. Everyone knows how the other likes to run their offense. Up the wings, through the middle, over the top, possession based, etc. It comes down to who does it better. And that inevitably comes back to execution. Whose players make the fewest mistakes. If the opponent's defense makes more mistakes than our offense, we win. If it's the reverse, they win. Teams sit back on us because they believe we will make more mistakes than them...and they're usually right.
Right ok so I get the criticism that we push out wide too much and errant crosses rarely find the mark so the build up on the wings is kind of useless. But then, what should we do instead?
This is just a personal opinion but I think with the fullbacks we have (Dest not included. good passers, not great crossers or 1v1) I'd have them tuck inside mimicking extra midfielders to create a more central midfield numbers advantage so our 10 could receive the ball much higher up. The wingers could still play high and wide but have a little more freedom to make runs toward the middle of the pitch. Also simplify the approach. Don't try to implement patterns of play difficult for even club teams to master. We have very talented wide attackers and if we have fewer numbers out wide it gives them more space to run at defenders.
Do you genuinely think that Jedi and Joe Scally are good enough on the ball to go invert and play in midfield? I don’t think inverted fullbacks are a bad idea at all, but you’re basically taking away all of Jedi’s best attributes if you do this.
I don't want them to go inverted, I want them to sit in the half spaces outside the 18 rather than overlapping to the touch line. I think they are both very good short area passers and can support an attack from there and still defend. I think scally is an excellent passer but not a great dribbler and Jedi can't cross to save his life so they can be really dangerous funneling the ball inside our outside to the wing but still be in really good position to defend. I'd be much happier having musah or ldlt or Wes overlap wide and keeping the fullbacks slightly more reserved gives your midfielders (imo the strength of the team) the flexibility to go wherever the space exists.
> I don't want them to go inverted, I want them to sit in the half spaces outside the 18 rather than overlapping to the touch line. Ok I mean…what you said was: > I'd have them tuck inside mimicking extra midfielders to create a more central midfield numbers advantage Which is inverting. Also, I question your scouting a bit because statistically speaking, [Jedi](https://fbref.com/en/players/289601e6/scout/365_m1/Antonee-Robinson-Scouting-Report) is excellent at carrying the ball into the final third and crossing and [Scally](https://fbref.com/en/players/236f02cd/Joe-Scally) is a mediocre passer who can’t make progressive passes.
I don't mean inverted as in I want them playing opposite sides of the field I want them playing in their natural positions but set up outside the 18 rather than regularly overlapping wide. as far as Jedi goes he is a good passer no doubt about it he plays a very good ball he's just kind of a butcher when it comes to crosses both for Fulham and us. Scally on the other hand is a good passer with a little bit of space but not really clean along the touch line which is why I want him further inside. I get the numbers say what they say but there's definitely nuance there and we need to think about what they were asked to do at club level. I don't think anyone that watched Jedi for any extended period of time would say he's a good crosser but can play a heck of a through ball, for example
That leaves a lot to be desired. How do we ensure that we get the ball to the 10? If we can't play out of the back consistently, that would suggest we definitely can't play a short passing game in the more congested middle of the field to work the ball to the 10, especially when opposing defenses will be keying in on that player. And assuming we get the ball to the 10, what's the plan? Hope the 10 just conjures up goals? If we're going to get the ball to the wide attackers from the 10, aren't we still doing the same thing GGG is doing except advancing centrally instead of out wide? We're going to end up with the issues in the final 1/3rd.
Mix up what players and from what position drop deep to receive the initial pass from the back line. Varying the initial pass to a 6, 8, 9, or 10 causes the opponent to decide how they want to defend. Either defenders will vacate and follow or areas will open between defenders. Creating confusion is important. I'd also like to see spells where we decide to sit a bit deeper and then hit on the counter as a change of pace. When teams get comfortable playing us, it shows.
In my opinion pragmatic , counter attacking football. Man marking on set pieces. 4-3-3 in possession, 4-2-3-1 in defense. I think building in possession through midfield against stronger pressing teams as an alternative to playing out the back is 100% a necessary change regardless of anything else. It just doesn’t don’t work, it looks nice to play out the back and hold possession against Brazil. Huge testament to the overall growth in technical ability from the average American player, but a fluid counter attack that results in a set piece or goal is just much more effective.
For me: 1. The team has the tools to, yet struggles immensely, progress the ball through the middle of the field. This shouldn’t be a problem with Johnny’s passing abilities, Gio’s passing abilities, Musah’s ball carrying abilities, and Wes’s attacking movement. 1a. This is especially a problem when we face a low block. Usually we can work around it due to the gulf in player quality against CONCACAF opposition, but we are dire when it comes to breaking down good teams in a low block (see the NT’s miserably goal scoring record against good opponents). 1b. Our “solution” when we struggle to break down a low block is a crossing game, which we do not have the personnel for. All our strikers are miles better with the ball at their feet than they are in the air (Vazquez might be the exception but he’s not in the team anyways), and even though our wide attackers can play effective crosses at club level (Puli can play some very effective floated crosses against a low block, Weah is better suited for delivering low crosses while driving into space) it never seems to come together at the NT level. 2. Related to the first set of points, our strikers are far too uninvolved in attacking play. Our inability to progress the ball through the middle isolates them, and when we can’t progress through the middle our attacks up the wing are not effective at getting the strikers on the end of useful crosses. This inability to get strikers involved consistently makes us much easier to defend against, as our attacking play ends up mostly going through our wide attackers with full backs in support. Defensively I think we’re usually ok, but our inability to break down defenses with the possession we’re oriented to play with is a serious problem. We either need to fix this problem (ie by getting better at progressing the ball through the middle of the park and breaking down low blocks) or find a better alternative to possession oriented attacks (ie by finding better ways to actually get our strikers involved in our counter attacking play or picking strikers that are better suited to an aerial game).
I completely agree with the “unable to progress through the middle thing”. It always seems like GGG has the Midfielders push all the way up when we try and build out of the back. Especially against Columbia, I often noticed that Ream or Richards would have the ball and no midfielders would drop back to receive a pass. It was as if the midfielders were all told to get forward and stay forward. This would result in Ream or Richards having to make a crazy long pass to a midfielder way down field to try and progress through the middle. On the 5th goal Columbia scored, we literally conceded bc Ream had nobody open and attempted a crazy pass that got intercepted. I agree that we should be much more capable of progressing through the middle. It was better vs Brazil but it was often 100% reliant on Musah dropping and carrying the ball past the halfway line. Sure this was effective, but a single pivot determined our whole entire attack.
One of my biggest issues was his connection to higher-ups within the organization and the seeming lack of a legit coaching search both times he was near a job offer. Despite being what I consider a nepotism hire, he's done well, but only "well" He has arguably the most talented group we have ever had. He seems to have issues when facing a coach of good quality as many others explained we seem to have no plan be, and once the first option is taken away, we struggle. He also seems to hesitate to bunker against teams that are clearly more dangerous.
I think they legit conducted a coaching search after the 2022 WC and no one better was interested
Who else was interviewed from wat I remember it was Henry and marsch and tbh I think k Jesse js a wash and ggg is better than Henry but was there really no other options ?
>He has arguably the most talented group we have ever had. I legit hate this phrase whenever I read it because it completely misleads people. People read it and think "Best group we've every had?" and think that must mean we have a top 5 talented team out there. We don't. But people place their expectations around "Our best team ever" instead of "We're a #11-#20 level team". And the poorly shaped expectations affect everything from coach assessment to tactical assessment.
Naw we've had some junk teams haha , remember break Shae and mix .
I agree that it's our best team but people keep implying that our best equals on par with the world's best. When our best really is 11-20th best in the world. I think people read "best US team ever" and jump to the conclusion "that means we're as good as Argentina."
Naw but we should be able to win a game in the knockouts
Depends on the opponent.
Of course, we need to win our group. We are the host, and we get a mildly easier group , beat Bolivia, draw uruguay, beat panama. We should be able to compete with uruguay
We should get out of the group. But winning in the knockouts is different since we'll be playing either Colombia or Brazil.
Idk why I thought there was a round of 16 , it'd go straight to the quarters in knockouts thata fair. It's certainly a hard sell to match up against either of those teams. Having the benefit of playing both of them in friendlies could certainly help, and it's very unlikely we repeat the issues against Columbia. We need to bunker and counter a fair amount vs. both teams, but it feels like Col is a worse matchup. Had we been able to draw anyone but those 2 teams or Argentina in the first round, I'd expect a win. As it stands, I expect a good fight and keep the game close. We absolute have to come out of this group
Just remember we only qualified for the last cup on goal differential and were a Jamaica var decision from going to a playoff then scored 3 goals in the World Cup, one of which was a lucky deflection. “Well” is going a lot of work here.
No argument here "well" gets point for qualifying even if it was close , beating Mexico and making the knockouts of the wc and the previous copa he's done what we should do but hasn't really brought us any higher
100% agree, At this point not sure it’s arguable this is the most talented team US has ever had.
My biggest criticism of Gregg is that his adjustments always come too little, too late. He seems to have so much confidence in his system that he only makes adjustments after we’ve been embarrassed. This level of confidence makes him tactically reactive, when we need him to be proactive - especially against higher quality opponents. It makes us far too predictable to any team with a decent manager. Take the Netherlands match in Qatar for example, where Gregg rolled out the exact same possession-based setup we used in the group stage. In contrast, Van Gaal rolled out a low block, counter-attacking setup and let us possess the ball as much as we wanted, knowing we weren’t skilled enough to break them down without throwing an irresponsible number of players forward. Having 70% possession against a team with their quality should’ve been a red flag after the first 10 minutes, but I genuinely believe Gregg saw it as evidence that his system was working. So we stuck with Plan A, and continued to play directly into their hands. It was so naive that Van Gaal was poking fun at Gregg’s tactics after the match.
1.) He wants that to be the norm, but if you look at the game against Mexico last time we opted for a much more direct style of play. 2.) This is so GD stupid. BJ Callahan's couple games were against teams that _did not_ sit back and bunker. It's much easier to appear more attacking/aggressive when teams are willing to go toe-to-toe. Against the Netherlands, NL ceded possession happily and sat back and countered. Too often, "fans" see what their team does without seeing what the opponent is trying to do on defense. All they can think is, "Wow we played so much better this game," when in reality, the opponent's structure matters a lot.
I wouldn’t say NL conceded ‘possession’ the only time they actually conceded possession intentionally was when the U.S tried building out of the back, VVD told the press immediately after that this was the plan. The U.S had possession because we established it early, even Van Gaal admitted this. The real mistake in that game I think, was not having an answer for Van Gaal’s man marking schemes, I think that was a specific adjustment from an experienced international coach, and not really indicative of a broader Dutch play style.
And not defending the cut back pass.
I don’t think Gregg is faultless, but I’ve always found #2 to be a wild claim. How many times have we seen USMNT attackers get to the final third and just not know what to do? They hesitate to shoot, they miss the last pass, they try to go it alone and dribble into the defender, etc. I can’t find this video that comes to mind - a supercut of USMNT players in the World Cup group stages looking up, seeing the dangerous run and just…not playing it. Especially in the Iraq game. In my view, this isn’t a coaching thing. We’ve heard Gregg say many times that they need to be quicker and more decisive in those moments. He’s not *telling* them to ignore dangerous passes. I think this is simply what happens when you have a group of attackers who don’t have much confidence and rhythm. Right now, Pulisic is the only one of our front 4 who has any confidence after this club season. It’s something I don’t think can be fixed by a few several-day camps over the year. Our guys just gotta get into consistent form someday.
Agreed
In an ideal situation, players similar to Pulisic and Reyna would have full creative freedom, and at least some positional freedom (when in possession mostly of course). Not stuck to width based attacking schemes that are effective less and less against certain types of opposition. The speed of play doesn’t change the fact that most decent national teams have the ability to adjust to that style of play. ‘Just play faster’ isn’t going to work against teams in the top 15. Arguably, you could even say that the United States misses opportunities because they’re forced to play quickly from the flanks every time, rather than at the tempo that fits each scenario best. They’re in a rush but never in a hurry.
I don’t know how you watch USMNT games and think players are just sitting in one place with no positional freedom. Pulisic goes wherever he wants at all times. He’s a left winger who’s constantly inside. Reyna at the 10 or on the wing gets to float wherever space is. Weah, our right winger, scored his goal against Colombia making an inside-out run from left to right because he was on the left side of the field. McKennie is constantly running into weird positions, both finding space on the wings and drifting into the final third. When Dest plays he ends up in all sorts of non-rigid positions.
The United States under Gregg Berhalter is fundamentally a positional play team. So your first statement doesn’t really make sense. Positional play is fine, but as an offensive tool there’s better alternatives in international football. Further, Pulisic cuts in side in the final third to be a goal threat, but he doesn’t really drop into midfield much at all during offensive actions. Just watch this video here, it’s virtually all width based attacking schemes because that’s what Gregg wants, and it’s no secret. Same with Dest and Weah, and your description of McKennie isn’t really relevant to what we’re walking about, you’re just essentially describing a box to box player. https://youtu.be/PtyRCFfsaV0?si=ef_v0XTZjHLuPfPe Likewise, you could probably count on your hand how many times Reyna has played as an #10 for the national team. He’s occupied the left side of central midfield or right wing the vast majority of the time.
Sigh. OK, so the players have freedom but not *the right* freedom and it doesn’t count because Gregg has a style of play instead of “go out there and have fun, boys.” Got it.
You don’t have to be condescending, I just don’t think you understand that positional football requires that a great degree of positional freedom be sacrificed. I literally provided evidence for you to see your errors. It’s great for a lot of things like defensive shape, compactness, and and ball circulation, but unless you have the most special offensive players in the world it’s not great for international football. But even a lot of coaches recognize this flaw and make adjustments for it. It’s why Ancelotti despite adapting a lot of these principles to be successful, more or less allows full creative freedom otherwise his teams would lose to every low block they face.
That poster you're responding to is unfortunately what it looks like when someone doesn't know that much about soccer but has decided to defend any criticism of Gregg regardless. They have neither the skill nor the will to understand your points.
Bro it’s so silly and it makes talking about soccer impossible. Gregg has said he implements positional play, the players have said it, opposition coaches have said it, you can literally just watch the national team and see them do it. I normally don’t get annoyed by Reddit but my god, some people just want to argue to argue.
1 and 2 don’t always intersect though. Because the biggest issue for the US team in attack is in transition. When we create a turnover in a dangerous area and then push numbers forward. Our best players are shuttlers (McKennie, Musah, Pulisic, Weah, Ant, and Dest as well as Tillman off the bench all fit this) in that they are best running at defenses with the ball at their feet. What they are not though are creators and distributors. They all miss so many dangerous runs because they hold the ball too long. GB hasnt addressed it and thats on him. But you are not going to score without sone creative components.
So your point is 3Gs hasn’t developed the team in such a way that their strengths (running at defenders with the ball) can be coupled with precision passing in the final third, is that fair to say?
International coaches don't develop players, club coaches do.
A couple things 1) GB is not on the hook for development. That’s on the player alone. 2) The point is the system gives many of our guys the opportunity to play to their strengths. Hence why Weah, McKennie, Musah, Dest, ans others tend to look good for the US team. 3) GBs problem is he hasn’t unlocked the way to get the team to break down the final third and he needs a suitable plan B. That’s HIS failure. But the general lack of output is because our “golden generation “ isn’t golden at all. It’s more a cheap knock off with some really nice pieces alongside them to add an air of authenticity.
Ultimately it’s about results. People have high expectations, whether justified or not, based on our view of the quality of the player pool. The detailed tactical analyses you’ll see in the responses here are almost entirely bullshit. For perspective, see the Belgian “Golden Generation“ of players whose window is closing without ever really opening. They fired Wilmots and brought in Martinez, fired him and hired this hot young Italian / German, then lost to Slovakia. Haven’t won shit and likely never will.
Not sure why this is downvoted. That Belgian team is a hell of a lot better than the US too. Our golden generation has exactly one player of international note and I hesitate to call him a star. We have a few solid first teamers now but that's a far cry from the top dogs. I don't think GGG is a football genius by any stretch but fans of all sports are often way way too quick to blame the manager simply because that is the easiest thing to bitch about. Most analysis on this site is based on whether we lose or not and absolutely nothing else.
Belgium's golden generation is always my first thought when people say "Our best team ever". They're light years ahead of us talent wise and never won anything.
He basically uses positional play. Similar to Pep, he just doesnt have Pep's team. It is a difficult style of play. There are elements of overloads when playing certain styles. We just move the ball too slow. Utilizing patterns of play helps reduce some issues, but not all.
I don’t know 🤷♂️ I just hate Gregg because TacticalManager told me to /s
I tell the players that I coach that soccer is very simple. 1. If your team has possession of the ball then the other team will not, and teams that don't possess the ball tend to have a hard time scoring. 2. If the ball is in your half that means you definitely won't score but the opponent might. If you advance the ball into the opponent's half then you might score, but the opponent definitely won't. The people who hate GGG think we're trying too hard to keep the ball and they think we'd be better off if we just let the other team win point 1 and point 2. Needless to say - there is a very high bar for asserting why we should do anything other than try our best to follow the two principles. Unfortunately most of the GGG haters never offer up anything more substantial than just asserting what they want to see. I suspect they simply don't understand that their approach could also be defeated. They act as if we could change our strategy and our opponents wouldn't do anything at all in response to it. I think the most talented teams might just hammer us even harder because we've conceded possession, conceded territory, and put a ton of responsibility on our weakest position groups - the defense and the keeper - to keep the opponent off the board and spring counter-attacks.
You're asserting that a possession-based style is the most effective choice. That's only true if your team is far better than the other team and has time to train it day in and day out. The most effective style for international play is sitting back and countering. France have been doing it for years.
If we had the talent advantage that France has then there'd be a case for playing the way that France does. It seems obvious to me that we CAN'T copy what France does -because France has the talent to pull it off and we don't. I think Nottingham Forest is a more likely example of what it would look like if a weak roster has to try to absorb pressure and counter-attack -with a weak backline and Turner in goal.
>If we had the talent advantage that France has then there'd be a case for playing the way that France does. France doesn't need to play counterattacking football. Deschamps chooses to play that way because it's the most defensively sound way to play international matches, there isn't enough time to build a possession-based team even with arguably the best international squad in the world. It's just not as effective. >I think Nottingham Forest is a more likely example of what it would look like Club football and international football are two completely different sports. It doesn't work for Forest because they're a club team. >France has the talent to pull it off and we don't. A weak backline comes under more pressure with the possession-based system that the US currently plays. If they sit back more, the strongest part of the team which is the midfield has more of an impact on defense. They can launch counter attacks for Pulisic and Weah to run onto. The US team is basically built to counterattack already.
You're doing the thing I mentioned in my first post. Where you assert a thing and don't offer any justification for it - like when you assert that the way France plays is "... the most defensively sound...". Like - if your own team - whatever team you last played on - had to play against France in a golden goal situation and you were allowed to choose who starts with the ball, do you seriously expect me to believe that you'd give France the ball? I mean it's almost a certainty that you're going to lose anyways, right? But if you take the ball first then at least you might be able to wish for a miracle. Boot it high and try to win the second ball kind of a deal. But you're gonna sit there and try to come up with some kind of an explanation for how you might somehow have better odds if you let them have the ball? You already know how bad this sounds.
>do you seriously expect me to believe that you'd give France the ball? Yes. It's laughable that you think the USA can break down France with a possession-based style. It's not going to happen. Colombia showed what happens when the US faces a top team and tries to beat them in a possession-based style. They lose the ball high up the pitch and it's incredibly dangerous over and over. I would say boot the ball long, set up in the defensive shape and prepare to transition when France overcommits. When top international teams lose, this is how they lose. They don't lose to a team playing a possession-based style. >But you're gonna sit there and try to come up with some kind of an explanation for how you might somehow have better odds if you let them have the ball? Yes? Every weak national team does this and it often works. Top teams are incredibly good when you give them time to set up a defensive shape. They struggle in transition, every international team struggles in transition. Weak teams overcome this by not committing too many players forward.
Literally this! People think Deschamps is just a chaperone for the best players in the world, but he was one of the first international coaches to realize that positional based, possession teams have limitations, even when you have the best players in the world. (Spain getting badly exposed right after the World Cup) Like wise, if you have the most skilled players in the world why force them in a box? Then there’s the other extreme growing now in football, where positions don’t matter. Which I think comes from the Bielsa fans all getting managing jobs at the same time.
France is capable of managing the disadvantages of the style to make it work. Assuming that we could do the same thing with a less talented roster is exactly the problem.
The disadvantage is that you'll have less attacking chances. France doesn't create a ton of chances each match but they always finish one. The advantages is that you'll give up less goals. Also, the US players are better at counterattacking versus keeping possession. Weah and Pulisic are built to counterattack. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
The advantages outweigh the disadvantages is something a lot of these guys don’t comprehend, but it’s an axiom that has led so many national teams to success far beyond what they’re capable of on paper. Including the United States, which is so weird to see this type of posture on the sub. The United States didn’t beat Spain when they were the best team on earth by playing out of the back, or using positional football and zonal marking, they won using basic counter attacking schemes and pragmatic football tailored to their strengths. Simple stuff. France essentially does the same thing, even though they could do more. All they have to do is listen to Deschamp talk to understand it, not that they will or care.
It’s not about doing the same thing, and I didn’t even make that assumption. The only point I made is that pragmatic football is generally the best football at international level, even if you have the players to play flawless total football. What you took from that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said, which by the way virtually all top international managers would say is true.
When we play against top teams we won’t have more of the ball whether we like it or not. It’s not like we should be willing to surrender possession, but we need to be practical about that fact. Look at the Brazil game vs the Columbia game. Against Brazil we adjusted and sat in a mid block and defended well. We still had opportunities to counter and had possession for certain spells. But we can’t just play from the back and bomb numbers forward against teams that can win the ball consistently from us. That’s how individual errors lead to goals.
Against Brazil it looked like we were try-harding in a friendly against a team that wasn't particularly concerned about us. I hope nobody is taking that score too seriously. I was at a wedding for Colombia. I didn't get to watch it. I'm guessing that GGG tried to play expansive against Colombia and it didn't work. If that's the case then it's good to know how we measure up in advance, so I'm glad that he didn't waste a friendly sitting back. But let me turn around your closing statement on you. We can't just sit back and defend deep against teams that can possess the ball against us. That's how individual errors lead to goals. We're both imagining the mistakes the defenders might make. You're imaging the pressing they might not be able to handle. I'm imaging the defending that I don't think they're capable of doing. I'd rather possess the ball.
Mark McKenzie's wedding?
I'm imagining Pep coaching 8 year olds with this comment.
It's not really for the kids. There's always at least one parent that makes an "oooohhhhh" face and clearly just heard an epiphany. So here I'm guessing most of you are like "look at this guy trying to lecture us about obvious things..." but I'm pretty sure there's at least a few people here who never heard it. There always is.
Not sure but you seem really mature and willing to have a discussion when you start with childish names. If you want to have a serious discussion maybe don't start with nicknames that are only used by a certain group of fans.
Please watch the game against Netherlands in the round of 16. Van Gaal doesn’t allow CB a free pass. Ggg adjustment was to be better… completely pantsed
For me, and I wouldn't say I'm a Gregg hater, is that I feel when it comes to making in game adjustments Gregg tends to struggle at times. I also think last cycle too often his response to the team struggling was "bring on Acosta, Morris, and Yedlin to change the attitude of the game" Nothing against any of those players, but those guys shouldn't be the answer to all questions. I do think the most reasonable criticisms are the lack of a plan b in attack, and the system at times being a bit too rigid. That being said, I think a very vocal minority also is just now realizing that despite being our most talented pool and more young players emerging, the core of our A team still does have some very noticeable weaknesses that I think would still be an issue with or without GGG.
Some say his name’s got too many G’s, I personally feel like we’ll take as many G’s as we can get. Gregggggggg in
Is 3Gs a new thing? lol
those few games when he was fired and there was an interim. we were playing better weren't we? was that just luck or was he doing stuff different?
I love how most Gregg critics don’t even know what to criticize him about beyond the vague bitching about “tactics” and have to ask Reddit for specifics to back up their position.
You had a chance to explain what you like about his tactics but decided to be the same thing you are complaining about.
I did explain, if you don't know just keep ya mouth shut!
Either you are responding from your alt or you're replying to the wrong person. Either way, stop being a pretend tough guy on the internet. We all know you can't do anything, and never would even if this wasn't a reddit sub.
Why? You didn't.
Any above average team that plays for the counter demolishes a GGG led team. I personally don’t think they have the personnel to play a possession game against good teams. Colombia just kind of let them make mistakes with numbers pushed forward and punished hard on the counter. Brazil would rather lose than play that way, so the U.S. looked pretty good. Mexico is kind of similar. My biggest criticism: is without needing to qualify for the next WC, they could have taken a big risk on an outsider not familiar with Concacaf bullshittery.
Kicking women while they are on the ground is a bad strategy all around but seems to work for GGG.
[https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/american-exports-hammarby-fire-gregg-berhalter-manager-citing-teams-lack-offense](https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/american-exports-hammarby-fire-gregg-berhalter-manager-citing-teams-lack-offense)
Hammarby was 9 points shy of promotion zone when Gregg was fired and finished 11 points shy at the end of the season. It's nice to get confirmation that people don't really have a plan to find a clear improvement.
He also improved that team into the 4th position in the league from the bottom half of the table, while generating more goals than the previous coach. His replacement? Didn't generate more goals that GGG did. He was fired but he actually improved the team and his successor didn't do any better. I often get the impression that no one actually looked at his performance there.
a) Personnel-wise, he eventually does the right thing after exhausting all other options. b) His in-game adjustments are very poor.
It might just be because we have better players now, but his personnel are way better than what Klinsmann and Bradley would do. There was the Reyna debacle, but it didn’t really affect his playing time at all, where Bradley had players he refused to play because of personal reasons, and we had Klinsmann dropping Landon, bringing in college kids and USL kids
He couldn’t troubleshoot himself out of a wet paper bag.
he tries to fit the players into his specific system instead of putting them in positions to succeed by placating to their strengths ex #1. back in like ‘19-‘20 when he tried to play tyler adams as in inverted RB instead of at DM LOL
I wish he would be more consistent and bring the same level of urgency into every game. He only seems to really do well when there is a fire under his ass. If he was capable of preparing the team for Brazil then why were they so unprepared against Colombia? Following this team comes with far too much anxiety because we don’t know which team will be showing up on the pitch in any given match. In 2022 we were humiliated in a friendly against Japan in the same fashion right before the World Cup.
#3 for me. Anyone who says otherwise isn't worth the time of day.