First, don't forget to pick up your MB jersey from the dry cleaners for the game tonight. Second, I have not made much of a argument for Clark but thanks boss.
I guess you mean equating us, which I'm not. It's helpful to learn how to act from those who are more experienced. (Thanks Bob.) Someday we're going to have to get past this "plays for a euro team" stuff and have the confidence to call things as we see them. You won't catch Brazilian fans, at least not on BS, saying a player plays for Manchester Utd, so they should be called up or playing for the NT, or, god forbid, go 90 whenever available. It might work that way eventually, but they will always use their eyes to evaluate the player's work for the NT, club be damned. They're actually more likely to say Man Utd has ruined their player.
You haven't responded to the idiocy of your calling him slothful. You make no points beyond, "wahhhhh I don't like Bradley." And you admit that you have no point and you're just trolling. Garbage posting, sir. Mods, please close.
For the people saying that club form shouldn't mean much to our coaches: historically, the USMNT players who have started regularly in a top 4 league have started for the national team. Regis, Reyna, and Keller, our only 3 in 1998, started all meaningful games then; Friedel, Sanneh, and Reyna, our only 3 in 2002, started all World Cup games when healthy. Keller, Cherundolo, Reyna, and McBride, our only four in 2006, (I believe Bocanegra had lost his spot in the Fulham starting lineup towards the last two or three months of the season) started all three games. (I haven't looked these over so correct me if I'm wrong.) Right now, Howard, Cherundolo, Dempsey, Bradley, and Bocanegra, if you want to count Ligue 1, are the USMNT players starting regularly in a top league, and they all appear to be locks for our team. Maybe our coaches have a Euro bias, maybe they think that those playing regular, high level, competitive matches will be most prepared for the challenges the USMNT will confront, or maybe the players starting at that level just tend to be better. The point is, the club defense isn't just something used for Bradley. edit: There have been a couple of players who have started on teams with a 10-20 point gap between them and the non-relegated teams in their league (Lewis at Derby and Demerit at Watford come to mind) who have not become regular starters with the national team, but those cases appear to be the exception.
So I'm labeled as a Michael Bradley fan boy for trying to help you get your point across? So, if your argument isn't that we start Clark in his place (even though on your original post, that was your claim), then should we just play with 10 men? If you think someone isn't good enough to play, then it would help the News and Analysis thread if you gave a suggestion instead of a rant. And it's none of your business what I'm wearing while watching the game. For what it's worth, I think that Mastroeni would have been starting this game alongside Clark or Sacha if he hadn't been suspended.
well, I mean honestly, what had baby bradley done to warrant starting time in the beginning other than some sporadic playing time in Holland? Plus, Torres plays in Mexico, the team I believe the US will be playing. Not that he should start, but if you want to argue a stupid point...I am the idiot leading the charge.
Your main point is that Brazil looks at how players play, in terms of their style and how they fit within the national team, rather than club playing time or club fitness level. What you must fail to grasp is that teams like Brazil have the luxury of coaching that way due to the immense talent pool they draw from, and as a result any comparison between Brazil and the US is flawed from jump street... unless we're talking about coaching and competing in a vacuum as opposed to the real world, in which case I'd agree that it's a great idea to be able to pick your starters whether or not they play consistently at club level. But since we're not talking about the study and theory of football coaching here, and we're trying to get a win against probably the best team in our confederation... you know, maybe the thinktank discussions should go out the window in the interest of actually selecting the best, match-fit 11. Maybe it's just me... Are Torres, Sasha and Bradley even competing for the same position on the pitch for chrissakes?
"sporadic" ? Statements like this just indicate that you are what you call yourself. along with othrs that make similar assertions. Me thinks the troll crowd is out in force. Most of us put the nepotism crap to bed a long time ago.
It's more about the Dutch or German league arguments that Mike's fans always drag out, rather than evaluating his actual work for the NT. We need to get beyond that kind of insecurity. How he plays tonight will tell us more than anything else. I'm hoping to see growth.
You do realize that Adu and Bradley play two different positions right? You might as well be comparing John O'Brien to Pablo Mastroeni. Michael Bradley is in competition with Maurice Edu, Rico Clark and to a much smaller degree Sacha Kljestan for a starting spot. That's it. So bitching and moaning about Adu or Feilhaber or Torres or anyone else is completely irrelevenat and shows an individuals complete lack of competence. In reality, I think BB uses M Bradley incorrectly. I think every U.S. coach has used him incorrectly. M Bradley is a box to box midfielder. He's at his best when he's able to crash the area as the second wave of attack and shoot from distance. While he's no Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard, that is the category of player that M Bradley is. That being said, right now, Bradley is a better option that Clark (who commits for more reckless tackles than Bradley, can't pass to a teammate farther away than 10 feet, and aside from one bulldozing run up the middle a game offers nothing to the attack). He's also a better option than Edu who hasn't sniffed the field at Rangers since his arrival, is a worse passer than Clark, and whos general soccer IQ is about as developed as my 4 year old nephews is. I think the M Bradley haters really need to sit down and figure out if they dislike Bradley or they dislike the system that BB uses. Because under the system of play that BB uses, M Bradley is the best player available for his position.
No, he's right. When Bradley was starting in the Gold Cup, he had just come off a season of limited starts for Heerenveen. It wasn't until the next season when he was moved into a more advanced role that his club career took off.
Consistently in the starting eleven for a team in a top 4 league in the world. Not even making the game day roster in a second tier league, let alone getting any minutes. Not even making the game day roster in a league that some people would rate below MLS outside of the big two, let alone getting any minutes. Try and figure out who fits into which description and get back to me.
By your estimation then, Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are marginal players at best? Neither one of those guys has enjoyed the same success at the national team level as they have with their respective clubs.
I think its soccer racism. People subconsciously assume that being latino makes you a magician with the soccer ball
I'm completely in the camp that says we wouldn't be having these threads if the kid's name wasn't Bradley. Just say to yourself that we have an American 21 year old kid who starts in the Bundesliga. It's something that should really excite people about the future of our national team. I don't care if people make a reasoned analysis of why a different player should start over him for the USMNT. That's fine. But a lot of this just seems like personal attacks against the kid. Is it Michael's fault that the US coaching staff think he's the best option? The truth is that he's still young and learning, and he will make mistakes. Just like Torres, Adu, and Kljestan.......will make mistakes. The kid had one stunning year in the eredevisie last season. You can make a reasonable argument that it was the greatest season by an American field player in history. So the question should be this. How does Bob correctly use Michael's skill-set to maximize his production for the national team? Or explain to me why another player is a better option against Mexico. That's fine, but I despise people who make vicious personal attacks against players on our national team. I hated it when people did it to Reyna. I hated it when people did it to Regis. I hated when people did it to Josh Wolff. These players all have their faults. If you like to bash the US players so much, go root for Mexico. I don't want you around when we celebrate our victory. Hopefully with Michael Bradley scoring a golazo like he did..........against Ajax.
He was stuck behind a veteran player and received the starting role the next season after the other guy retired. There are more options now at the position than there were at that time. Neither Kljestan nor Torres were in the picture at that point, and Edu wasn't in the picture either. He wasn't a better player than Bradley then and he isn't now. Bradley and Feilhaber looked like a really good combo, and it was only after Benny tanked that everyone started flinging all this crap around. Rico Clark is good, but he isn't as good as Bradley. Who was he really competing against?
Right on man. Since day one of BB's coaching career MB's name was engraved on every roster for 90 min lock. Years later we now have this situation of one player having all the experience and everyone else inexperienced. The sick thing is when a player did receive a chance, it was with a B team roster of players with no chemistry and less talent. MB has always played with the A quad that secures his mediocre talent. Can you imagine MB's face in Copa America??? HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Another insane poster. Torres is an attacking midfielder. MB is a defensive midfielder. A destroyer. His job is to stop the attack. The other player that sometimes plays here is Pablo Mastreoni, not Torres. Edu can play here, but he is injured. When we played Brazil in a friendly, MB did an excellent job against Ronaldhino. Against Mexico, ESPECIALLY, we need guys to make HARD tackles. Sure, a foul, a yellow card here and there. I've been watching the USNATS long enough to remember when we were the smallest guys on the field. People who watch soccer, who post on this board, even people who play amateur soccer don't know what roles certain positions are supposed to play. MB plays his role well.
Wow I guess this role was invented for MB. I guess the "destroyer" only role is bad tackles. Hmm... I see why no other country has one of these.
How can you have a good defensive performance while giving a penalty and loosing by multiple goals. Really???
The problem here is that if you play Clarke and Bradley at the same time you compound all the negative qualities of both. In that role, Bradley is likely called on to be the attacking mid, as Clarke is the better defender. At any rate, it is pretty much no argument that Bradley played and plays his minutes, game-in, game-out because of his dad. So far it has looked pretty ugly at times, but ugly wins or tie's keep everyone happy. I would say MB's ceiling will limit the growth of the US team. Wish him the best, a lot of energy, limited skill.
Trolling: v. Slang To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something: "[Criminals] troll bus stations for young runaways" (Pete Axthelm). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trolling