Sure the post was based on a faulty premise and sniffs of one desperately clinging to a position they know is crumbling beneath their feet, but at least it was long.
The argument would be that wether or not another player could be playing at a higher level for the US if Bradley werent as unsettled with his other CM, but instead found and stuck with a preferred partner. Or alternately, could another player be producing at a higher level, had they recieved the same treatment. Or to put it another way, If Ricardo Clark were to be given the same kind of luxury of consistent playing time and starting opportunities with the USMNT, would he be playing at a higher level for the MNT. Ricardo has been frequently shuffled in and out of the lineup. So the argument isn't necessarily that M.Bradley was a bad selection, but that he was treated in a manner that assured his continued development while other players were not given a stable environment to improve, and that the primary driver of this difference was the coaches relation. Moreover the notion that 3 good world cup games is in fact a true indication of player talent isnt always a sound one. If so, you could argue Tony Sanneh was among the best players in the world in circa 2002, after a monster tournament as our right back. Im not worth responding to because Im so wrong, is that it? Then shredding my argument shouldn't take very long should it, because I'm so obviously wrong. Nice little argument that gets you out of having to do any actually substantive commentary. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/players/gamelog?id=41952&cc=5901 Look at September. 2 games where he didn't play, one he came on in the second half. He was pulled off in a few other games. Your point was? My position has not changed for a significant period of time. I have never questioned Michael's worthiness to be in the team, just been critical about how his treatment has been substantially different then any other player in that position regarding the number of minutes played. And, if you think Im grasping at straws, I suggest you find out who the f' David Thorpe is, so that you begin to understand that this guy has thought more about player development then you or I ever will.
Lurking, player development is not done with the national team. They call you in for a couple weeks, if you are good enough, you play. Bradley is our best central mid and has been for at least two years, even if you refuse or are unable to see it.
His passing has improved each game. After England he was at 60% completion after Slovenia his total completion rose to 68% and after this game it has improved to 73%.
There are two pieces to this. First, national team caps directly lead to having ones skills showcased, which can lead to developmental opportunities. Second, national team performance is in part dependent on preparation and confidence in the ability to perform their role. If one player is consistently rewarded for their play, while another, playing at the same level, is consistently punished for their play, I garuntee you the rewarded player will soon begin to outperform the punished player as a result of negative feedback. It is a massive psychological boost to know you are a first choice player for your national team, your much more likely to see any setback in club form as temporary, then a player who not only doubts their club form but also begins to doubt their place within their team. For example, regarding Clark, after recovering from injury and getting into the starting lineup, you can make the argument that he performed on a level that was nearly equivilent to Bradley, per a 3rd party evaluation (in this case kicker ratings, while not gospel, certainly you cant call them Bradley haters). If on a club level these players could be considered of a similar level and quality, why does one perform at a higher level for the national team? There was a link specificly to an analysis of the Turkey game, from a site I cant remember, castigating Clark for stepping up to pressure the a Turkish midfielder higher up the pitch, while Bradley was beaten off the dribble into the Clark space left to lead to a goalscoring opportunity. Meanwhile, Bradley makes a similar play against Slovenia, stepping up the pitch to pressure the defensive midfielder, leaving Birsa space behind in the middle to score a goal. In this case, it was the other central midfielder, Torres, that was criticsized. So why is it wrong for Clark to step up into this space, but right for Bradley. How much does Bradley's consistent starting position effect our evaluation of his play, vs. those of the players next to him?
Players spend the bulk of their time training with their club, and play the bulk of their games with their club. The national team training is focused on getting the players working together, preparing for upcoming opponents, and to some extent revving players up to play at the higher international level. It is not about developing them - there is no time for that. Your "argument" that MB is a better player than Clark because of how he was treated in game selection and/or substitutions by his national team coach doesn't take any "shredding". It's just stupid on its face. I'm not wasting anymore time on that, but on a related note, here's what I said about MB in January of 2008: I was overly generous back then. The real problem is that many US fans can't tell the difference between a good performance and an okay one because they just don't know the game very well. To some of us MBs excellent play in the WC isn't a surprise. The ones that do know the game, and can tell a good player from an okay one could see it coming in 2007. I'm even more tired in 2010 than I was back then of some people wasting everyone's time posting stupid stuff on these boards when they wouldn't know a good player if he bit them on the ass or even the simplest things like what a national team coach is and isn't responsible for.
There are tangible benefits from international experience, as well as confidence that you get from playing time with the national team, that directly effect national team performance as well as time with the club. The psychological element of sports is a huge portion of what goes on on the field. Thorpe's point regarding Ariza isn't that the Lakers took this raw lump of clay and molded him into a starter on a championship team, but that what they invested in him the confidence and belief he needed to perform that role. What was needed was not new talents or skills, but just the belief that he could do it. http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/14779/to-young-players-playing-time-is-oxygen I think this quote is directly applicable to the national team. The best thing you can possibly do for a young player is to give them confidence and playing time. Now a player like Bradley has gotten it. Why not a player like Holden or Torres or Edu? Because Bradley is the better prospect? Well he certainly is going to appear that with the national team if he is the only one recieving, what in this words of a develment expert, is one of the best things you can possibly do for a player. So getting playing time and not having to worry about getting bench has no effect on performance? At all? You seriously believe that? Moreover, Ive provided a third party assessment (in this case kicker ratings) of both players in the last season that would seem to indicate the opposite, that there isn't a great difference of ability at the club level. Granted, at this stage of his career, Clark is an older player, and has less potential, but thats not really an argument over what playing time either should receive in order to win this cycle. Find one place where I have ever said that Bradley is not a good player. What I have said is that he is not (as) a significantly better player then the other people have made him out to be. Nor has his performances been so strong for the national team as to preclude him from being subbed out. Yet his minutes are as much of a lock as those of Landon Donovan. Second, "I said it before therefore it must be true" is not a valid argument.
Life ain't fair, but as far as I can tell Bob Bradley is about as fair as they come. He's very clear about what he expects from his players. He has tried out quite a few CMs during this cycle, but when you boil it all down, the only player who has truly seized the opportunity has been Michael. You can't tell me that Kljestan didn't have opportunities and the support of the coaching staff. His form just decided to go hide under a rock. Edu has struggled with injuries. Feilhaber couldn't find a game for his club. Clark is a solid player, but he's just not that dynamic, and you can't compare him to Bradley on the basis of a few Bundesliga games. Bradley has been getting the job done in Europe for 4 full seasons. As I said, life ain't fair, and in some cases the cream doesn't always rise to the top. But the players who show the most potential at a young age are going to be the ones who get the best developmental environments. Bradley is one of a number of players who has earned opportunities this cycle, and he deserves credit for taking full advantage. If you ask me though, he's been the best man for the job since day 1.
The player development argument doesn't hold up (nor does the theory that all players are basically the same but for positive reinforcement). The world of athletics is littered with athletes who were given every opportunity and failed (there are a whole host of NFL Qbs who fit this group) and with athlethes left for dead who earned their way onto the field and could no longer be ignored (Jay DeMerit?). Lots of factors distinguish athletes (even at the highest level), including talent, drive and guts. Some players force their way into the lineup and then stay there. Some are given a spot and cough it up.
Perhaps lurking is just using the negative feedback as motivation tactic for MB. We do still have games left. We want MB to stay angry and determined to succeed, right?
Moreover???? You don't really believe you can garnish your argument with a "Moreover" when comparing Kicker ratings of a player with 3 BL appearances vs a player with over 30 appearances? Maybe you should also indicate why Clark made the bench 8 times but wasn't used. Or, you could just look at why Clark only played 3 matches for Eintracht in the 2nd half of the BL season. Making that argument is every bit as thin as when you had to reach back to September to show that Bradley was benched for 2 games. Nevermind that he started every match and played just about every single minute from October until the last match. Sheesh. I understand the argument that you are trying to make. However, you can't argue with the results that have occurred nor can you show that a different result would have occurred if minutes were doled out differently. Mikey is a horse that you can load up and ride long and hard. No one knows that better than Papa Bradley. He is now playing beyond his 22 years and has filled the middle of the pitch better than I had expected.
I can make the argment for why Clark only played 3 matches for Eintracht. He was injured. But I'd take Michael over Clark 100 times out of 100. He's our best central midfielder. (in my opinion). I personally, would keep our best central midfielder out there as much as possible. Is he Patrick Vieira? No, and he never will be. But he's pretty damn good.
Yes, I realize that Clark was injured and I agree that he is a good player that can go strong for 90 minutes. One of the remarkable things about Bradley is the amount of minutes he has played for club and country while staying healthy.
Pont two applies to point one it appears. Some facts: When Bob Bradley was fired,the new coach kept Mike and traded Rico. Mike went to Holland.Clark unfortunately was injured in his trial in Spain.
Can you blame the nepotists though? What is the likelyhood that Bob Bradley would have a son that develops into a what he has become? I know hard work and talent can go far, but of all the soccer players in the country, our coach has a son this good? The percentages of any soccer player getting to his level are so slim, you can't blame some for thinking of nepotism. Well, he is this good, period. What ever his name is. So glad for him and us.
What're the chances that the son of a soccer coach and a professional athlete would be good at soccer? Not bad. Probability doesn't work like that anyway. What're the chances that a half Canadian would be the best American player ever? Must be a conspiracy in order to improve US-Canadian relations.
Of course, Michael Bradley was first called up to the USMNT by Bruce Arena in 2006. Is Bruce Arena his uncle? Michael Bradley was selected as a starter on our U17's, U20's, and U23's by a host of different coaches. He's been one of the best players in his age group for as long as I can remember. It's not like he just appeared...............
It is in MB's genes. His mom was an All-American at UVA. I believe she still holds some records there.
Remember Patrick Vieira? Not an exact match, but pretty close. And 22 year old players with great distribution and a big upside are exactly what Arsene likes to look for.