The Interchange - Solution or Problem

by Dave Clark on Aug 31, 2009 5:56 PM PDT in Sounders: MLS Regular Season

Remember back in the giddy days? The days of 4-2-0 and 12 points in six? The days of Nine Goals in 6, only 3 sacrificed and none of those by Keller!

Remember the days when the Supporter Shield was a goal, and not a dream? Remember the days of Sigi's Game, that nice flowing attack at all times soccer with great pace? What happened to those days?

Those days ended with a nine match stretch at 1-1-7 for 10 points in 9 played. I called it Red Card Hell. It was brutal, at least we thought than. The offense seemed stagnant (it wasn't - 1.33 Goals For). The defense seemed suspect (it wasn't either - 1.33 Goals Against). But Sounders fans worried, and maybe the team did a bit to. The luster wore off a bit.

The team was capable of being average. The team no longer looked like a top tier MLS squad. It looked like a team in the Wild Card hunt. Something needed to change.

So Sigi adjusted.

That adjustment was what I termed "The Interchange." Where the wide midfielders and forwards swapped roles for 15-20 minute stretches. It provided an immediate offensive spark (3-0 over Colorado). I interviewed Zakuani and Le Toux about the switch in tactics, about how it would sow confusion in the opposition trying to figure out how to defend the very different talents of Ljungberg, Montero, Jaqua, Zakuani and Le Toux.

Oddly, since the switch, the club has looked like an expansion squad. The passes in the central midfield are generally poor. The offensive flow has dissipated. The goals scoring has dropped below one a game (0.89), the defense is still strongish (0.89), but the record is stagnantl (3-3-3).

The Interchange is tactically sound in general. It makes sense to try, and is the model that Arsenal uses (not a bad team to copy). There is just one problem.

Seattle didn't start the season with the tactic. They tried to implement it during the season. During a season in which no more than two offensive players had experience in that system (Zakuani and Ljungberg), during a season in which no more than two Starters or Rotationals played together last year, during a season where the fans started to expect greatness a new system launched.

The Interchange requires any player entering the offense (in this case up to 8 outfield players) to know multiple roles. It particularly requires the players to understand not just where that role is supposed to be on the pitch, but how the individual prefers to receive the pass. The Interchange is tactically advanced and beautiful soccer.

But it means that a player on the wing not only has to know that he has short passes to two players, a long pass to two players and a back pass to one but as many seven different players at the end of that same pass. It becomes not just an issue of geometry but of permutations. It takes time for a team to have that kind of chemistry and knowledge. It takes a team that has had dozens of games and hundreds of hours of pre-season training to gain that depth of knowledge.

Maybe a more stable system is required in the short term in order to make the MLS Cup Playoffs. Each player in excellence in their role. Because Seattle didn't look like an expansion team until the second half of their expansion season.

Pre-Interchange Post-Interchange For Against For Against 1.40 1.00 0.89 0.89 7 of 15 4 of 15 3 of 9 4 of 9 over 2 at 0 over 2 at 0

Seattle Sounders are the brink of their first Cup; but dammit, I'm greedy and I would love to take two.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Dave, I think you’re dead on! And my impresssion before the first half Saturday was Sigi had caught on, too. (I think the Sounders abandoned it the second half, so I hope that’s it for that tactical adventure).

I wrote this over at Jose’s blog just after the game Saturday, out of frustration:

This whole notion that we have to come up with some tactical formation that keeps Ljungberg and Montero out of each others space has got to end. The first half the Sounders looked like they spent more time trying to figure out where they should be, and we still never ended up with anyone playing right mid. Ljungberg and Montero switching off at forward/right mid DOES NOT WORK. Maybe it does in theory, but in practice, no. We end up condensed with no spread to our shape in attack, making it to easy for our opponents to shut down. We did far better in the second half when Ljungberg started hanging out wide right (until he moved up front after Montero came out), at least we weren’t running around lost trying to figure out where we should be.
Evans right mid, his positioning is sound. Ljungberg in the middle, his wandering then doesn’t hurt our shape in attack. Keep it simple, we are not the Dutch. Get the basics right and go from there. Why does this seem so hard to figure out?

by Peter on Aug 31, 2009 6:26 PM PDT reply actions

Another tactical narrative can be told about the how our attacking play gets started from the back.

At the beginning of the season the Sounders had great success with Riley’s penetrating runs on the right. Our opponents adjusted and learned how to plug that channel. We responded by signing Gonzalez to create an equal threat from the left and not letting them cheat with an unbalanced defense. This seemed to work great, and I was looking forward to the day when Sigi could field his best team—unmarred by suspensions, injuries or bagel poisoning—so we could see just how good the Sounders could be.

Alas, that day came last Saturday against Toronto, and it turns out that we are still missing a piece of the tactical puzzle. I will grant that individual play was not what we could have wished for, but I think that we have to give Chris Cummins and his staff credit for analyzing our tactics and figuring out how to bottle us up before we could even get “The Interchange” part of the attack started.

Since defensive formations inherently are mostly away from the ball, television coverage is particularly weak at providing the viewpoints needed to figure out how Toronto was able to stifle us so effectively (and I was much too emotionally distraught while at the game to figure it out while it was happening) but the Reds effectively nipped Sigi’s “the enemy’s gate is down” game in the bud.

I hate to think that the next evolution in this narrative is going to be having Back Pass Pete as a part of the starting line-up, but I can’t deny that we were far batter at connecting the back and front lines once he got in the game. So my questions are:

How did Toronto do it?
What do we do to preserve our flowing attacking soccer despite Toronto style tactics?

by -jmc on Aug 31, 2009 7:39 PM PDT reply actions

Thank you so much for all of the great writing Dave.

I have been a casual soccer fan for some time and am still trying to get my head around some of the tactical dynamics of the sport. Your work here is extremely helpful.

I didn’t really understand “the Interchange” but I certainly saw the results. The offense has often looked gummed up and out of sync.

Do you think that the Vagenas substitution in the second half was Sigi realizing his mistake, as jmc suggests?

Can we return to the style of play from the first half? It seems that it was a simpler formula.

I am also agree with jmc’s comments about adjustments. It seems to me that the league has made some excellent adjustments to our various styles of play, and it looked like Cummins had made the perfect adjustments to our style of play on Saturday.

by Zach on Aug 31, 2009 9:12 PM PDT reply actions

The interchange was an attempt to get the Freddyain (two Freds) both in places where they could succeed, but not in the same channels.

Ages ago I suggested that Montero should go to the right wing. I still think that’s the answer. Because Ljungberg is better when he gets the ball further forward, it makes sense to have him as a withdrawn forward in the odd 4-1-3-2 that Seattle runs.

Yes, earlier was simpler. It was easier to stop. The adjustments that a coach needed to make defensively were rather simple, but a bunch of castoffs and unwanteds managed to use it to dominate early this season.

As for Vagenas I think that what he did was put Alonso further up the pitch where he could take a more offensive role. I liked that a lot, and is something that Sounders could explore in the future.

I have a theory, but actually there aren’t enough quality central midfielders to provide depth, but there are enough forwards. I’m going to post on that later this week, but the next two days will be all about the US Open Cup.

There is a trophy to win.

by Dave Clark on Aug 31, 2009 9:18 PM PDT reply actions

I’ve had a sense of doom about Wednesday’s match for a while now. The way we’re playing we couldn’t beat a U6 team.

Whatever the fix is, Sigi needs to find the solution soon. It’s hard to take the recent games after the way we played earlier in the season.

by CarlosT on Aug 31, 2009 10:16 PM PDT reply actions

I have a few thoughts. First, I like the idea of putting Freddy L. up front and allowing Alonso to come forward in the attack. He was the only guy that looked HUNGRY at the end of the game on Saturday. Bring Montero off the bench for the Cup final. He slows everything down and makes terrible passes. He is a great signing and a star in the making, but Lazy Lazy Lazy Lazy!!! Tell him to wear the same color of shoes and earn his spot with hussle. We need him to play like he did in Columbia and earlier this season. Even in the five straight games, he was very lax. Young guy, needs a kick in the but! I agree with Dave’s idea of dropping him back and letting Ljundberg go forward. Freddy L. is hungry. You could see it in the second half. If he can play that position at Arsenal, then why not in the MLS? I know the notion of his ability to bring out others, but we have a proven goal scorer, from the Premiership and we can’t score goals. Um? Hello! The other thing is that I noticed that everything has gone haywire since the San Jose Game. I don’t know if this is a reason, however this team has basically been the same ever since January. Only the fringe players changing. These are professionals and should expect change, but the week before San Jose we sign Gonzalez. He is fantastic! He should be adding to our attacking form. Not happening. Is this team so new and feeling such a bond that when a new guy gets bought in and replaces one of the lads. Mutiny! Just an observation.

by TL on Aug 31, 2009 11:13 PM PDT reply actions

What I’ve noticed when we have Freddie starting at right mid is he ends up in the middle anyway, and we never seem to have anyone out at right mid. Without a right mid, you have less of a spread in attack, the defence can stay compact, and it is easier for them to shut down attacking lanes.

I’m just sensing based on some recent comments Sigi has made in interviews, and how wide Freddie was for the first 20 of the second half, this was discussed at half time. Yes, the attack was simpler than the interchange, but there was more spread and it was more effective.

When Freddie moved up after Montero was taken out, and Evans moved to right mid, things continued to be better (or even better, as has been pointed out).

The point is, no matter what system we play, actually having someone out at right mid really helps a lot. :)

by Peter on Aug 31, 2009 11:45 PM PDT reply actions

In case anyone is interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Football

by Peter on Sep 1, 2009 12:41 PM PDT reply actions

Thank you, Peter. That is illuminating.

The gist of what you’re saying is it is less about the individual personnel and more about covering the most important positions. And the Interchange system pulls Freddie out of position and leaves the right mid unmanned. I never thought about the play at this tactical level, but it makes sense to me.

I love the idea of Total Football, but I love winning more. I’d prefer simpler football that leads to victories this season; we can work on Total Football during the offseason.

by Zach on Sep 1, 2009 1:34 PM PDT reply actions

Total Football is even more flexibility in roles than the interchangability of players.

The Interchange in this 4-1-3-2 means that really only 4 players are swapping.

by sounderatheart on Sep 1, 2009 2:23 PM PDT reply actions

Thanks Zach, I don’t know if leaving the right mid position empty is intended with the interchange, I really doubt it. I’ve been noticing since at least the first Houston match when Freddie starts at right mid, we often have an empty space where you would expect your right mid. And we seem to be awful congested at central mid. I don’t think that makes sense in any system.

I think something is broken down somewhere with all this, and it looked to me like we abandoned it in the second half because Freddie started the half hanging out wide right, there wasn’t any real interchanging going on that I noticed.

Personally, I have no idea where Sigi is going with this (I have my hopes and biases, for sure). My impression is lately Sigi likes the idea of the two central midfielders helping out defending, if Freddie moves back to a central attacking mid role, that isn’t going to happen so much. We’ll see…

by Peter on Sep 1, 2009 4:15 PM PDT reply actions