Friday, February 3, 2017

Your USMNT Line-Up v Jamaica

An interesting side, to be sure. As you know I'm not a fan of this formation, but hopefully they can post a nice "W" against a weakened Reggae Boyz squad.

- Greg Seltzer


DaM said...

I don't dislike the formation as much as you as, if well practiced, it can still clog up the midfield but I have to admit I don't get the point of this. I get wanting to take a look at people but is there really a chance Pontius is going to get any time in March? Shouldn't we be seeing how guys like Bradley, Nagbe and Altidore perform in the formation change?

I was critical of JK not using the opportunity of certain matches to have some continuity and now we have a formation change AND a personnel change.

Sure it would be nice to get a win and sure the win doesn't matter THAT much in this scenario but doesn't playing an entire C team really render this match slighty meaningless? Maybe if Agudelo or Morris shows well we get a sense of who the first forward off the bench is or something and Arena already knows Jozy will be his starter but I would think we would still be better served by having people play with guys who will actually get time in the qualifiers.

dikranovich said...

Dam, I do think a lot of the time, mosf of the time really, your comments are pretty meaningless. I'm sorry!!


DaM said...

Agreeing with Landon: Zimmerman was the best player.

Zusi ended any discussion of him playing RB in March.

Villafana was way better than Garza. I wasn't sure if it was an apples to apples thing but he also seemed to gel better with Nagbe than Garza did.

Agudelo and Morris did better work than Jozy as the first line on the high press. Not saying that has any bearing on who starts if we play a 4-4-2 but was notable (though obviously it's a different animal in a 4-2-3-1). That being said, I thought, other than the goal, Morris was not very good when the US had the ball (which was most of the time).

Feilhaber wasn't amazing but he proved to be the only US player with any touch in the final third.

DaM said...

As a side note, I thought Landon did a good job as a color guy.

Greg Seltzer said...

I agree on Donovan, but Villafana was the game's real revelation. As I knew he would be all along. :D

DaM said...

Yeah, Villafana was my second pick as motm. Probably a good sign for the back line that the top 2 players were defenders. Or a bad sign for the offense. That was a pretty weak Jamaica side. Like Landon said, I think the big take away from this match is you can see Villafana in the mix for a start against Honduras (depending on what Bruce wants to do with the Pulisic/Fabjo positioning, personally I'd like to see Nagbe as well which probably would mean FabJo at LB).

Dr.Jon said...

Villafana is confusing - technically good, good in attack, probably ok? in defense, (was definitely not challenged as everything went down Zusi's side - even a rec league coach would have gotten that tactic right) but not playing for a club who is doing pretty well in La Liga MX makes it hard to start him. OTOH who else is there?

I think we are turning into a 4-3-3 kind of team:





Nagbe tucks centrally more of a #10, MB hangs back more of a #6 Maybe think of it more like a 4-1-2-3 which collapses more like a 4-5-1 on defense. Wood definitely can stretch the back line well.






Dr.Jon said...

...and Jozy doesn't like to play in a 4-3-3 soooooo.....

Greg Seltzer said...

Yeeeah, I just think Jozy doesn't prefer playing in a mismanaged, toothless 4-3-3 that doesn't get him the ball. But then, who does? :D

Frankly, I have never understood the "prevailing wisdom" that Altidore/the USMNT fares worse in a 4-3-3. He had the best days of his club career in one and has had some of his best USMNT moments in one, while the team has pulled off some big performances in a 4-3-3 (or its near cousin, the 4-5-1... examples being wins at Italy and the NL, vs, Portugal at WC14) and suffered many of their most shambolic displays (e.g. Guatemala away last year and the two most recent WCQ's) in different sets. I honestly don't get where such notions come from and how they take such a deep hold so widely.