Where are all the haters today? He played his defensive role very well, breaking up the attack, giving a few hard tackles/fouls on their end of the field. His physical presence allowed him to score his first goal. Good thing the coach played his son yesterday.
I've said it before, and I'll say it here again, the charges of nepotism have been among the dumbest things ever posted at Big Soccer. In a team situation, no matter how much players want to gain the coach's approval, if they're not happy about the coach's decision to play his son if they felt he was undeserving, grumbling will eventually leak out to the media and others. I've never heard one rumor that anyone expressed a reservation about Michael's being in camp or playing a match, or starting over someone else. So if his teammates are satisfied that he belongs why shouldn't everyone else? Please, if there's something I'm missing here that would logically point to favoritism or nepotism, someone let me know.
I've been pretty critical of Michael in the past, and have to give him credit for playing a very strong game. Even aside from the goals, he played very well, with a high number of interceptions and very few turnovers. I think there are still a couple things that worry me about him and the other central mids in our pool. One is ability to maintain possession under high pressure. Mexico rarely plays a high pressure game in midfield and they didn't last night, so that issue did not come up in this game. The other concern is that Bradley generally attempts few clever or difficult passes that can unlock a defense. He did that a few times last night but overall his output of such passes is low compared to what we need from someone who has the ball so much. Kljestan attempted more such passes, but had little success connecting with them. To make this a little more concrete here are some numbers from the central mids on difficult or "venturesome" passes in three matches I have tracked: US-Mexico qualifyer 2005: Reyna 15 attempted (9 completed) Armas 9(3) US-Germany WC 2002: Reyna 21(7), O'Brien 19(8) US-Mexico qualifyer 2009: Bradley 6(2), Kljestan 10(3) Generally I think Bradley had a very strong game, especially the exceptionally high (23) number of interceptions I counted. It might seem a little unfair to highlight the one area where I think he and Kljestan fell a bit short in last night. That doesn't make me a hater. I just want to understand the various ingredients that go into successful midfield play. Hopefully as they mature as players, Bradley, Kljestan, Edu and others will develop the confidence and ability to go for more of these more venturesome passes that can really unbalance a defense.
Good Post. This is one reason I would have like to see Torres last night. I would have substituted him in for Kljestan rather than Clark.
Very strong performance. I think we can see a bit of the German influence coming through in him already. The ability to deliver that cutting pass is still eluding him (the "Gerrard to Torres" pass as I call it) but at his age and the level he's playing at I won't be surprised if we have a great all-around midfielder in him by 2014. Though in his defense, the only person to really be able to open up the defense to allow those passes was Donovan and he wasn't doing it too much.
I think the forwards received very few dangerous passes from midfield in this game. Responsibility for this is always shared by the forwards and mids. Even watching a replay it is hard to know how to assign the blame because you often can't see the runs being made by the forwards and how the defense is aligned.
Maximum, Good posts. You seem to be paying attention. I thought most of the players had so-so games, and our central D was terrible. I get ticked off at posters who complain about MB without having any understanding of what his ROLE is supposed to be on the field. I've always thought he was a good D mid, and an upgrade from Pablo.
I have never agreed with the comments about nepotism but there certainly have been times over the past year when just based on the his performance in games I could understand people questioning why Michael was always starting. My response to the nepotism comments has always been that I think Michael is just the type of player that coaches love in general (even when they are not his father). Everything you hear about him leads you to believe he is extremely hard working, intense, coachable, and willing to play within the game plan. He also is, of course, very young and has shown potential. I was extrememly excited to see him play as well as he did last night and while I do not expect him to be able to perform at that level every game (yet), I do hope is getting more comfortable and confident and is entering a new phase in regards to his performance.
I have to spread rep before giving it to Maximum Optimal again, but this is a great post. Anyway, for me, one of the biggest proponents of the nepotism charge, Bradley was outstanding last night, even leaving aside the goals. Some of the problems I have had in the past with his play seem to really be waning. The Bundesliga seems to be fashioning him into a much more disciplined player. His positioning was outstanding, as Maximum Optimal's interception totals attest, he rarely got pulled out of position with excessive chasing, he seemed strong late in the match (perhaps not having been worn out by chasing), and rarely dived in dangerously. He did still give up a couple of free kicks which I thought were pointless, with at least one of those in a very dangerous area, but he was much improved in that area, as well. As an aside, I think some out there misunderstand the nepotism claim. It has very little to do with Michael. It has to do with Bob. If you think Michael's strong play answers the claim of nepotism, you don't understand the argument.
While I agree with everything here I think we also have to consider the possibility that those numbers for our current CMs may never equal those of Reyna and JOB simply because, back then, the entire offense was dictated and driven by the CMs. Now the conductors are Donovan, Beasley and Dempsey from the outside mid and withdrawn striker positions.
Michael was man of the match even without scoring the two goals. He was a thorn in Mexico's side the whole game. Great pressure, winning balls, and good decision on his passes. Some players are great than the sum of their parts. Michael may be one of those players. Also, I have been hard on Michael for many of the same reasons as others here, but he continues to improve . That's all I can hope...
While I don't put much stock in the nepotism argument, I think it's more about the amount of time he gets regardless of performance than getting time at all.
Michael's just 21, which we forget sometimes because he's been around so long. Kljestan is just 23. It's pretty incredible that those two pretty much dominated Pavel Pardo and Leandro. Those are two very good central midfielders on Mexico. Torres is only 21, Szetela is only 21, Clark is still only 26. Edu is just 22. We're going to arguing about the best combination of mids from this group until WC2014. Then there are young guys coming thru like Arguez, McCarty, etc, not to mention the Feilhaber's and Beckerman's of the world. We went from the Richie Williams ABMOD era to this one in what seems like a heartbeat. Pretty incredible. So yes, Michael had a great game. Sacha had a great game against Sweden. Clark will probably have a great game against El Salvador. And we'll go round and round arguing about the best combination. There's really no right answer at this point. But people making the nepotism argument about Bradley are fools, as I've been saying for a while. Nico Kranjar had the same problem when his dad coached Croatia. People whined and whined about how Nico was only playing because his father was the coach. It wasn't until his father left, that people began to truly appreciate his talents.
AWESOME game by MB!! Defensively, he was SOLID & got us the goals we needed...though, the first was only because Gooch's header was stopped & he was in the perfect spot, LOL, and the second was a POOR reaction from Sanchez!! Nevertheless, Bradley was MOTM, at least IMO, and has cemented his place in the starting XI for the foreseeable future!! I'm more of a Bradley fan now than ever...not that I was EVER a Bradley "hater," LOL!!!
I love the work Maximum does, and the post in general. But I'd like to make one comment: I don't think last night was especially conducive to "venturesome" passes. Anything long in the air (like switching fields) was virtually impossible due to the wind. Stats are great, but put them in context. The other context I'd provide is the age of the players: 21 and 23 for MB and Kljestan. Reyna, O'Brien, and Armas were all much more mature players.
That first finish was much more difficult than what it looked, just to react that quickly and roof it like that. He had that one almost phenomenal pass to Beasley in the 2nd half where if the grass wouldn't have been wet it would have been a perfect dissecting 50 yard through ball. Give him another 5 years and he might be one of the better d-mids in the world. (yes, I just said that. But I said might.)
Micheal Bradley got most of his development in Holland IMO. He has only been in Germany a very short while. I think player development of US players has been by far the best in Holland. At first I thought MB should not be starting over Rico Clark because he was a 'tweener' - not quite good enough to excel beyond the average US middie. What he has developed after his time in Holland is his knack for getting in the attack as a late arriving midfielder into the final third and finishing. Although Clark has more speed / man marking / ball winning ability, but he does not bring as much into the attack. By pairing Kliestien and Bradley together, the US now has two bonfide two - way midfielders who can alternate / vary which one throws himself forward. It also helped the Mexican midfield had an uncharacteristically poor performance as they usually dominate us in that part of the field. I think the help that MB and SK provided each other really disrupted them and MB's contribution to the attack really are main the reasons we are smiling today (I prolly should give Howard some props for saving our bacon too!). As far as the pass counting statistics, you need to make sure no 'negative' passes are counted. What I mean is passing the ball safely backward instead of towards the oppositions final third. Reyna may have had more successful passes but he used to pass 'negatively' way too much for my liking.
Just as we were getting past the 100 threads started only to bash MB, now comes the flood of threads calling out those previous efforts. Sweet! Now, off to start a Frankie thread.
Proving my claim that you don't understand the nepotism argument. Michael Bradley has been essentially untouchable since his first appearance, as a sub, in that March 2007 match versus Ecuador. At that time, he had not established himself as a starter at his club (in fact having been an unused sub or not making the bench for much of the second half of that season) and was routinely stinking it up on the international scene. Did he deserve to be an unquestioned first choice player a that time? (Totally aside, I'd just like to reiterate that I like the kid and think he's our best central midfielder. I just cannot advocate untouchability now, and really, really can't condone its presence in the past.) And, by the way, Niko Krancjar continues to struggle to really impact games at the club or international level the way his apparent talent would dictate. I think, again, many of the arguments made regarding that situation were centered not on his inclusion in the squad, but on his being handed the keys to the car.
Yes he did. What most of you bashers were unable to see was Mike's growth. Taking place before your closed eyed prejudice.
OK, now that the argument is "understood", it totally asks the wrong question. "Deserves" got nothing to do with it. Playing time early in the cylce is all about suceeding in the World Cup finals, not who deserves it most for one game four years before. Bradley, like Adu and Altidore, got time over older players who had better resumes, not because the coach liked them particularly but because giving kids time in these situations, while a gamble, can really pay off when the World Cup finals come around. And the decision to give MB time when he was a Euro benchwarmer has obviously paid off in a big way. For those who aren't following along, MB's early caps have to do with investing in a promising young player not nepotism -- any decent coach of the USMNT would have identified him as a special talent when he transfered to Holland at age 18 and given him caps for the purpose of investing in the future. And while MB's early USMNT performances may not have been earthshattering, they were decent and on par with any of the other options except maybe Feilhaber before he self-destructed.