Even Beasley struggled with injury for a big chunk of his career, falling out of favor at Rangers and not playing anywhere for months at a time. Landon was freakishly available.
Bradley was a good player who was most valuable for his tremendous work rate and being a solid cog in a machine who would make life difficult for the other team and play safe passes. With his legs going, his biggest assets, covering a ton of ground and being a dogged ball chaser, are no longer evident and he's left relying on his good for the US pool passing abilities. But hell no, he shouldn't just step aside. He should look at the kids coming up and say... c'mon, try and take my spot And the kids need to say, bring it old man, let's go. Then, it's up to the coach to make the right decisions. None of this is Bradley's fault. I want our guys to have a cocky, ruthless, competitive streak and it's the coach's job to sort it out.
people said this last cycle, and how did it work? it's standard capitalism theory posing as soccer analysis. and let's be real, he kept his job last cycle because development was so crap there actually was no one to knock him off the pedestal. this is not true anymore. right now we have lists of sargents coming up and the question is how long does their zardes get allowed to hold them off. bradley is a zardes now. you're also missing that a thumb is placed upon the scales here, particularly this cycle. this is not an even competition. he is given preference based on "history" or "leadership" or "experience" -- beyond what performance merits -- regardless of what those qualities got us (a) last cycle or (b) thus far this one. i mean, shouldn't this "leadership," if so needed, manifest someplace quantifiable or qualitative? he leads us to beating mexico in an upset? we instead lost to mexico twice and canada once. our results are fairly consistent with the rankings of the opponent. he is not aiding any surprises. the team is playing to talent, no better. i am ok with a knockout round team being cautious about changing the lineup. he led a team off a cliff. he should be evaluated as "just a guy." based on performances this cycle he hasn't been good enough. you wanna really get your capitalist competition? treat him like a no-name and evaluate him by what you see on the field, or the measurable objective effects of leadership. but on his own, i see nada, and i haven't seen any of him rubbing off on the surrounding players, either. and his return hasn't coincided with a run of results. if anything, he coincides with losses where the mids get overrun. he is the reason we're not beating mexico -- or did people notice he was out of the 2018 Mexico-winning team and back in the losers. we have so many up and coming players and at least some of them, when given the chance, shine. he is squeezing out opportunity. he is rewarding us with mediocre play and results. with the quality of the prospects coming up, this cycle should be a vanilla formation, toss the ball out there, and see what turns up. reward performance and as the cycle moves on, sculpt a formation to the performers. literally the only way you could screw up this boom period is drag out the "pit lap" of the exiting older players at the expense of the new talent, and then force it into a system that doesn't make them better than the sum of the parts. and you're pimping at least half that.
OK, sure, just expect each individual player to constantly monitor whether he thinks others are better options and expect them to step aside at the perfect time. You're a competitive guy. How do you think that would work for you? I'm not saying having him still around isn't a potential problem. I'm just laying blame on the guy whose job it is to select players, not the players who job it is to play as hard as they can until they are sent away.
Yes, it is not in his job description to show character. As, apparently, it is not in Berhalter's job description. The Circle of Trust is fine for Scratchbackers Inc., but it was a nice tight spiral downward for the USMNT. Unless you consider a smashing end to be a smashing success.
Oh, Mikey's leadership, quantifiable and qualitative, was manifestly manifested at Couva. When it counted the most, he exuded all the leadership, in quantity and quality, of Brown Lemming # 100,001 --on a fine late Norwegian Spring--as the horde mistakes the Ocean for a cute little fjord. . And if you want a point of contrast on what exuding leadership meant at that match, compare Mikey to Pulisic.
When your father is Bob Bradley and your fathers best friend is they Bruce Arena...……. who is the mentor of the current USMNT coach, then you know what your taking advantage of...…. Does McBride have enough guts to make the difference? we will see......
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! You just caused chaos for Pulisic. Never Ever compare anyone to Bradley. its a soccer sentence of doom......……..( and tons of anti- articles).
the leaders on that day were the people involved in the attacking action, dempsey and pulisic. objectively bradley's league numbers went off a cliff c. 2016. his usefulness to NT dropped off roughly then too. he was captaining an NT that lost a string of tournaments, struggled in semi quali, 5th in regular quali. if there was any doubt, he got handed the keys again 2019. barely escaped a group with canada and cuba, lost to mexico twice. the very fact the 2018 team is the one that had the surprise upset games should hint this is wrong direction. the team that was getting ties or wins when not expected was adams pulisic etc. i know some of that is injury, but while the fall 18 results were bad, so was the schedule. i am tempted to believe we regressed from 18 to 19, lousy system, backwards looking or strange selections. sarachan sucked but all this should hint the way forward is better coaching and more youthful selections. i have seen zero sign of MB rubbing off on the team. our midfield defense is soft and seems personnel specific. our "fight" is inconsistent. i don't see him teaching anyone new how to hit a long ball. as someone who watched brian ching play about a half decade too long while topping out at 5 goals a season, to me "experience" is usually an exercise in wish fulfulllment. worse, you are chopping into the positive, growth end of prospects' careers to indulge hopefulness and further downslope on end stage players.
my question re Mcbride etc is whether the switch to Parlow from Cordeiro, to McBride from the eredivisie player Stewart, and pushing Jay Berhalter out, gets you to a different place on system and accountability. i think first two nations league games we were in a lousy spot where we were bought into system and looking lousy, and the "front office" had no interest in changing that. a lot of the big names have changed. particularly with a WNT player in charge i wonder if system flim-flam is as compelling, or we continue to ignore results while saying the system is under construction (if it really works, shouldn't the results.......). i would hope a WNT would be like, i judge this by results and by how we look. i am sure people try to sell the WNT on all sorts of new ideas. i am also sure they get rid of coaches perceived to be between them and success. i think GB was insulated and on a project before. i am curious what terms he's on now. we shall see. with covid, if/when this gets started it will likely be straight to the hex round. we will either be ready or not. this will be a tough cycle for pre-quali personnel experiments. they could go more vanilla on system but that's another issue.
Well yeah, and that's part of the problem with the coach. I've got other issues with him too. But, when he doesn't do his job, I blame him instead of the players.
i thought "last dance" was a mediocre documentary, what i saw of it. but in that series mark aguirre with detroit did exactly what you're saying bradley cannot possibly do. paraphrasing, "i am getting old and hurting the team so far this season, promote rodman up from 6th man." rodman becomes a starter. then they won title #2. aguirre gets a ring. the problem here is not that he is still winning some fair competition, it's that he gets a thumb on the scales and gets to take advantage of it obliviously. only last cycle could one reasonably argue that while losing a step we simply lacked other options even as good as 80%Bradley. at this point there is a plethora of kids and mid-career up and comers like holmes. from a personal perspective, when i went from a good starting college player to a broken down wily adult league veteran, i could tell. not just my belly and knees but what minutes i could handle and how well i executed and moved. you can hold on to roles you can't quite fulfill, but it's selfish. my last year i was out of shape but i scored a gorgeous goal in the preseason scrimmage. despite being chubby i became the lone striker. i had a couple very nice goals but we gave up a bunch and struggled for results. i enjoyed the goals and the team was not trying to move me anywhere, but i went to them, and was like, i played defense in college, i can shore this up, and you can get someone fitter and younger to play up top, they won't be as technical, but probably as productive for being in shape. we turned things around, and then at the end of the season i tore my ACL and that was that. no, sorry,, but the ethical, and moral thing is remove your ego and competitive drives and assess where i can really help the team, being honest about what i offer. if he does that analysis, with this youth bubble coming up, his best role is either retired and coaching, or coming off the bench in specific "clock-killer" situations against particular opponents to play keepaway and hit long balls. i grant that some of that is in GB's hands. he is the one calling him up and even sometimes starting him. but some of that is in Bradley's hands. he can got to the press, he can in an open practice say something, he can go privately to the coach. surely someone his level can tell he is not the same dude anymore, and see what the results are. and i am not saying he has to quit entirely, if he has a mortgage to pay. TFC is his separate concern. but for the US he's past his sell-by date, dragging things down, and squeezing out opportunities for others. the unselfish thing, to me, is to say i got to 2 successful world cups, i was part of a period when we were regionally dominant, i used to be a key player making large contributions, but i am not that guy anymore. team over me, what helps the team to get back to the level i was at.
I don't disagree it would be better for the team if he stepped aside, I just think it is pretty unrealistic to expect it.
played 4 90 minute games in GC, including semi and final, yes, skipped friendlies, but was then back in the team for cuba and canada. they rested people against cuba so i toss that out. he then started and played 90 in the canada loss in Nations League. then was out hurt. i think there is useful data in there that he was ineffective against the serious regional competition, and we got poor results. but objectively we called him when the games counted, when healthy, and he was a 90 minute starter in the key fixtures. when the chips are down he has a pattern of roldan bradley guzan ream (and a few others). that's the sort of thing i am talking about when i say incumbency bias. for comparison, the Canada home lineup saw Lletget Yeuill Dest Arriola, and Mexico/France 2018 saw Green Wood Adams Robinson Moore CCV Lichaj Weah Delgado. to me USMNT has a circularity issue with "regulars." the fact you played last game shouldn't necessarily mean you play the next one. there should be some focus on how did you look, did you have a nightmare, and what was the team result. we nonetheless seem to think a group of veterans unsuccessful in 2018 cycle are somehow the most reliable choice when the chips are down. there is literally zero objective proof that our experienced players are our best and most successful option. we nonetheless run the team like a hereditary succession favoring experienced players in their late 20s. normally teams do that when they already achieved results with that unit, which justifies the inertia. otherwise it's just the circularity of you're my starter last time so you start this week.
i think we may see adams if healthy. reyna or llanez may make qualifying teams. the ones already broken through, dest, mckennie, sargent, boyd. but with how this cycle is playing out i don't think the other noobs will get a chance until the end of the cycle, if at all. the lack of NT games due to the virus will favor continuity, particularly under this coach. this disappoints me. it's not good enough a veteran team to test mexico, and if the veterans continue on to qatar, it will be a group exit team. the wild card on this team was moving to youth and seeing if that shook things up. in practical terms, i think that makes us a 2nd or 3rd regional team. with GB's select veterans, we will be at least second best to mexico. i think costa rica will be our competition, perhaps honduras. i think the rest of the region has eroded. i can't see us struggling with jamaica or el salvador. but it all boils down to results, win home and tie away.
Ah forgot the Nations League games. Tells you how much I value that competition. Let's hope Egg remembers, though. That game we lost to Canada Mike showed his age.
My perception is that Canada game really rattled Egg. I wouldn't be completely shocked if Mike is done. GGG is still rigid however and his rigidity is the main reason he is a crappy manager in my mind. Apparently, he continues to be keen on using Yueill as Bradleys direct replacement.
General Egg is, and always will be, stuck on the HMS Pinafore with his brother, The Model of The Modern Major General. In the meantime, what happens to the USMNT?
I don't understand how GGG can even mention Bradley as an option at this point like he did just the other day. He isn't even a good MLS CM anymore and he was absolute garbage against Canada. Why am I even bringing it up, because not only did GGG specifically name check him as an option, I read this weird excerpt in an otherwise nice McIntyre article: “Look, nobody is more excited about this kid than I am,” Michael Bradley, then the captain of the U.S. men’s national team, pulled me aside to say in the spring of 2016 after I’d written that Pulisic should challenge for serious minutes during that summer’s Copa America Centenario. “But how many games has he played? Let’s not get carried away just yet.” WTF? And that just reminded me of this: Here’s the problem, though. If you happen to correctly criticize him or any Bradley, they (Bob, his brother, or Michael) will email, DM, or text you privately to tell you why you’re wrong and they’re right and it’s exhausting. They wear you down and bully you to (re)gain control.— Jimmy Conrad (@JimmyConrad) January 12, 2019 And This: "I don't think we should be playing any of our older players from here on out...Michael Bradley, for me, should absolutely not be involved with the team from here on out. He's done his service, thank you very much, you've had a great career for the national team, you've had over 100 caps, but the guy is, and I'm being completely frank here with everybody, he's a super alpha male know-it-all and we don't need that vibe in the team anymore. Plus, we need the younger players to solve these problems on their own so that new leaders can emerge from this younger group. As opposed to them always deferring to the other guys." "If he came into the team, then everybody would be like 'Michael was the leader'....when you have those types of [alpha male] personalities, they're filling the void and then some...so none of the other guys can step up or feel appropriate or feel comfortable in stepping up and saying something." "I remember I had a former defender who played in the 2014 World Cup with the US, came up to me and was like 'I don't know how to talk to Michael Bradley during a game, can you help me figure out things I can say to him that's going to get his attention'...that's a problem, because if you have your leaders that aren't listening to their teammates...that's a big problem and I'm sure we can dissect what that means in the bigger picture why we didn't qualify if our captain isn't being someone that is open to his teammates and being able to listen." How is this fing guy still being considered an option with a straight face when we have all these young dudes that need to step into the leadership roles and we still have experienced guys that can actually play in and around the team like Altidore, Brooks, Guzan, etc?
I agree with this quote to an extent but seems to me we are just simply past the point where he would be able to come in and bully the "young" kids. They might be young age-wise but these guys are pretty seasoned. Some have been playing in Champions league and all are ambitious themselves. They seem to have each others back to a man and I can't see someone like Wes or Puli just standing by the side and letting the old man call the shots or try and fracture the locker room. Pulisic is on the verge of being an international superstar, who carries a bigger stick now, him or the Bradleys? The reality of it is however that MB shouldn't be anywhere near the locker room now anyways because the dude can clearly no longer play at that level.
If Michael Bradley plays any additional minutes for the USA, it’s strictly down to corruption and bias.
Seems pretty much everyone is finally on board with this take. It also seems likely he'll be on the next squad, and likely getting minutes. Assuming both of these are true (sure, still long time before the next camp, whatever), then you must wonder and question how long this has been going on, right? I've never been a huge "NEPOTISM" guy, since who cares when he was installed as a central US starter, the fact is he was our best CM for years. But for about the past 6-7 years, he should have absolutely been part of a rotation, rather than a guaranteed starter. In my opinion, that was a part of the reason (and not a small part) why we didn't qualify.