I’m a fan of Jurgen Klinsmann.
He’s brought the sort of panache and bravado that you would expect from a former World Cup-winning striker. In their coach, the Americans have a personality on the world stage, a headline for the European papers, and a talisman to represent their intention to become a true contender.
None of that should overshadow just how well his squad has performed on the field. Their escape from the ‘Group of Death’ in 2014 will go down as one of the greatest triumphs of American soccer to date. One should never discount just how difficult it is to win the Hex. And while the level and style of play may not quite have reached the lofty aspirations set by Klinsmann himself, one can’t argue that there haven’t been flashes of a more fluid game that weren’t apparent during the Bradley or Arena eras.
And lest we forget the recruiting. Channeling his inner Nick Saban, Klinsmann has assembled nearly a full side of German-Americans he’s swayed toward the USMNT. Fabian Johnson, John Brooks, Julian Green, and Gedion Zelalem all project as the stars in waiting for the U.S., and Jermaine Jones (a Bradley guy) still may yet have something left to contribute. You could argue that the U.S. likely doesn’t escape the group stage in Brazil without Klinsmann, if only based on his recruiting prowess.
So, given all that, why is it that I’m throwing shade at the German regarding his recent experimentation with the 3-5-2 formation in a friendly against Chile?
To put it bluntly, I think it’s a bone-headed move that has more to do with Klinsmann’s ego than winning matches.
To start, let’s talk tactics. This article isn’t the place to rehash the entire ethos of the 3-5-2. If you’re in the mood to get your soccer-wonk on, you can get good tactical breakdowns on the formation here and here.
I do, however, want to take time to question exactly what potential Klinsmann sees in the formation for the USMNT. Few, if any, of the American regulars have played the 3-5-2 at the club level often (if ever). Teams in Major League Soccer, where it now appears the majority of the American player pool resides, only deviate from the four-man backline approach on rare occasions.
I’d be remiss not to note that one of the greatest victories in the history of American soccer came as the U.S. used a 3-5-2 to defeat Mexico ‘dos-a-cero’ in the 2002 World Cup. That’s all well and good, but that was a one-time, desperation move for an over-matched American team coming off short rest and looking to absorb pressure and counter. And who knows what happens there if Brian McBride doesn’t score a goal that changes everything?
Yes, I understand that players like DeAndre Yedlin, Brek Shea, and Fabian Johnson are well-suited for the formation. Fantastic! You’ve now addressed the defensive inadequacies of three players by entirely changing the tactical plan of the team to better suit them. Surely, reorganizing our entire outlook on the game to better suit Brek Shea is the only thing holding the U.S. back from a shocking World Cup 2018 victory!
Sorry, is my sarcasm showing?
The 3-5-2 also happens to rely on more fleet-footed and positionally sound center backs. It’s not rocket science: three defenders instead of four means that the backline has to be more consistent and organized. Great! Who do we have for that? Geoff Cameron and Omar Gonzalez, you say? I’m not even comfortable using either of their names and the word “consistency” in the same sentence. What about CB of the future John Brooks? I question his footwork, and you’d be sacrificing his aerial ability in the attacking third. Jermaine Jones started centrally against Chile, and the highlights do more to question his competency in the role than I ever could. Further, I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the U.S. has the right players to fill the outside center back spots either. Remember Matt Besler getting rag-dolled by Romelu Lukaku against Belgium in Brazil?
Outside of the obvious in the wing backs, the other major tactical change is an increased reliance on ball control and an offensive playmaker in the midfield. It’s a nice thought that this formation might free-up Michael Bradley to regain the form that earned him the nickname “The General” while at Chievo in Italy. However, I see nothing that tells me this will be the case for the now Toronto FC midfielder as he attempts to marshal a formation that he’s rarely ever played in.
Let’s get back to my central charge though: Why is this formation indicative of Klinsmann’s egotism and narcissism, rather than just a tactical experiment?
I’m not just pulling these strong words out of thin air. Similar charges have been thrown around by former players and teammates over the years regarding Klinsmann. As they say, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. In his brief spell at Bayern Munich, Klinsmann angered players and management alike in forcing his way of doing things on the squad. He famously required the players to do yoga and brought in American fitness coaches to assist with training.
Klinsmann’s ego has been on display further in his ongoing feud with Major League Soccer, as well as commissioner Don Garber. Perhaps understandably so, it’s clear that Jurgen’s focus is more on winning matches over the next four years than building soccer as a whole in the United States.
The point I want to make though, as circuitously as possible, is that the last thing the USMNT needs at the moment is a dramatic change in formation. And this isn’t the difference between a 4-4-2 and a 4-2-3-1. It’s a 3-5-2 formation utilized successfully by only a handful of teams in the world.
The United States has been on an incredible run over the last few World Cups cycles. Seven consecutive World Cup appearances. A quarter-finals appearance in 2002. Two consecutive round of 16 appearances most recently.
Would you like to lose a debate? Try and argue that America has the talent to be one of the best eight national teams in the world. Sure, we can talk about the American developmental system lagging behind other countries. But given the talent we actually have, we should be generally ecstatic at our run of results over the last four World Cups.
So why is Jurgen Klinsmann trying to change the entire tactical philosophy that got us there?!
Klinsmann was non-committal after the Chile match, explaining, “Often, it’s looking at your roster and saying, ‘What is the best solution now’?” That’s the simple explanation of course, given the presence of Yedlin and Shea. It’s naive to think, though, that Klinsmann isn’t interested in the 3-5-2 as more than just a one-time change that best fits the players available. There’s more to it than that.
It’s early for broad conclusions, of course. We may very well never see the 3-5-2 again after this camp and Sunday’s friendly against Panama. You can hardly blame Klinsmann for being a bit restless. One win in the last nine matches and a series of second half let-downs will do that to a coach. My hope is that Jurgen regains his senses and returns to what has brought America so much success over the last two decades.
My gut, however, tells me that Klinsmann is far too stubborn to give up on his idea so easily.
Andrew Marcinko is a senior writer for The Yanks Are Coming. His work also appears on SB Nation’s Orlando City blog “The Mane Land” and on MLS.com. You can and should follow him on Twitter at @FootyAmerica.