The New Michael Bradley

It has gone generally unnoticed because of his irregular recent play with the nats but Michael Bradley's game has undergone an evolution which I think needs to be discussed in terms of its implications for the nats.

Some aspects of this evolution began during his tenure at Gladbach but has accelerated with Chievo. There are two broad aspects to it. One is an improvement in passing range. He medium and long-range passing has become noticeably crisper and more accurate in the past two years. With the nats this was most apparent in that strange friendly we played against Spain last June.

The other aspect of his evolution is positional discipline. He started out playing wide for Chievo, but now anchors the center of their midfield. He has shown an ability to follow his coach's instructions in that role and stay home with little of the sometimes undisciplined chasing he showed in the past.

I should note that I may be a bit unfair in describing some of this as an evolution and suggesting that Michael was not as disciplined in following instructions in the past. I think those instructions and expectations may have been different under Bob Bradley, where the benefits of ranging all over the field might have been judged to be worth the costs.

Whatever the case, his current club and it should be emphasized national team coaches want a central mid who stays home and protects the backline. JK has been unwilling to use him in this role so far, possibly because of how he played central midfield under Bob Bradley. His play with Chievo suggests he has the discipline to play this role the way JK visualizes it.

I agree he has improved, but in our setup I still think he is primarily a bench player whe the A-squad is assembled.

I don't think he is better than Beckermen or Jones in a DM role in the 443 or the 442 variants we have played in.

with all the right players...our attack could easily look like this:

-------------------Altidore-----------------
Johnson-----------Dempsey------------Donovan
-----------Holden------------Bradley-------

Altidore (Buddle)
Johnson/Donovan (Shea)
Dempsey (Kljestan/Feilhaber...maybe Torres)
Holden/Bradley (Torres...maybe Jones or Edu if need the extra defensive cover)


...but with all that said, our team has always played better as a 442. always.

I suspect you meant 433.

in any event, I strongly disagree with respect to Beckermen.

Beckerman is a fine defensive player. I rate Bradley his equal. Offensively, MB is better in every category I can think of, but especially finishing and striking a dead ball.

Jones on the other hand, when at his best, would be the best of the 3. He has been erratic for the Nats so far.

I think the other explanation is that (IIRC) he hadn't really started playing as a stay-home central mid at the club level (who anchors the center of the midfield) until after our most recent USMNT friendly.

I am of the opinion that Jones and Beckermen, as pure defenders, are better than Bradley. They are more suited to protect a back line.

Well, Jones might not be playing for a while so next I would take Edu in his stead.

What good is it to be defensively better if you cough the ball up shortly after gaining possession? Jones and especially Edu and Beckerman have done just that in their time under Klinsmann so far. While Jones and Edu are better than Bradley defensively - not the case for Beckerman - if Bradley's really improved that much in his passing game then he benefits the team more in that deep midfield spot.

As for why his game has improved, I think under Bob Bradley and even at 'Gladbach, he was being asked to cover a lot more ground than he is now under Klinsmann and with Chievo. He still has that engine in his skillset, but between the change of style in Italy and the extra energy he surely must now have from not running around like a headless chicken, the improvement makes sense. And it's really nice

Michael's passing completion and range have definitely been on a steady rise for a while now. The past two-three years he's really shown an excellent penchant for switching the point of attack with sweeping balls to the flanks, particularly to the fullbacks. His overall dribbling/touch have gotten to be pretty good, to the point where he can work his way out of some tighter spaces. His link-up play/short exchanges, particularly from deeper areas, have always impressed me. What I like most is how he deals with pressure. He thrives in fast-paced games.

Which is why the move to Italy was actually a good one, in my mind. In Italy, he can learn a whole new pace to play the game at, and is then able to switch up the flow. He's not so committed to playing a certain speed/style. England may suit him, but I think he's still young enough to add to his game.

I seem to be the contrarion on this forum about some of our players (see my post on Adu on another thread), but I have always thought MB has been unfairly denigrated as having played only due to nepotism.

He has been our best all around CM and still is - though none of our current midfield compares to Reyna or Obrien. MB is the only one who can make an effective tackle and still make a pass, and as has been noted, he has been improving. Edu and Beckerman are better defensively, and Feilhaber and Torres are better passers and readers of the game, but MB is the closest thing we have to a 'complete' midfielder and IMO should be playing ahead of any of these others.

I suppose my opinion puts me at odds with nearly everyone on this forum, and a certain Klinnsman as well, but I'm just a ref...what do I know about soccer?

Michael Bradley is the best center midfielder in the American pool. He has been the best center midfielder in the American pool for the past two to three years. One must rely on hypothetical scenarios to not acknowledge this fact. He's the youngest, the most healthy, and the most experienced of the lot. He is the one center mid for the US Nats that should and will be inked into the starting line-up for any meaningful game.

This, this and this.

Just not sold on Beckerman or Jones long term.. I think that Stu, if healthy and can regain form, and Torres are the 2 atop JK's depth chart. Also I think that that Mix and Lletget will or could be in the running by 2013

I was of that opinion, but moved away from it after the Bradley - Eric Wynalda diatribe. I thought Michael showed his true colors and lost some fan support.

More importantly Michael's future is really based on his ability to perform in JK's system verses his Fathers

If you thought the nepotism charges were bullcrap...why would Mike agreeing with you and defending himself make you change your mind?

While I do prefer Jones as a pure DM, if Bradley stays home, I think he or Edu are the #2 DM in the pool. And if we are going to play, 4-2-3-1, Bradley is one of our best options as a #8 with Holden hurt, right there with Torres and ahead of Kljestan.

If he is not in the starting eleven once qualifying begins I believe we will be in trouble.

egregious overvaluation of Beckermen

I agree with this. Prior to the France and Slovenia games, Bradley had started playing again, but I believe he was the right central midfielder in Chievo's formation. It has only been in the last few games he has been slotted in as their #6.

His play in Italy is a good development for the US Team. Jones may be playing this position at a higher level, but his age, playing style, and personality issues leave question marks as to whether he is the right fit for the US.

I would describe Bradley's most recent performances as high-discipline. He has stayed in the right areas and kept his passing in check. He will still push the issue when the opportunity is there, but has not forced things. Against Lazio I thought he was the best player on the field. I thought he was solid against Roma.

The US does not have many options playing at the #6 at a high level now. Jones and Bradley are the only two getting consistent minutes abroad. While I think most would agree Edu projects better as a 6, at Rangers he plays more advanced as an 8. Perhaps if a transfer materializes Edu will find his natural role again. Until then, I would have a hard time putting him in the 6 role.

My personal preference is to play someone at such a key position who is getting regular minutes there. To me it is a position where instincts are critical. The best at it seem to have a sixth sense of knowing where to be to cut out opponent attacks. In my experience it is very hard to develop that sense unless you are out there doing it.

I would guess Bradley moves into the 6 depth chart as a serious contender to Beckerman. I think Kyle has an advantage in quickness in tight spaces and man-marking. I think Bradley's advantage is in being able to cover more ground, ability to handle more physical play, occasionally flashing forward to support the attack, and is a better outlet passer to find the US's attackers in transition.

This may be a tangent that has nothing to do with the premise of the thread, but I'm addressing it in response to the "player X is a better #6 than player Y".

I'm not convinced that Klinsmann even has a defined system yet. Numbering the players 1-11 has a nice philosophical effect, but it doesn't change the manner in which a team plays. To see an example of how this team will play in a tough game, rewatch our game against our toughest opponent to date in the Klinsmann era, France, in Paris. We played a typical, flat 4-4-2. Dempsey dropped back a bit more than Altidore, and I suppose an argument could be made that this was a 4-5-1 or 4-3-3. But to my eyes, it was a 4-4-2. Edu and Beckerman played flat in relation to each other. I'm not going to get into individual performances in this game, but the center-midfielders in this game played flat and were (ostensibly) both box to box CMs. The exact same formation of the majority of Bob Bradley's US line-ups.

Further off topic, re: systems: specifically, "what's the difference between a 4-5-1 and a 4-3-3?" I'd say this: When Costa Rica plays Brazil, they deploy a 4-5-1. When Costa Rica plays Belize, they deploy a 4-3-3. What's the difference? Absolutely nothing except for the expected results. Semantics, to be sure.

Very few teams at the top levels run what a 4-3-3 really is, i.e. three forward players with little-to-no defensive/tracking back responsibility.

To call what Klinsmann has run a 4-3-3 is particularly laughable, especially in the games Williams has started on the right.

3 players cherry-picking? Really? That's what a 4-3-3 is? Wow, brilliant. You learn something new every day. That's like some of the teams in my men's rec league, where everyone thinks that they are Ronaldinho.

Yeah, I don't see it either. There are moments when one of the center-mids has obviously been instructed to push a bit forward, and the formation is a diamond 4-4-2 (Bruce Arena US Nats's era-style). But it's tough to buy the 4-3-3 argument when you have ten players behind the ball.

Sorry for the threadjack.

Seriously? Do you really believe this? Bradly is by far our best option as a Dmid in the 442 or 433. If you think Beckerman or Jones brings more to the table than Bradley then you clearly have no clue about the sport. Bradley is by far one of the first 3 names, besides Howard, on the teamsheet.

And, I'm not even a big Bradley supporter. However, I will say he is much more valuable as a Dmid to the USMNT than Beckerman or Jones by a long shot. Beckerman is fine in MLS but has no business playing international football. He is too slow of foot and too slow of thought, easily dispossessed and has no value in the attack whatsoever. Jones is too old, too reckless and too hot-headed.

I agree with your take on the France game. To me it also looked like Edu and Beckerman played the same role/position. In the prior games under JK I thought there was a rather clear differentiation. Jones more advanced than Beckerman against Mexico. Torres more advanced than Edu against Costa Rica and Belgium, Edu more advanced than Beckerman against Honduras and Ecuador.

It can be debated whether this was by design or by accident, but I think the preponderance of evidence was that there was a purposeful differentiation of roles, which we have used the 6 & 8 designations as a shorthand for. It is less clear whether the apparent lack of differentiation between Edu and Beckerman against France was by design or not. Against a strong team, it is natural for the 8 to play more defensively.

While MB has played more maturely I just don't trust him in 1 v 1 situations. He also is not nearly as good as Beckermen in redirecting the opponents attack and giving our backline time to respond.

He is more of an 8.

Fair enough. I guess we'll have to disagree on the importance of differentiation in these matches. I'd argue, that we should play certain center-mids, a certain way (the way we have, somewhat successfully for a few years), and beat the Costa Ricas, Ecuadors, and Belgiums of the world. (Or at the very least, not get bossed around by said teams.) Or, we can play a variation of center-midfield options, in marginal permutations, with varying degrees of "responsibility" and "numerical roles" and lose a succession of friendlies in an uninspiring and untelling manner.

I'm just not sure how experimenting with these different options tells us any more than the standard 1-0 loss to Holland or France away (without Donovan) in our normal 4-4-2. Fast-tracking Beckerman and demoting Bradley (and trying to change his role) to prove a point is fine until you lose every game. Fast-tracking Williams and Fabian Johnson is fine until they are played in a different position than they play at for their clubs. Playing Goodson and Orozco-Fiscal is fine until you lose every game that they play in and you annoy promising young players like Cameron, John and Gonzalez.