New Formation for Canada?

[masster]

Watching this World Cup and looking at the performances of the other 'minnows' has really got me thinking...given the talent and players we have, what would give us the best chance to compete or have success without playing complete bunker football? I think the trend, maybe thanks to Jose Mourinho, has been the focus on the importance of the counterattack. To do this, we need the ability to break with pace, especially from wide positions. In addition, we need to solve the major problems that have plagued us when playing with our A lineup, which include a lone striker that is too isolated and the lack of a 'stopper' in front of our back 4.

So, analyzing all of these factors has lead me to believe that we need to experiment with a 5-3-2. This would be my lineup.

----------------------------------------------------Friend-------------------------------

----------------------------Jackson-----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------Hutchinson-----------------------------------------

----------------------De Guzman-----------------Bernier------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---Simpson------------------------------------------------------------Peters----------

------------------Jakovic-------------McKenna-----------Straith-----------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------Hirschfeld------------------------------------------

Now I'm sure most of you that have been following the Nats for some time will give up reading my post at this point. You are thinking I must be crazy. Leaving arguably our 2 best players (De Rosario and Klukowski) out of my starting XI means I'm foolish and have no idea what I am talking about. In addition, this formation probably creates visions of us 'parking the bus' and playing anti-football. I completely understand where you are coming from; so let me try to explain my logic.

The formation is based on the following. We need to be sound at the back. I think that is lesson number one from the World Cup so far. When we have the ball, we need to break with pace, giving our strikers the best chance to succeed while leaving ourselves enough cover if/when we turn the ball over.

Starting up front...Friend is the target man that should hold the ball up when we are under pressure. He offers the aerial presence on set pieces when we need to make the most of our opportunities. Beside him is Jackson, who is there to work off of Friend and has the pace required to make this system work.

In the midfield, we have our bank of 3. They need to work HARD especially defensively to close down space. They need to create turnovers so we can strike on the counter. Hutchinson and De Guzman are automatics. Hutchinson supporters the attack while De Guzman plays his old Deportivo role. It is what he is best at and when he had the most success. Bernier is #3 almost out of default. I considered Imhoff for this spot but we don't know his future/commitment to the National Program. Nsaliwa is out of the picture. Johnson was an option too but Bernier seems to be a more natural fit for this role.

The full-backs...these guys are the key. They need to be speed demons. They need to bomb up and down the wings. They need to be capable defenders but also be useful and offer you options in attack. Peters is playing everywhere for his club, including time at fullback. We saw at the U20 level the difficulties his pace can cause going forward. Josh has similar attributes, speed to burn and nifty skill going forward. Full-back is not completely foreign to him either, with him spending some time there earlier in his career, including with the Nats at Gold Cup 2005.

The rest of the back line. McKenna is the aerial presence. He is also 'sheltered' by his two central partners to cover for his lack of speed. Straith is our all around up and coming defender. Jakovic has the composure and on the ball skill for us to work out of the back when necessary.

Scenarios: I know this is overly simplistic because things are a lot more fluid than this, but in general we have 5 guys going forward and 8 men behind the ball when defending. We have the speed to have an effective counter attack and are less susceptible to the counter oursleves. The middle of the field remains compact and solid leaving the opposition little time and space.

The 2 omissions. I love Klukowski. His best attribute is his crossing. No other Canadian player can match him in this regard. Simpson just has more of what I am looking for in terms of speed and attacking ability. I'll admit that defensively the comparison is not as clear, but that is why it is an experiment. I also understand that this would probably be the most controversial of my selections. I thought of sliding Klukowski over and having him take the spot of Jakovic, but his best attribute would never be put to use (except for the occasional set piece), and again, Jakovic has more of what I am looking for in that particular spot. Mike is probably the better overall player of the three, but I have built a system that needs certain attributes to succeed while keeping our current player pool in mind...and this is it. De Rosario is the other guy. I just don't see where he fits in the starting XI. He doesn't fit the criteria of what I need from my mids, same goes for the strikers. If we are down and need a moment of brilliance, I can't think of a better Canadian player to bring off the bench.

Funny things happen when you watch 6 hours of football a day. This wasn't something I came up with after hours of study and analysis; it was an idea that initially popped in my head and I became more confident in it every time I tried to unsuccessfully poke it full of holes. So now the challenge goes out to you fellow Voyageurs. Tell me why this doesn't work...otherwise I'm going to start to think that I am a genius.

[masster]

Sorry for the long post and if the formation does not format properly.

[Guest Ed]

Re your statement "Leaving arguably our 2 best players (De Rosario and Klukowski) out of my starting XI means I'm foolish and have no idea what I am talking about.".

I haven't been impressed with DeRo in our CMNT lineup for some time, but I have no doubt that our starting LB in ANY formation has to be Klukowski.

[Jeremy]

I have been following Les Rouges since the Honduras game in 08, so I am not fully knowledgeable on every player's positions... Can Klukowski play at left centre-back where you put Jakovic ? Other than that I like the lineup. I have the feeling that if you persist on always starting the same players (De Ro) based on the argument that they are the best we have, but the results do not follow, then it is foolish not to try anything new. Give this lineup a try for the September games. Not that they mean anything other than trying things anyway.

[nolando]

I've been thinking of new formations too after watching all this footy. Why are we stuck with the lone striker? We don't need to be, as long as we have a decent back-up solution. I like the formation but have to agree with Ed that Klukowski has to be accomodated.

[Juby]

I got a bit of a schism in my mind about upfront, I would tend to believe (especially at our level) you play to your strengths (probably midfield for us) so 1 striker does make sense but were not exactly scoring goals lately and maybe I'm underrating our strikers (or overrating our midfield).

[canucklefan]

With a 5-3-2 formation, I fear that we struggle once again to find the two strikers. I'd like to see first the traditional 4-4-2 but who knows, maybe a 5-3-2 could suit better our NT. The fact is that Canada mustn't play anymore with one striker. Also, I'm surprised that you didn't include Pacheco and Sidra in your starting XI. I think your idea is very interesting and having Pacheco in your starting XI instead of Bernier, could be the good guy for the counterattack.

[Sam]

The idea of playing with a back three or five is an interesting one as it relates to Canada. I mean a back three and five are pretty much the same thing its just up to how the wing backs play. If we're going to relate it to the World Cup just look at Chile, pundits will say they play a 3-1-3-3 but it could also be called a 5-2-3 with the two wing backs playing more defensively. In three/five back formations the key is the wing backs. For anyone that watched the Chile game against Honduras (and loved watching Honduras get ripped apart ) you'll remember the play of the two wingbacks Isla and Vidal who were brilliant. They ran down the line like mad men. They were arguably Chile's two best players going forward with the exception of Sanchez and they were good at the back when called upon. Most top teams in the world today play with four at the back, but I'm kinda hoping that the trend of playing with wing backs starts to creep back because its exciting to watch.

I'm a big fan of attacking fullbacks and as a Manchester United fan I love seeing our left back Evra bomb down the wing to provide an extra dimension to the attack. It really livens up a static attack. When the opposition has shut down all the options having the second wave of attack out wide in the form of a fullback forces the opposition to readjust. The perfect example of this working and not working was in the Brazil-North Korea game. Brazil's fullbacks Maicon and Bastos barely came back to defend all game so they were just extra wingers. This meant Brazil had more numbers forward, but there was no "second wave of attack" it was just one solid block of attackers and the North Koreans did well contain a skilled Brazil team and their fullbacks. But the goal from Maicon came when the North Korean defense got a little disorganized and spread out because Maicon came to the attack late bombing down the right wing after the Brazil attack was stalled. Maicon was wide open, forced the North Koreans to open up and Maicon found an opening dribbled to the goal line and then obviously put in a fabulous goal, but he just as easily could have played a ball into the penalty spot or six yard box and created an opportunity for his forwards that way. The point is this "second wave of attack" only comes when the fullbacks are not the primary options on the wings. This is why playing with wingbacks would be exciting and fun to watch on counters could limit these second wave attacks since they are the first options on the wing.

Bringing it back to Canada. If Canada were to play with a 5-3-2 as is being suggested the only options outwide would be these wingbacks in Peters and Simpson. I agree that Klukowski would not be a fit here, because looking at Chile the two wingbacks had a helluva a lot of pace to get forward quickly and join back with the attack. For a counter attack this 5-3-2 really would be a dream formation, if Canada could get the ball forward quickly the players going forward are all very capable of an offensive threat. The worry is what happens if that doesn't work. Thinking back to the Honduras game in the 2009 Gold Cup. Canada had almost all the possession in the final 20-25 minutes, but couldn't open up a very organized Honduran team which eventually won the match 1-0. If we're playing with wingbacks that means we'd have at least seven men forward and no second wave of attack to create new openings in the opponents' defense.

CONCACAF is a region where there is a lot of bunker defending. Canada does it, Honduras does it, Jamaica does it, Costa Rica does it. There are lots of teams capable of doing this and Canada has been unsuccessful in recent times breaking these teams down no matter how much possession we have. I think what Canada need to work on is not putting together the perfect counter attacking team, but a team that can use posession to break down teams. At the past Gold Cup under Hart we had plenty of the ball. The players just didn't really know how to find that cutting pass or use that little bit of creativity to open up a team. That is why I'd prefer to see a 4-4-2, a 4-5-1, a 4-1-4-1 a 4-3-3 or some other formation that allows for multiple waves of attack.

[Trillium]

We need outstanding outside speed, and currently we do not have it, we need outside

mids ... and outside backs who can make fast paced runs to recieve delivery of balls from our

midfield.

Untill you have that speed ... you will not be world competitive, if we have the speed then you can play a 4-1-1-4, your strong up the middle ... literally becomes a I formation ... or indeed a harkening back to the swiss bolt of the 50's ... you control the middle and distribute to the wings.

When penetrate to the 18 on the wing ..you cross and the midfiled I moves forward in a offensive bolt that looks to knock the ball in... if the speed on the wing is faster then defenders you turn the corner and drive to the six yard box.

Now the question is do we have the team speed to play at high level.. from Argentina no.. and from Merida .. again no, so we have to find some rabbits somewhere and work them into the MNT.

[Keano]

When the hell is Leonardo Dilorenzo getting his citizenship

[matthew]

Interesting Mass. I had a very similar thought (but a slightly different conclusion) to yours watching this tournament. For me the biggest missing ingredient is the ball winner to sit in front of the back . . .

But watching the tournament I was thinking maybe I was looking at it wrong.

I was thinking of a back four with Jakovic playing in front of the back four. This frees the outside backs to get forward and leaves Jakovic as a libero in a back three when attacking — very much like what Mexico did with Rafa Marquez to start against South Africa. This should help keep the back solid, while still turning the backs loose. Because I do agree we're always better when we get our backs forward.

I would play two forwards — Friend and DeRosario for example — and Johnson, Hutchinson and DeGuzman across the midfield giving us three mids who can play box to box, but who are defensively sound. I may be more of a Johnson fan than others, but I think his work rate and versatility are important.

I like the idea of blazing speed down the flanks, but I wonder who those players are to do that. I’m not sure Simpson plays well enough defensively to be a left back (at least not how I envision it). I was thinking DeJong could fill this role and Sidra could be an option. On the other flank it pretty much has to be Peters or Sidra. Klukowski gets forward well and while he isn’t going to provide that pace, he certainly does get forward well and I think could make this work.

I do think Klukowski needs to be on the pitch, even if it’s playing as a central defender. I don’t think we’re good enough to plan our team around a formation, rather we have to plan a formation around our team. Which is one of the reasons I think Jakovic may be a good fit as that stopper. Whether we’re better off with a slower, better player like Klukowski as backs or not I don’t know.

I should hasten to add I don’t think this formation works against everybody. Teams that have speed wide and are looking to counter will have some room, but I think it could be an interesting experiment and would definitely help get the outside backs forward.

cheers,

matthew

[youllneverwalkalone]

I think the trend, maybe thanks to Jose Mourinho, has been the focus on the importance of the counterattack. To do this, we need the ability to break with pace, especially from wide positions. In addition, we need to solve the major problems that have plagued us when playing with our A lineup, which include a lone striker that is too isolated and the lack of a 'stopper' in front of our back 4.

I think a lot of people forget that South Africa is actually pretty cool this time of year, which lends itself to quick tempo, counterattacking football. I'm not sure that we can say the same about the Central American climate. Your formation though, still works in a more short passing, possession style game. Honduras, Mexico, and the US are all very good at mixing the tempo to suit the situation and to capitalize on the complacency of lesser opposition like Canada. The 5-3-2 would allow us to continue with the trend to bulid from the back. Regardless of the formation, we will struggle to find quality balls in the attacking third against quality opposition. Wingers/Full backs, a la Holger, would bring us back to one of our strengths which would be winning corners and picking up some goals on set pieces. Hart has been really bad at exploiting the flanks when we face superior opposition. Simpson would look good there, but I would recommend bringing in Straith at RWB, dropping Bernier, and bringing in Peters in to the central mid role. He's comfortable on the ball, and Keane has been using him in the middle periodically.

[BearcatSA]

CONCACAF is a region where there is a lot of bunker defending. Canada does it, Honduras does it, Jamaica does it, Costa Rica does it. There are lots of teams capable of doing this and Canada has been unsuccessful in recent times breaking these teams down no matter how much possession we have. I think what Canada need to work on is not putting together the perfect counter attacking team, but a team that can use posession to break down teams. At the past Gold Cup under Hart we had plenty of the ball. The players just didn't really know how to find that cutting pass or use that little bit of creativity to open up a team. That is why I'd prefer to see a 4-4-2, a 4-5-1, a 4-1-4-1 a 4-3-3 or some other formation that allows for multiple waves of attack.

To me that has more to do with the personnel available than formation choice.

[Trillium]

I don’t think we’re good enough to plan our team around a formation, rather we have to plan a formation around our team.

Using your method the coach is faced with teaching a new formation and concept every cycle or less depending on talent seen ... and so club coaches dont play a consistent style that players learn and step into at the National level.

Frankly we need national style.. we need coaches at the youth level finding blazing speed and teaching those naturally fast players to be faster.. we need to teach passing patterns that allow us to know where someone will make a run, and that you can deliver a quick pass to a player on such runs.

Its not club ball where you have players .. week to week and can built around what the club buys in the markiet..and I would argue successfull clubs buy players to fit into the club system not the other way around.

[matthew]

Using your method the coach is faced with teaching a new formation and concept every cycle or less depending on talent seen ... and so club coaches dont play a consistent style that players learn and step into at the National level.

Frankly we need national style.. we need coaches at the youth level finding blazing speed and teaching those naturally fast players to be faster.. we need to teach passing patterns that allow us to know where someone will make a run, and that you can deliver a quick pass to a player on such runs.

Its not club ball where you have players .. week to week and can built around what the club buys in the markiet..and I would argue successfull clubs buy players to fit into the club system not the other way around.

Well I have to respectfully disagree. Tactics and formations constantly evolve, so we would be teaching new fomations and concepts regardless. I like a lot of what Mass was saying, but for me the crucial flaw is that it takes our best and most consistent defender (bar two pretty mediocre outtings) off of the pitch in Klukowski. We can’t just jettison our best defender because he doesn’t fit the scheme we’ve hatched. I don’t think that makes us a better team. If we had a system that called for only one holding midfielder would you propose we bench either Hutchinson or DeGuzman or do we evolve our tactics and formation to get both on the pitch — I feel we have to do the latter. You can’t just throw the best 11 on the pitch with no regard to what positions they play, but I also don’t think we can scheme with no regard to maximizing getting our best players on the pitch within reason.

I would love to have a national style. It would be great if we had consistency through the program at various levels and so they could just step in at senior level and know what we’re doing tactically, but we can’t even keep a TD around for more than a year or two, how are we going to attain such a lofty goal? Long term it would be great. Short term I don’t think we have that luxury.

I totally agree a club buys players to fit the system they want to play. We have to work with what we’ve got and play to our strengths. Those strengths will change and evolve with the players we have in each cycle. I don’t think we’re alone in that.

cheers,

matthew

[Time_for_2014]

Very interesting...I like it and yes 6 hours of WC can make us think alot about our NT

[jpg75]

One can dream...

----------Hoilett-----DeRo-----------

----------------Jono----------------

Simpson--------------------------Hutch

----------------Julian----------------

Kluks----Jakovic-----McKenna----Straith

----------------Lars-------------------

[Sam]

To me that has more to do with the personnel available than formation choice.

That's what I was trying to say since we don't have that little bit of quality instead of relying on individual skill we can use more structred attacking runs from deeper lying fullbacks that will help open up teams. The more "waves of attack" the more of a chance Canada will be able to break through the opponents without having to show that extra bit of flair which we've all pretty much agreed at the moment they don't have.

[BearcatSA]

If you want the fullbacks to push up more than you need to have guys who can cover for them and mind the store when they are on walkabout, guys who can win the ball back when possession is lost, prevent a quick counterattack from materializing. Attacking fullbacks like Maicon benefit from having guys like Felipe Melo and Gilberto Silva behind them; in fact all the contenders feature at least one guy who provides the positional discipline, reading of the game, and ballwinning capacity needed to give the team balance. One thing that has been reinforced for me in this tournament is the need for that kind of ballwinner type of player to emerge for us. And I don't buy the argument that JDG and Hutchinson already do that job: to me, they're box to box linking players who rely more on finesse and quickness to provide defensive support as opposed to winning 50/50 balls on a regular basis.

[Sam]

If you want the fullbacks to push up in more than you need to have guys who can cover for them and mind the store when they are on walkabout, guys who can win the ball back when possession is lost, prevent a quick counterattack from materializing. Attacking fullbacks like Maicon benefit from having guys like Felipe Melo and Gilberto Silva behind them minding the store; in fact all the contenders feature at least one guy who provides the positional discipline, reading of the game, and ballwinning capacity needed to give the team balance. One thing that has been reinforced for me in this tournament is the need for that kind of ballwinner type of player to emerge for us. And I don't buy the argument that JDG and Hutchinson already do that job: to me, they're box to box linking players who rely more on finesse and quickness to provide defensive support as opposed to winning 50/50 balls on a regular basis.

The idea was Bernier or Imhof would hold the role during WCQ in 08 and Bernier did in the 07 gold cup when Klukowski and Stalteri were making positive runs forward.

It will be interesting to see who could fill this role in 2012? Maybe Straith?

[BearcatSA]

I was thinking of a back four with Jakovic playing in front of the back four. This frees the outside backs to get forward and leaves Jakovic as a libero in a back three when attacking - very much like what Mexico did with Rafa Marquez to start against South Africa. This should help keep the back solid, while still turning the backs loose. Because I do agree we're always better when we get our backs forward.

I watched Marquez's role closely with Torrado and they both provided a good base until things went pear shaped with the first goal and then Osorio's cranial cramp. Up until then, they seemed to do well.

Jakovic's skillset is not unlike the Barca man's, but I just can't see Hart opting for going with a back three with Jakovic in front or Jakovic even being pulled out of the back four. I'm still hoping a stronger defensive presence emerges in our midfield.