We gained the knowledge that our vets are not equal. Hejduk, Lewis, Dolo still useful. Wolff not much. He won't figure in the qualifiers. BB had his hands tied, all the forwards on the roster were YAs (except Donovan of course). BB did on the otherhand bring over Edu, Clark and now Mastro because of the DM position being so important (for BB).
I want to settle this Josh Wolff crap once and for all. Folks are now arguing that "keeping him in the program" justifies starting him against England and Spain. There's a hole about a mile wide in that argument. Go back to the 1-0 Costa Rica example above. I agree with putting Josh Wolff into the game in that situation. However, given that he's already an experienced vet, why the hell does he need starting time now against two of the best sides in the world? In your weirdo world, I guarantee you we'll never get to your 1-0 lead in Samprisa. How is Jozy going to start scoring goals in the second toughest venue in our confederation without experience playing against some of the best sides in the world? He'll probably be on Bob's bench in favor of Ching, who knows the system better, because Bob won't play Jozy in these matches. And don't even get me started about Freddy. I'm holding back there on the slightly less than 5% chance that Freddy starts today. (What do we do in 2010 when Landon blows out an ACL in a May 2010 MLS match? Hand the keys to Josh Wolff and let him drive the team in South Africa? Good idea, if we are only playing the last 15 minutes of each game). Good grief-- playing Wolff here is like working on your sprint for the last 1/2 mile of a 5 mile race and not bothering to get in shape for the first 4 & 1/2 miles. We are two years out from the WCF and we have SERIOUS needs in this team. Playing Josh Wolff may address a minor need, but not even remotely our serious needs.
Of course, Freddy's never played second striker in his life. Ever. Never scored goals in a FIFA world championship from that position. In fact, he's never score multiple hat-tricks in FIFA world championships from that position. Or, than again, maybe everything I just wrote is a lie.
Amen brother. To this I would add, BB cannot admit he's wrong and change what he's doing. This leaves us no other possibility other then to fire him I wanted Arena gone after the WC because he was not moving us forward. I see the same thing with BB. I still favor an outsider that has no ties to any current player. Let them all earn their spot, every game and if they have a bad game, replace them the next time out. Faster integration of young players on the rise and for God's sake, no more living dinosaurs in any lineup
I think when it comes to strings of friendlies such as this, it's always a good idea to mix matches against tough opponents and weak opponents. It's a mistake to have 3 matches in a row against world superpowers, because if you lose, as is expected, not only does it demoralize the team and fans, but it also does little in terms of analyzing the players and tactics, since keeping possessing the ball is so difficult against such teams. A match in this series against an easier opponent may have allowed Bradley to observe which combination of players is clicking, as well as who is in form or not, even giving some young guys a shot to see whether they are national team material.
A thought that has occurred to me in the wake of the first match. Being able to get a stretch like this was a definite coup by USSF, but something like England, Scotland, Spain, or else Spain, Hungary, Argentina or something like that just might prove a bit more valuable in that it gives us a little bit of a breather to try a few worthy combinations that just happened to get the stuffing knocked out of them in the first game and see if they're really that bad, or... maybe just England was that good that day. Obviously, this schedule (Eng, Spain, Arg) is more difficult than any WC qualifying group, even a group of death, all the more so since two are away. But... we wanted tougher opponents... check! We wanted more fixtures in Europe... check! And I'm still pretty happy about that scenario.
What demoralizes the fans is seeing the XI on the field and then poor tactics (or lack thereof). Were we good against Brazil in September? No, but at least there was a little "Let's throw caution into the wind" and an attempt at more aggressive tactics going on the attack. With a cautious line-up for England, it seemed pretty much a "let's go out there and get a 0-0 result," not "Let's try to take it to them. If they score, so be it."
Which brings up an interesting question thats probably more suitable for its own thread. What do we expect from this team? It seems like we have that one group of fans that are all about CONCACAF qualifiers. The 'who really cares what happens in any matches that are not the Gold Cup, qualifiers or the WC' lot of fans. Then we have a second group that wants to see more from the team. Sure we have to qualify, but its especially satisfying to beat Panama and Guatama against for the gazillionth time. This group wants to see our best in-cycle guys attempt to take on better competion and do it seriously. One group is seemingly fine with being the kings of CONCACAF, others seemingly want more. That difference seems to be where most of the disagreement has occured over the past week.
No. The US has crawled into a fetal position and begged Don Fabio not to hit them anymore. Eddie is supposed to be playing for Fulham, which is still - small miracles do happen - in the Premiership. It is exactly his level. Bull. You always want to win. Yours is a Claudio Reyna attitude. Bad point. No, he doesn't. He is as inept in his team management - player selection, right strategy for the selected players, etc. - as anyone I've ever seen. It's not different. It's all part of the same job. Don't pretend Bob gives them great motivational speeches at half-time that make up for his inanity on the field. Dan Snyder is miles ahead of you because at least, he has admitted his mistakes. And, btw, Bob Bradley isn't even close to Marty Schottenheimer, Steve Spurrier or Joe Gibbs. He is more like a guy who went 6:6 for Central Oklahoma last season and is coming into the NFL to run his veer offense. But they looked a lot more brilliant against the US than against anyone that have played before that. The same Barbados that is ranked 132nd by Elo? Or is there another Barbados? There's nothing good about it. You're cheering as this was a "good loss/moral victory". It was nothing of a kind. BTW, it's "losing", one "o". Irrelevant. He'd be chasing this game like Josh did. Fixed. Yes, they do. You use them as a stepping stone to test your troops. Bob didn't. Did you see some other game than anyone else? Fixed. You're such a Pollyanna. And an ostrich too. Josh Wolff doesn't make the bench. Is that a good option? They were available (Landon came but couldn't play) and Bradley could have picked up more strikers, who weren't even in MLS. Sorry, bud. Arena's team went on a tour of Europe in 2002, lost to Italy (1:0, tight), Germany (4:2 wasn't) and Ireland (2:1 in the rain) and came back full of confidence precisely because it did not play like a bunch of pwussies. Then they lost to Holland (0:2 at Foxboro) before going to Korea, despite peppering Waterreus with a shot after shot. That gave them more confidence because they played good squads as equals. They were begging for mercy vs. England. That is not an expression of confidence. That's an expression of pity.
How exaclty do you know his hands were tied? Are there reports claiming that he tried to get other forwards but were denied by their clubs for the England match? The Spain match?
This is deep truth. We don't ball in a tough region, so most of what we have to rely on in the way of performance review is the manner in which the coach fields his team and the words from the coach himself. Bradley at best has been erratic in his first team selections and abysmal in explaining his process.
awful to watch is your criteria... how many of the top 1000 field players are american?? 1...donovan... and you want to play entertaining football against better teams... who's delusional hear... when you lack the talent, you play to what your strength is..... and entertaining football is NOT you strength... people want entertainment....usa ain't capable of it.... at least, not when they play good sides, where those teams outman the usa at every field position.... keep calling to get BB fired.. because you'll only get more angry and angry, and your voice won't make an ounce of difference.
I've been saying this since I joined bigsoccer. Much like Arena, Bradley thumbs his nose at the notion of explaining his process because there is no pressure from the media. The thing that the pro-soccer media does best in this country is kiss the backside of the national team coach. Why noone feels that they can ask the hard question is simply beyond me. As a guy who didn't think that Arena deserved a 3rd term as coach, even I was embarrassed with how much piling on Arena that the media did AFTER he was let go. Maybe if they had been a little more critical of him while he actually had the job, things wouldn't have gotten so out of hand to begin with. Now, it's the past all over again.
agree, there is NO media who ask the tough questions, and i suspect you get a new england patriot like response... gulati is the voice that counts and he ain't changing nothing
At some point, we'll have to maybe get John of Salisbury to explain all this to us. It's the sense of entitlement that Bradley feels that has always been the migraine headache to me. Why should he answer to those that are beneath him? Being ordained by God must be a bitch.
Since the person who started this thread ended his post with answers I'd like to use mine by asking questions. Since when did England become a Euro Powerhouse for the second time? What exactly were our goals for these three friendlies? Is this a near repeat discussion we had last year during the COPA? Does it concern anyone that our best offensive player was Eddie Lewis? Did anyone think Bradley played like crap? Is Clark still the Gem everyone thought he would be after the COPA? Does Clint Dempsey have the slowest footwork of anyone trying to do step overs and flip-flops (or whatever they are called?)? Some answers would be nice, Thanks.
<sigh> Dude. You come across in all your like posts like the man's wife. Your reactions like are just a bit too lacking in emotional perspective to be the missives of your average 600lb shut in, BS poster. Then again the Bruce Arena fanboys of the last cycle could often come across as all Waylon Smithers, Jr... Try to understand, it's the way the team is selected and deployed that is criticized not the entertainment value.
a contrary viewpoint that is not so darn USA-centric Two can play this silly expectations game. Aren't the silly, self-serving excuses for a poor USA performance supposed to happen after the game? Some posters seem to be jumping the gun. The game doesn't start until later this afternoon. Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the post-game rush to pre-judgment? I can understand that motivation. The fan in me says that the US will tear Spain apart --- in spite of clear indications to the contrary. I hope that this forum provides more than breathless teen fanzine adulation of the US MNT. Perhaps we should rank the players on how dreamy they look? I even have some data that give the US a much better chance than most other posters give them. I am hoping that Spain will correctly treat this game as a meaningless scrimmage and that somehow (I'm not sure how ) the US MNT will win. Re: England. What would Bob Bradley have done differently if he had wanted to win the game against England? Would it have made any difference? I don't think so. Only one team showed up to play that game. It's not just the players. The coach and the entire program are thinking scared. I think that it is much more important to base one's prediction on the motivation of the putatively much stronger team. What the USA is trying to really doesn't matter much at all --- certainly not nearly as much as what is motivating England, Spain, and Argentina. They call the tune --- not the US MNT. What is this obsession with the idea that winning is somehow a bad thing? If one performs well, one sometimes beats the opponents. Winning (generally) is a measure of doing things well. How about scoring a goal? How about preventing a goal? How about trying and not giving up? Those are good things, not bad things --- small steps but important steps. Yes. These friendlies don't count in any tournament. However, countries that develop 2010 Projects and that believe the foolish FIFA rankings (#4?!?! just before World Cup 2006) need their comeuppances and reality checks. This series of games just might force the scared US program to reassess what clearly appears to me to be a "just happy to be dominant in CONCACAF" objective. The US MNT doesn't need to play any further games at all to be ready to qualify for World Cup 2010. It really doesn't. CONCACAF isn't like CONMEBOL or UEFA where tough and deserving teams lose out because of the playoff arrangement. Note: the USA needs to win this game to stop the bleeding from the truly atrocious showing against England. Pretending that the US is Belize and just happy to be (sort of) playing soccer is not helpful. the USA needs a win more than you think. Spain? It doesn't need this game at all. Spain might not even bother to pay attention to the score in this game. At least, that is what I am hoping. Note: before Spain went on its recent 13-0-2 unbeaten streak (with wins against Italy, France, and England), it lost 0-1 to tough Romania. Note: Romania is a very tough opponent. In geographies where there is great competition in the qualifying round, Romania lost out to Holland and the Czech Republic in a group of death and did not qualify for World Cup 2006 --- the USA would have finished at best fourth in that qualifying group. Romania is currently #10 in the eloratings, just ahead of Mexico, and #12 in the FIFA rankings. Before that game, Spain beat Argentina 2-1 in a friendly in October 2006. Playing competitively against teams ranked in the top-five or top-ten in either the eloratings or in the FIFA ratings (and beating them) is VERY important to a top team like Spain. Spain compares itself with teams in the top-ten, as it should. Beating a team down at the level of the USA, Sweden, or Latvia doesn't really matter at all to Spain. Why should it matter? Spain has been there and done that effortlessly too many times. Spain has an important game in Euro 2008 in a few days against Russia. Spain will likely approach this friendly against the USA as a "pads optional" scrimmage. Spain will focus on nobody getting hurt. Losing to the USA after its 14-1-2 run against very tough (England, Romania, Argentina, Italy, and France) and not-so-tough opponents might not even make the papers in Spain. Spain (both team and country) is already getting ready for an important opponent in a few days. Spain tied Finland and Iceland in this most recent stretch of games. It is certainly possible for a weaker team to do well against a powerhouse team, particularly when the powerhouse has more important games coming up. I am hoping that this is the case today. Spain has not won the Euros since 1964 (at home). 1964 (win over USSR in Spain) 1968 DNQ 1972 DNQ 1976 DNQ 1980 (fourth and last place in group with Belgium, Italy, England) 1984 (runners-up to France in France) 1988 (third place and out in group with West Germany, Italy, and Denmark) 1992 DNQ 1996 (quarterfinals loss to England) 2000 (quarterfinals loss to France) 2004 (third place and out in group with Portugal [finalist], Greece [champs], and Russia) Spain was disappointed with its World Cup 2006 performance. It is now hyperfocused on doing well (for the first time since 1984) in the Euros. Does anybody really think that Spain is going to give a **** about playing the US MNT today? How many USA players could the Spanish players even name? The USA might even steal a win today over a distracted Spain team that is is focused on its next game --- even if the USA is hyperfocused on not winning the game in order to pursue some other goal. Go USA!
I don't know if you remember but Adam Zebrowski was just as big of a Bruce Arena's fanboy as Bradley's. I think he is just a fan of mediocrity.
Re: a contrary viewpoint that is not so darn USA-centric Up until Bradley's and Hiddink's takeover of the respective sides, the US would have been a very good sample squad for Spain to play against in preparation for Russia. Bradley stinks the field with his tactics and Hiddink's obviously miles ahead of him (in less stinking, not more) but the old Soviet/Russian style of soccer is not dissimilar to what the Americans can play on a good day. I think this is a very good warm-up match for La Furia Roja.
I would hazard that coaches in other major sports are required to make themselves available per the financial arrangements with various media organizations. With the National Team, the arrangements may be more ad hoc. From my stand point it's not so much the arrogance that annoys me but commentary that belies the 'serious and mature' demeanor. Paraphrased tidbits like: in reference to Adu. in reference to guys playing on struggling clubs. in reference to the English game.