Powered by
Univision Deportes
JUL 5 12PM ET
arg1
bel0
JUL 5 4PM ET
ned4
crc3
JUL 8 4PM ET
bra1
ger7
JUL 9 4PM ET
arg4
ned2
JUL 12 4PM ET
bra0
ned3
JUL 13 3PM ET
arg0
ger1

The Evolution of American Tactics, 1998-2009

brucearenaap 468x385 300x246 The Evolution of American Tactics, 1998 2009

Bob Bradley sprung a tactical surprise on all of us Wednesday night when the US shockingly came out at Saprissa Stadium in a 4-3-3. Bradley, for one night junked the 4-2-2-2 bucket that has earned the ire of so many American supporters in the last two years.

This tactical change was just the latest in a long line of sometimes adept and sometimes baffling tactical changes by American managers since 1998. Since our national team has an undefined stylistic approach thanks to not being fully integrated into the football world until the last two decades, the process of developing a style is ongoing and fluid.

I’ll never forget the first time the United States played in a 3-6-1 formation. It was against Paraguay in a friendly in San Diego. Chad Deering who I had never seen play before despite following the national team closely, tucked into the holding midfield role well and scored a goal, in a 2-2 draw. Steve Sampson was further encouraged by a 3-0 win over Austria in Vienna and forced the 3-6-1 wholesale on a group of veteran players not ready to adapt. World Cup 98 proved to be disaster of epic proportions.

Steve Sampson’s tenure taught us one thing. American coaches are never secure with generic looking tactical systems. They continuously feel need to tinker or experiment in order to justify their existence and longevity in the job. In many cases our fans obsession with foreign football and different tactics has led to this tinkering. By constantly claiming our managers are over their heads tactically, our managers try and show that they are in fact somewhat obsessive about tactics.

Not that the fans are all wrong: many American managers are not tactically savvy. Developing an “American style of play” has been an obsession for years now among many fans, pundits and coaches.

Bruce Arena employed a strict 3-5-2 formation he had brought from DC United in the early part of his tenure. But that formation susceptible to counter attacking and leaking goals at critical times was gradually replaced by a 4-4-1-1 or a 4-3-1-2 depending on the occasion.

When Arena switched away from the 3-5-2 he needed a hard man in the midfield to occupy space and allow the talented John O’Brien a freer role in midfield (this was when O’Brien was healthy). Pablo Mastroeni quickly emerged as this man displacing /Chris Armas who was better suited to the 3-5-2 and was injury prone as the holding midfielder.

In the 4-4-1-1, Josh Wolff or Landon Donovan often times tucked in right behind Brian McBride. OF course in the most famous of all US victories, the 2002 World Cup win over Mexico, Arena employed a 3-1-3-1-2 setup, unique in world football and highly successful for this specific occasion.

Arena eventually switched to a 4-5-1 which depended on the effectiveness of the wide midfielders getting into attacking positions. This formation also did not achieve maximum results, but had to be tried because of the weak depth the post 2002 US teams featured at forward. The international retirements of Earnie Stewart, Joe Max Moore, and Cobi Jones eventually left the US with fewer and fewer supporting striker options.

This post is less about providing a history lesson (although it can be seen as a history lesson) and more about demonstrating how often the United States changes formations and tactics whether due to outside influences, perceived pressures or simple managerial tinkering.

About Kartik Krishnaiyer

A lifelong lover of soccer, the beautiful game, he served from January 2010 until May 2013 as the Director of Communications and Public Relations for the North American Soccer League (NASL). Raised on the Fort Lauderdale Strikers of the old NASL, Krishnaiyer previously hosted the American Soccer Show on the Champions Soccer Radio Network, the Major League Soccer Talk podcast and the EPL Talk Podcast. His soccer writing has been featured by several media outlets including The Guardian and The Telegraph. He is the author of the book Blue With Envy about Manchester City FC. View all posts by Kartik Krishnaiyer →
This entry was posted in Bob Bradley, Leagues: Major League Soccer. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Evolution of American Tactics, 1998-2009

  1. bill says:

    Regardless if how we setup we need Adu in the lineup preferably in acentral role. He’s comfortable on the ball and reallywoukd play well going foward with Bradley. I’m not sure we have the athletes in the back to play a 3-5-2 but if that is what it takes to get Freddy on the field then we should give it a shot. On another note maybe it’s time to replace Beasley with Adu for good and put Bornstein at LB.

  2. Angry USA Fan says:

    It’s amazing that we play everything but a conventional 4-4-2. I had actually noted this on Big Soccer a while back.

    Here is how we should setup.

    Howard

    Hejduk Gooch Boca Pearce/Bornstein

    Dempsey Bradley Adu Torres

    Donovan Jozy

    So stupidly simple that we cannot do it?

  3. Kartik says:

    It’s a shame we have an idiot who thinks adu is a winger

  4. Travis says:

    Experimenting is fine inf riendlies. The problem is Arena and Bradley have both made radical changes in qualifiers and at times in the World Cup. Arena’s tinkering with constant formation and lineup changes worked in 2002, but clearly he was pushing buttons that could only be pushed so often.

    Bradley having lost some of the team is trying the same thing and now our players are more professional play at bigger clubs and aren’t going to fall for all this mindless and needless button pushing anymore. So this could be a disaster.

  5. Ferd says:

    Arena’s tactical savvy was under rated. Bradley on the other hand is clueless- even more so than Sampson. Sampson was smart enough to realize the US had to maintain possession and get younger. He just went about it in the wrong way.

  6. Fan says:

    Sometimes I think people who say they follow the national team are really just numerologists. The numbers mean very little. Role and responsibility are more important than what you call a formation and how it shows up on a TV graophic.

  7. bill says:

    Kartik it’s a shame you’re a POS

  8. Rex says:

    Rico Clark is the least sexy player of all the player pool but I think the most critical. Clark has been freeing up midfielders to attack his whole career. He has a work-rate unmatched by anyone on the current roster. In any game where the US isnt the clear favorite Rico should be the plug in the middle.

    Hejduk, Gooch, Boca, ????
    Clark
    Dempsey, Bradley, Torres
    Donovan (free)
    Ching

  9. Football tactician says:

    Bill and Kartik need to fight each other

  10. Rex says:

    I think Clark proved my point on Sat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>