An instant classic

Amazing. The best team in UEFA, by far, yet few are giving the Dutch a chance to beat Brazil.

Never mind Robben. Never mind Sneijder. Never mind Van Bommel. Or Van Persie or Van der Vaart or De Jong or Van Bronckhorst. Forget the emergence of Elia or Affelay or Van der Wiel. Or the damage that a Kuyt or Huntelaar can inflict if you ignore them in favor of the Big Names.

It is because of matches like this that the CounterAttack decided to talk. The conventional wisdom is on Brazil. It’s hardly a surprise, no need to elaborate on the record of the Selecão.

And that’s fine. But consider that people were surprised – shocked! – that England fell out of the World Cup. That surprised the CounterAttack more than the fact that the Dutch were given short shrift over their chances of winning the Cup.

The genius of Holland is that their tactics adapt as the game evolves. Always, though, the Dutch move in their triangles. It is a masterclass of tactics to watch. Germany employed similar tactics when they erased England from the tournament.

Against a wide-open spread attack of Brazil, we expect to see a patient Holland. Count on the Dutch masters to retain possession, simple one-touch passing to move the ball around and deny Brazil the opportunity to charge. They will use their triangles to move forward, side to side, around the pressing Brazilians.

The Brazilians, on the other hand, will defend and attack in numbers. Like a pack of lions with the scent of blood, they will swoop in curves across the pitch, looking to pierce Holland’s relatively vulnerable defenders (relative to the might of the Dutch midfield and attack, that is). Long balls, short passes, individual twists and turns – whatever is necessary to move around the Dutch midfield, that’s what the Selecão will do.

The CounterAttack believes that the Dutch midfield will win the day and change the fortunes of the match. 3-2 to Holland in one of the best matches ever in the World Cup. And it shouldn't be considered an upset.

Let’s cross our fingers and hope so – all tournaments deserve a match with this potential!


image via Martin Meissner/The Associated Press

Why Jozy shouldn't be the main striker

A rather lively discussion ensued at CounterAttack headquarters yesterday:

After three matches in the World Cup, the US has played excellent on attack, held the ball well in the midfield and have been composed in defense. The MNT deserves to go through to the Second Round and further, to be honest.

One of the most exciting developments has been the progress of Jozy Altidore. He's been a monster, running down the wing, bringing the ball in a linkup from defense to offense, taking shots when possible, drawing fouls that leave defenders more cautious. There's no doubt he's one of the best players on the squad and a genuine star for the future.

BUT.

He is effectively playing as an attacking midfielder. And Jozy is a striker. If you look all the things he’s done well, there is one glaring omission. A striker scores goals and Jozy hasn't. In fact, in all of 2010, he has exactly one goal. That's not an indictment, it's just a statement of fact.

Good strikers need to score because they get into grooves. With that confidence, everything they touch turns to goal. Scoring is just infectious and feeds on itself and right now, the US player in that sort of groove is Clint Dempsey.

The difference between Deuce and Jozy is that Clint has been scoring for Fulham and the US. This doesn't mean Jozy shouldn't be on the pitch, but the CounterAttack would argue that he should switch roles with Deuce. What happens if Jozy moves back a bit, into that attacking midfield role, and Clint slides forward? We think it would create a more lethal strike combination.

Why not come out in a 4-3-1-2? That's with Bradley, Edu and Landon in the midfield, and Altidore just ahead of them. Play Deuce in the #10 role and Gomez as the #11 up front.

This creates a triangle formation with several options. Gomez at the apex, Deuce just off to the left or right, as needed. Jozy, meanwhile, plays right behind them and switches with Deuce; whenever Clint moves one way, Altidore goes the other. That leaves Donovan with a wing man at all times.

Effectively, this is a 4-3-3 but it means that Jozy doesn't need to run so much. If you watch his matches, he tends to lose the ball if he has too much green to run. So let’s limit how much he needs to roam, shorten that distance while still providing options up front for him to pass the ball. Or, to be fair, to take the shot if it's there. Why not, he's nearly scored twice.

Now, with Ghana you need to move quickly and decisively. This formation would provide two genuine goal-scoring threats in Donovan and Dempsey, plus Gomez, who we think still has a lot to offer, and Jozy’s potential to score. Now you have three- and four-pronged attack options from Gomez, Dempsey, Donovan and Altidore.

Meanwhile, Baby Bradley and Edu can hold the ball, a critical need against the Ghanese with their wide-open speed rush. The midfielders can start the attack off counters to feed Lannie, who can either take things up on his own or use Jozy as a wingman. Deuce and Gomez are still up front, denying defenders the luxury of leaving their marks to double-team any US attacker. Oh, by the way, Bradley can score too.

It also means that the US will have at least five or six men defensively protecting against Ghana’s counterattacks and yet not lose anything shifting towards attack. If Ghana attack down the right, Edu and the center-halfs can push the ball out towards Trumbolo. Ol’ Man Dolo has been completely overlooked by many as the true spark as wingback. He has started so many counterattacks with his runs down the wing and has not been beaten badly down his side in defense. So add yet another attacking option without losing anything in defense.

So right now, and only right now, and only based on these three recent matches, Jozy Altidore absolutely belongs on the pitch but as an attacking midfielder or a winger, to provide service to Clint Dempsey and whomever else is lucky enough to be paired with him up front.

Of course, that's a step too far for Bob Bradley. That’s not a criticism, especially as he has gotten more attack-oriented as the tournament has progressed. Bradley deserves enormous credit just for that alone, as it is a monumental shift in US tactics. But dropping Altidore back is too much for Bradley to envision, beyond his comfort zone.

But it could work.


Image via Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty from LA Times

GUEST POST: F-ing Clark

A supporting view of how Bob Bradley cost the US two precious points, from a guest blogger:

One could argue with Bradley about picking Findley. Ultimately he accomplished little in the game; but he didn't hurt the US, either. Bradley clearly wants an analog to Charlie Davies and there are few players of that class. But one Bradley's other choices, of which he really has no excuse is picking Clark to start alongside his son. I warned anyone that would listen that he needed to have someone more defensively sound in the position. I don't honestly know why Bob thinks someone as scatterbrained as Clark is capable of handling the pressure from two of England's three best players.

News flash: Bob, you tried this two years ago against England and Gerrard ran right by Clark to score a goal in that game, too. Miraculously, there were other Clark gaffes yesterday that did not come back to hurt us. Clark spaced out again later in the match, when it was clear that our midfield was tiring. This should have been Bob's opportunity to give Maurice Edu an opportunity to tighten things up again, or have Torres come in and try win the game.

Of course Bob, you hamstrung yourself by choosing Clark, so you didn't have the choice later on to sub in Torres for Edu or vice versa. Choosing to ignore the problems there really was trusting Fate that the US could survive the latter stages.

There were many reasons to have good cheer, yesterday. Failing to start one of your better midfield players, was not among them. Gooch looked better and better as the match wore on. Boca had some trouble with Lennon and Johnson; but so does everybody and that should be as bad as it gets. Altidore looked quite strong and Donovan was steady. His performance was mature and assured. He looks to be becoming the type of player who can positively influence a match even when he doesn't get the chance to do something spectacular.

Image via AP Photo/Michael Sohn, from AZCentral.com

How Bradley cost the MNT precious points

The MNT rescued a point v England yesterday but here at the CounterAttack, we do not feel lucky. In fact, we are downright furious. England played their best side, took the lead, surrendered the softest goal in World Cup history...and were lucky to have a point. The US, on the other hand, pointedly did not play their best side, and Bob Bradley cost the MNT two points they could have had. Lots of cheerleading from the US media but Ruud Gullit was right that this was a match the US could have won.

Of course Green’s blunder was a gift, allowing Dempsey to score in a second World Cup tournament. You will read that the US were lucky. That is disingenuous by half: blunders are part of the game. Many will disagree but we believe things work out: this makes up for handling no-call in the 2002 quarterfinal match v Germany. That’s just how it goes.

What you won’t read anywhere else is that it was England that were lucky. Not the goal itself; that was skill from Heskey and Gerrard. The problem was that Ricardo Clark was on the pitch and that was a gift from the US to England. Bradley saw fit to put Clark was on the squad and now seems eager to prove that he was right to choose him. We are quite sure Clark is a nice guy. He’s probably many things except an international talent.

Bradley’s personnel choices meant the US were undermanned. The Clark mystery is one but also, why choose Robbie Findley as the other striker? What an enormous waste of a starting spot. For some reason, American soccer is obsessed with speed. It is a running game, yes, but quickness is more important than speed. Findley is fast but what good does that do if he can’t hold on to the ball? What good is it if he is a split-second too slow on decisions, and space is closed before he passes or shoots?

Once upon a time, the MNT had no choices. They were forced to go with players like Findley (see Cobi Jones) or Clark (see Joe-Max Moore) because the pool was shallow. If only Bradley had a player with demonstrated scoring ability in a professional league! You know, someone accustomed to scoring under pressure. We would settle for a player who has suddenly developed into a scoring machine, with the maturity that a nearly a decade of pro sports adds. How about a midfielder who can hold onto the ball and knows how to calm an offense. Hello Gomez! Hello Buddle! Hello Torres!

Going with the ones that brung you only works when those players are the best choices. That was not the case here. Besides being better players, Gomez and Torres both play in Mexico. Both are used to playing a Latin style -- quickness, movement, possession. You know who have a tough time against that? England, who match up well against a physical side. Two guesses which tactics Bradley opted for in yesterday’s match.

You cannot fault Bradley for his loyalty to players, but he is wrong about that. His loyalty should be to the US nation. There is a lack of criticism in the US sporting press, one of the reasons we started CounterAttack, so he gets free reign about that. Bradley was also wrong in his tactics. It would be one thing if we were just arguing a point, being unreasonable. But these were things we precisely said this should not happen, days ago.

The MNT should win their next two matches but hey, the ball is round. No one is saying that the US would definitely have beaten England. We are, however, saying that Bob Bradley’s conservatism cost the US two points that were there for the taking. We can be happy to take away a point yesterday.

Forgive us if we choose not to celebrate.

Image via David Leah from soccer.fanhouse.com

Things that might happen at World Cup 2010

Wide-open games. The last several World Cups have seen a steady decrease in goals scored, from 2.7 goals per game in 1994 to 2.3 at Germany 06. That should change this time for a few reasons. Squads like Holland and Spain have a rich vein of goal scorers throughout their lineups; the African qualifiers are all led by athletic, goal-oriented attacks (the possible loss of Drogba by Cote D’Ivoire aside) that could lead to a goal glut; teams like USA and Australia have matured and have attacking midfielders who have honed their skills in Europe. Packing the box may not work so well this time around.

African teams to crash out early. Every tournament, pundits claim that this is the year an African nation will advance deep into the World Cup and win it all. That won’t happen in 2010 because while attacking is fun, defense wins tournaments. Even with an expected rise in goals scored, the better attacking sides also have good defenders. Cote D’Ivoire are strong, especially if Drogba plays, but they are also in the Group of Death. They have to get past Brazil and Portugal, something that will be interesting to watch.

The rise of Concacaf. One of the traditional minnows of the World Cup are actually better than advertised. Tournament success has as much to do with the road to the championship as talent. Both the US and Mexico have winnable draws and could win their respective groups (settle down, England). One quarterfinal draw could feature a Concacaf derby, US v MEX in a North American grudge match. Miss that match at your own peril.

Later-round excitement. There are quite some tantalizing matchups potentially awaiting after the first round, which only has Brazil v Portugal on tap. Starting in the Second Round, we may see Portugal v Spain, England v Germany and France v Argentina. The Quarterfinals could see Holland-Brazil, Argentina-Germany, England-Argentina or Mexico-USA. There is every likelihood that the championship match will be a reprise of 1974, with Holland facing arch-nemesis Germany. Dare to dream.

Say no to the samba beat. Brazil are always favorites but we don’t think they will get past Holland in the quarterfinals. If that match takes place, it could be an instant all-time classic. In fact, while we would definitely be surprised, it would not shock the CounterAttack if Brazil fail to get out of their group. You heard it here first….

Better referee decisions. We just think that after so much focus on referees, they are due for a good tournament. We fully expect referees to get into better positions, get the offside calls right, call the matches tighter, look for flagrant or violent fouls, and not tolerate dissent. We also see more judicious use of cautions and send offs.

Injuries to play a role. This could be the biggest factor in which teams advance. Already, players like Michael Essien, Didier Drogba, Michael Ballack, Arjen Robben, Rio Ferdinand will miss all or part of the tournament. That makes squad depth a significant factor and many squads just don’t have the depth beyond their starters. However, while that may change how the groups play out, we still expect the favorites to get through. This will, however, affect the later round matchups more significantly.

Let the Games begin!