6. I liked Edson Buddle last night, and I continue to question why he's all of a sudden on the outside looking in. He made some good things happen last night simply with solid hold-up play and decision-making. To me, he's like Brian Ching/Conor Casey who can finish on the international level ( no offense to either player - I'm fans of both). I don't think he should be starting, but I do think he should be at least the back up option as a target striker.
Overall, I think the USA does have quite a few positives to take from these two matches, or at least a big one. Apart from getting his first win as manager of the USA, Juergen Klinsmann seems to have found a tactic/formation that works for this side after the first three games. The 4-1-4-1, due to it's numerical superiority in the central midfield, offered great possession and organization, but left the USA looking rigid and predictable in the final third, with none of the central midfielders getting the freedom to roam or create, and none really in a good position to create chances and channel the attack. In this new formation, which looks like a 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1, Dempsey can roam underneath Altidore to find space to create from, or even join him up top at times. Essentially, the 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1 is better than the 4-1-4-1/4-3-3 at having players in dangerous spaces to make things happen. We saw a lot of times, particularly against Costa Rica, where the USA's attack would be slowed down because they didn't have options or ideas in the final third. Against Honduras and Ecuador, the USA had Clint Dempsey in the hole to receive the ball, which helped link the midfield and attack. Moreover, Dempsey is in a good position to support Altidore right off the bat. Generally, I'd like to see the formation posted above given a shot. Bradley in a deep-lying/ holding distributive role and Kljestan shuttling to and fro the "3" and the "2" in the 4-2-3-1.