I saw a tweet with both Bradley and Jones' passing charts included. Now Bradley is given credit for three chances created although none led to goals while Jones has the hockey assist on the goal but gets no credit for a chance created on his chart. Who is deciding what constitutes a chance created?
You guys have won, I give up. I concede, he will play every minute of every game and he will always be awesome and there will always be a chart to show how awesome he is, or at least show he is less sucky than someone else. He is always not a six, or not an 8. or not a 10, but also the best 6, 8 or 10 we have. He is always being let down by his partner and he always has the heart of a lion and a motor for days, no matter how much half assed jogging between the centerbacks and useless pointing he seems to do. Fine, that is all agreed, he is Captain Awesome. Just take him off of the god damn set pieces. No one can possibly justify this crap anymore. One of our greatest strengths has turned into an automatic counter for the opposition. Lets get him on the end of something if nothing else, remember when he used to rip shots from the top of the 18 when LD was taking corners?
chances created are assists or passes that end in a shot on goal. So his three chances created were just because he's on set pieces. As if the midfield was the problem in this match anyways. Basically everyone had a mediocre at best match, the formation was wrong, the spacing was all wrong, Panama were up for the match and he US wasn't... I'm sure I'll have to hear about how things would have been different if Bradley and/or Jones weren't playing. Ridiculous, but whatever -- par for the course around here. Bradley wasn't good on set pieces overall but did still have one or two good ones. Don't see anyone else in the squad good at corners, so this is again an overstated point. But, again, it's Bradley. So that will happen.
dude, i swear he could purposely kick the ball into his own net and the bradley-apologists would find some way to spin it and blame it on jones, the refs, the sun etc
I think it's objectively clear that he wasn't very good last night. I think Mike would agree with that. I also think it's objectively clear that Mike and Jermaine do not play well together, and tonight was just another example of that. At this point (in my mind), Jermaine needs to sit and be the late sub when we need either an enforcer or someone to come into the midfield and try shit.
sub enforcer? yeah im down with that. midfeilder to try shit? nah...rather have benny, nguyen, klestjan hyndman etc for that
Lol, if Bradley ever 1. As Captain, led the United States to a 6-0 victory in a critical Hex qualifier, over an opponent who qualified for the World Cup in 2014 and delivered a key, early goal outside the box with his left foot. 2. Led all CONCACF with 13 takeaways on the night, while playing a position often manned by two players, allowing the United States to play with three attackers, Dempsey, Pulisic and Altidore. 3. Set the tone for maintaining possession, by completing 53 of 58 passes. The only one he missed were in or into the attacking half. I would still get a smile out of your 38 post match comments, trying to explain how he was still the problem. (And I thought his 6.5 overall rating was about right on the night was about right, I did not think he played particularly well). And I don't think he played that well last night either, but nobody did, other than perhaps Howard.
What? Zusi alone is miles better than Bradley at corners and always has been, it's like one of the few things he is above average at. Which would also get Bradley in position to pounce on some, which back in the day Bradley supporters used to rave about as a big strength, cause it was. Much like the rest of the questions we have had about Bradley, it is kind of hard to prove a negative when we never try any other options, including meaningless friendlies. Again, great player, will go down as one of our best ever but never testing other options, at CM, on set pieces since Donovan left, etc is and always has been bizarre. And no, this is not being overblown, set pieces have always been a huge advantage for us in CONCACAF, particularly in these crappy away qualifiers when we need it most. We had 4 corners and 3 free kicks in dangerous areas last night and did not create one chance from them, there is literally nothing to lose by putting anyone else on the ball.
The difference between Jermaine Jones and Michael Bradley? The US has plenty of options for Jermaine Jones. Let me be clear. I think Bradley is, at best, a mediocre 6. I think coaches have had to, and will continue to have to, build systems around him to keep him from being exposed. He is limited by his quickness in his defensive capabilities, and he can be easily pressed out of the game. I hope (beyond reason) that a better 6 comes through the pipeline quickly. But with Beckerman fading fast, McCarty being radically inconsistent in his distribution, and Cameron not playing the position on a regular basis, Bradley is what you are left with. I actually like Jones more than I like Bradley. The partnership just does not work. Collectively they offer little outlets to defenders, they struggle to impose their will on the game through distribution, and the team struggles to create a lot of chances with them on the field. It is time to look at other partnerships.
I think a significant percentage of posters who are labelled 'Bradley Bashers' are more astounded that he is an AUTOMATIC STARTER than completely against his game. (And they likely remember the ball he should have kicked into the upper deck v Portugal)
When was the last time Panama, playing with their A-team, lost to anyone in Panama? The UNCAF Cup, they lost to Honduras, but everybody was playing with B-teams. Otherwise they beat everybody, even Costa Rica. I guess we have to go all the way back to November 2015, when Costa Rica beat them in the semifinal round of qualifying.
Who is "WE"...? YOU don't do anything, you're a fan. It's not up to YOU. The willingness of a bunch of amateurs to completely forget about a thing called "training" (which in case no one around here knows is a thing that occurs before matches during which coaches assess the talents, technique, and chemistry of their players as they pertain to the upcoming opponents) during which all these things are judged never fails to frustrate me. WE don't factor into it. THEY assess these things and assign player roles. Bradley's history of set piece duty is without question a mark in his favor, his history as a leader of the team is as well, but let's not pretend he is some de facto set piece taker... how did Dempsey get his hat trick again? On top of that, if you know anything about the game you know there are multiple reasons a fullback wouldn't take corners... there are exceptions when you're talking about a really unique talent like Baines, but unless they are incredibly, uniquely talented at set pieces, i.e. NOT Zusi, there are formational and structural reasons why they don't take them. This rather obvious point is illustrated by the fact that Zusi HAS taken corners for the US, just not in matches in which he was playing RB. You're wrong, first of all, Bradley put a ball in from a set piece and it was headed on goal and Bradley participated in a short corner play in which Nagbe fired the ball well wide. 2 chances from his multiple attempts. At least one of his "long" corners was good as well. You did WATCH the game, right?
With Jones and Bradley in a flat 442 at the Copa, the US record was: USA 3-0 Costa Rica* USA 1-0 Paraguay USA 2-1 Ecuador USA 0-1 Colombia There was nothing intrinsically bad about the Jones-Bradley central midfield. However, when playing a flat midfield, a speedy forward like Wood is needed to stretch the defense and cover ground. The US lacked this at Guatemala and at Panama. There is no ready-made Jones replacement. He was a unique baller in the US system. He brought pace, lungs, power, ball-winning, and goal creation ability to central midfield, qualities lacking in the pool. 2 goals and 2 assists in 9 games of WC and CA action make for a pretty awesome stat line for a central midfielder. But the legs may, at last, be deserting him if the Panama game augers correctly. So rather than replace him, the team will likely need to switch formations to better utilize the new talent. Acosta and Roldan should be given trial opportunities in Bradley's d-mid spot. * an additional goal was scored before the formation switch
One of my big questions about Bradley is why he plays half the game on the defensive line. Anytime we win the ball, he falls back into the defensive line to distribute. This leaves us with one less passing option going forward. Are our guys in the backline so bad with the ball, that they need Bradley to come back there and keep making 10 yard square passes for them to start moving forward? It just seems really unusual to me. If Bradley was hitting some incisive passes from deep it would make more sense, but mostly he's just going square or dumping the ball to one of the other midfielders with a short range pass. Coming so deep forces Bradley to cover more ground than necessary as we move forward and keeps us pinned in more often as we loose a midfield passing option since he's sitting between the center backs with the ball rather than offering an option in the middle.
A d-mid dropping onto the backline to create an overload to facilitate passing out of the back is pretty common nowadays.
Not a fan of it myself, at least to the extent it happens in the US games, but I may well just be an old dog not prone to newer tricks.
It's the Pep's Barca thing. While the US CBs liked having the support, JK wasn't a big fan of Mike's dropping so deep.
I think it would be more convincing if I saw Bradley making attacking passes from deep or some sort of benefit from it in how we move forward. But, with our problems covering the midfield spaces as it is, pulling a guy out of the center constantly just to watch him slide the ball side to side seems a waste to me. And, especially if there is any intention of more Pulisic as attacking midfielder, he's going to be playing high, so bringing the defensive midfielder so deep creates too much of a gap for my tastes. I guess the outside mids can pinch in and the outside backs move up to cover, but seems the hard way around to me. I'm not really sure if this comes down to a debate on tactics or Bradley as a player though since as you mentioned, Klinsmann seemed unhappy at times with Bradley dropping so deep, but he continued to do so anyway. Seems at least partially to be his natural inclination. It almost seems to me that Bradley has a big desire to be on the ball, which is often a good sign. But, if the way he gets more touches is to retreat so far that the other team leaves him alone, I'm not sure what it's accomplishing outside getting meaningless touches.
I was at the match, Tuesday night and remember having the same concerns. Panama began the match pressing Bradley with a man marker. Utilizing Bradley to do this while man marked did not work so well, as you might imagine. So, at first, he decided to allow the back four to distribute out of the back on their own, while he was still marked. After a bit, Bradley dropped back, Omar slid over to the right and Zusi moved up into the right midfield area. This pretty much continued til the end of the match and this appeared to be by design, either from Arena or MB. And as I posted on the post match thread, I thought Zusi was a concern defensively, although it did work for one match. And certainly, his technical ability in this instance, slotting up into the midfield, utilized some of his skills in possession. When Bradley drops deep, the payoff of man marking him is not worth the cost, so Panama went to a more conventional press. They also did everything possible to cut off the pass to Pulisic. I was not particularly pleased with Michael's first touch, on occasion. It is critical in this role and a few times, it betrayed him. Anyway, it appeared the United States had a plan to implement if Michael was marked, in the space just in front of the central defenders, which he was.
For all those leaving MB out of their starting line-ups.. I'd like to know who are the two center mids that are 100% better than MB?
We need our other midfielders to show for the ball when our CBs are in possession. Only Dempsey has a habit of doing this, but really he should be staying higher if he's playing as a forward. Most of the time, if our opponents mark Bradley tightly, our CBs resort to playing long balls. It shouldn't be that simple for them, but too often it is. Nagbe and Pulisic need to put themselves into passing lanes more often. I thought Acosta did a good job showing for the ball.
he does it cuz its the only way he can play. i agree its a garbage tactic and its the main reason i dont like bradley as a starter. if he tried playing more dynamically hed have even more ghastly ricordo clark like turnovers ( a la the portugal world cup game or the last mexico game etc etc) and even golden boy bradley couldnt survive that...so he plays it uber safe and pretends its on purpose as a "strategy"....deep down, he knows he only plays that way so he can keep himself on the field and for no other reason....its def not helping the us create more chances than their opponents. in fact, its the only reson teams like guatemala and honduraw can manage to get more shots off than the us in recent games.