No, I'm merely saying that both statements could be completely true at the same time. They don't contradict one another in any way. A symmetric thing arises with Landon Donovan. Yes, he's the greatest American soccer player of all time and still absolutely vital to our team. That doesn't say anything, though, about the counterfactual claim that he would've been an even better player had he toughed it out in Europe. All I'm saying is that it makes for a few throwaway lines in an otherwise excellent article.
If the guy is one of the best players on the team, how is he the beneficiary of nepotism? Those two things certainly seem mutually exclusive to me.
I'm not arguing this point, because I didn't pay enough attention to the national team when Bradley came into the fold, but what he's saying is that, at that time, Bradley could have been the beneficiary of nepotism. His current talents don't negate that claim.
Absolutely not a fallacy. That "debate" continued all the way until Coach Bradley got fired. It never stopped once it began, and it amounted to personal attacks on Bradley, because it was an accusation that was getting something that he never earned, and only played because his Daddy was the coach. If I was in Michael Bradley's boots, I would have been absolutely infuriated.
At the time Brice Arena brought him in, he was an up and coming player with Herenveen, played in all 3 friendlies, and looked like he belonged on the WC Squad everytime he played. To say that was a "favor" to Bob Bradley, is absurd. If Bruce Arena had continued as manager, Michael would have been quickly integrated as a locked in starter. Just as he was under Bob Bradley. Not to mention Michael's club play also showed evidence of his quality.
That would be absurd. Which is why I didn't say it. I said it was a courtesy -- to Michael. He was called in as a practice player: "None of the 13 U.S. alternates has been summoned to camp, but 18-year-old midfielder Michael Bradley was invited to serve as a practice player." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901843.html May 10, 2006. The key was he wasn't in season. Also, he had been at Heerenveen for half a season and started all of 2 matches. Moreover, I am completely stunned at your ability to tell that Michael "belonged" in the all of 1 minute he played in his debut and 7 minutes he played against Latvia! 8 whole minutes of playing time. (He didn't play all three, by the way). Now, that's absurd. The rest of your post I completely agree with and haven't said otherwise anywhere, so I'm not sure why you've directed it at me.
Yes, you're right, appoo. When you ascribe a straw man to one of the positions, it's not a fallacy. Good for you.
I don't think we need to re-hash the nepotism debate. I think this applies (or should apply) to not only those that critically examined, in many different ways, how MB was used by his Dad over the course of his tenure relative to other players, but also to those that sought to counter each of those arguments. So, in that sense, I do not think Michael's earned stature in our pool now and historically, is license for those that countered each of those arguments to pump their rhetorical fists either. I get the point that UxSxAxfooty is making and a see the sensible, logical distinction he is making. But hopefully we can avoid re-litigating all aspects of those threads.
Bradley is not only one of our best players now but once he retires in a decade, he'll be one of our top 5 players ever easily.
Jozy will get all the headlines, but Bradley was very good again today and showed how particularly good he can be in attack AND tracking back. And heck... everything in between.
I would like people who have been proven wrong about Mike Bradley to admit it. And let's be clear- people who say Mike benefited from nepotism clearly imply that there was a better option available at that time. I wish to know the name of that option. That's all I ever wanted.
I don't quite remember the games fully, but I do remember Mike playing and looking like he belonged as well. Did not embarrass himself. I do remember Arena made comments about him specifically. How impressed he was and that he did reward him by giving an opportunity to play because of how good he was.
But I guess MB did shine enough during his stint as a practice player to deserve a few minutes. I think it's the use of the word "courtesy" that is the issue. Courtesy implies that the minutes were given for something other than deserving. I don't believe there were other practice squad players who were given a minute or two out of courtesy, right?
A. There weren't other practice players. B. That wasn't the issue in the post I responded to as the context makes quite clear. Now just you are trying to make it the issue. C. Courtesy implies no such thing, unless you're intentionally trying to interpret it that way. I meant it as "thanks."
I remember when ESPN had a lengthy story on Bradley prior to the 2010 World Cup and the bigsoccer thread pretty much universally dismissed it as a fluff piece...
I think the bolded premise is narrow, reductionist and overly simplifies the breadth of the discussion. I do not agree that all criticism (again, which was varied) "clearly implies" those critics believed there was a better option. Perhaps consider creating a thread titled something like "Big Soccer Nepotism Apology/Reconciliation/Conan Philosophy of Life Thread." This forum could be culled for such people fitting the description. Once identified, they could be driven before the thread, crushed, and we could all hear and enjoy the lamentations of their women...men...partners... Just throwing that out there. Insert quasi serious emoticon here.
I think it's a semantic point. Nepotism to me implies that kinship is the determining factor in a selection over form or potential. It implies a level of unfairness that prevents a more deserving player from starting or making the squad. And don't pretend you don't remember how brutal the criticism was. Seriously,did Cesare Maldini get that much shit over playing Paolo? How about Cal Ripken Sr. over playing his son? And yes, I like people to man up and admit how wrong they were about players,just like Segroves finally did about McBride. Enough, anyhwo. There are posters on this board who never dreamed we'd see the level of play Mike Bradley has reached recently.Our best hope is that that form holds and Jones or Mix becomes a complement to him.
They sure punch a hole in it. That he's developed into not just one of the team's best players, but perhaps one of the best USMNT players ever, goes a long way to justify any playing time he got while still developing. If Bradley hadn't been the coach's son, it would be assumed that he got PT coming up because of how talented he was, talent that has now become production.
When Bruce called him up, he'd actually just helped Heerenveen get into the UEFA Cup. He was 17 years old but, compared to what other U.S. players were doing at the time, it was pretty heady stuff. He knew he wasn't going to make the squad, but I heard a podcast where Jimmy Conrad said, "He was making us all look like fools...running circles around us." I'm sure that's hyperbole, but still nice to hear veterans praise him. Heerenveen, by the way, ID'd Michael when he was getting his first minutes for the MetroStars as a 16-year old...after missing the entire '04 season with foot injuries. Heerenveen's got a pretty good reputation for ID'ing young players. Look 'em up.
And this thread (about a great and very well written article) shows why any post with the words "Bradley" and "nepotism" in it just needs to be auto-deleted. Regardless of what you thought about it at the time, History has spoken, folks, let it go.
Cap Luca Bradley now! http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/04/11/14/32/140411-michael-bradley-in-toronto Summer, winter. Whatever.
Nah, the argument was that he played earlier, and more than if his dad hadn't been the coach. Not that he never earned it. An argument that has rather been born out by his experiences in Germany, Aston Villa and Roma. Where he wasn't the beneficiary of early and additional playing time. Mike is a good player, certainly one of the US's best. But he has never been an obvious starter on a big team. At some point you look at your CV and it defines you. Mike is a dominant MLS player. He couldn't break into the EPL. Its not like Chelsea was screaming for him when AV cut him loose. He went to Chievo. He didn't make much noise at Roma. He is still very good. But his fan club makes out like he is Zidane. One question: Since the "US will go only as far in the WC as Mike carries them", is he a complete failure if they don't advance? The answer is, of course, no. Mike is a very good player. He is an obvious member of the 23. Having his dad as US coach was an advantage to his early development, that is rather hard to argue. He seems like a great guy, and I wish him nothing but success.
He's an obvious starter on the USMNT, and they're kinda a big team. A player doesn't need a CV that includes big clubs in UEFA. (And very likely a US player is going to have trouble ever getting such a CV. Was Bradley's time a Roma as effective and as influential as Zidane's time at Juve? Certainly not. But we'll have our version of players like Zidane, but they won't "be" what Zidane actually was as a player for their clubs/country -- of course until the US hosts another World Cup and beats a team like Brazil in the final with that player scoring two nice goals.)