An Ode to Bob Bradley

So, I've felt for quite a while (like many US fans) that the useful period of the Bob Bradley era was done. He was both overrated and underappreciated, but such is the way with fickle national team fans. His entrance into the team could not have been worse. Gulati was salivating over Klinsman and his refusal to give Klinsman total control over the machinations of the national team was a good, principled team that prevented us from looking like a weak and desperate federation. Regardless, when someone is introduced as a caregiver, gets a couple effective results in friendlies and is then given the full-time position, it does not produce the wonder or fanfare of an All-Star appointment. But we need to look at Bob Bradley objectively, to see if he truly was a good manager for the national team. As has been much publicized in his departure, he went to four finals in his six appearances. And the two times he did not reach a final, it was the World Cup and the Copa America where his best player was either Feilhaber or Clark, but either way they were his two best players by a country mile (unless you count a Charlie Davies before he really leaped to a new level of play in 2008 and 2009). That's nothing to complain about, but obviously no one is going to win fans by blowing 2 goal leads in two of the finals, one where it is against our most hated rival and another when it is against Brazil in the biggest match in USMNT history (I will hear arguments for USA-Germany in 2002). In any case, I believe virtually all coaches grow stale in a second world cup cycle, and should be changed anyways. Capello will get even worse for England by my reckoning and if he doesn't then he is merely an exception. Bruce Arena gave the US its greatest cup run in modern history and then followed it up with 1 point and 1 goal scored by an American in group play in 2006. It was all just a matter of time. I'm going to give Bob Bradley grades on his tournaments and the other aspects that make a successful national team coach.

2007 Gold Cup Grade: A


Look, you can't win a tournament and not get an A grade. The US skated through the group stage without conceding a goal, and then 2-1'd their way through the knockout stages to the final. This wasn't a tournament without drama however. The USA-Canada game was marred by the fact that Canada was wrongfully denied an equalizer in the dying minutes of the match and in all honesty looked the better team in those closing minutes. It is never a good sign when Julian de Guzman and Iain Hume are killing you. USA advanced and then faced Mexico, where Benny Feilhaber reached his highest heights in the national team with this cracker of a goal:



In the end, it was a workmanlike solid tournament that got the desired goal. This was Mexico in an off-period and us in a peaking one, so I would have been surprised if we had not won. We didn't have the all-stars of the tournament (Donovan or Dempsey didn't even make the best XI) but we had cohesion and an indomitable spirit that made us all think maybe Bradley knew what he was doing after all.

2007 Copa America Grade: F



Look, there isn't much to say here. Clearly we did not prioritize this tournament. This was right after the Gold Cup, held no real importance from a pragmatic standpoint and for these reasons we sent a B team. However our B team sucked then and sucks now. It is a big achievement for our team to go to competitive tournaments and simply show up and play well, so going to one of those tournaments not ready to compete is going to produce what happened in Venezuela. We were outscored 8-2 en route to 4-1, 3-1 and 1-0 losses in the group stage. We held a lead for all of 2 minutes in the tournament via a 9' Eddie Johnson penalty vs Argentina which was quickly erased by an 11' equalizer by Hernan Crespo. I think that sentence says all you need to hear about how well we stacked up. Sure, it may be harsh to give this team an F but in terms of results it could not have gotten worse. We had 0 points and -6 goal differential. That would put us 12th in the tournament and there were 12 teams. You can't fault Bradley once he got there too much as his team really sucked, but I'm not going to give him credit for that sort of performance.

2009 Confederations Cup Grade: A-





Look, I don't get as excited about this tournament as others do. In a nutshell, we got creamed by Italy and Brazil, crushed Egypt, had a fluke shocker over Spain and then got outclassed by Brazil in the final. So we had 2.5 good games out of 5 if you want to count the first half of the final. That's not a good batting average. We went through the group stage only on one of those multi-layered combinations of things that must go right and thankfully they all did. If Brazil didn't cream Italy that bad, we would not have gone through. The tournament started out horrendously, with Rossi destroying us in the first match which really twisted the knife. Brazil then completely outclassed us in the second game and it really seemed all dead and gone. Then, to everyone in the team's and most importantly Bradley's credit, the team rallied, crushed Egypt and made it to the knockouts. This two-game stretch of Egypt and Spain is in my opinion the peak of Bradley's career. Getting blown out by both Italy and Brazil is not terribly unexpected for our team and Egypt is an African powerhouse so beating them is always impressive. The Spain game was an incredible soul-affirming moment, but any American fan who tells you that we were true 2-0 winners that day are kidding themselves. Altidore's goal was great for the turn (Casillas I'm sure feels he could have done better) and gave us all the hope we needed in him. Spain then unleashed the armada and fired shot after shot but our defense (and Howard) were unbelievable and pulled us through. Dempsey then put in the clincher using the strongest law in soccer physics: If the ball stays in the box too long, it's going to go in the net. Just outhustled the Spanish defense to the ball and kept his cool. The final against Brazil was as heartbreaking as the win against Spain was euphoric. Great counterattacking put us in a great position to win at half-time, but the first minute of the second half was punctuated by Luis Fabiano's clinical finishing and we all knew it was probably going to end poorly. They were a far better team and no one can truly complain but the way it turned out was just so heartbreaking. Howard and Dempsey made the Best XI, with Dempsey getting Bronze Ball and Howard getting the Golden Gloves. This is the tournament that made the US feel the most like a real competitive team. We beat Egypt and Spain, qualified ahead of Italy and lost 3-2 in the final. Our goalie was named the best of the tournament and best outfield player got the bronze ball behind only Kaka and Luis Fabiano. It was a moment when you really felt the team had turned the corner.

2009 Gold Cup Grade: D


Another case of second-tournament B-team syndrome. In the group stage, we killed Grenada (expected), solidly beat Honduras (impressive) and tied Haiti 2-2 (pathetic). Oh wait, Honduras sent a B team as well? Well nevermind then. We had to have extra time to beat Panama and then we beat Honduras B again on our way to the final with Mexico. I should point out that this is as well mostly a Mexico B. Sure Gio dos Santos is there, but the only four players who played in both the 2009 and 2011 final for Mexico are dos Santos, Torrado, Suarez and Castro. Granted, that's compared to 0 for the US, but still, the 5-0 drubbing was horrendous. It gave Mexico renewed confidence in their matches against us and signaled the end of our CONCACAF dominance. We all hoped it meant nothing but it clearly did. On the flip side, no player wants to play two international tournaments in one summer, and so you can't blame Bradley again for the fact that our B team is awful. His best players were Holden (MLS-version), Beckerman and Rogers. Rogers is injury-riddled now so it's unfair to judge but you have 2 career MLSers as arguably your best performers. There was not an impressive win in this tournament (as I stated, I'm not impressed beating Honduras B, Grenada or Panama) so to have only this 5-0 drubbing is a huge stain on the tournament.

2010 World Cup Grade: B+

Alternatively, I'm not as low on this tournament as others are. Look, we won our group with England in it, tied England and Slovenia and beat Algeria in the group stage. That's as close to a best-case scenario ahead of time as we probably could have had. The loss to Ghana is not as ridiculous as some members of the media made it out to be. It's just seeing that your lineup would be Ghana, Uruguay, Netherlands to the final IS one of the least intimidating ways to make a World Cup final, but we would have been underdogs in each of those games. This is not a huge upset or a shocker of a win. Ghana's best player, Gyan, was and is better than our best player, Dempsey. Let's go over the tournament though. We were, in all honesty, as good if not better over the course of the match with England. The Green howler is all anyone will ever remember from that match, but after that the wind was sucked out of England's sails and we really were the better team. Against Slovenia, we were poor in the first half and got punished, but got a deserved tie and this match will always be remembered for the wrongfully disallowed goal. So, I can understand the fan's frustrations when two probably-should-be-a-win games are ties and it takes a miracle in the 91' minute to beat Algeria and win us the group. We had a great group stage, and the fact that two ties should have been wins is immaterial if you get through. The loss to Ghana was....deserved. Sorry but they were better. I mean, Gyan, Asamoah, Boateng, Mensah....that is a good team. Their players play for better clubs and many of them ARE better. The US should have beat England because England collapsed after a goalkeeping error, the US should have beat Slovenia because Slovenia wilted under high-pressure tactics after going 2-0 up and the US should have beat Algeria because they may have been the worst team in the tournament. Only one of those games should we have won because we are definitively the better team. The other two because we were mentally tougher but in all honesty probably worse technically. This is a testament to a mentality instilled by Bradley but people need to understand that on paper we are underdogs in most games in non-Gold Cup tournaments. Against Ghana, we started Bornstein, Findley, Demerit and Clark. Those are not even good players on a world scale, probably not even average. I think this tournament was a bigger success for Bradley in some ways than even the Confederations cup because he did well for the entire tournament.

2011 Gold Cup Grade: C-

Look, the US looked like shit throughout this whole tournament. I even read other blogs talking about how they almost wanted the US to lose because they knew if we won, everyone would say all is right and none of the problems would be addressed. And I cannot say I totally disagree with that. This is the tournament, along with some poorly played friendlies, that did Bradley in. We never looked that good in this tournament, at any point. Our most impressive victories were either a solid win over Canada or 90%-as-solid win over Jamaica. Panama beat us and looked like they deserved at least a draw against us in the knockout stage, and I felt lucky that we beat Guadeloupe in normal time (despite a STUNNER from Altidore). The team was just so dull and lacked imagination and inspiration. I knew we would get up and play for Mexico because we always do because that is how rivalries work. The reason the only tournament I put a non-US picture is this one is because no matter how you cut it, this tournament cannot be made about the United States. This was Mexico's tournament and Mexico had all the storylines. Our only possible angles were that of a dull, aging team with nothing coming down the pipeline. Agudelo was mediocre at best, and there was simply nothing to say about the team. They didn't deserve to be champions and they weren't. Mexico, on the other hand, inherited virtually every single CONCACAF crown the US had in this tournament. Best player in CONCACAF? I'm sorry Donovan but Chicharito has that crown. Best Team? Clearly Mexico. Best Future? Again, Mexico. Best Attack? Again. Most Resilient? Most Mentally Strong? Most Balanced? Even Howard looked shaky in the tournament and while I'm not ready to say his title of best keeper in CONCACAF is gone it is surely up for grabs on current form. This loss hurt so much worse than almost any other I can remember because of all the implications. For years, USA beat the technically-superior Mexicans with superior tactics, organization and mental toughness. All of those advantages are gone. The talent pendulum has swung absurdly into their direction. The US needs a new golden generation and FAST if they want any chance to reclaim the Kings of CONCACAF title anytime soon and until then, expect to see Hernandez smiling as widely as he is right here every time he steps on US soil.

So, what does all this mean? In only one tournament did Bradley take seriously did I give him a bad grade (the last Gold Cup) and fittingly his poor performance in it cost him his job. It's hard to truly evaluate either the 2007 Copa America or 2009 Gold Cup because simply put, it's unfair on players to call them to two different tournaments. Either they play in Europe where you are now dooming them to a summer break that is completely filled with competitive soccer or they play in MLS where they miss half the season. I think the problems there are systemic. Personally, I think CONEMBOL and CONCACAF should combine into one conference and have one quadrennial tournament like UEFA, but if it weren't to happen, the Gold Cup itself should be quadrennial as well. And why not have it the same summer as Euros? That way if CONCACAF teams want to play in the Copa America, they don't have to send U23 squads. But more on that in later posts. My point was, it's really harsh to judge him too strongly on those two tournaments. So I won't.

On the other ones, there really could be no complaints about his performance pre-2011. He won the Gold Cup, lost in the final of the Confeds Cup and in the round of 16 in the World Cup. I think very few (realistic) American fans would be upset with that payoff. In competitive matches, he beat Mexico, Spain, Egypt and drew England. His team got stale and dull after the full cycle but so do most coaches, just look at World Cup-winning coach Lippi with Italy. You could say he relied too much on the same guys and did not do enough youth development but what else could he really do? It's not like the national team is the place for serious development of players. The national team cherry picks the best possible team of the available players. You don't want to have your eventual players to be unseasoned in international football, but those blaming Bradley for not bleeding in new guys are delusional. Not only did he take some serious risks with players but he HAD to. We simply aren't that deep. The only players who were truly undroppable were Howard, Bocanegra, Bradley, Donovan and Dempsey. And would anyone disagree with that? Those were our five best players over the last cycle. I understand that everyone was initially skeptical over the nepotistic choice of his son for CM, but he IS our best CM. Altidore started game after game because who else would you put there? Findley failed, Ching failed, Casey failed, Cooper failed, Gomez failed and so did everyone else but Altidore and Davies. Altidore and Davies were legitimately good as a one-two punch before Davies's horrific car crash. And even though Altidore isn't very good on a global scale (yet?), he is without a doubt our best current striker. The problem is he isn't a natural goal scorer the way a Chicharito is and he is better in the Heskey mold of striker, which means you need someone else up there with him. But after Davies, no one else is close to good enough. Bradley put in Agudelo and ADU in the last Gold Cup, both of which were bold choices and the inspired choice of Adu really should put to rest any idea that he was not a creative coach. His love of 2 CDMs may have made us dull, but you can't argue with his results during the last cycle, you really can't. He didn't bleed in new guys because they all sucked. Holden would have been in but he always got seriously hurt at the worst times. Because of that, he is really the only American player who is playing so well that you're saying why isn't a regular for the national team? Bradley's job was to take finished products more or less, and make a great team out of them. He tried so many different options to see who could work but the fact is, most of them couldn't. Klinsman has his work cut out for him, as his best players are getting older and older and there does not seem to be any hope breaking through the youth ranks. Bradley was a great coach for the USMNT, and one who I really hope history is kind to. Judging him on the 2010 World Cup cycle, he did fantastically well. I realize he was never the most popular choice, but he really did a great job and one that all US fans should acknowledge and appreciate. Thank you Bob Bradley.