Armchair Coaching
St. Louis CITY SC — Thoughts No One Asked For
St. Louis CITY SC Formations
With CITY’s depth likely to be tested again on the road this weekend (Parker and Blom questionable; Miggy and Hiebert on international duty; Nilsson still out), I fully expect the staff to stick with a 4–4–2 against RSL. It has proven successful twice already this season, and given the limited options off the bench, it is probably the best tactic to give us a positive outcome on the road.
RSL is 2–2–0 so far, 1–1–0 at home, with wins over Chicago and Vancouver, and losses to Seattle and Austin. Honestly, Seattle and Austin are good teams if you had to pick two to lose to. I fully expect this to be tough, not only because of our depth being tested, but also: altitude. Playing a 4–4–2 ticks all the right boxes: dynamic attack, Löwen’s very natural box-to-box role, defensive cover for our CBs.
But what about a 4–5–1?
4–5–1: Why we should
Firstly, it’s not altogether different from the 4–2–3–1 which we’ve employed in wins over Austin and Portland. So while it looks like a big change on the surface, the boys wouldn’t actually have to change too much in their responsibilities. Secondly, this isn’t something I would trot out if the squad is fully healthy and has everyone available. It’s too defensive, and for me, doesn’t cater to the strengths of a fully healthy, available squad. But we are neither of those things this weekend.
The biggest reason to test this is out is the fact that we could potentially be without: Hiebert (Canada duty), Parker (injury), Nilsson (long term injury), Blom (sickness), Miggy (US U19 duty). Those are some MASSIVE gaps in the center of the pitch, and areas I would expect RSL to try and exploit. I love Löwen and Vassilev in the center, but they could get overloaded. And while I rate Bartlett and Yaro highly, they’re still very green in terms of top flight experience.
Here’s what it would look like:
Bürki
Nerwinski — Bartlett — Yaro — Nelson
Alm — Löwen — Ostrák — Vassilev — Célio
Klauss
Clogging the middle of the park gives the back line more protection, and on the road, at altitude, I frankly don’t mind it given the inexperience back there. Ostrák has played that central attacking role in the 4–2–3–1, although you could also switch him with Vassilev who would truly sit in front of the back 4 as a pivot point. It may look strange without Stroud out there, but I think 1) Célio has looked good when he’s come on, and 2) he’s just as, if not more, defensively responsible than Stroud. This gives Stroud some early season rest, too. Either way, this formation may cede a lot of possession, but we don’t play that style anyway. It is certainly a more cautious approach to tactics, though.
In terms of subs, Jackson could come in for Vassilev, Niko for Ostrák, Adeniran for Klauss, Stroud for Célio, Watts for Alm. This would move us back to a 4–4–2 toward the end of the match if we’re really pushing for a point.
4–5–1: Why we shouldn’t
For me, the biggest risk of the 4–5–1 is running Klauss into the ground. The risk of isolation is significant, as this formation also asks a lot of the wingers, but Klauss’s hold-up/linking play has been enough of a revelation to me that it could work. In the end, it doesn’t usually generate offensive opportunities the way we have been so far this season (wide play, long ball), and that could lead to some unease and/or poor decision-making with the ball. While the boys are used to playing without a ton of possession, that will wear on everyone at altitude and test an already shallow bench (especially out wide).
Ultimately, I think we go with what we know: the tried and true 4–4–2. The risk of Klauss being isolated and the demand on the wingers is probably a bit much, but it’s a defensively stout formation that provides lots of coverage in areas I expect RSL to try and take advantage of.
