View Full Version: Is Bradley the man??

Soccer Futbol Forum > US National Team > Is Bradley the man??

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Title: Is Bradley the man??
Description: Info sharing about USNMT Coach


robdog - March 26, 2007 09:10 PM (GMT)
I wanted to start a discussion about this. I don't think Bradley has been actually test yet. Personally, I think the decision should be made after the summer competitions. Let's discuss user posted image

Merengue - March 27, 2007 01:38 AM (GMT)
I voted yes. I think Bradley has done a pretty good job so far. Of course these aren't official competitions and things could change after he's been involved in a competitive game rather than a friendly but I think he's done enough to get the job fulltime and not be an "interim" coach. Doesn't necessarily mean he signs a contract now through 2010 but he should be offered the job on a fulll time absis. If he's not doing the job after a year, his contract doesn't have to be renewed.

By the way robdog, you double posted this poll, so I removed one of them.

rosarino - March 27, 2007 05:00 AM (GMT)
Count me in the "Yes" camp. Bradley is off to a good start and should be given the opportunity to have this job on a permanent basis. I agree with Merengue it doesn't have to be a 3 year contract through the 2010 World Cup but at least give the guy the job on a permanent basis and he doesn't have to worry if this is just a short term gig or a more long term one.

alabastergremlin - March 27, 2007 08:03 AM (GMT)
Give him the job for at least a year or so. He may not have secured this job for the long term YET, but he has certainly not done anything to show that he can't do the job.

As with everybody else, I think we will know a lot more by the time these two tournaments are over. But, so far so good.

cafetero - March 27, 2007 03:46 PM (GMT)
I vote yes for the same reasons gremlin and the others mentioned. What has Bradley done wrong so far? Give him the chance.

Martin - March 27, 2007 06:13 PM (GMT)
Another one who favors giving Bradley the job now. I'd agree it doesn't have to be a 3 year contract through South Africa 2010 but get rid of the interim tag and give the guy the comfort of knowing he is something more than just a temporary coach until someone more flashier comes along.

Johnbuildr - March 27, 2007 08:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (alabastergremlin @ Mar 27 2007, 12:03 AM)
Give him the job for at least a year or so.  He may not have secured this job for the long term YET, but he has certainly not done anything to show that he can't do the job.

As with everybody else, I think we will know a lot more by the time these two tournaments are over.  But, so far so good.


Agreed. He doesn't need a long term contract, a year will do for now. It is pretty anal not to at this point. Sunil, anal? What? No way! :rolleyes:

James - March 30, 2007 08:15 PM (GMT)
I'm in the wait and see camp. Don't lock up a year as yet. I can't say as I saw anything from the Ecuador/Guatemala matches other than some willingness to experiment.

Gold Cup and the Copa are both important, I would like to see us do well. I don't know to what degree securing the coaches status is in that effort, so that is the chief consideration. But, this winter should mark the start of our 2010 run and we surely want to revisit the question after this summer if we are not going to do it now.

vince stravino - May 14, 2007 02:31 AM (GMT)
Reports have Bradley being named US MNT coach on a permanent basis. Bravo Bob! 2010 WC Champs! I hope!

rosarino - May 14, 2007 03:56 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (vince stravino @ May 13 2007, 06:31 PM)
Reports have Bradley being named US MNT coach on a permanent basis. Bravo Bob! 2010 WC Champs! I hope!

And what reports are those saying Bradley is getting the job on a full time basis? as I posted earlier in this thread, I think he deserves the job but I find it curious Gulati would wait until now, if these reports Vince discusses are true, to give Bradley the job.

dafyd - May 14, 2007 08:48 PM (GMT)
Truth is, while he's gotten good results so far, they haven't really face a true challenge. As Rosarino said, lets see how he does over the two tournies over the summer, and then make a judgement. Odds are, by then, the USSF will have made a judgement themselves.

Friendlies, after all, only tell half the story.

vince stravino - May 15, 2007 07:35 AM (GMT)

Roosevelt - May 15, 2007 01:26 PM (GMT)
You know I'm happy he's coach, he's ceertainly done everything asked of him since he was appointed interim and he deserves his full-time shot at it. And aside from which, I'm not big on titles anyway, with any NT manager your employment tends to exist on a week-to-week basis, so they'll hire/fire whomever at the drop of a hat, whatever their contract status is.

But. And don't mean to be a broken record, but the way this saga has played out over the last ten months has left me with very little confidence that Sunil Gulati knows what the hell he's doing, at least with respect to filling the position of men's senior NT manager. Bradley may be great, but that will have much more to do, IMHO, with the gods smiling on us than because the federation has put us in a place for success. My $.02.

Merengue - May 15, 2007 02:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (vince stravino @ May 14 2007, 11:35 PM)
http://ussoccerplayers.com/exclusives/inde...?article_id=334

Well this would seem like an authorative source!

I agree 100% with what Roosevelt wrote. Gulati has not filled anybody with confidence with the way he's handled the situation.

Johnbuildr - May 15, 2007 05:45 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (rosarino @ May 13 2007, 07:56 PM)
QUOTE (vince stravino @ May 13 2007, 06:31 PM)
Reports have Bradley being named US MNT coach on a permanent basis. Bravo Bob! 2010 WC Champs! I hope!

And what reports are those saying Bradley is getting the job on a full time basis? as I posted earlier in this thread, I think he deserves the job but I find it curious Gulati would wait until now, if these reports Vince discusses are true, to give Bradley the job.



Well, the press conference is tomorrow, so it's a pretty sure thing alrighty.
What was this delay for anyway? What has happend in the last few weeks that Gulati didn't know 4 or 5 weeks ago? :blink:
Oh, maybe he was in secret talks with Klinsmann. Yeah, that's the ticket! Sheesh, what a silly looking way to handle this entire thing. :rolleyes:

cafetero - May 15, 2007 08:58 PM (GMT)
Better late than never as far as naming Bradley coach! I think this was a fait accompli from the beginning unless Bradley had really screwed up, which he obviously has not. Otherwise why would he give up a job with Chivas USA to be a part time coach of the U-23 team? And why else would Peter Nowak quit his job with DC to be Bradley's assistant unless he knew there was the likelihood of the job becoming permanent?

Johnbuildr - May 15, 2007 10:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (cafetero @ May 15 2007, 12:58 PM)
Better late than never as far as naming Bradley coach!  I think this was a fait accompli from the beginning unless Bradley had really screwed up, which he obviously has not.  Otherwise why would he give up a job with Chivas USA to be a part time coach of the U-23 team?  And why else would Peter Nowak quit his job with DC to be Bradley's assistant unless he knew there was the likelihood of the job becoming permanent?



Good questions, but the best questions might be, 'what the hell did Gulati expect to accomplish' and 'what did he actually accomplish', with this whole rigamarole, drawn out interim thing anyway?

dafyd - May 16, 2007 08:54 PM (GMT)
Same thing he thought he was going to accomplish when he was in talks with Klinsmann. He thought he could pull a rabbit out of his hat, not realising all the rabbits are tired of that old trick.

Manzanares - May 17, 2007 12:05 AM (GMT)
Bradley didn't seem to be coaching with the sole intent to get the job on a full time basis as he was using some new players and just didn't throw out a group of experienced vets for his first few games. So now that he has the job on a full time basis, do you'd think he'll keep trying to incorproate new players into the team? Or have his experiments ended until post Gold Cup & Copa America?

Johnbuildr - May 17, 2007 01:36 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Manzanares @ May 16 2007, 04:05 PM)
Bradley didn't seem to be coaching with the sole intent to get the job on a full time basis as he was using some new players and just didn't throw out a group of experienced vets for his first few games.  So now that he has the job on a full time basis, do you'd think he'll keep trying to incorproate new players into the team?  Or have his experiments ended until post Gold Cup & Copa America?


Don't know about that, Man., but there is an excellent article on espn about how sadly this whole ordeal was handled by Gulati. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story...root=us&cc=5901

What a classic example of how not to handle the change of a national team coahc! From the initial poorly handled dismissal of Bruce to the final, excruciatingly drawn out final announcement when SG had finally decided he had no choice left but to hire Bradley. It was all pathetically handled and unprofessional.
Now, Bradley may take the team to a new level, but how many of you expect or even think that is possible? I was one who said SG should go ahead and hire Bradley here a little while ago, but that was only after the pooch had been totally screwed up beyond salvation. Actually, it is pretty depressing.

cafetero - May 17, 2007 05:28 PM (GMT)
That is a good article John. Thank you for providing the link. I didn't see anything in that article but how long of a contract does Bradley have? The author does raise this point which i absolutely agree with,

QUOTE
In the meantime, Bradley's first real test will begin in June with the Gold Cup, and later with Copa America. Then the USSF can begin to surmise whether Bradley's appointment is something worth celebrating after all.


This is true as this summer we'll find out how Bradley coaches when the games matter. If he doesn't do well then or once World Cup qualifying begins I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of him. I think the author of the article is wrong in saying it would be bad for US soccer if 18 months from now a new coach would be hired. I don't see a problem changing course during a World Cup cycle if the results are not what are desired.

Johnbuildr - May 17, 2007 08:44 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (cafetero @ May 17 2007, 09:28 AM)
That is a good article John.  Thank you for providing the link.  I didn't see anything in that article but how long of a contract does Bradley have?  The author does raise this point which i absolutely agree with,

QUOTE
In the meantime, Bradley's first real test will begin in June with the Gold Cup, and later with Copa America. Then the USSF can begin to surmise whether Bradley's appointment is something worth celebrating after all.


This is true as this summer we'll find out how Bradley coaches when the games matter. If he doesn't do well then or once World Cup qualifying begins I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of him. I think the author of the article is wrong in saying it would be bad for US soccer if 18 months from now a new coach would be hired. I don't see a problem changing course during a World Cup cycle if the results are not what are desired.


I haven't seen anything about how long his contract is. A wild guess would be two years. That would be long enough to give him some rope, but still barely enough time to change before 2010 WC.
But in this day and age, does it really matter? Both sides break contracts all the time.

As far as a change 18 months before a WC, I wouldn't be against it if warranted, but the far better situaiton is not ot have to do it.
And if you do, only a very few coaches are capable of learning the player pool really well, forming their own opinions properly, gaining the repsect and confidence of the pool, instilling a whole new system, which is often necessary, and so forth, for a national team. It is, of course, much different due to the limtied time together and limited number of "meaningful" matches that are available in that kind of time frame, than with a pro/club team.

Gazza - May 18, 2007 03:34 AM (GMT)
I wish the US could have pulled a bigger name. Nothing against Bradley. Also, if you were having him "interview" while he was the interim coach then keep him on through the summer tourny, then make a decision. Oh well, just another disappointment as a US fan.

xeneize - May 18, 2007 08:26 PM (GMT)
They waited this long to name a permanent coach, why not wait till after the summer tournaments and see how Bradley does in those? It is one thing to win friendlies on home soil, another thing all together different to win games that matter, some of which will be played away from home.

dafyd - May 19, 2007 12:05 AM (GMT)
Xeneize, this is one of the things that is being brought up by a few journalists: Why doesn't the US team play more friendlies away?

The thought is that they've had serious problems when they've had to play anyone on European soil, so scheduling friendlies in Europe, against quality sides would do a world of good for a team that mostly plays poor teams, and seldom on foreign soil. Sure, they'll lose most of them. But the few wins they manage to get will do wonders for them.

Accepting the invite to the Copa America is certainly a step in the right direction, but we've a long way to go if we really want to improve.

Loco4LosChe - June 27, 2010 03:14 AM (GMT)
I thought it would be a good idea to dust off this thread.

Should BB be the US coach for the 2014 World Cup?

Many of you know I am not his biggest fan, but I will try to be unbiased here.

It's hard to argue with the results of the 2009 Confederations Cup. Made the final. Beat Spain along the way. Big plus for BB.

As far as the World Cup goes... Look, I know the Algeria win was super exciting and all (and I can honestly say that the goal LD scored in the 91st minute is the best moment of my football watching career, in terms of sheer excitement) but let's look at the big picture.

Before the WC, everyone agreed that the group would be tougher than it might look at first glance (as it proved to be) but that other than Group F (Italy, Paraguay, Slovakia, New Zealand) that Group C was the easiest, and that the US should advance. It took until literally the last possible moment to get out of the group.

But BB got us out. So, not necessarily a plus (because we all expected it), but still a job 'well' done.

HOWEVER, Bradley really (pardon my language) fucked up the Ghana match. Starting Rico Clark (who I do like, but he isn't good enough to start for the US) and rubbish Robbie Findley was insanity. Whenever Clark played, the US looked like shit. Whenever Maurice Edu played, the team looked good. Ditto for Benny Feilhaber. I have criticized him for doing nothing since his goal against Mexico about a million years ago, but he looked good at the WC. Why didn't he play more? Where was Stuart Holden when the team DESPERATELY needed some width in midfield?

I will give BB credit though. He had the balls to sub out Clark after 30 minutes, and he benched Gooch for two matches after he clearly was crap. Not sure another coach would have done those two things.

Also, as much as I hate to admit it, I thought Jonothan Bornstein was pretty good against Ghana (about time he had a good game).

In conclusion, BB did some good stuff for the US (Confed Cup final), but he did only what was asked of him at the WC (get out of the group), before single-handedly losing the Ghana match for the US.

So, should BB be offered a new contract? Let's forget about whether or not he wants to stay. Let's say he does want to stay, should he be offered a new deal? Assuming we can get a coach of equal or better ability....

shelsoccer - June 27, 2010 04:01 AM (GMT)
Overall, I think Bradley has done an admirable job. However, I don't think you give him another World Cup. We saw what happened in Arena's second WC (following an even better first one than Bradley).

I think you give Bradley a pat on the back for advancing the US national team a step, but then move on. And, yes, I'm thinking Klinsmann.

enganche - June 27, 2010 05:03 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (shelsoccer @ Jun 26 2010, 08:01 PM)
Overall, I think Bradley has done an admirable job. However, I don't think you give him another World Cup. We saw what happened in Arena's second WC (following an even better first one than Bradley).

I think you give Bradley a pat on the back for advancing the US national team a step, but then move on. And, yes, I'm thinking Klinsmann.

This is my view too. One World Cup is enough for any national team coach.

raconteur - June 27, 2010 01:52 PM (GMT)
I agree with the consensus here, one World Cup is enough for Bradley. He brought the US well through qualifying, got a runner up spot at the Confederatons Cup and got the US into the 2nd round of the World Cup but it is time for a change. Another World Cup cycle would be too much.

Even Bradley is non committal about his future, then again he is non committal about practically everything when talking with the media,

http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup...dusbradley.html

QUOTE
Bradley’s contract runs out in December and when asked whether he wanted to be in charge for the next four year cycle, he said:

“At this moment there have been no conversations and there is always a process with any situation where both sides probably need time and you go from there.

“The only real comment I would make is that, I always enjoy new challenges but I also from day one have said and consider it a tremendous honour to coach the national team,” he told a news conference.


Winslow - June 27, 2010 04:22 PM (GMT)
I can't see why Bradley would want to stick around another four years--unless he wants to be directly involved as his son becomes a great player. I can't see Donovan being a major force in 2014, and finding and establishing his replacement as the US's talisman will be a major challenge.

Klinsmann? Definitely take a shot at him, though I'm not holding my breath until he takes the job.

Another question has popped into my head about BB and the MNT: why did these guys peak one year too early? The Confederations Cup showed us the worst and the best of this team, but then everyone just settled into the middle--good, but not that good. Sure, we can imagine a World Cup with Davies and a fully fit Onyewu, but can we nail down any other specific reasons why this team was not as successful as it was a year ago in South Africa?

Loco4LosChe - June 27, 2010 05:12 PM (GMT)
Dont forget how the confed cup started. We were shit. Egypt, are they really that good? Spain didnt seem to care until it was too late. Brazil embarrassed us in the second half of the final...

robdog - June 27, 2010 11:46 PM (GMT)
Ok, I will step forward & volunteer my suggestion. We have seen what Bradley can do. I think he needs a break. Let him take a step back from the gig. Get someone else meantime. Somebody like a J. Klinsmann or a José Néstor Pékerman. I just want to see a foreign coach to guide the Yanks in the next 4 years. Somebody w/ a different perspective. Somebody that has been there & done that. Just my .02

shelsoccer - June 28, 2010 01:21 AM (GMT)
It's a mistake to compare the Confed Cup (i.e., glorified friendlies) to the World Cup.

Loco4LosChe - June 28, 2010 02:21 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (shelsoccer @ Jun 27 2010, 08:21 PM)
It's a mistake to compare the Confed Cup (i.e., glorified friendlies) to the World Cup.

So, you are saying that the Confed Cup doesn't matter and that BB shouldn't come back? Because what he did at the World Cup was the bare minimum that was expected.

tnorth88 - June 28, 2010 03:04 AM (GMT)
Bradley pros - he got the best out of a mediocre team. Eg, Finlay is not even a top striker in MLS. The team played with heart. confidence and togetherness.

Bradley cons - we can always disagree with a coaches player choices. My gripe - He found a good combo in Algeria game and then changed it again with Clark back in the lineup. But this points out a possible weakness in that Bradley doesn't read teams for tactical adjustments. Ghana had a very good plan for the US. We didn't seem to have one for them.

But my main problem with Bradley is the tactical awareness the team did not show under him. Through qualifying, other tournaments, friendlies and the WC we to often gave up early goals or fell behind. Simply 3 early goals in 4 games with the post a friend in the other is unacceptable.

And we give opponents too much time and space. We defend 1 v 1. Other teams double team and use higher pressure. So when Ghana stripped Clark the goal scorer was allowed to ramble towards goal unimpeded.

This defensive naivete has to be corrected if we are to be a force in world soccer. We need a coach that has that understanding and the ability to understand the American mentality to bring out the best in the team.

Klingsman would be a good choice.

robdog - June 28, 2010 03:49 AM (GMT)
I read this perspective from a poster on BigSoccer, which I particularly agree w/:
we have mls's top scorer
we have the mexican primera's top scorer
we have an mls sub who hasn't scored a goal for his national team ever, and is having a horrible club season
we have a player who had a disappointing season with only one goal in 28 games
we start the last two....


To me, this sums up Bunker Bob's mentally. I can have two hard working forwards that will open up the match for LD & Deuce. I don't agree w/ this. One last argument vs. Bunker Bob. So far out of the Group Winners, the US is the only team that hasn't won their Round of 16 match. To me, SA was an underachievement. We should be in the 1/4 finals, but I think Bunker Bob stopped the US from progressing w/ some questionable personnel decisions. Another choice for a replacement, Javier El Vasco Aguirre. He speaks good English & played for the LA Aztecs from the NASL.

Sammy Maudlin - June 28, 2010 06:19 AM (GMT)
Too much tinkering with the midfield partner for his son. Edu worked vs Algeria, why change him when playing Ghana? tnorth makes a nice point too, the US did not seem to be able to adapt its strategy a smuch to its opponents a spossible. ghana, as we all saw, did do that and that helped lead them to their midfield dominance.

As for whether Bradley stays or go, I am in the go camp. He had a decent enough run as US coach but now is the time for someone else. The Bruce Arena second term should teach us all about a coach becoming stale.

dafyd - June 28, 2010 11:37 AM (GMT)
I don't buy the theory that Arena's time was to blame for the 2006 disaster. That doesn't mean it wasn't his time to go. Same thing here. Bradley time has coach has seen some improvements in the way the US team has played the game, but there are still gaping holes between us that the elite nations.

Thing is, under Bradley's tenure, the USA has also become a team that gives up far too many early chances/goals, even to lesser opponents. There passing still isn't what it needs to be to make a run at a major title, there were a lot of first touches from the Yanks in this World Cup that were simply abysmal, and the back four simply aren't good enough, and yet we don't seem to have anyone to replace them with.

Had Charlie Davies been healthy, who knows how his presence would have effected things. If Gooch had been fully healthy the back line would have been a bit more stable.

Finding a new coach isn't going to be easy. More importantly, in my opinion, is the USA getting better coaching for the younger generations. Work on our passing game, first touches, making diagonal runs, etc... those need to be worked on well before the players reach senior level.

Roosevelt - June 28, 2010 08:07 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Winslow @ Jun 27 2010, 11:22 AM)

Another question has popped into my head about BB and the MNT:  why did these guys peak one year too early?  The Confederations Cup showed us the worst and the best of this team, but then everyone just settled into the middle--good, but not that good.  Sure, we can imagine a World Cup with Davies and a fully fit Onyewu, but can we nail down any other specific reasons why this team was not as successful as it was a year ago in South Africa?

While this is in no way a defense of some of his decisions (Clark starting the final game, and especially, for me, the inexplicable, steadfast belief in Findley) at this stage of the US development, the Nats can barely, if everyone's fit and healthy, field a starting eleven of guys who play (in some cases not too much) at a club in a top five league (plus LD). Not that that's the be-all and end-all, witness Edu rather than Clark, but the drop-off from someone who's even on the books at AC Milan vs. a Coca-cola Championship defender is pretty steep. I love Jay Demerit, he played some outstanding defense in the WC, but he also made some costly errors.

All of which is mostly OT, but just to say, with this pool of talent, there's a) only so far any coach can take the US and b ) Onyewu, yes, but given the forward situation, truly Davies was/is a guy for which the replacement level talent, whoever Bradley chose, was going to be far below Ligue 1 quality.

May I just say, in praise of Bob Bradley, that much is made of the team's cohesion and spirit, and rightly so, but when I see him consoling Ricardo Clark after removing him I know where at least some of that is coming from. Maybe it is time for a more international flavor and certainly one cycle is enough, but I hope, as the US continues to develop and grow as a soccer nation, that it does not become as 'hard' and even cutthroat as it seems to other places. I hope we can keep enough of our naivete, where for those few seconds, the coach was more concerned with Rico Clark, this human being, than about the outcome of the game. But maybe that's not how you get to be #1.

Dan Roudebush - June 29, 2010 02:22 AM (GMT)
we simply did not have the horses.

What starters did we have on Euros top 14?

None.

Call your favorite MLS club today and insist they start their own youth pro development program.

(Hopefully Martin Fisher isn't around to remind old timers that's all I think about.
:D :D :D :D :D :D )




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards