soccer

Does the USA need a “No. 10”?

David Hirshey critiques the U.S. MNT with a lament for the bygone days, which never really existed in the USA’s case, of a “No. 10” playmaker directing the team.

From Ives Galarcep, we get a very different reading — the USA fared well in the 4-2-3-1 set-up that seems so common worldwide these days.

The 4-2-3-1 doesn’t rule out a “No. 10” — the midfielder at the center of the “3” line could be that guy. But all three of those midfielders are likely to see a fair amount of the ball, and the best playmaker need not be in the center. Landon Donovan, the MLS assist leader, is listed as a forward on Galaxy previews and is, as Hirshey notes, more commonly found on the flanks.

Bob Bradley was long criticized for playing an “empty bucket” midfield, with two central midfielders who leaned more toward the defensive end. Yet that system simply demanded that everyone share the load. It’s not inherently inferior to a diamond midfield with an attacking No. 10 and a defensive midfielder behind him. Some of the better midfields in MLS — Ronnie Ekelund and Richard Mulrooney spring to mind — were more fluid than the traditional attacking/defending split.

We’d all like to see skillful players, of course, and the buzzword in youth development these days is to encourage players to experiment and play a game more freely than the regimented days of the past. Freddy Adu in particular may have suffered from an insistence that he play more defense than a typical No. 10 or withdrawn forward would play.

But it’s tough to blame senior-level coaches for not having a Messi on hand. Hirshey curiously lumps Bruce Arena in the “hustle first, skill second” mindset of college coaches, even though Arena built fluid teams at Virginia and based D.C. United’s attack on a traditional No. 10 in Marco Etcheverry.

To show off a No. 10 in that mold, you need a player who’s head and shoulders above the rest. (Well, in the literal sense, he’s usually a head shorter — El Pibe excepted, most No. 10s are on the diminutive side.) Then you need to have a team so dominant and confident that someone else can carry the load if the defense focuses too heavily on one predictable mode of attack. Switch Messi to North Korea’s team, and he might not look like the swaggering No. 10 that Hirshey pictures him to be with Barcelona and Argentina.

So to see a true No. 10, the USA would need more than a change of tactics or one excellent player. We’d need to see a Golden Generation come up through the ranks. A No. 10 may be a symptom of a great team, but not the root of one.

One thought on “Does the USA need a “No. 10”?

  1. It’s an intriguing thought.

    One thing I found particularly interesting is the notion that Wesley Sneijder is bringing the #10 back.

    That may be, but the Netherlands still saw fit to play a ‘double d-mid’ with Van Bommel and De Jong (otherwise known as Van Flithy and Van Nasty) in the middle, force their creativity (Sneijder and Robben) out wide, and bench the more talented Van der Vaart because he didn’t fit the scheme.

    Arguably, no team in the tourney played more like the US than the Netherlands, even though unlike the US they had the talent to do differently.

    And heck, while I’m at it, Spain played a double D mid most of the time with Busquets and Alonso (admittedly, these guys don’t bear a lot of resemblance to the ones the Netherlands or the US played), forced Xavi and Iniesta (relatively) wide, and benched Fabregas.

    In other words, both Finalists had guys with the creative abilities typically associated with a “#10”, but arguably neither put those guys in that position because they would rather have had two holding mids.

Leave a reply to Sgc Cancel reply