Joe Jonas and Jay Sean announce joint fall tour -- EXCLUSIVE

Brazil’s 3-4-3 with two markers and a sewpeer worked OK against the USA, but required a lot of midfield cover; they generated chances due to the individual brilliance of their speedy forwards, releasing them with long passes, but had a slightly broken team (only 50% possession against a USA playing with 10 for 60 minutes). The USA kept the ball better than usual, especially with 10, and had a good performance from the keeper. France put on a clinic for how a well-run 4-2-3-1 beats the 4-4-2 the USA played, but couldn’t finish, and their fitness level and defensive organization failed them at the end against a more clinical and fit USA. Substitutions were critical: the USA added pace in attack at 1-1 to run at defenders on the counter, but maintained their formation; France added an extra attacker just before second USA goal, leaving tired defenders exposed. USA and Japan played 4-4-2. USA shifted to 4-5-1 later on when Japan switched to 3 up top. USA paid the price for going to penalties in quarterfinals, allowing Japan to scout penalty takers. If Japan played a more sophisticated formation, they’d likely be even better. Even at 4-4-2, they beat Germany, Sweden and the USA, each for the first time, with good technique and possession, though USA pressure did cause them problems. Would’ve been fun to see Brazil’s 3-4-3 against France’s 4-2-3-1 (which often looked like 2-4-3-1 in practice). What would Brazil’s spare marker have done? Would the French have been able to work the ball in closer than against the USA by dragging the 2nd marker away from goal? Would the Brazilians have found wide open space behind the French fullbacks/wingbacks? We’ll never know, though I suspect the answer would have been yes in both cases, and a cracking, wide-open game.How’s that?