I think BS has the wrong idea about the 3 summer friendlies

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by mrliioadin, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. mrliioadin

    mrliioadin New Member

    Feb 16, 2006
    Hagerstown, MD
    These aren't matches where we are out to prove that we are one of the world powerhouses. We aren't flexing our muscles or even expected to win.

    The quality of the sides we are playing is much higher than the MLS, It is 3 or 4 tiers above Eddie Johnson (who did look better) and Josh Wolff (in my opinion), and we need to remember that they are still just friendlies the first of which we played without our current "active" caps leader and all-time leading goal scorer.

    Playing England and Spain in europe is a victory for the USSF and playing well may land some contracts to different players looking to move up but playing poorly and loosing these two in addition to the Argentina match is NOT a bad thing.

    You have to be patient with player developement and for that matter the development of our federation. They are making better decisions (at least with this selections of friendlies) and we are seeing more and more talent at younger ages and more of it playing overseas. The time is not right for us to go over to England and Spain with the intent of sweeping them. The best European sides have a damn hard time playing these teams at home.

    My point is, Bob Bradley isn't to blame. I don't like his player selection and I argue with his lineups but he manages a team very well. Team management and game management are very different things and I agree he needs to mature in terms of game management.

    No, you don't need to fire him. If you start down that road you'll be the Washington Redskins all over again... Coach after Coach who has talent around them but NO STABILITY.

    We looked flat in the match, but they have a much better team who dictated play. There were things we could do differently but let's not forget how briliant one can look when they have the beautiful advantage of hindsight.

    Regardless of what happens in the next two matches you need to look at the play of the players, toss out the results and say to yourself "Alright, that was helpful... now we are in a good position to knock off Barbados."

    So, to sum it up:

    1. No, loosing to England at wembley isn't bad.
    2. Yes, it sucked that landon wasn't there.
    3. No, Bob Bradley isn't the greatest coach of all time.
    4. No, these friendlies have no bearing on the world cup or qualifying.
    5. No, Eddie Lewis and Josh Wolff don't need to be called up again.
    6. Yes, we need to see more Freddy and Jozey (and Edu too).
    7. If we loose to Spain and Argentina it doesn't mean we suck.
    8. Yes we have a good team.
    9. No they couldn't win the Euros if they were permitted to play.


    That being said, if you believed that we needed to win all of these friendlies or the Bob Bradley should be axed for a 2-0 loss at wembley then you are narrowminded and have no understanding of the game... Nor will I respond to your posts.

    Honestly, you guys are starting to piss me off... get behind your national team and find the positives. The biggest one in my opinion is that Eddie Johnson did look better. He still has a long way to go.

    Post away.
  2. sc123

    sc123 Member

    Feb 15, 2007
    1) It's not helpful if the players that needed to play didn't play or played in Garbage time ... Adu, Edu, Jozy or misused Bradley ... That being said there is 2 games to fix that. I bet Bob won't fix it

    2) We were always in a good position to Knock off Barbados

    3) None of us expects us to win a game but you play like this against Spain and Argentina a Major ass-whooping is coming our way ... in reality we should of lost by 4 or 5 goals against england.

    4) Eddie Johnson is Garbage
  3. zanderbz

    zanderbz Member

    May 12, 2005
    United States
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Great post. Especially the part about firing Bradley after a friendly loss to England. I would never say he is the greatest coach but respect what he has done so far. I would like to see him try a few different things and think he may over the next couple games.

    After this stretch of friendlies is over, I'm ready to see EJ disappear only to reappear if he is doing something big at club level.

    I would like Bradley to try and find Freddy Adu some space, get him the ball and let him go at people with guys like Dempsey making runs off the ball. IMO this is when Freddy is best.

    I think it's great that US fans have high expectations for the team, I do to. But we ain't walking into (fill in your Euro powerhouse of choice here) and dictating the game to them anytime soon no matter who coaches us. We have some nice players and a few in the pipeline, more will emerge. Right now the best we can do against the bog boys is to counter attack and hustle our asses off, that is who we are. This will continue to change over the years as our younger guys gain playing time and experience.

    Let's see what transpires tomorrow.
  4. StarvingGator

    StarvingGator Member

    Jun 22, 2007
    The Hospital Bar
    This thread wins, and I'm not being sarcastic. "BS is wrong" is always correct.
  5. Marko72

    Marko72 Member+

    Aug 30, 2005
    New York
    That is one pleasant surprise that struck me about 30 mins into the game that's easy to sweep under the rug on, well, not our best night. Then again, anyone who thought we should expect a result on that night (against a motivated, rebuilding England squad in their house) is either uninformed or deluded. There are big-name Euro squads they could've beaten that night as well. Perhaps not as decidedly, but still. Eddie Johnson played a passable game against the best central defense he's ever faced on a night with few chances to go forward. Still lots of problems, but significant improvement, he found his way to get find himself some space off the ball, he had a crack at goal occasionally instead of looking straight-away for the back pass when someone was in his face, etc. His technique still needs plenty of work. But the EJ sucks mantra, while often deserved, is becoming a bit of a knee-jerk reaction around here. As is typical in this place. (Among a few other mildly nice moments, that crack he took with his left foot from the arc that went about a foot wide was probably his best move with the US side in a year. Now that does say quite a bit about how bad he's been, but I won't deride that, nor a lot of the other little things he did. However, Josh Wolff, clearly the better of the two in the Poland match, really was as bad as he looked against England.)

    That said, purely for PR/pride reasons, losing to the English while getting quite rightly pushed around really, really sucks. We don't have much reputation with the English and they are loathe to give us any, and it'll take quite some time to live this one down. Losing to Spain or Argentina wouldn't have nearly the same effect. (Ironically, Capello seemed very familiar with our squad and his team was well-prepared for us. Though half our squad out there, as individuals, are no mystery to England.)

    What that actually means about our team and our chances in the future: not much.
  6. luvdagame

    luvdagame Member+

    Jul 6, 2000
    very, very strange thread.

    for bs, that is.

    other than that, just good, ordinary common sense.
  7. Asprilla9

    Asprilla9 Member

    Dec 15, 2000
    Beaverton, OR
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Please tell me what we gained by playing Josh Wolff ...

    name one thing.

    You obviously have your own ideas about the objectives for these 3 summer friendlies. Well ... tell me how playing Wolff worked toward reaching those objectives.

  8. dncm

    dncm Member+

    Apr 22, 2003
    ding ding ding
  9. alocksley

    alocksley Member

    Jan 30, 2004
    Burbank, CA
    This argument should essentially end this thread. If what the initial poster said is true, and we didn't need to win (or even show well) against these powerhouse sides, then Bradley's inclusion of veterans who have NO CHANCE of helping us at WC 2010, is inexcusable.
  10. Marko72

    Marko72 Member+

    Aug 30, 2005
    New York
    But could they help us in some of the upcoming WC qualifying tourneys? In the case of Lewis at the very least, I'd say yes. In they case of Hejduk, probably, if only as a last resort. I'd agree with most in that Wolff probably should be viewed as failing his exam.

    These friendlies aren't ONLY a test/tune-up for our team for the WC in 2010, they're also tests/tune-ups for our qualifiers in 2008, and the first one of those is in less than 2 weeks. As most of us know, that first is a 2 match home-and-away affair. We blow that one, we stay home for the next two years. The Barbados series is no time to be blooding promising young talent for its own sake. Whoever is most fit, in form, and most capable of beating Barbados is who has to play.

    Now you or I might disagree with Bob as to who that player or players should be, but Bob's use of some old farts in these games now makes some sense to me, even if they have little chance to help us in South Africa.
  11. Bigrose30

    Bigrose30 Member+

    Sep 11, 2004
    Jersey City, NJ
    Josh Wolff was in camp because Bob Bradley wants to keep veterans involved in the national team program. There are several reasons for doing so. Veterans can help younger players in a number of ways...surely that is common sense. Also, having veterans involved is crucial for Qualifying, even if they don't play in the World Cup.

    Hypothetical Example: The US is up 1-0 in the 75th minute of a road qualifier against Costa Rica. Jozy Altidore, who scored the game's only goal, begins to cramp up in the 100 degree heat and needs to come off. Bob Bradley needs to put on a player that will make smart decisions, know when to track back and who to track, will know when to go to goal and when to take the ball to the corner, will defend and tackle hard, block shots, etc. He doesn't want to bunker down completely, so this player should be a player with attacking instincts.

    Here are his options left on the bench:

    1. Freddy Adu
    2. Robbie Rogers
    3. Josh Wolff

    If you picked one of the first two players, you are absolutely kidding yourself. This is a situation that Josh can contribute, and keeping him involved with the team so that he's familiar with the young guys and with Bradley's expectations is definitely beneficial.

    Keep in mind, that the only reason Josh was starting against England is that Landon, Jozy, Ching and Twellman were not available. So if you put it in context, it's easy to see how and why the decision was made to play Josh.

    If you're still reading this portion of the post, I can assume you either agree with me, or you've skimmed to this point in disgust. If it is the latter, I suggest you stick to the 1 million other "fire Bradley" or "Josh Wolff sucks" threads, post your starting lineups with 7 strikers from the U-20 side and then go back into hiding just like after the US's recent and impressive 3-0 road win in Poland.
  12. 4mybroRRT

    4mybroRRT Member

    Apr 10, 2001
    N. VA - DCU-land
    I think the attidude of the USSF and the USAMNT in general is that of the Copa America (deuce) in comparison to the nonsensical Gold Cup crap tourney. It's such an underachieving ambition for the USSF.

    With these 3 Int. Friendlies...YOU HAVE YOUR CONFEDERATIONS CUP TOURNEY already your whining about by winning the precious overvalued Golf Cup!

    I think the USSF feels more concerned with and take more pleasure in that we are playing England and Spain IN EUROPE and then following them up with Argentina in NY RATHER than having an expectation of seeing results that tell US fans why we scheduled these friendlies as a measure of the progression and should have HOPE for the of USSF program and USMNT at the next WC. They're blowing this opportunity enormously.

    Based on the England result, the USSF might as well sent our top "A" side Olympic Team (w/ 3 senior players) rather than the roster we have know because the results are so poor.

    In Spain, the USMNT needs a tie (a win would shut us all up!) or definitely no less and a one-goal difference if they take a loss. Another 2-goal or more loss is counterproductive and you have to ask what kind of experience do you want this "USMNT in transition" to have...that would expose their insecurites and deepen their lack of confidence against top-tier sides.

    Yes. It's wonderful to see the US take on these 3 NT sides, but ONLY if they are competitive and offer HOPE for us in two years at the next WC. So far, this is nowhere near the case.
  13. cc-atl

    cc-atl Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    I agree that playing these games is a positive regardless of the results. With that being said after the England game I am a little worried that we are not getting as much from these games as we should.

    If we are not playing for a result (and I agree that should not be our main focus) why are we did we use the long ball tactics so much? If we are actually trying to get something out of the game from a developmental standpoint I think we are really wasting the opporunity by having Howard send long balls to Eddie Johnson (who happens to be matched with Rio/Terry) as our main offensive tactic. Seems like we were just trying to stay close based on our tactics.

    Also, not to beat a dead horse but again if we should not be as concerned about getting results and are playing these games for more of a development opportunity you have to question the player selection. It is great that we are playing these games but it is disappointing we are not using them (yet) as an opportunity to get Adu, Altidore, Edu, Cooper, etc some significant playing time.

    Personally, I do not expect us to win these games and I would have been happier losing 3-0 or 4-0 if we had played Adu and Altidore and actually tried to maintain some possesion and build some attack on the ground.

    My main disappointment is not that we lost to England but it seems to my that it did very little for the development of our National Team. If we are going to use these tactics against top competition than maybe friendlies against lower level competition will actually be better for our development because in those games we actually attempt to pass and use technical skill.
  14. russ

    russ Member+

    Feb 26, 1999
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The only way these friendlies make sense is as part of a plan to make top Euro sides underrate us by the time 2010 rolls around.

    That ,combined with the Cup not being in Europe,could set us up for a good run.

    So far- mission accomplished.
  15. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    There was never a doubt that somehow, Lewis and Hejduk would be involved in 2010 qualifying, especially early on (though, I can see Hejduk in SA, assuming we qualify). No problem with them on the roster or playing.

    Wolff is a complete head scratcher. Although it seems Bradley's MO. Boca as captain, Wolff getting a freaking start. What next, CJ Brown and Snack Thorton on the Barbados roster?
  16. Nutmeg

    Nutmeg Member+

    Aug 24, 1999
    Jesus H Christ. All these "results don't matter" drones. No shit, sherlock.

    It is about the way we are playing, which is awful to watch, because the wrong players are being selected and the coach is employing horrific tactics taking us back to the 1994 days of Bora.

    Read that again. Over and over. And STFU about "results don't matter." We know that already.
  17. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    I don't disagree with your theory here. You make sense. But,

    Instead we can argue "Bradley knows what Josh Wolff has to offer the team" and keep him on the bench. There is NO reason he should be receiving significant minutes in these matches. Keep him in camp as practice fodder and maybe a run out for 30 minutes in one of the matches.

    In the lead up to qualifying for 2006, we did not see a player such as Josh Wolff (as he is now) start and receive significant minutes. Instead, Arena would start players he hoped would come into the fold and be potential contributors to the National team, such as Connor Casey or Greg Vanney (of course we have the Arena critics out there who will jump all over this - but that is a different thread or 50).

    Do you remember the nutty uproar after the Jamaica roster was announced and Earnie Stewart was starting and Cobi Jones was even on the roster?
  18. SCBozeman

    SCBozeman Member

    Jun 3, 2001
    St. Louis
    Agreed. Perfectly sane reasons to have Wolff there -- it's not that it's necessarily a terrible idea to have him there, it's just not very inspirational for fans or intelligent in terms of long-term planning (see below).

    That's a scenario that's utterly plausible, but one where Bob (i.e., you) has painted himself into the corner.

    The reason you say anyone who picks Adu or Rogers is "kidding themselves" is because, frankly, USMNT fans and, theoretically, coaching staff do not have faith in Adu or Rogers to kill off that game, not make mistakes, and take advantage of the space left by the Ticos as they push forwad.

    Well what if Adu or Rogers had actually played vs. England and Spain and, well, looked quite good in a high-pressure scenario against very, very good teams. You might still go with Wolff, but at least you know that Adu and Rogers are available and good options in that scenario. As it is, you know Wolff is unlikely to perform at a very high level (e.g., score against Costa Rica), you've used a prime opportunity to test young talent in high stakes friendlies to test aging talent, and you haven't learned a thing about Adu-Rogers-Altidore.

    Finally, if according to your scenario Altidore has played the first 75 minutes, wouldn't you feel a bit better about (a) Jozy playing and (b) Bradley picking him if Altidore were called in vs. England or Spain? As it is, I have less confidence in either because of Bradley's call-up decision-making in two big games.

    And finally, was Altidore REALLY not available? Not available like Hejduk, Donovan, Edu or Clark? How was Altidore any different? Or Rogers? Or Cooper? Or Rolfe? If I knew Altidore were hurt, then I'd be willing to grant you some leeway for that particular player.
  19. RedBullFootball

    Apr 7, 2008
    There is no better way to support your National here than asking tough questions.

    Clapping like a seal and blind support does nothing to improve us as a soccer nation. If anything, we need more critisism. US Soccer works under almost no outside pressure.
  20. RedBullFootball

    Apr 7, 2008
    Isn't what the initial poster said a little 'master of the obviousish'?

    I havn't read any posts of people looking for us to win these matches, have you?
  21. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    What we don't see is the bulletin board (or spreadsheet) in the office used by Bradley and Nowak that maps out the potential needs of the Nat. team players for friendlies, qualifiers and Olympics, as well as what their club obligations are and what they envision the needs/demands on these players through the fall. I don't think it is anything more than political that he kept Josie home.

    As for Cooper and Rolfe, it is obvious that they are really not Bob's cup of tea.
  22. JBHuk

    JBHuk New Member

    Feb 22, 2007
    I'm sorry, but to me the original post here smacks of a "just happy to get to the WC" attitude.

    Well, we've been to 5 straight WCs, so we're all so happy we can't stand it, right?


    Depending on what I see against Spain and Argentina (approach...not results), it may show me BB is indeed just a "happy to get there" coach.

    If so, for me, that's not good enough.


    P.S. US chant if Spain goes 2-0. "World Cup Group Stage! World Cup Group Stage!" That'll show em!
  23. Namdynamo

    Namdynamo Member+

    Jan 1, 2005
    And Eddie Johnson, Jaqua, and Wolff are? No wonder why the majority of posters want Bradley gone.
  24. SCBozeman

    SCBozeman Member

    Jun 3, 2001
    St. Louis
    You're right -- I don't see the logic in his moves.

    I would have a lot more confidence in Bob's decision-making if other aspects of the coaching suggested they're Gary Kasparov and saw international soccer 11 moves ahead of everyone else. Unfortunately, I get the sick feeling that they see a few moves behind everyone else, including a few fans. (And I fully appreciate this is a fan's perspective, not a professional's.)

    The point of these friendlies should be to test talent -- what's the best solution to our anemic play up front? Some combination of LD, EJ and Jozy, I would suspect.

    And what's the plan "B"? Again, I would appreciate this more if plan "B" did not appear to be Josh Wolff and Eddie Johnson without testing other options.
  25. toh2007

    toh2007 Member

    Jun 4, 2007
    Quoted for an extreme amount of TRUTH. No sane person expects the United States to walk over England, Spain, and Argentina and get 3 wins, but they do however want to see us play well, get some possession, and maybe ummmmmm.... create a goal scoring chance or two. I don't want to see "has beens" in the startig line-up every game when there are younger, better players availible.

Share This Page