Bradley-Roles-Strengths-Weaknesses

[Maximum Optimal]

I thought we had a pretty good discussion about Donovan's strengths and weaknesses and how he fits in best with the nats.

Let's do something similar with Michael Bradley.

[IndividualEleven]

For H'veen Bradley has been at his best when deployed as a center-mid forward a deeper-lying mid. His ball skills as an attacker are actually quite good for someone his size. I don't know if that aspect of his game is appreciated by those who have only seen his Nats play.

The problem with Bradley is that his position doesn't exist with the NT, and he's ill-suited for the deeper-lying midfield positions that BB utilizes.

His strengths are his:

1. 1 v 1 ability
2. power on the ball
3. making dangerous runs deep into the area.
4. strong work-rate
5. nose for goal


His weaknesses are that he:

1. tends to fall behind the play too often on the defensive side
2. makes too many mistakes
3. seems to have temper issues(got into a bustup with a teammate at H'veen last week)
4. is not tidy enough with the ball for deep-lying mid

[Mr Martin]

Michael Bradley's relative strengths: Size, work rate, fitness, game awareness/vision, tackling, scoring touch.

Bradley's relative weaknesses: speed, pure dribbling or ball handling, occasional rash fouls.

Bradley's indifferent or average skills: passing, off the ball movement, 1st touch.

He's a central midfielder, to be sure, or perhaps could be converted to central defense in the future. He works hard and stays active. Not the classic play-making, string-pulling attacking mid, but has an apparant knack for getting into the box and scoring. Not a pure classic defensive mid either, but pretty close. The 2-way central mid role makes sense right now.

[IndividualEleven]

If one were of the opinion that Bradley is such an incandescent talent that he must be utilized then BB would need to:

1. drop the long ball
2. move Bradley up in midfield or either in the hole


against a top team:

----------------------Altidore
----------------------Bradley(in the hole)
------------------------------------------------------------
-------Dempsey---------Edu-------------Donovan------
---------------------Sturgis or Clark-------------------------

The advantage of this formation is stronger on the ball presence in central midfield with few mistakes. Bradley will be able to drop back and help in getting and maintaining possession in addition to focusing on his attacking.

[JohnR]

His strengths are his:

1. 1 v 1 ability

Hmmm, pretty much everytime I see him try to beat somebody off the dribble, he gets stripped. Doesn't seem a whole lot better than Boca :eek: in that regard, only Boca wisely doesn't try.

He is pretty good defensively in the 1v1 confrontations, not great, but pretty good.

Pretty clearly, his best current attribute right now is figuring out how to ghost into space offensively; he has scored a ridiculous amount of goals this year from inside the PK box, for a central midfielder.

[IndividualEleven]

Hmmm, pretty much everytime I see him try to beat somebody off the dribble, he gets stripped. Doesn't seem a whole lot better than Boca :eek: in that regard, only Boca wisely doesn't try.

He is pretty good defensively in the 1v1 confrontations, not great, but pretty good.

Pretty clearly, his best current attribute right now is figuring out how to ghost into space offensively; he has scored a ridiculous amount of goals this year from inside the PK box, for a central midfielder.

Yeah, he's made some dangerous turnovers with the Nats trying to beat people 1 v 1. That type of stuff is best tried on the attacking end.

He's good defensively 1 v 1 but the long ball places more demands on the center mids.

[Nutmeg]

If one were of the opinion that Bradley is such an incandescent talent that he must be utilized then BB would need to:

1. drop the long ball
2. move Bradley up in midfield or either in the hole


against a top team:

----------------------Altidore
----------------------Bradley(in the hole)
------------------------------------------------------------
-------Dempsey---------Edu-------------Donovan------
---------------------Sturgis or Clark-------------------------

For a team already struggling to find any width in the attacking game, this adjustment scares me. Now you're playing Dempsey way out of position in hopes that Bradley is an improvement on Dempsey's offensive production.

No thanks.

If any adjustment should be made, it's this:

---------- Altidore
---------------- Donovan

Beasley ------------------ Dempsey
---------------- Bradley
----------------- Edu

Bornstein - Parkhurst - Gooch - Dolo

That allows Bradley to get forward more without putting in yet another DMid in our lineup.

[lmorin]

.....
If any adjustment should be made, it's this:

---------- Altidore
---------------- Donovan

Beasley ------------------ Dempsey
---------------- Bradley
----------------- Edu

Bornstein - Parkhurst - Gooch - Dolo

That allows Bradley to get forward more without putting in yet another DMid in our lineup.
Spot on. Although I'm not sold on Bornstein and Beas is an unknown commodity pending re-evaluation post injury. The major point is that the ball has to be played out of the back as opposed to just kicked out.

[giffenbone]

----------------------Altidore
----------------------Bradley(in the hole)
------------------------------------------------------------
-------Dempsey---------Edu-------------Donovan------
---------------------Sturgis or Clark-------------------------


??? :confused:

No thanks

[KALM]

I posted this in the other thread, but it's been noted by others that Bradley's midfield partner at Heerenveen, Roorda, is a Michael Carrick or Gareth Barry type who will stay just in front of the defense and very accurately distribute the ball. Bradley still has as much, if not more, defensive responsibility as Roorda; he just pressures the ball defensively from further up the field. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we have anyone who fits Roorda's description on the national team.

[flash1316]

I posted this in the other thread, but it's been noted by others that Bradley's midfield partner at Heerenveen, Roorda, is a Michael Carrick or Gareth Barry type who will stay just in front of the defense and very accurately distribute the ball. Bradley still has as much, if not more, defensive responsibility as Roorda; he just pressures the ball defensively from further up the field. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we have anyone who fits Roorda's description on the national team.
At the U20s Bradley had a partner Szetela who was expected to be a true d-mid while Bradley was asked to distribute the ball a la Carrick. Which he mostly did to perfection. If you disagree watch the game against Brazil. He took the lessons learned from Paul Bosvelt during his first year at Hveen and applied them at the U20 level. I believe he is ready to make the step up to performing the same role at the senior level. And he's shown the ability to not only play the holding mid role, but also the traditional 2 way and attacking mid role. All this from a kid who just turned 21. So he really only needs to master one more part of the CM job, the dmid. He's not a traditional dmid like Szetela but I think the USMNT is about to significantly upgrade its tactical skill level and we're about to play big boy soccer. Bradley's shown that he can handle the dmid position if we as a team are committed to playing posession, pass and move soccer. He showed that against Brazil, the senior team. He was breaking up attacks left and right. I have faith that he can sit deep, break up attacks, and distribute the ball. As long as we're committed to the posession game like the u20s were. And I'd like to see the Feilhaber-Bradley combination in the middle fulltime. With Feilhaber, Bradley takes the dmid/holding mid position and Feilhaber takes over the offensive responsibilities. Give Feilhaber the keys to the team and let Bradley sit deep. I think that's the future and we should be preparing them to handle their roles now.

[olephill2]

At the U20s Bradley had a partner Szetela who was expected to be a true d-mid while Bradley was asked to distribute the ball a la Carrick. Which he mostly did to perfection. If you disagree watch the game against Brazil. He took the lessons learned from Paul Bosvelt during his first year at Hveen and applied them at the U20 level. I believe he is ready to make the step up to performing the same role at the senior level. And he's shown the ability to not only play the holding mid role, but also the traditional 2 way and attacking mid role. All this from a kid who just turned 21. So he really only needs to master one more part of the CM job, the dmid. He's not a traditional dmid like Szetela but I think the USMNT is about to significantly upgrade its tactical skill level and we're about to play big boy soccer. Bradley's shown that he can handle the dmid position if we as a team are committed to playing posession, pass and move soccer. He showed that against Brazil, the senior team. He was breaking up attacks left and right. I have faith that he can sit deep, break up attacks, and distribute the ball. As long as we're committed to the posession game like the u20s were. And I'd like to see the Feilhaber-Bradley combination in the middle fulltime. With Feilhaber, Bradley takes the dmid/holding mid position and Feilhaber takes over the offensive responsibilities. Give Feilhaber the keys to the team and let Bradley sit deep. I think that's the future and we should be preparing them to handle their roles now.
Szetela is a true defensive mid?

[IndividualEleven]

For a team already struggling to find any width in the attacking game, this adjustment scares me. Now you're playing Dempsey way out of position in hopes that Bradley is an improvement on Dempsey's offensive production.

No thanks.

If any adjustment should be made, it's this:

---------- Altidore
---------------- Donovan

Beasley ------------------ Dempsey
---------------- Bradley
----------------- Edu

Bornstein - Parkhurst - Gooch - Dolo

That allows Bradley to get forward more without putting in yet another DMid in our lineup.

Hmm; we'll have to agree to disagree on the ability of the team to attack with width. Here I'm just positing what would be the most effective use of Bradley if the team were built around here. I'm not convinced that his talents yet merit such consideration.

[IndividualEleven]

I posted this in the other thread, but it's been noted by others that Bradley's midfield partner at Heerenveen, Roorda, is a Michael Carrick or Gareth Barry type who will stay just in front of the defense and very accurately distribute the ball. Bradley still has as much, if not more, defensive responsibility as Roorda; he just pressures the ball defensively from further up the field. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we have anyone who fits Roorda's description on the national team.

Edu or Feilhaber could conceivably play such a role. Of course overall team tactics of the US are quite diff from those of H'veen.

Also defending further up the field is diff from diff than defending in an up position. MB would need to improve at reading the plays to play the deep position. With the US he falls behind the plays too often and then commits the fouls.

[Maximum Optimal]

Szetela is a true defensive mid?

I had the same reaction. Danny's a pretty good passer and possession player. But I don't want to divert this thread from the topic.

[Maitreya]

Also defending further up the field is diff from diff than defending in an up position. MB would need to improve at reading the plays to play the deep position. With the US he falls behind the plays too often and then commits the fouls.

But isn't it obvious that Bradley is not excelling in the current two center mids with the same role system? I'm not even totally sure he deserves to start if he's going to be lying that deep; Clark and Edu may be better d-mids. If he deserves to start, it should be in a more offensive role. Otherwise, he's getting the start at d-mid for the national team because he can score at a-mid for his club team, which doesn't make sense.

[sidefootsitter]

Rongen actually played Bradley behind Szetela, which was one of the reasons why Danny had scored 3 goals at the WC.

With Szetela getting some PT with Brescia right now, repeating this exercise may not be a bad idea ... except they would have both be 2-way mids.

Or one could play someone like Spector (my preference) or Edu behind him in a "Y".

Or 'Dolo next to him in 3-5-2, with Feilhaber in front of the back two.

BTW, he's a decent space dribbler, not a great forward dribbler. That will come later with more experience at the high level.

[Maximum Optimal]

Rongen actually played Bradley behind Szetela, which was one of the reasons why Danny had scored 3 goals at the WC.

With Szetela getting some PT with Brescia right now, repeating this exercise may not be a bad idea ... except they would have both be 2-way mids.

Or one could play someone like Spector (my preference) or Edu behind him in a "Y".

Or 'Dolo next to him in 3-5-2, with Feilhaber in front of the back two.

BTW, he's a decent space dribbler, not a great forward dribbler. That will come later with more experience at the high level.

While I like the idea of a Y, your description of the way Bradley and Szetela played in the U20s is off. I watched most of the games twice, focusing on those two the second time. They played side by side, with Szetela usually on the left and Bradley on the right. Both seemed to have equal freedom to go forward, with each one obviously instructed to stay back when the other went forward. It was very interesting to see two talented players bring very different styles to the same role. Bradley is a chaser, darting all over the place. Szetela was much more disciplined and economical in his movements.

[Maximum Optimal]

Here is my take on Bradley:

Weaknesses: Not a creative passer, overcommits on defense leading to being give-and-goed to death as well as excessive fouling, lacks lateral quickness needed to be a strong one-on-one defender, spends a little too much time on the ball--this would be ok if he were a more creative passer, but given the lack of benefits from his holding the ball it would be better if he kept it moving faster.

Strengths: prodigious workrate, covers a ton of ground, knows how to make the well-timed run into the box, is a very good secondary defender, ie positions himself well to bail out teammates who get beaten, has a great never-give-up kind of attitude.

Role: Michael at forward is not a completely silly idea, but with Altidore, Johnson, Ching, Donovan, Dempsey, I think we have better options there. He hasn't been tried as a wide mid and I tend to agree that this would not be a good position for him. Can he be the more "attacking" of two deep-lying mids or two box-to-box type mids? Maybe. Michael Ballack is the prototype for what Michael Bradley could aspire to in that regard, but I think Ballack is much better on the ball and a better passer. But I bet he wasn't better than MB in those respects when he was 20 or 21.

What about the more "defensive" of two deep-lying mids? Here my concerns have more to do with his tendency to chase too much and get pulled out of position as well as his lack of lateral quickness. I think he is a smart kid and could learn to become more positionally disciplined and not get pulled out of position as much. He might also learn with experience how to be less prone to giving up fouls in dangerous parts of the field.

My bottom line is that MB is a bit of a tweener at the moment. You look at his club play and you see more of a possibility that he could evolve into a Ballack type player. You look at his national team play and you say he needs to be paired up with a more creative and offensive-minded central mid. Right now the offense lacks flow when it is two of Bradley-Clark-Edu. I think the possibility is there for him to evolve in either direction or he might not evolve and remain a tweener.

I assume given his age he will improve further and could become an even better tweener if he doesn't evolve in either direction. If that is the outcome, I think the national team will have to start to play a different system, perhaps with five mids (3 central mids) to get the most out of him. The question then becomes does such a move in turn reduce what we get out of some of our other players. Is MB the type of player you adjust your whole formation for? I'd say no. In which case we have to hope he evolves one way or the other over the next few years.

[russ]

Strengths:

Defensive tenacity
Short passing link play
Good attacking runs from midfield
Physically getting stronger

Weaknesses:
Ball striking (shots and long passes)
Discipline defensively
goes too wide chasing,can be pulled out.

Roles:
Two-way central mid,either as a front man in a Y or as part of a two or three man CM combo.

He could be an effective destroyer mid with a couple more years top level experience.

We have talent and ,for the most part ,youth in our central mid setup.The talent's good,the youth makes us vulnerable against non-CONCACAF sides.

Bradley is a part of that mix.