To me, and this is just me, there are two problems with this argument. Our first string players are good, but in all three competitions, they overachieved - meaning the USMTN wasn't the second most-talented team in the Confederations Cup and Mexico has more talent in CONCACAF. Doesn't the coach legitimately get credit for this (I recognize that Mexico didn't have the best coaching during these particular competitions and the USMNT could easily have finished eliminated in the Confederation Cup)? Bradley got the second string USMNT to finish second in the last Gold Cup, which given their talent level, is a decent result. The first game in January for the USMNT always stinks (probably because the players are way out of form). Honduras is the hardest opponent we have had in this kick-off match as well and we got a red card. Really, it's that simple.
What you want is for Bob to justify his system to you by demonstrating its success even when using "B" team players in a friendly against a team they "should" defeat. When the "B" team doesn't produce comparable results you begin to question the coach. Why do you suspect that Bob's objective is to replicate team success (i.e., a result), through the execution of his "style" or system, when it's crystal clear from Bob's response to the red card that his first priority was not a result? Why do you even think that executing the preferred tactics for his first team with a second/fringe team is the best way to gain information that is going to bolster our chances in the future when using our first team? Why would the failure of this collection of second/fringe team players to execute Bob's preferred first team tactics matter at all, when the main reason these players have been collected is not to be a mini-first-team but because individuals among them might be useful supplements to that first team? While it's always laudable (especially for players) always to compete to win, Bob's goal in these friendlies is not to demonstrate the success of his system, nor should it be. In fact, I'd be royally pissed if that were what he was trying to do, because he'd be wasting the opportunity to use these second-team friendlies for what these friendlies are supposed to do: identify assets for potential future use with the first team.
I'm going to repeat what I've said elsewhere on the web .. Most people normally don't see Bradley's incompetence because the "A-list" players have sufficient quality to consistently win in CONCACAF (which are the vast majority of USMNT games). This shelters him from the typical fans who don't see details. Against B-list nations last year, he starts to get exposed even when fielding a strong team. Here some people finally start to mildly question him. Last year we went 3-4 against the B-listers which included Mexico, Egypt, Sweden, Slovakia, and Denmark Against the soccer powers we get raped. We went 1-3 last year. Heavy criticism fell upon him when getting spanked against Italy & Brazil in Confed Cup. I said: "finally, thank god people are starting to speak up". But that was short lived. We won a complete fluke against Spain and people forgave everything! What short term memory & what terrible conclusions to reach after that match. Then, up 2-0 at half time in the final, we give up not one, not two, but three goals in 45 minutes. THREE freakin goals people. If there's anything to be gained from that competition it's that our players showed some balls of steel! And maybe Bradley has a part in that. Maybe he's a good motivator. Props to him if that's indeed the case. However, from a tactical perspective, he showed how barren he is. It's just too bad more people can't see that. Now comes the recent match against Honduras, where he doesn't have his A-list team to shield his incompetence. The true capacity of a coach is demonstrated when playing opposition that on paper is equal or superior in individual talent. That is where a coach's tactical prowess and capability to prepare a team is on full display. This game against Honduras further exposed him as a fraud. I wish more people could see just how bad he is. Many want to claim "it's just a friendly" or the objective was to evaluate players. Yes. Both are true statements, but you're missing the point and are not even attempting analysis. To brush it off just like that is irresponsible and is a contributing factor in maintaining US Soccer mediocrity! Furthermore, if your aim is to evaluate players, you want to simulate real game conditions! That is, you implement tactical structure like you normally would. And you know what, Bob did do this. Namely, no tactical structure. He simply throws 11 on the field and hopes for the best.
Not concerned about the result at all. I think that the game helped and hurt some of the players. Perkins - C = Nothing special and nothing bad Bornstein - B = Nice game...looked like he was good enough to play for Honduras Marshall - D = yikes...sure hope Gooch, Demerit, and Boca stay out of card trouble and stay healthy in SA. I would like to see him get some time with maybe Boca or DeMerit to see how he responds...definitely put him behind Goodson though at this point. Conrad - F = you are old which means you are supposed to play smart Wynne - C = I didn't have a problem with him. The 3rd goal belonged to Marshall at least as much as Wynne. I did love his hustle, but he cannot cross. He actually seems like the perfect forward for Bradley with the blazing speed to chase down a deep ball. Rogers - D- = very disappointed in his showing. luckily he had some good games leading up to this or i would be concerned. poor touches all night Beckerman - C- = lots of hustle but i would have liked to see more leadership from him. he seemed to get tangled up with Feilhaber too much. Feilhaber - C = probably the most frustrated guy out there...playing alongside Donovan, Dempsey, and Bradley at midfield is more desirable Kljestan - D- = wtf...his attempt on the kick was god awful Cunningham and Findley - No grade = I don't remember many clean passes all night...seems like nothing was coming to them on the groud. I think the midfield was so weak that assigning the forwards a grade would be unfair. Goodson - B = looked good...took charge of the backline. showed patience when he got the ball and did some good things with it. i think he goes to SA as the 4th CB behind Gooch, Demerit, and Boca. Bedoya - B- = was one of the only guys that seemed to put pressure on Honduras all night. i liked his skill Davis - B- = did well...good skill with the ball. he actually put the ball where his target wanted it. McCarty - C- = wtf is up with his hair Casey - D = you have to hit that...i am fine with Casey being included in this camp just as long as Bob promises not to take him to the World Cup. Pearce - C - didn't hurt us
Of course it goes both ways. But the overwhelming majority of the important results have gone Bob's way. Now we are into the home stretch before the World Cup, and instead of people getting behind the team and the coach, they are roundly using this time to set themselves up as "prophets of doom" in order to be able to say, "look I was right, Bob Bradley is an idiot." Some of the posts against Bob are now bordering on the ludicrous. I criticize Bob when he deserves it, but I hold it in check with the reality of the situation and the results he has put up. Basically to this point Bradley has proven that all of his detractors were wrong. For me, if Bradley can't get the team out of the group, then clearly he was not the coach for the team. This is a very good team and should be able to advance. Moreover, I would say that if he can't get the team to the same level as Bruce did in 2002, into the group of 8, well then it has been a failure. The only caveat being that if we draw Germany in the second round. If we put up a good match and still go home there I think Bob earned his money. Otherwise he has to at least meet the 2002 high water mark. So, I am still interested, what will it take for the detractors? None have answered the questions, I suspect because they want to keep the option of still dumping on Bradley for whatever arbitrary reason they come up with next.
Pretty easy. Getting to the quarter finals would be overachieving. Getting out of that group while playing watchable soccer is to be expected.
Really you think this!?!?! That Bob has no idea, that he kind of pics the players and then looks at Landon and says "Ok, what do yooouuu think we should do?" Or that he doesn't prepare the team or know anything about tactics? That is absurd.
I'm not sure that speaks to the crux of the argument - I guess my point was that there are probably 10 or 15 other coaches in this country that could get exactly what Bradley gets out of these players - simply saying these games don't matter is a black hole of an excuse - that's just my opinion, mind you.
That's not my stance and not what I meant to imply. I think Bob deserves plenty of criticism. I also think he deserves praise. I think there's much more nuance to the coaching situation than is allowed to be discussed by all the polarized opinions here. Basically this place turns into Glen Beck's show when Bradley is being discussed.
That is correct. If you know anything about Bradley, it is that he is meticulous, very organized and has a plan, maybe to a fault.
Incidentally, when I played junior varsity soccer in high school, we had a coach, who was also the assistant basketball coach. He knew nothing and during every halftime would look to our best player and say, "So Jason what do you see out there?" Jason would then dictate the tactics and key points we needed to follow in order to win the game, and the coach would say, "That sounds great, lets do it."
You may be right, but your argument lacks depth. I think this is true for many of the anti-Bradley posters. You accuse the typical fan of not seeing the details, but then you provide no details either to back up your argument. Its not enough to say "we lost to a team we should have beat, therefore the coach stinks". Its not enough to say "we gave up 3 goals in 45 minutes (to the best team in the World), our coach is terrible". You accuse Bradley of having no tactical structure. This is definitely untrue. He most definitely has a tactical structure...it just may not be the best for our pool of players or against certain opponents. My opinion of Bradley is mixed. I think he does some things well: - looks at alot of players - good player selection - generally uses players in their best positions I think other things he does needs improvement: - Substitutions - In-game tactical adjustments - Emphasing quick, one touch passes to feet as apposed to off-the ball movement I would like to hear your opinion as to what tactically Bradley does or does not do that makes him a bad coach. Details...not just merely restating results.
Reminds me of the wide receivers coach in high school who told my teammates, "you want to look the ball in, and catch it!"
Actually, he commented on that during his post game interview against Honduras. Said the passes were bad and too many of them were to chest when they didnt need to be. I dont feel passionate either way, but if I had to say something negative it would be that I think he's too understated. He tries to hard to pick and choose his words carefully. Drives me nuts…….
I have yet to read a poster who thinks Bradley is brilliant. His "defenders" basically argue that he is a competent, dedicated guy who has the team playing at roughly the level of the talent. A top-20 roster playing at a top-20 level. His haters are a mix of folks who feel he has the team underachieving due to tactical weaknesses, and the lunatic fringe who hate him for his bald head or sweatpants. I definitely don't think "Win because of Bob, lose because of the players at his disposal". But there are a lot of posters who clearly argue: lose because of Bob, win because of the players at his disposal. There is one in this very thread who has clearly stated that the Confed Cup roster covered for Bradley's failures. These views are silly. I think: win because of the players at his disposal and lose because of the players at his disposal. Period. When the A-team plays, the majority of the results are good. A few bad, a few spectacular. But mostly good, logical top-20 results. When the A-team doesn't play, the results have generally been poor (Copa America, any number of B/C team friendlies, the 2009 Gold Cup final), but occasionally OK (most of the Gold Cup until the final and some friendlies). The Honduras match was one of these. The US started zero players from the side that upset Spain, the peak moment of the last 3 years. Bornstein was the only starter from the US qualification clinching match last fall. Meanwhile, Honduras started 6 players who started their Qualification clinching must-win match at El Salvador. This was half Honduras' A-team vs a mix of B/C US players. Weaker players = weaker play and weaker results. Better players = better play and better results. It's about the players. The coach is a marginal figure. He sees the players for short, limited periods. He hasn't developed their skills through months and years club action. He selects from the available player pool, and either the players are good enough to perform, or they are not good enough. Bob Bradley is a plain vanilla, average coach who has very little fundamental impact on the games, good or bad. It's the players who matter.
I am not sure his detractors or "haters", and occasionally I am one, would necessarily disagree with your view of Bradley. The reply would probably be: it doesn't have to be this way. On a national team, you are correct that there is very little time to work on fundamentals with players. In addition, you are stuck with the players you have. Except for some aggressive capping, there is no way to better your talent pool. You have Americans, and can't buy Brazilians. But the only way you can improve what you have is to have a coach that takes full advantage of the talent pool you're stuck. I think it's totally defensible to say "Hiddinck [or insert name of world famous manager] would've lost to Honduras 3-1 last week, Mexico 5-0 in the Gold Cup Final, etc." If you don't think Hiddinck (or someone else) will do any better than Bradley, then cool; Bradley's your dude. If you suspect there are better alternatives, there's nothing wrong with arguing for it either. It's not "hating" Bradley, it's just wanted to get the best out of the players we have. I don't have a lot of confidence that Bradley can.
I hope he does.. he looks gd calm and in control. I think he is going to get better and I hope he get to join EPL
I actually think Hiddink or another elite coach would probably do better with the US than Bradley. But not certainly better. And doing better in these marginal B/C team friendlies like Saturday's game vs. Honduras is irrellevant. "The alternative elite coach" would have to have done better than Bradley at the 2007 Gold Cup, the 2009 Confed Cup, and the recent World Cup Qualifiers for it to be meaningful. Hiddink could not guarantee better results in those three meaningful events than we got under Bradley. Heck, Hiddink couldn't guarantee Top-12 Russia advancement over Slovenia, ranked #50 by ELO when the teams played in November (about the same ranking as Jamaica), and ranked #46 now (below Costa Rica). Moreover, for an uncertain and unprovable "better" outcome at the 2007 Gold Cup, the 2009 Confed Cup, and the WC Qualifiers, the US would have to have paid Hiddink or Capello in excess of $10 million annually; Bradley makes less than $1 million, even with incentives. The USSF simply cannot do that. So, then you are left with the USSF trying to find the "right" 2nd tier foreign coach who might work for the USSF at $1 million or so per year. I don't trust the USSF to be able to find the "right" 2nd tier foreign coach. They might choose a guy like Gullit or Sven and the US Nat's could just as easily be worse off, not marginally better off. Dreaming of the elite coach is fantasy. The USSF won't/can't do it. Hoping for the "right" lesser foreign coach is a crap shoot that guarantees nothing. Go with the devil you know...