Not calling him up for some early Klinsmann games was great. He's good enough though that it couldn't last for too long. I wouldn't be surprised if it sent him a message though and would have happened regardless of his club situation. I think we saw a pretty crappy MB this past year. Nepotism imho would be starting a kid who doesn't play for his club and is pretty crappy. Now he's both on form and improved. He's one of our most exciting prospects, and the bottom line is it doesn't matter if he was overplayed before. But thinking that way is like becoming friends with your ex.
Bradley has been at worst a top 5 field player for the NT for a while now, and I always thought it was a reasonable that he started every competitive game. The only Nepotism point I thought was reasonable was that he never got subbed out, and started every friendly.
Hopefully this ends this debate forever. He's our best central midfielder by a long shot, and should be on the field every game. That we had to go through this exercise by JK is a joke. That MB90 worked through it and proved all the naysayers wrong AGAIN, speaks to his character. I'm happy he's on our team.
It's asinine, insulting, and uber-trolling tripe like this that has kept this topic so delightful for all these years.
the only criticism i have is that when MB did struggle and probably should have been subbed he always stayed in the game. I think that MB is great player but if you're having an off night sometimes the coach has to pull you and BB never pulled him from what I can remember.
I've started saying this a lot, and I'll continue to say it, but for whatever weaknesses Serie A has, the technical and strategic aspects are not weaknesses. If a player cannot adapt, they won't last (see Taiwo) Even as a Mikey fan, I see a completely different player.
I'd like people to remember what's been said on these boards past the last 15 minutes. I'd also like people to sack up and admit how wrong they were. I'd also like a pony that craps gold nuggets and pisses Jack Daniels. I'm more likely to find the pony.
No,he did when he got called out on it. My main concern with Bob's use of Mike was refusing to recognize his offensive qualities. He didn't overestimate his kid -he underestimated him.So did every other American coach. Thank God Mike got out of MLS or he'd be a bald Jeff Larentowicz.
Yeah - that's the way I feel. I didn't have issue with him being treated as one of our key players, I just wish Bob Bradley had used him just a little bit less - to quiet some of the critics. Yesterday's game reminded me a little of when it was clear Reyna had taken the next step. Hopefully Baby Bradley keeps it up. Seems like only yesterday some folks around here were trying to dance on the grave of his career when he hadn't found a team yet. The way the kid plays for us - lives and dies for the US jersey - don't see how any US fan wouldn't want to root for him.
screw the critics, i just wish he wouldve given him a rest from time to time. At points through the last cycle i thought MB was simply playing too much soccer and his play around the 75th minute marker starting showing it. Perhaps being left off a camp or two throughout the 5 year tenure would have done a lot for MB
I take it that some of you who have posted in the past day disagree with the arguments I made in the opening post. That's fine and a reasonable debate about those points can be held. In fact if you just look at the first three or four pages of this thread there is that sort of discussion and debate. The question I have for those who have brought this thread back to life is this: under what kind of logic is Michael's performance against Italy germane to the issues raised? I really don't see how his performance against Italy matters in evaluating the question of whether there were times in the 2007-2011 period when he received more playing time that he should have. And I would say the same if he has a poor match against Brazil or Scotland later this year. I would fail to understand it if someone revived this thread then because they thought his performance in those matches was germane to the issue I raised in the opening post.
There was a small crowd of anti-Bradley's on these boards and they had these arguments to take him off the field at any given time. 1. Nepotism: That was just retarded. 2. There was someone better: There wasn't. UNTIL Holden came along. Even then you'd be hard pressed to say we had a better midfield with Holden and Edu as opposed to Holden and Bradley. Additionally it was common knowlegde that Holden could play RM at a high level which would have resulted in a stronger overall team. IF he had been healthy and played RM we could have avoided the whole Findley/Gomez/whoever problem by moving Dempsey up top. Now, if Holden AND Davies had been healthy you've actually got a little ground to stand on. When Jones came along it got worse. People saw a Jones Edu pairing. It was bad and Bradley showed he was CLEARLY better than Edu. 3. He gets too many minutes: One of the greatest decisions by Bob Bradley was, in fact, to fast track his son into the team. Michael was a young kid who needed lots of minutes. Lots of reps with the core of the team. Lots of learning about the speed of the international game. Take some of those minutes away and he might not be as strong in the World Cup. I feel the same way about Johnson right now. I'm 100% convinced he will be a starter with us in 2014 and want him to get as many minutes as humanly possible. It was crazy. Granted it was like 10 posters total, but it was absolutely stupid. Some people don't have a sack. It's relevant because many of us saw early on that this was a guy you needed to build your team around and get as many minutes as possible. Where he is today validates the minutes he was fast tracked on. it was clear that Bradley's learning curve was more exponential than any of Feilhaber, Torres, Agudelo, Altidore, Adu, etc. which anti-bradleys were pimping to no end. And in fact, only one of those guys (Altidore) is a starter. And I dare say there is more competition for Bradley and Altidore.
There is the small matter of match sharpness and fluctuations in form. Michael was not a very good player for us last summer. We can't justify based on future performance decisions on playing time from the past. I understand the concept of "investing" in a young player. But you don't do that in a tournament like the Gold Cup. Suppose Juan Agudelo plays a blinder in some important match two years from now. Would that justify saying that JK is making a mistake not playing him more right now or that Bob Bradley made a mistake not playing him more in 2011? No. That would be silly.
Despite small fluctuations in sharpness and form Bradley was always a guy you could put at CM who was going to allow the game changers (Donovan and Dempsey) an opportunity to swing the game. The fact that the defense fell apart and we couldn't find our shooting boots at the last Gold Cup is not his fault. He could have played better, and HAS played better, but he was not the reason we were poor at the last Gold Cup.
Since you apparently believe that his good performance against Italy is germane, would you say the same about any bad performances that might lie in his future. Or are those in a seperate non-germane category?
He's still young and will have games that are not so good. Indeed, a bad game every now and then. However, he's not going to have a bad game like Shea. And his not so good games are still going to give us a chance to win.
Good points, clearly expressed. Must spread Rep... My supplements to this are: * A few anti-MB posters have argued BB favored him from Day 1, but MB didn't really win a regular CM spot for the USA until the Fall of 2007. Feilhaber was the #1 CM when BB started, and MB battled Clark and Mastro for game time as Benny's partner that first year. By 2008, when Benny's career almost fell off a cliff, MB was the clear #1. * I had 2 complaints about BB's use of MB after the World Cup. 1) MB should have come out of a couple of friendlies in the 2nd half, and 2) BB overworked BOTH Jones and MB during the Gold Cup, and under-utilized Edu. BOTH Jones and MB were below-par in the Gold Cup Final as a result. I complained about that during the last 2 weeks of the Gold Cup, but BB never listened to me. Otherwise, MB deserved his spot as the #1 CM between 2008 and 2011.
Absolutely, given the evidence (and lack thereof) I would say the fact that it was allowed/encouraged to become such a huge issue on these boards was inappropriate. And certainly, that is just my own humble opinion . . .
Huh,I thought what lost us the GC was Bob playing run-and-gun ,playing Bornstein,and having Timmay have a poor game in the final. People who wanted Mike to be the reason?Just showin their bias.
M. Bradley was our only good performer against Spain, as well. He has middle of the field top flight passing instincts, something that the U.S. team lacks. Jones is a brutish tackler. Donovan can cross and is good on the counter, but is not good with first touch or spreading the ball around. Bradley brings some extra class to this team. He is not a standard holding midfielder. Can't compare him with Xavi on this board without getting laughed at, but that is who he reminds me of. A USMNT level (so obviously several flights down) Xavi type player.
Well at least now he has to actually earn his playing time and doesn't have his name in the team sheet written in indelible ink....