When did Michael Bradley go from one of our key players to "damn wish he retired from the NT"?

Bullshit. Your post is why we fail as a soccer nation. With great connections, comes great responsibility. If your going to be "the man" by your handlers, you better be at your A game, your entire career, because there will be many who never get that chance due to lack of integrity.

 

...This answers it.

 

MB was perfectly serviceable throughout the '18 campaign, imo. The game at Azetca should've provided Arena the blueprint on how to use him: pair him with a 6/8 type. Cameron, Acosta, and Bedoya were variously available.

Given his age and decline, after the '18 campaign, there was no need to continue with him.

 

I can't pinpoint a specific game when I wanted MB to stop getting minutes, but I can pinpoint a single statistic: The USMNT played 55 games after WC 2014. Michael Bradley started and went 90 minutes in 51 of those games.

After WC2014, results for the USMNT began to fluctuate.

1. Our 4th place in 2015 Gold Cup was fairly generous.

- We scraped out a 2-1 win over Honduras, a 1-0 against Haiti (although Haiti rarely looked like scoring), and a 1-1 vs Panama in the GS. That's a pretty poor series of games at home against that level of competition. Then, after smoking Cuba, we lost 2-1 against Jamaica and in penalties to Panama (Panama being the better team over the course of the 90 minutes and ET).

2. Our Copa Centenario performance was mediocre-to-fairly good.

- We beat two decent teams in the GS, and Ecuador in the QF. JK set the team up extremely conservatively, and Argentina rolled us in the semifinal. Colombia beat us again in the 3rd place game. Meh, CONMEBOL was arguably the best Federation at the time, and we never got motorboated like Mexico when they lost 7-0 against Chile.

3. Our WCQ semi-final round was perilous.

- That 0-2 defeat to Guatemala away was incredibly frustrating. A set piece goal, and a failed offside trap that led to a Carlos Ruiz 1-on-1. Time-wasting by the Guatemalans shortened the game, but we were truthfully rarely dangerous. IIRC, we were very soft and technical, when in that environment we needed to be more physical and just bulldoze our way to a few goals. That set up a must-win game at home against Guatemala, a la last cycle.

4. We won the 2017 GC by bringing back all the old guys with our 6 changes.

- Arena built off of his Honduras thrashing by coaching us to a 2017 GC win, with special thanks to Jamaica for beating Mexico. It wasn't 100 percent smooth sailing (the 3-2 Martinique win stands out), but we did well. We didn't use Bradley for the entirety of that Group Stage (along with guys like Jozy and other Arena favorites), the only competitive games that we didn't start him for 90 minutes that cycle. Since I'm mentioning it, the 4th game without Bradley was the 1-1 draw to the Czech Republic in a Euro Friendly immediately after WC 2014. Overall a positive tournament for sure, but the home-field advantage ended up being crucial...

4. Our Hex started poorly, we got some fortunate ties away from home, and then it finished in failure.

- Most people only seem to remember Cuova at the end, but that Hex was a roller coaster from start to finish. In particular, we lost to Costa Rica at home despite superior chances, and lost at the death to Mexico. We smoked Panama and Honduras at home, but struggled mightily against them away. The Honduras away game was a fortunate draw at the death (Honduras should've been up by 3-4 goals, by the way, they torched Zusi and Beasley in the heat all game long). The draw away to Panama 1-1 was fortunate, but less so. Dempsey finished off our lone good chance, and Panama scored a good goal while generating more chances. In the end, we all know what happened in Trinidad.

There isn't really any single game or tournament that I can point to that makes/made me dislike Bradley. He's pretty much always had a case for being on the team. But his constant presence as a starter prevented us from trying other options. Every time I (or one of a few posters) advocated for experimentation, the refrain was that nobody else had "experience". Now that we've failed to qualify, all of a sudden those same posters are taking it as self-evident that this was a bad argument...

Bradley's experience, which is a useful trait, was nullified by a number of factors:

He didn't contribute much offensively, whether that's set-pieces, assists, or goals. As a ball-circulator, he was extremely poor, coming so deep as to stand 5 yards away from the GK, right in between the CB's. Repeatedly, Bradley was identified by our opponents as a weak link when we were in possession, and the subsequent pressure applied to him gifted them goals and destroyed our ability to play out of the back.

Defensively, Bradley was little better. He was often overrun in the center of the park by quicker or more athletic midfielders. Our defensive frailties when facing inferior, bunkering teams, could often be traced to MB's inability to stop counterattacks. When facing better teams, MB's terrible footspeed and inability to tackle were weaknesses that were routinely exploited.

This is not to say that Bradley was the only player to blame for our failure that cycle. But he was by far the player who played the most, despite numerous glaring weaknesses and declining abilities. While we routinely shuffled the backline, wingers, strikers, and Bradley's midfield partners, Bradley remained constant.

Bradley's role in the US's failure is a massive indictment on both JK and Arena. His benefits to the team (experience, leadership) could've been realized with a reduced role on the team. A role that fluctuated with his form, as it did with all of his other teammates, likely would've resulted in superior performances when he was called to play.

 

That is ridiculous, it's like the coaches don't like him. 90 minutes in 51/55 games.

 

LOL, developing great players is what makes a great soccer nation. Again, we should have had alternatives to Bradley that could be "the man". Take a look at the 2008 Olympic squad and review how many failed in one way or another.

 

And we are back to, if one of our youth teams failed to produce future stars, then it was destined to be. Again, this is why we fail. Not all players develop at the same rate. Some players dont reach their peak and break through until their late 20's.

The last U-20 WC team is probably the only time I can say with hope and confidence that there is at least 5 future Champions League regulars in that squad (an anomaly).

 

He was really not that great in Brazil; I thought his performances there were very much "canary in a coal mine" for me.

But honestly it probably started during qualifying at some point during the 2018 cycle. His jogging to take corners in Couva and the lack of responsibility he showed just cemented what I had been feeling for a while, which was that I was very, very tired of seeing him on the field.

 

I don't have a problem so much with Bradley continuing to get minutes. His experience can be handy with so many young players getting time. I do have a big problem with fielding him in a roll where he is placed in a key defensive position and is also the designated guy to play the ball forward almost exclusively. He was never tasked with that much responsibility when he was at his peak. Now that he is past it, relying on him to that degree is preposterous. It is especially difficult when you have to figure if we are ever healthy Adams and McKennie take two midfield spots right off the top. And I question whether Bradley is willing or able to play outside the 6, where Adams should get time. If he's willing to play forward of Adams and not just run McKennie out of every decent midfield position ahead of him, he could be of value to this team. I just don't know if he has that in him at this point and Berhalter hasn't even asked the question. I actually blame Berhalter and his use of Bradley as a big reason so many just want him off the field now.

 

Do you have any proof that his experience can be handy? Because I have proof his (and others') experience means absolutely zilch, and is in fact detrimental, since we finished 5th in the Hex despite fielding most likely the oldest team.

Agreed that managers (Klinsy, Brucie, and Egg) are mostly to blame, but he's pretty much behind Adams, McKennie, Reyna, Pulisic, Lleget, Pomykal, Yeuill, depending on where you're talking about playing him in central midfield (and I would have him behind a few others too).

I thought it was obvious he shouldn't be a central figure in the squad since 2016. Obviously he shouldn't be now, but he should be nowhere near the 23.

If you do have proof experience is useful, bring him in as a non-playing advisor, where he can talk about leadership, experience, sitting between CBs and still playing backwards, or walking in Couva to take corners.

 

I had tried to push for the last three years that Bradley would be a reasonable outside mid (like Bedoya was) because his lack of speed/defense would be offset by his endless motor/lung capacity and ability to use the sideline as defensive help. I was pretty much shouted down/ignored as people pretty much stated that there was no way he could play any position other than the 6 at this stage.

If that's the case (and I understand the point), there's really no position for him as he's certainly not good enough to be the central cog that we build around (even though that's exactly what Berhalter did, I think he really really wanted Trapp to take the reins and then he shit the bed). He's also a terrible sub both defensively and offensively and his leadership has been clearly shown to be ineffective at best.

I agree that the coaches are to blame rather than Michael.

 

Well, if you believe experience is of no value as a general rule, there's certainly nothing I can say to change your mind. I could point out that somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of professional coaches disagree, but I'm sure you already know that. Most top teams feature a mix and we're going to be youth heavy no matter how you slice it because the fading generation was particularly poor.

The one thing Bradley does on the field that is something lots of experienced guys do is when things get a bit frantic he has the ability to step on the ball a bit and show some composure. It's not always necessary but a game getting out of control, we're holding on, making a lot of too quick passes and losing our nerve a bit. Yeah, I want the guy with over a hundred caps and a couple World Cups to step in and settle the youngsters down a bit rather than throwing out another youngster with fresh legs who will likely do absolutely nothing to put the brakes on. I don't see Bradley having a big roll on the team, but I see a roll for him if he wants to take it.

And ya know, I basically made a post that said one nice thing up front about Bradley before giving a host of reasons why he's not ideal for this team and how including him is difficult to justify and all you read was... did he say something nice about Michael Bradley?!?!

 

I actually barely even mentioned Bradley, and when I did, it was along with the other experienced guys who failed with him.

It's just one of these things that gets said constantly here, and it boggles my mind. The "experience counts" crowd was nonstop during the Hex, and I figured after Couva, it'd be finished. But here we are, 2.5 years later.

Things were plenty frantic last Hex, and nobody's experience did anything positive at all, since Pulisic was the only player who did anything useful.

 

I specifically remember all the pundits in the final games of the hex repeating the mantra “in must win games like these, I’m going with experience” and then naming Timmy, Gonzo, MB et al. The arrogance in those days was palpable. I really think it is an American thing. And maybe more specifically a Jersey thing. Hopefully that attitude has been beaten out of us by now. We had better options in 2018 than those who took the field.

 

I should say that I'm not necessarily against "experience", I'm just looking for some kind of proof, since my most recent viewing in the Hex shows it to be absolutely useless.

Seems we live in a time where there is just so much data proving/disproving so much of what happens on the field...and then we have pretty much 5 straight years of "we need MB's experience on the field", witness countless failures, and keep spouting the same drivel.

Are there studies done on the value of experience in soccer? How useful can it be when we just saw probably our most experienced team fail worse than any before it? Is it simply something we think is useful (as it is frequently in other fields) so we keep peddling the same refrain of its importance?

 

I think an experienced player is good but it has to be the right player. Not everyone with experience can translate that to leadership. We had a lot of experience but seemingly no leadership. The Washington Generals had tons of experience on how to lose to the Globetrotters.

 

This is why I can't join all the doomsayers. We didn't lose with our best options on the field deployed in their best way.

 

Pulisic wasn't that great either. Go back and watch the CR game at RBA. He missed a hat trick of chances.

 

Right after his first game.

 

I find it funny, when people begrudge a guy for taking a huge payday, to play in his own country. Tell me? Would you take $200K to play in Spain if you where offered $5million to play in your home town? Or somewhere near it, just so you can improve enough so that you can lose in the knockout round of the WC?

 

Especially after you had already been abroad for years.

 

This is a lovely strawman as very few people actually said this. The OP was using it as a hypothetical - I can't recall (m)any posters begrudging Michael his huge payday - it was stupid money.

It ended up being bad for the USMNT and the drastic overpay for in-their prime USMNT core players hasn't really been repeated by an MLS squad since that time period so I'm hoping that's behind us. Even better, we're keeping good Mexican players from pushing themselves at higher levels so go MLS!

 

This is a nice effort, but not sure you'll find anyone to argue against.

The issue people have is the drop in form that occurred around the same time, and likely happened due to a combination of lower quality of play/opposition and his injury. People would generally rather have our players (all of our players) remain in Europe, where they have to push harder. So from a fan of the USNT, yes, moving back to MLS hurt his quality, and thus, hurt the quality of the team we support.

Is anyone here upset that somebody would take a ridiculously overpaid job offer, where they can make 5 times the money and work less hard? Obviously not, as it's basically a dream for anyone! But, we aren't members of Bradley's family, we don't see any of that money. Our investment is that the NT is the best it can be. And moving back to MLS (I would argue) hurt our investment.

So again - it's a nice try, but hardly conducive to a useful discussion or argument. Maybe as a fan, you care about MB, his family, his happiness, and his bank statement. That's perfectly fine, and allowable. I think most of us don't, however, so that means nothing to us/me.

 

ooooooh, Canadians gonna be piiiiiiiiiiiiissed.

 

Experience is good when the players who are experienced are especially talented over a long period if time. And when your entire team is in their early-late 30s, you have a geriatric team, not an experienced one.

Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, JJ, Beasley, and Howard were playing well in their early-mid 30s. Guys like Omar and Zusi were never even close to as good as those guys, which makes it a mistake to rely on them when they get to that stage of their career. Especially when the younger players you replace them with are guys like Nagbe and Arriola... blech.