Dude, where's my foot speed?

Bradley's fast enough for his position too.

The problem is that the team doesn't play into space enough, so you don't see too many foot races.

It's a one/two-touch point-to-point passing (the same concept, for example, that Hackworthless had at the U-17's last summer) that derived from the 2-touch keep-away where both the receiver and the passer of the ball are stationary.

If you want to play that, speed is basically superfluous.

 

Playing Klestjan and Feilhaber wide certainly is a head-scratcher. I think it has taken Bob some time to get to know first hand the speed of the international game. This is the danger of going domestic in a coach, they bring enthusiasm and that mythical "knowledge of the American player" but lack exposure to the frenetic pace of the international game. Couple this with the fact that the greatest achievements of our national team have come when the team is built for speed and stamina, and it goes to show that it might be a formula worth holding on to.

Bob has had to be blooded right along with the new players he has brought with him. Hopefully he'll catch on in the long run.

 

Since we didn't have some first choicers available I think this match was a little misrepresentative. With our first choices available we are as fast, if not faster, than ever. All of our CMs are upgrades in terms of pace over Reyna/the rest of them. Every forward is at least as fast as McBride. Donovan and Beasley have pace to spare and in the place of Beasley we have Convey (when healthy was quite fast, we'll see if he gets it back), Lewis (old but still decently fast), Mapp (Very fast when healthy), and Davis (admittedly not fast at all).

As for the FBs, of our top 4 or 5 options on each side we just saw the slowest. Dolo, Wynne, Bornstein and Pearce all have more than enough pace. Spector is well above average. Simek is average.

So I don't think we are getting any slower as a team. I would tend to agree with SFS that it is more the style than the foot-speed of the individual players that has slowed.

In addition I think without a more creative/somewhat higher positioned playmaker in the middle we're not seeing many through balls or space created for the wing players by defenders being forced to shut down the middle. In short, the types of plays that put pace on display.

 

I think we're fine when at full strength.

Altidore and Dempsey run just fine for forwards, and if you're wanting to get a pure speed forward in the mix there's EJ who certainly fits the bill, Bradley/Clark/Edu/Benny are just fine for center mids, and Goochengra strike me as par for the course at center back (although I gather some disagree). And Landon of course can fly.

So that leaves 3 positions on Wednesday's game -- left mid, and the fullback.

At left mid, Beasley & Mapp can jet, Rogers can run among the young prospects and Bobby runs OK when healthy. If Freddy plays there, he's elusive and quick, if not quite winger fast. At right back, Cherundolo is first choice and can run well.

Which brings us to left back, maybe or maybe not we'll be a bit short on speed there.

Is Italy faster? I think not. Of course, Italy has a few other advantages over us.

 

As a US/MLS coach Bradley has tended to not stress athleticism in his selections imo compared to someone like a Kinnear.

Check out his MetroStars and Chivas teams in addition to the US team he puts together. US team at full strength is one thing as most of the players are obvious selections. But check out the players he brings who aren't. Ramiro Coralles. Drew Moor. Bobby Convey(at this point not an obvious selection to start).

 

I was thinking about this as well. If we could rotate players like Rogers, Zizzo, and EJ into the team for the last 35 min, and have Beasley and Donovan on the flanks, with Wynn and Pearce (even Bornstein can motor) and just open the game up. Have Dempsey or Benny or Adu putting the ball into space and Bradley or Edu playing both dmid and pushing forward.

What I want to see is the US simply go for it. Open the valve, throw some speed and scare some teams. This would also allow us to pressure teams deep in their territory if we can cover.

It might lead to massive losses. Fine, use a friendly or two, but at least something will have been learned.

 

I think this is silly. Our average lineup is quite fast.

 

I think part of it is just perception. Under Bruce Arena, our tactics often called for flank play and attacks down the wings, where our speed at those positions would need to be utilized in order to run on to through balls.

Under Bob Bradley, much of our attack is through the middle of the park, so naturally, things are bottled up and you don't see pace utilized as much.

 

The problem is that there is very little attack to speak of under Bradley. Wanting to do something and doing it are two different things. We had 3 shots on goal against Mexico. Outside backs or no, that's putrid. We've really only had one game, count it- one, against any kind of real competition in which the U.S. offense flowed fairly well, and that was against Equador when Donovan had his best game ever in a U.S. shirt. Otherwise it's been a disjointed sputter-fest.

Wanting to play through the center is admirable, but either Bradley's formation (deep lying center mids) or the personnel just can't seem to get it done. The fact that the last two years have largely been about experimentation and that Bradley has pretty much stuck to his guns speaks a good deal about his intent on keeping to this mode. Bradley has certainly rotated a lot of mediocre players in and out of the formation, but the formation and emphasis of play has remained the same. At what point will Bradley realize that we have no rhythm going forward?

We have one clear advantage over every country in our region, and most countries in the world. We produce fast and fit players. I think Bradley may have lost the plot a bit. He seems to be chasing the Jones' (Argentina, Italy) and instituting a more sophisticated style of play, but he's trying to play chess with checkers. It's fine to try to improve the U.S.'s tactical play, but not at the expense of what has got us this far.

IMO, it would be far more beneficial to winnow the pool way down to 20-30 solid performers, (regardless of age, under-23 designations etc.) guys who have the physical tools necessary first and foremost, and than form a group with the best continuity on the field. At this point, we're basically five deep at every position with spots 2-5 being a wash. At the international level, you have to be both a great athlete and a good soccer player. There's no need to waste time on players who can't meet the first criteria because they look nifty in MLS.

 

Exactly. When the US gets beat, we seldom get beat, even by the very top teams, because we are not fast enough. We get beat because we aren't as good at the game.

 

Well, anecdotally speaking, Sweden ran us off the field in the fall. We were certainly outmuscled and outhustled in that game, which coincidentally had Feilhaber starting wide.

 

You don't need to run fast to win, but you do need to play fast. Something Bradley has already admitted to, and pledged to address as the top priority.

 

Here's what we know. We have quite a few fast and/or strong players that are competent soccer players. We have quite a lot more competent soccer players who aren't great athletes. By and large we don't know for certain that either group has the requisite number of players to pull off a more tactically savvy style of play than what we have trotted out to date, although taking the last 9 months into account, it would seem that we do not.

Given that, should we stop emphasizing the one advantage that has worked for us?

 

But isn't this why you hire a guy well before the cycle starts? His learning curve has taken place over two tournaments (one of which was a stated learning experience for all) and several friendlies. I'm not saying he has become an expert, but he is more knowledgeable now than when he started, and that is precisely what we want.

He's done an admirable job thus far, and while I am a Bradley supporter, I would also point out that it's time to apply the lessons learned over the last 10 games and take some steps forward. Getting some guys who can with and at speed is one of those steps.

 

I agree that early cycle friendlies are for formulating and consolidating a team, but my fear, based largely on player selection, is that Bob has not placed enough emphasis on athleticism.

At first this was not too concerning because he was a newcomer to the international game and thus would need time to see that what works domestically doesn't always work internationally. Putting aside whether it was a wise choice to go with someone who needed a fair amount of time to acclimatize to this realization, what is worrying to me is, given his most recent player selection, he's still not fully cognizant of this, or believes that other factors can render the point moot.

For example- Twellman, Noonan, Moor, Corrales. All are serviceable to very good MLS players. All are hard-working lunch pail guys. Noonan is technically accomplished. But all are severely wanting in the speed department. Moor and Corrales are very poor laterally, an extremely important aspect of playing fullback. Unfortunately, these drawbacks are not negotiable with practice or instruction.

Now take the alternative. Altidore, Rogers, Wynne, Randolph. All are serviceable to very good MLS players. All are hard-working guys, if inexperienced and sometimes naive tactically. But all are very gifted physically. Perhaps some are not as technically sound as they could be. Fortunately, these drawbacks are negotiable with practice and instruction.

Now, if the first group of players brought results when they stepped on to the field, then Bob can't be faulted for returning to the well, despite the fact that these players offered little in the long run. Unfortunately, all four have had time with the US team, and three of the four had already been given run-outs with Bradley teams. And none of them has justified long-term inclusion with their play, in large part due to the fact that they lack the athletic gifts necessary for success.

On the other hand, the second group has, by and large, not had the chance of a run-out. Altidore started as a result of Twellman's injury. Wynne played sparingly in the Copa, where he was, IMO better than Moor, although certainly no worse. Add to this his far superior athleticism and youth, and it begs the question why Bradley prefers Moor over Wynne. Practice habits? It certainly hasn't shown on the field.

If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that Bradley just prefers lunch pail guys, and overlooks athletic shortcomings.

 

With the exception of Twellman (who I'm happy to see ride the pine) those other guys were shots that Bradley took while looking for, what I imagine, is a diamond in the rough. Fortunately, there is little ambiguity on where they stand currently (plain rocks). I can only guess that Bradley saw something in them that he liked and thought that he might have a find.

But their athleticism comes at the expense of experience, even at the MLS level. Bradley places a lot of value on cool-headed, technical players who play their spots well, and these attributes come with experience...which these guys are fast racking up, but they're starting to find their form at a time when Bradley can't, for the most part, be taking chances with players (qualifying). Had they been two years older and hitting their stride this past season in MLS, there is a damn good chance we'd be seeing more of them.

I think as the years tick by we're seeing more and more pure athletes stay with soccer, and as such the pure athleticism of American-born players is dramatically improving. However, because they're young, they lack the experience that most national teams look for.

He is more the exception than the rule, but I just want to throw this name out there: Cuahtemoc Blanco. He is not agile, not particularly fast, but is as technically good as anyone in this hemisphere.

You're not wrong here.

Not at all. Like I said above, he does like guys who are cool-headed and technically skilled. Don't forget who drafted two of the more gifted athletes on the USNT (Beasley and Bocanegra) as well as two up and comers that people like for their skill, poise, and athleticism (Bornstein and Kljestan).

If I understand you, you would rather Bradley error on the side of athleticism over experience (within reason) when it comes to taking chances, on players. Is that correct?

 

The above mentioned "lunch pail" guys (Noonan aside- who is kind of a hybrid) are exhibit A. For me, Kljestan falls into exhibit B, a technically polished player in MLS who has a certain flair to his game, but would never be accused of being a "great" athlete. I think he is the perfect example of a guy who, while he looks good in MLS, will never be able to cut it at the international level due to his athletic shortcomings. Clearly, like Feilhaber, Bob likes his "panache", but unless he's your guy in the center of the park and you have great athleticism all around him to make up for his lack of it, I just don't see a future for him. I don't think either of those guys has anything like the kind of transcendant skill necessary to overlook these glaring weaknesses. If we weren't playing in Concacaf this would be readily apparent much sooner.

As to the second point, you already said it yourself. The beginning of a cycle is for blooding new players and developing continuity in the team. Experience really shouldn't be that big of a factor. Now is the time (as in the last 12 months and going forward to the summer) to give international experience to the most talented players, young or old. If not now, when? It certainly makes it harder to throw these guys into the mix in the heart of qualifying if Bob's lunch pail guys can't get the job done.

 

Using this example to illustruate just how speculative your opinion is, I can answer the question of why Moor instead of Wynn:

1. Technical ability -- Moor serves the ball alot better;
2. Balancing of opportunity -- Wynn will have an opportunity to demonstrate his value at the Olympic level, why not experiment with something different?

 

When I speak of experience, I am largely referring to club experience. There aren't a lot of guys who have so excelled over a year or two with their clubs as to be considered experienced (but there are some). The guys you listed earlier (Wynn, Rogers, etc.) have gained playing time, but haven't stood out enough to negate their youth. I have no doubt they can contribute in the coming years, but even I would be hesitant to toss them into the fryer.

 

I've already addressed both of these points in earlier posts. I still think that both considerations are far outweighed by the alternatives when you consider a WC time horizon.

As to the first, IMO Moor is overall, not a more technically accomplished player. He served a great ball to Altidore on the goal, but other than that, was absolutely subpar. He was the primary culprit in conceding both goals, on set pieces no less, a part of the game where experience and positioning are king. He rarely got forward, and when he did, combined poorly with Donovan. But this is not a hindsight issue. This is about what was already on display in Copa and in MLS. Taking into account his athletic shortcomings (lack of speed, agility), it was a great surprise to see his name on the roster at the start of January. But the real issue is that Bob apparently didn't see this, or chose to overlook it for other considerations, when he announced the roster.

As to the second, the US national team does not have the luxury of holding back its most talented players for lesser considerations (the Olympics). That is not to say that these players shouldn't feature for the Under-23's, in fact, experience with the senior side will only make the 23's stronger. And there's no reason several of these players can't moonlight between the two. Most will not be first choice for the senior side during qualifying anyway, and would only be called upon if the injury bug hit. But if it comes down to qualifying v. the Olympics, or hurting our chances in the next WC because our best young players haven't gained enough experience, then it's penny wise, pound foolish.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I watch as many MLS games as I can (DirectKick) and I've seen all the players mentioned multiple times, and I've never seen Moor and thought, he could really translate his game to the NT level. Conversely, when I've watched Wynne, Randolph et. all I've seen clear signs that they'd be able to hang. Wynne and Randolph are starters in MLS. That qualifies them as compared to Moor. Athletically, they're already better than what we have ahead of them. Whether they can adapt or not remains to be seen, but they should be given the chance during this formative period.

 

Somerset, that is probably one of the best analyses of Bradley I have ever read, and dead accurate. Great points. Props for insight, and I, too, hope he will catch on in the long run.

 

Coach B is very intense and no doubt has the desire to win as do most of us. Hopefully he pulls in the talent its going to take to go deep into WC. When you have an obvious need for fast skilled outside players but don't give them a look or play players on the outside who really don't belong there (not because they aren't great but its not their skill sets) it makes some of us worry. My hunch though is Coach B has what it takes just like his assitant.