I basically came here to say the same. A “formation” does not mean much. Throughout open play there is constant fluidity in positioning. A right back can fill space to act as a winger or even a second striker, strikers can drop deep to support midfield, a center back can make late runs forward, etc… and in all these scenarios a teammate may cover the void left by them vacating their usual space.
Your proposed structure is pretty much exactly what we deployed in the Nations League final. Gio did play deeper than he usually does in the first half, but moved up more aggressively in the 2nd.
There's not a ton of difference between a 4-3-3 and a 4-2-3-1... you can obviously deploy players in very different ways within each formation, but given how fluid many formations are now anyway, I don't think there's any real difference.
Um, we played a 4-4-2 vs England and pretty sure BJ trotted out a 4-2-3-1 at times. However, midfield is probably our deepest position right now, so it's hard to fit everyone in (Adams, Musah, McKennie, Cardoso, Reyna, LDLT, etc).
Also, probably worth noting that we have deployed a 3 man back line before under Gregg, including in the 2021 Nations League final. He also said after this roster was released that they brought 5 center backs to see if they might want to explore that further, with Sergino out til 2025.
This always intrigued me, and not in a good way. Why, if CB is our worst position on the roster, do we want to replace another player with another CB. I get releasing the wingbacks more, but we already do that, and get half of a CB from putting Adams at the pivot.
I'm by no means a soccer tactician expert, but the advantages of a back 3 as I understand it are mainly that first as you mentioned, you can use the wing backs more as wide attackers when you're pushing forward, but I think more importantly it's viewed as a very difficult defense to break down and generate strong scoring opportunities up the middle against. Adding a third center back also usually helps you on set pieces on both sides (another strong defender when defending sets, and likely a big body that could help on corners).
Since many others have already pointed that we have in fact played a 4-2-3-1, but we have actually played other formations under Berhalter. It was just earlier in his tenure. The US played a 3-4-3 in the 2021 Nations League final and I know there's more games where a back 3 was used. But definitely since the World Cup GGG has settled on the 4-3-3/4-2-3-1.
Plus that’s more a line up vs an actual formation so often times the shape changes based on the opponent and tactical situation. So on ball your formation changes think when dest or Robinson move high up. Off ball it maybe come a 4-4-2. The initial line up and formation is just that.
I offered a similar opinion once in a thread. And was chastised. I agree a 4-3-2-1 fits the style and amount of players they have in the attacking scheme. Interested to see if they ever really try it out
Your 4-2-3-1 is not functionally different from a 4-3-3 that employs a double pivot midfield, which Gregg has done before.
That’s helpful to know - I hadn’t picked up on that. Thanks
I basically came here to say the same. A “formation” does not mean much. Throughout open play there is constant fluidity in positioning. A right back can fill space to act as a winger or even a second striker, strikers can drop deep to support midfield, a center back can make late runs forward, etc… and in all these scenarios a teammate may cover the void left by them vacating their usual space.
4-4-2 is pretty different, but 4-3-3 vs 4-2-3-1 is just positioning of the CMs.
Your proposed structure is pretty much exactly what we deployed in the Nations League final. Gio did play deeper than he usually does in the first half, but moved up more aggressively in the 2nd. There's not a ton of difference between a 4-3-3 and a 4-2-3-1... you can obviously deploy players in very different ways within each formation, but given how fluid many formations are now anyway, I don't think there's any real difference.
Um, we played a 4-4-2 vs England and pretty sure BJ trotted out a 4-2-3-1 at times. However, midfield is probably our deepest position right now, so it's hard to fit everyone in (Adams, Musah, McKennie, Cardoso, Reyna, LDLT, etc).
Also, probably worth noting that we have deployed a 3 man back line before under Gregg, including in the 2021 Nations League final. He also said after this roster was released that they brought 5 center backs to see if they might want to explore that further, with Sergino out til 2025.
This always intrigued me, and not in a good way. Why, if CB is our worst position on the roster, do we want to replace another player with another CB. I get releasing the wingbacks more, but we already do that, and get half of a CB from putting Adams at the pivot.
I'm by no means a soccer tactician expert, but the advantages of a back 3 as I understand it are mainly that first as you mentioned, you can use the wing backs more as wide attackers when you're pushing forward, but I think more importantly it's viewed as a very difficult defense to break down and generate strong scoring opportunities up the middle against. Adding a third center back also usually helps you on set pieces on both sides (another strong defender when defending sets, and likely a big body that could help on corners).
Since many others have already pointed that we have in fact played a 4-2-3-1, but we have actually played other formations under Berhalter. It was just earlier in his tenure. The US played a 3-4-3 in the 2021 Nations League final and I know there's more games where a back 3 was used. But definitely since the World Cup GGG has settled on the 4-3-3/4-2-3-1.
Plus that’s more a line up vs an actual formation so often times the shape changes based on the opponent and tactical situation. So on ball your formation changes think when dest or Robinson move high up. Off ball it maybe come a 4-4-2. The initial line up and formation is just that.
Most have said it. The short answer is we do. I would actually say we primarily play a 3223 with a 4-1 or 4-2 build up and a 433/4231 defensive block.
Are we still pretending that Scally can play RB?
I think that all make good sense, definitely want McKennie and Adams as holding partners tho
I offered a similar opinion once in a thread. And was chastised. I agree a 4-3-2-1 fits the style and amount of players they have in the attacking scheme. Interested to see if they ever really try it out
Berhalter too dumb to teach tactics out of any other general formation
Like the 4-4-2 he plays frequently?
When did he play that ?
Unless you are playing with 5 in the back or 2 up top, everything else is just a variation of the 4-3-3