Kljestan seems to have an innate ability to suck as much as possible yet still be called a playmaker.
Some more stats. This time a comparison of the last three World Cup Cycles. Records look at how the US did against opponents sorted by their ELO ranking prior to the match against the US. The data come from the ELO web site, pasted into a spreadsheet and sorted. I did not separate the A-level from the B-level matches, as I really cannot remember that distinction well enough going back into the Arena era. So this data totals all matches, no matter what the level was. Code: VS Top 10 Wins Losses Ties Arena2002 4 6 0 Arena2006 0 7 1 Bradley2010 2 7 1 VS 11-20 Wins Losses Ties Arena2002 4 4 0 Arena2006 3 3 3 Bradley2010 6 3 0 VS 21-40 Wins Losses Ties Arena2002 11 5 7 Arena2006 8 1 2 Bradley2010 6 2 1 VS 41 Over Wins Losses Ties Arena2002 12 2 8 Arena2006 28 2 9 Bradley2010 17 1 3 Totals Wins Losses Ties Arena2002 31 17 15 Arena2006 39 13 15 Bradley2010 31 13 5 * Superficially, Arena in 98-02, Arena 02-06, and Bradley 07-09 have very similar total W-L-T numbers, although Bradley has far fewer ties. * What really jumps out from these data is the strange 2002-2006 Cycle under Arena, indicating that this squad wasn't well prepared for the 2006 World Cup: 1) A very weak schedule padded by 28 wins over teams ranked #41 or weaker. 2) A very poor performance against teams ranked #20 or higher, recording only 3 wins, 10 losses, and 4 ties. No victories over any Top-10 teams. * Arena had the most success against Top-10 teams during his 1998-02 Cycle, with 4 wins and 6 losses. * Bradley has been the most successful against teams ranked between #11 and #20, with 6 wins and 3 losses. Arena was strictly .500 against this level. * All three had similar success against teams ranked betwen #21 and #40.
Thanks for Crunching the numbers! So does this prove Bradley is an upgrade over Bruce? Does this prove we have a lot of room for improvement?
Both. I think Bob had taken the program as far as he can...given the right draw, this team could do well at the next World Cup. I also think that USSF has figured out that you can't have the same guy for two cycles. I think we'll get a higher profile coach because of what Bob has done with this team, not in spite of him.
It can only be called a definite upgrade if the player pool is the same. Obviously, it is not, so we can't be that black and white. Bruce had the same to less talent to work with in '02, but he had much less depth. 2006 is looking more and more like a transitional Cup, that Bruce did not transition enough in. This is the problem with keeping coaches past one cycle. They stick with "their" guys, no matter the consequences. I've always found it interesting that we almost never tie under Bradley. I'd have to see the stats on whether that's a good thing or not (are those Bruce-era ties becoming wins or losses?).
Those rankings stats are great for predicting the WC. Based on that, I think it's easy to see the US getting out of the group (get lucky vs. the seeded team sometimes, normally lose. Solid against non-seeded. Vicious vs. weak teams.) Going strictly on rankings and the way the group draws work, we would be favored to get out of the group. 12-5-1 vs. teams in the 11-40 rankings. That number is crucial, and good.
Then you're still left with essentially 1 D-Mid in the middle to clean up and disrupt in front of the CBs, since the fullbacks can't help there unless they play in the box.
Looks like Bradley has roughly the same overall results but is more consistent than 2002Arena (I'm disregarding 2006Arena because that edition performed worse than 2002 or 2010) in that we beat the teams we should beat more often (instead of tying) and do better against our peer group, but do worse against the top tier. I wonder if this is because our first team was stronger in 2002 than now but we had less depth back then? The good news is that the Confed Cup team was a very young team and should improve. Going by position from forward back, the players we'll likely see are Altidore (young) Davies (young) Ching (old) Adu (young) Donovan (prime) Dempsey (prime) Feilhaber (youngish prime) MB (young) JJ (prime) Clark (prime) Edu (young) Kljestan (youngish prime, though I hope we don't see him) Bocanegra (oldish prime) Gooch (prime) Demerit (oldish prime) Cherundolo (oldish prime) Spector (young) With all the other candidates for the last few positions (Marshall, Holden, Goodson, Conrad, etc.) all young or in their prime except for Conrad.
1) "Prove" is too strong of a word. I think the numbers show that Bradley is a clear improvement over the 2006 Cycle Bruce Arena. His squad is playing a much tougher schedule and succeeding much better against Top-20 and Top-10 teams than Arena V2.0. 2) The numbers also suggest that Bradley is more or less matching the 2002 Cycle Bruce Arena, so far. You can argue about a couple of results better or worse here and there, but neither Bradley nor Arena V1.0 has a definative advantage in schedule difficulty or results. Since Bradley hasn't actually managed his first World Cup yet, it is best to withhold final judgment for now. 3) Underlying the W-L-T numbers, I do think both Bradley and Arena V1.0 managed the transition from the prior cycle's veterans to a younger team fairly well. The core of the 1998 cycle was players like Dooley, Stewart, Wynalda, Balboa, Ramos, Jones, Moore, Keller, Pope, and Reyna. He kept a few vets like Reyna, Pope, and Keller, and promoted B-teamers like McBride and Hejduk -- a fairly nice backbone to build a squad around. But Arena also brought in a new core that included Armas, Friedel, Berhalter, Wolff, Lewis, Sanneh, and ultimately younger guys such as Donovan, Beasley, Mastro, and O'Brien. Interestingly, those particular 4 younger players didn't really join the 2002 core until very late in the process, mere months or weeks before the Cup. That's a useful lesson to keep in mind for the 2010 process. Bradley is doing the same thing right now, transitioning from the squad built around Keller, Agoos, Reyna, O'Brien, McBride, Mastro, Lewis, Donovan and Beasley. I do agree that Bradley's player pool is deeper in several positions (CB, CM), but that depth doesn't mean the A-team talent is necessarily stronger. Plus, the increased depth options can increase the complexity of the transition process as BB has to test more players to find combinations he likes. 4) There is an issue that cannot be seen by just looking at the W-L-T data, but I think it is an important underlying point. Arena V1.0's transition process was helped by having a tremendous backbone core (Keller, Pope, Reyna, and McBride) to stabilize and anchor the team while new guys were tested around them. People should try and understand how crucial this stability up the spine was for Arena V1.0. In contrast, Bradley had a good defensive core (Howard, Onyewu, Boca) to anchor his team, but the central midfield and striker core was just not there and BB had to start from scratch. Very early in 2007 BB toyed with Donovan as the CM core player and Dempsey as the striker core player, but as we all have seen, those two served the team better as dynamic complimentary players at LM and RM, not as backbone central players. BB had to rebuild the entire central midfield and striker units in a way that Arena never had to do. The inconsistant fits and starts of this offensive spine rebuilding project, convoluted by the emergence of BB's son as a key CM ("nepotism"!!!), has been a more difficult task than what Arena V1.0 faced. I think a lot of fans react to the difficulties of the current CM and striker rebuilding hits and misses as if each game were already the end product, rather than part of a process that is as yet incomplete. 5) Lastly, I am inclined to agree with GVPATS77 that BB is probably reaching his limits with how much more he can develop the team. He is building a solid foundation this cycle, managing a fundamental and necessary transition. The stronger foundation should make the 2014 cycle much more attractive to a higher profile manager. How much higher profile I cannot say. The USSF still has financial limits that will keep the US from drawing elite coaches such as Hiddink. But the US could do well identifying the NEXT "Hiddink"; a quality guy on the cusp of elite coaching status who sees the advancing US player pool as an attractive opportunity or stepping stone.
These are really insightful statistics. They show me how unprepared our 2006 squad was to deal with quality opponents at the World Cup, and how we developed unrealistic expectations while beating up on teams ranked 40+. Our record during the 2006 cycle against teams ranked 1-20 was 3-10-4. With a record like that, you'll never be a favored candidate to get out of a World Cup group, considering that it is highly likely that any WC group will have at least two top-20 teams. I always operated under the illusion that we were a very good team during that cycle because we were completely dominant in the hex - our best performance during that round of WCQ ever. But these statistics show that we weren't testing ourselves against quality opposition (Mexico aside), and we weren't ready to compete at the World Cup.
You are right! I probably should have said that the stats INFER that he is just as good and possibly doing a better job with results vs. Il Bruce! While I previously called for his head after the CR qualifier, he has shown some growth and flexibility over the summer. I wonder how much more he can raise his game and am now saying "no change is necessary" before the cup as long as we continue to not only get results but improve our play in the process. Just my .02!
How is this possible??? Ricardo Clark is a "card machine". **completely unwarranted red - even the Italians agreed.