News: The Official Future of Bob Bradley Thread - Resignation Rumor denied by USSF/Bradley 8/13

Couldn't have said it better.

 

I think you are right in some way; I don't want Bradley to coach my German club. But I don't want Del Bosque, Tabarez or Lippi either; I don't want any coach who isn't fluent in German.

 

Who's getting upset?

This is exactly why Roger's stating that the fact Sunil and BB will meet indicates the fed want's to keep BB is stupid.

 

A Poland game is always a feel-good opportunity to start a new cycle on the right foot. Poland's team sucks these days (and that makes me very sad).

Bradley should stay. Why on earth would anyone expect (yes, expect) the US to do any better at the WC than we did? The coaching was excellent to achieve what was achieved with the talent we have. All coaches make mistakes, and I'm sure BB has learned from his (e.g. Clark). He's not stupid. If anything, keeping BB will help in capitalizing on the education of the last 4 years.

I'm so tired of the evergreen topic of nepotism with MB..., come on, who's better at this role? He is the best holding mid we have. Right now, we don't have a better pairing than MB / Edu.

Oh, and one more thing, Ching. His time is over. I would have liked to see him at the WC, but I don't think not having him hurt in any way, and that would have been his swan song anyway. As of today, we don't have a target forward who could pass the McBride test, so the system will change for a time to account for that.

 

the only delusion is that you folks don't realize what it actually would take physically to play successfully every minute of every game, and be in all places at all times, which is what bob bradley's scheme implies for his son. frankly, i don't think anyone would be up to it, and mb ends up physically overmatched.
he's a good supporting midfielder. he's not (either physically or technically) what this lineup makes him out to be.

there isn't another major nt where a single player has a role like that. the usnt doesn't have a midfield unit (like spain). it has mb at one spot, and everyone else at the other. the flank players are donovan and dempsey, who don't exactly put in overtime on the defensive side, which makes the weight on mb's shoulders even greater. he'd have to be superman to play well in that condition, but that's exactly the situation he's put in. during games, he needs to breathe and take breaks too. and then bad things tend to happen, because whoever he's paired with at the moment always tends to defer to him. right now, the mf is not set up reasonably, imo.

 

these are good points.
personally, i think bob bradley will be retained. i have thought so all along. he wants to stay, and the federation has cold feet about anybody else.
after which, maybe the improvement you're willing to wait/hope for, will come. it's possible. the critics may be wrong.
i would note, though, that you're accepting a fairly modest view of the usnt. that may be appropriate too, of course.

the issue isn't whether mb is nt caliber. it's a question of how the lineup is made out game after game, and even stuck to literally minute after minute.
there's a place for mb. is he right now the best holding mid? i don't see, as i've said, such separation now btwn him and others.
the current carved-in-stone setup isn't ideal, being simply too rigid.

his time is over now.
i'm not sure he couldn't have finished a little better than findley in sa (where the entire front line wasted chances).
ching might have been of use, where a single good finish can make a big difference.

 

Right now, we don't have a better pairing than MB / Edu.

How do we know? When have we tried another combination that does not include him? I like Michael Bradley in the midfield, but come on, he does not deserve all the playing time he gets - to the exclusion of all others. I think Bob has significantly limited this team with his automatic choice of his son as one of the central midfielders (all the time!) and the totally puzzling inclusion of Findley for so many minutes. His use of Clark so much - instead of Edu - has also been quite reasonably challenged.

I think Bob did a marginally acceptable job overall. If Landon had not scored at the last moment against Algeria, we would have been saying quite different things about Bradley right now. My "acceptable" bar for our WC was out of the first round, but making it to the quarterfinals was our target and we did not get there. Bob's choices of players on the pitch was - most notably with Clark and Findley as a starters against Ghana - frequently poor.

 

First, that's debatable. The US performed about where it should have with the talent it had. No, the US talent doesn't make it a top 5 team, but a 8-16 team.

But with a superior coach, may it could've performed at a slightly higher level -- i.e., top 8, quarterfinals. It's not as if Ghana has clearly superior talent to the US, after all, but it played to limit the exposure on its worse GK, for example. It's not as if Uruguay didn't make the semis, in part, because of exemplary coaching.

I agree the whole nepotism argument is pretty tiresome. But the problem is that a coach on for a second WC tends to paint themselves into a corner, and that's the fear with Bradley.

BB'll look at, say, the US forward pool and say "Altidore, Findley, perhaps Gomez or Buddle, and someone else who may catch fire. That's it -- I know because I've spent four years making the hard selection of the team." We as fans have a tendency to accept this decision-making, because we've been privy to the same games he has.

So if Findley fails to progress very quickly, Buddle ages and Gomez's flash in the pan is over, we're left with the same single choice: Altidore. This is what happened with the US in Germany under Arena -- Reyna goes down or Lewis doesn't succeed, you're left with some tried and true alternatives (Olsen and Bocanegra) who just aren't good enough, but a different coach might've been able to not be at the end of that decision-tree.

A new coach may throw at that list and start over, with a fresh perspective: "Okay, there are about 3 or 4 US forwards abroad and another 10 - 15 fair ones in the US. I'm going to watch them all and make my decisions about who to play up there." That's what someone needs to revitalize the team. It's four years later -- time for a free re-valuation that BB may or may not engage in.

Let me ask you this -- why do you think MB/Edu is the best pairing? Is it because it's the only one you've seen you like?

A new coach may try combinations we haven't seen that involve those players, or not. Perhaps it'll be a new formation. Can you say that in 4 years Jones-Bradley-McCarty in a 4-5-1, wouldn't be better? How about Tchani-Donovan in a 4-4-1-1 or Spector-Edu-King in a 3-5-2? The fear is that you'd never see any of that under BB because he won't abandon 4-4-2 with Michael Bradley in the middle, and perhaps that's not the best choice.

 

What evidence NOW do you have that the other CM's have closed the separation between them and MB? Edu's 2 years as a reserve (and injured for 6+ months) in the SPL? Holden's handful of appearances for Bolton? Clark's bench time at Frankfurt? Feilhaber's play as a LEFT MIDFIELDER for 2nd tier Aarhus? Torres publicly admitting he wasn't ready for the international speed of play?

I have written repeatedly that the next several years should provide a very useful competiton for MB as a US CM. Hopefully Holden gets a full year and more as Bolton's starting CM. Hopefully Edu stays healthy and starts regularly at Rangers. Hopefully Clark gets some games for Frankfurt. Hopefully Jermaine Jones returns to his form of the 2008-2009 season. Hopefully Torres moves to a Euro club to expand his game. THEN there will be a real competiton for game time as a US central midfielder. But until these players actually show consistent, regular, starting play at good clubs, MB's pedigree and experience will remain better than his competitors, as it was the last several years. Right now there is a real separation between MB and the others. Next year???

Now =/= Sept 2010 through May 2012. So, we shall see. I hope all these guys play great. The more US players playing top flight ball, the better.

 

Bob Bradley does not belong with this team for another 4 years. I think he's a good coach, but Michael Bradley's national team career needs to stand on its own. It's detrimental to team unity and fan confidence with his father there. There are other coaches.

Think of this. It's entirely possible that M Bradley could be the captain or apprentice captain for the next cycle. Should this happen under his father? No way - neither of the Bradleys can have the objectivity necessary to make that successful, and the other players would rightly resent it.

Bob Bradley had a good run for the national team. Improvement in a second cycle is unlikely, the best we can realistically hope for is as good as this one. For the good of the team he should step down and pursue other opportunities, which I'm sure will come his way.

 

While I think Bradley should clearly go (his tactics and player selection at the WC were poor), I will say this.

If we are going to make a change, then dragging it out is really a poor move by USSF.

Gold Cup will be here before you know it, and a new coach should start his evaluation process ASAP to get us ready. These next two friendlies would be a nice opportunity to begin.

IF we plan on replacing BB, we should do it very soon. The longer it drags on, the more likely he stays.

 

I'm pretty sure we would have heard of this resentmnt before now.


It's like BB's the only guy who ever coached his son.

I want Bob gone because four years is enough,it has nothing to do with any"resentments" which,AFAIK,only exist in some BS posters' heads.

 

Can we do that? Why is it that the coaches are in for a lot of scrutiny but Sunil just keeps plodding along. Maybe we should start at the top and have a complete change. It may be the only way we are going to get a decent coach, whether national or international.

I, for one, do not want to see BB continue as coach...time for new blood, and I don't think BB has it in him.

 

I think your assumption that the team can't be unified with a father/son combination is a bit off. They certainly have seemed unified over the past cycle. Why exactly would that change?

While it is entirely possible that Michael could become the captain or vice-captain, I doubt that it's all too likely to cause a problem. First off, if Boca and LD are playing, they'll be captain. There shouldn't be any question about that. And Bob will only appoint MB as a leader of the team when he's seen that the team are willing to accept his leadership, and that would only happen naturally. No point in having a leader no one will follow.

I think you're trying to skip steps in our progression here. Just because we won our group doesn't mean that next time around we need to make the quarters or the semis. Those are great aspirations and goals that we should build for, obviously. But the likelihood that we get a group that is that managable in 2014 isn't good. Proof of progress for us is getting out of our group again. As has been proven time and again, from there anything can happen. Our next step forward is not having a step back in 2014.

Honestly, I don't think Arena is a good benchmark to use in a comparison with Bob. I don't believe that BB is wired to be complacent (there's a difference in their egos) and I don't believe he would allow that with his players. I just don't.

But,.....I would like to see a different manager as well. I'd like to see new ideas with team selection. I'd like to see if a different 'eye' would mean different assessments for players. But, I want to see that change come from outside USSF's sphere of influence, meaning outside of the MLS pool of managers. I don't believe we'll see much change at all otherwise.

 

I agree that in the past, MB might have been the only really healthy MF. But the case is different now. If BB is retained (and I hope he isn't), it will be interesting to see if he incorporates Jones (who played a good game yesterday), Edu, Feilhaber (who I think would play well with Edu, but never tried), Holden or others that have been pushed aside so that MB could start every game.

 

I would think the fact that BB chose Gomez and Buddle rather late in the cycle (Findley too, really) would lead you to the opposite conclusion. Have you seen the number of players first capped under Bradley? Have you not seen BB make the tough decisions to drop players who had a relatively long history with the program when those players weren't performing?

 

The thing that continues to baffle me about the nepotism arguments is that pretty much any player on the team who was starting regularly for a quality European club was a guaranteed starter under Bradley, unless there were two such players at the same position (such as in Marcus Hahnemann's case). Of course you could reasonably argue against such a policy (perhaps it breeds general complacency or uses Eurosnobbery in place of more discerning talent evaluation), but instead people choose the much more idiotic argument - that one such player who fit into that policy was handed preferential treatment.

Here are all the players who started regularly at some point (let's say for at least half a season) in a top European league or club, following Bradley's official appointment.

Howard
Hahnemann
Bocanegra
Onyewu (at Standard but not at Milan)
Cherundolo (except while returning from injuries)
Spector (mainly during the past season)
Bradley
Dempsey
Altidore (At Hull, after his first couple months there)
Lewis (At Derby County)

Howard, Bocanegra, Bradley, and Dempsey were the only four who were more or less regular club starters in every season since Bradley's appointment, and no surprise they (along with Donovan) were the players who were guaranteed starters for the US.

Onyewu, Cherundolo, and Altidore were regular starters for the US while they were playing regularly at the club level and not returning from injury.

Spector and Hahnemann lost out because there were regular Premier League or Bundesliga starters ahead of them. But Hahnemann, as we later found out, was Howard's immediate backup, and Spector got plenty of minutes while Cherundolo was recovering from injury.

Eddie Lewis received a couple USMNT starts while he was starting at Derby County, but as Derby were statistically the worst team to ever play in the Premier League, I can understand why he would be the one exception.

 

Sunil is elected IIRC. He can be asked to step down.

The ball should be kept rolling no matter what. We should already be working toward 2014 with these new friendlies. The Brazil game was a waste IMO in all aspects with the exception of Omar's 90 minutes and Bedoya's howler.

Otherwise, all it contributed to the effort was making a bunch of money. Not good enough for me really. I understand it, but I'm just not much for celebratory games.

 

i agree about the 'acceptable,' which i also might call 'minimum result.'
i still think the confed cup run is a better feather in bob bradley's cap than the wc was.
imo the biggest game of the cycle, far and away, no comparison even remotely possible, was the ghana game.
the team played it poorly, it must be said.
was anyone not let down by the usnt performance in this game? i don't mean the score, i mean the performance.
of course it's possible that's all we've got...

i say it because including wc, mb's current performance (in the herculean role he has been assigned) imo does not put daylight btwn him and all the rest. the evidence, of course, is that i watch the nt games.

 

ok, here's my 2c on what i'd like to see at the nt...

what they need imo is a midfielder who can get a high number of quality touches. a guy who can receive the ball coming out of defensive possession, and who can spring the offensive side of the team. a guy who can pick up the ball in mf at any time and make a useful play with it, without dallying on it.
then donovan and dempsey can be finishers instead of having to create the play for the team. with them i'd play a pure cf, who can be just a smoke bomb some of the time if the other two guys are sprung offensively.
in mf i'd pair two holding mf's with the guy i mentioned. but the key player in making a lot of things click would be this guy that you actually can run the play through.

now i can hear people saying, 'where do you see a midfielder who can get a high number of quality touches?'
i would like a coach who defines the roles as i've stated, and then looks to see who can grow into them. a good coach will find/educate the right talent. that's his job, really.

to me, this new approach would have more potential than the static '4-4-2 and we'll get out of the group stage' status quo.
i may be wrong, maybe the us can have a good run in brazil just by staying the course, but i see it otherwise.

 

My issue with Bradley as coach isn't the fact we lost to Brazil 2-0 (who doesn't?) Or that Robbie Findley keeps starting (everyone has kryptonite).

It's that we don't dominate CONCACAF minnows.

For the talent level we have, which is, I think, certainly top 20 in the world, why do we have so much trouble against little CONCACAF teams?

I understand that Saprissa is a hellhole and tough to play, so why do we go down 2-0 to them at home, and 1-0 to Honduras? Why did it take us so fricking long to score against T&T at T&T, even though we should have been losing 1-0?

We have too much talent for matches like that to not be surefire wins. We never control any of the matches we play against CONCACAF opponents, unless you count Cuba and Barbados. There isn't a single match from the Hex that we dominated start to finish except the home match versus T&T. All of the rest we struggled, home or away.

And that lies on the coach. Bob is a poor, poor motivator, and until matches like that are won with relative ease, he's not good enough for the job.