Yeah, and I think we still play somewhat naively, witness the blown 2-0 leads against Brazil and Mexico. For a lot of countries, it is almost genetically inbred to shift gears when you go up 2-0 in a match of that magnitude. Less so for us. We need more skill. But we also need to be more wily.
Bradley couldn't keep a defense of 2-0 ahead twice. His game plan has been figured out even for Panama. There is no surprise from his teams anymore.
Bob lost the game by trying some new things and putting faith on his personal boys redgardless of form. Bob for trying something new Adu worked. Ream kinda, Lehigh worked and Bornstine may cost him his job.
The one thing I think most will agree on is if: the part in the Bill Archer article that mentioned that Bradley has lost the team..and players are miserable..if this is true then I think Bradley has to go.
This isn't even a question of wiley, its a question of basic common sense and being able to see what is happening in the real world on the field. It's also called tactical flexibility and being able to hold multiple concepts of how to play in your head during the same game based on what you see. Its also a case of understanding that your strategy in the world of sport is merely a means to an end and not some holy doctrine that you have to cling to to prove that your intellect and philosophy won the game. In the first instance, its Brazil for **** sake! You don't need to "think about" the fact that if we go up 2-0 on Brazil its just a matter of time before they come at us like a shit storm on fire. Take your scalps and retreat to the castle. In the second instance Mexico was all over us from minute one. Both of our goals were totally against the run of play and everyone and their sister in the stands and viewing at home could see that was the case. HOWEVER, apparently what Bob saw was that our overall game plan was working so why shift the formation and tactics around? At least that's the only possible explanation I can think of to explain why didn't shift to bunker-counter. The worst part about these two incidents is that we know very well that the current squad can bunker and counter quite well. Against Argentina we got absolutely mauled as we bunkered for 90 minutes, but we didn't break. How is it that we can't have this team shift to that kind of posture when we are up 2-0? The bottom line is that Bob's weaknesses as a coach really seem to be based on the fact that he is a theoretician. He plays strategies and tactics in his head, and sometimes he gets them really right, especially at some halves of games. The problem is that he seems to really be insulated from what is actually going on on the field and doesn't react to what is in plain sight or what others might absolutely know will change. In addition this mindset I believe leads him to be open to trying other players but having very specific ideas about how and where they should play, and when they don't pan out exactly as he has drawn it up in his mind those players get shunted aside sometimes for very long periods of time despite the fact that they could impact the team tremendously in another role. In other cases it also means that he will play a player in a slot despite the player being inadequate because that players style fits his scheme (Findley). To put it in other professional terms, Bob is a decent to good war game strategist and battle planner. He is not a good field general at all.
The weird thing about this thread is that the Ream and Adu thought processes had to be completely different: Ream is a complete professional and International noob.The thought process is: Does he have the talent and is he ready? Adu, despite his young age is an experienced professional and International, who was in the wilderness.The thought process is: Has he solved his problems and is he in form?
He's a horrible strategist because his hits-to-misses ratio is less than 50% and some of his errors have been of such egregious nature that they remain baffling to this day. And the worst thing is that his army rate of defeats climbs the longer he stays in charge. That puts him in the fairly unique category of Hitler and Dave Wannstedt.
Ream, just need more caps, I blame more USSF not preparing with enough games the USNT, but Ream has a future with USNT. Its important get some caps playing B level CONCACAF. Adu, poor kid, Adu always get screw at the club level. Once, Adu stays with the same club for more than one season...Adu will regain his class. Bradley, no future with USNT, USNT will regress back to 1990s with Bradley.
Trying to wrap my head around the image of anyone coming at me "like a shit storm on fire." Terrifying. To be fair, it's demonstrably untrue that Bradley does not shift tactics--that's what this thread readily acknowledges, and that's a credit to the OP in this climate. Bradley has had attacking wingbacks and stay at home wingbacks, moved from Armas-like destroyers to more "holding" midfielders, moved away from out-and-out wingers to advanced attacking midfielders, experimented with 3, 2, 1, and 0 forward setups...I think you can fault him for many things, but not for rigidity. Also, there's a lot of revisionism about that Confed Cup final. It's not like the US didn't try to be compact and tough to break down vs Brazil once it went up 2-0. It takes a lot more than "common sense" to repel Brazil when they're desperate for a goal, and the US didn't crumble like it did vs Mexico--they defended and countered quite well for 35 minutes after conceding the first. In fact the consensus around here was that Bradley was "too defensive." In terms of neutral observers, most thought the US did well, tactically, but were simply outgunned (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/28/usa-brazil-confederations-cup-live) I think it's fair to say that Bradley's post-WC10 results have made looking for an upgrade at manager a reasonable consideration. I don't think it's fair to say that the Brazil and Mexico results show Bradley's weakness as a manager. Those were simply superior teams. Perhaps a tactical wizard might have found a way, but arguing that Bradley isn't one of handful of managers in the world that can consistently beat superior teams with lesser talent in international tournaments is...well, it's not all that helpful. Taking a broader view, the US isn't going to develop as a soccer nation if we're relying on managers to save our bacon. I'm more of the opinion that US Soccer needs someone with economics/finance acumen sitting in Sunil's chair (whether it's him or someone else is a discussion outside my expertise) because the primary issue the USSF faces is making the development of international-quality players financially viable in a way that reduces the grip of the pay-to-play club system. So we desperately need someone who can raise money and direct resources. I have become more convinced that having a Technical Director whose primary responsibility is making executive soccer-related decisions (overseeing NT coaching, making decisions about scheduling and tournaments, that sort of thing) would help immensely--taking the soccer decisions out of Sunil's hands, and having a person whose responsibility is to oversee all of USSF's programs on-the-field performance, and make sure they're all pulling in the same direction.
The USSF pretty much schedules friendlies every int'l FIFA date. Also have to realize that if they schedule a non-int'l date friendly with some CONCACAF team and it's during the MLS season, NYRB doesn't have to release Ream and they shouldn't if they have a game.
When theres no MLS season (Nov-Mar), you could program some friendlies with Centrel Americans or Caribean teams, some B or C Viking teams (like Denmark or Sweden), maybe former Soviet or Yugoslav national teams. MLS rest period is too long, USSF could take advantage program some friendlies.
Funny stuff and true!... "shitstorm on fire" ??? have you been watching trailer park boys on netflix? (you should)
Hitler may have been a great painter (two coats in one day) but he was a horrible military strategist that went beyond his ghastly nature (if one presumes he actually wanted to cling to power and not spend the rest of his days on some ranch in southern Argentina). The war, in the grand sense, was entirely winnable, conceivably as late as January of 1944.
Its good to be able to change your mind and to have nuanced opinions. People don't have to put a stake in the ground and hammer it in despite evidence that might stand to the contrary. In this age of the internet, people tend to affix themselves to polar opposites of opinion. Polarization is the word. Has Bob Bradley done some things that deserved to be criticized? Probably. Do other coaches do things that deserve to be criticized? Yes. Has Bob Bradley done things that deserve to be praised? Of course he has. As recent as last week? Yes. I really have a hard time seeing what Bradley has done that deserves the insane level of criticism that he receives. The criticism has become so strangely obsessive and immune to reason that you can't help but wonder what the real problem is and whether or not it has to do with coaching at all.
My own personal opinion (very difficult to prove or disprove) is that the vast majority of "I Hate Bob" folks viscerally react to him as a major-league ODP style coach, and ODP soccer and mentality is one thing they want us to get away from. And so do I. And from everything I observe, so does Bob. I think that reaction is mostly undeserved. But because he looks like one and sounds like one, and much of his player pool came through that system, the perception has stuck. I'm sure most would decry my observation, but I doubt that would prove me wrong (or right).
Also because he is not Jurgen Klinsmann. And though not many people want Klinsmann to coach the team anymore, the avarice towards Bradley remains, apropos of nothing. A couple posters here have pointed this out, and I think they are right. One of Bradley's weakest points is that he spends so much time in theory, and when actual events conflict with his theoretical construct, he sometimes ignores them. This explains the baffling Edu as advanced midfielder, and Findley on the world cup roster. He had roles that were meant to be filled by Holden and Davies, and when they weren't available, he tried to place the next best thing into that role, rather than adjusting the team shape. The US could have gone 3-5-2 in the Gold cup final. Bring in Spector as a third center back and use Lichaj and Bedoya as wingbacks to protect the lead. To keep the same formation he instead subs in.... no need to rehash that. Bradley has shown that game to game he has a willingness to try and change formation and tactics -- remember in 2007 he loved the 4-3-3, and has also used the 4-5-1, 4-2-2, 4-2-2-2, 4-4-1-1, etc. His willingness to change in game when thing aren't working the way he expected them to is lacking.
Sometimes I think you're right. Other times he'll line up an atrocity, realize it after kick-off, and switch us into something very astute at half-time. The thing is, the common thread is that I think he tends to have a poor tactical intuition for a game developing in real time, compared to a manager of a top division/international side, which is what he's managing. He's mixed, some good and some bad, when it comes to pregame tactics in theory, he's thorough in his preparations, and I think he has a very good eye for who's who in the US pool. (I know people want to cry "Bornstein" and such, but the fact of the matter is that just about every manager in the world, even the best, have their Bornsteins from time to time.)