Monday, August 30, 2010

Bob Bradley with US Soccer thru 2014

All the Bradley haters are having a bad day - Bob is on until after the 2014 World Cup. I'd have to say (with all due respect to the people who I have talked to about this in the past) that I am not convinced that this is a bad decision. Feel free to fire away with why I am an idiot but the man has accomplished a lot with the team. Read the press release from US Soccer here.

(Link updated)

12 comments:

pele1410 said...

A) Your link broke. I think they changed it this morning because several other websites had broken links too. Here is the updated link.

B) I hate Bob. Bob is a tactical baffoon.

C) Having the same coach for 2 World Cup cycles causes teams to become stale. New talent isn't brought in as quickly as it should be.

D) 38-21-8 in our crap Confederation is not nearly good enough.

E) Bob is unwilling to change formations when the need arises. This goes back to being a tactical baffoon.

F) Starting Clark ever, let alone in the knockout stages.

G) The entire Davies situation. But Gooch was healthy enough to go...

H) That's all for now. Didn't plan for it to be this long.

I) I HATE BOB

pele1410 said...

J) Let us not forget letting Mexico wipe the floor with us at home in the last Gold Cup final 5-1.

K) Oh, and that little stunt in the Copa América that means we'll never get invited back.

pele1410 said...

L) Robbie F*cking Findley!?!?!?

pele1410 said...

Not done.

M) We led for a whole 3 minutes or some such number during the entire World Cup. We would consistently not show up for the first 15 minutes of a game. That speaks to preparation and that's mostly the coach's responsibility.

wilablog said...

I'm not sure if it is the right decision or not...but stuff like starting Clark and the Gooch situation involve a lot more information than you or I have insight into, so I think that criticizing items like that (IMHO) is a little much. Speaking as a fellow coach who also gets criticized for my decisions...

pele1410 said...

I criticize the Gooch/Davies situation because Bob stated before he announced the 25 man roster that he wouldn't bring anyone who wasn't fully fit. So he then dropped Davies and Ching. Fair enough. I'm not arguing that he should've brought a half-injured Davies (well I would, but that's a different argument).

Fast forward to the 2nd game and Gooch doesn't play the full 90. 3rd game he doesn't even play at all. Because apparently he isn't healthy.

wilablog said...

Right, so the question is why did he bring him. Without knowing what really happened, I think it is dangerous to use it as a definitive point against his coaching ability. That's what I am getting at. Again, defending my species.

pele1410 said...

Maybe, but it was 1 point out of M points.

Put simply, Gooch wasn't healthy, but somehow he gets on the plane when Davies and Ching don't. Davies would've been inspirational and a team motivator at the very least (not like Holden saw much time, 4'). Ching would've been a good aerial threat for all those crosses we sent in to our forwards, who have scored something like 0 goals with their heads. And he's got actual international experience. Gomez, Buddle and Findley combined for like 3 caps before they went to SA.

While we weren't in the training camps and maybe didn't hear everything, given the media exposure with ESPN, US Soccer's daily interviews and live shows, Twitter, the reporters that went like Ives and Goff, it seems unlikely that there would have been something important that we didn't hear of.

I didn't justify my criticism of Clark because I ran out of time and didn't have the data handy to make my case. It centered around the fact that Rico is a liability while Mo Edu has been much better for us. Prime example the red card in the Confederations Cup and his invisibility against Fat Frank and Stevie G (who have proven incapabable of working together). Mo Edu's pass rating is considerably higher (if I remember correctly) and is a much better pairing with Bradley Jr.

I could really go on for days about this.

wilablog said...

Yeah - I know you could go on for days. I'm not trying to argue against your points specifically at all. I was just using two as an example to illustrate my opinion, which is:

We don't operate under the same set of information as the coach, so criticizing decisions without having that same set of information is inherently flawed. Media exposure doesn't guarantee accuracy of information, so I don't view the exposure granted to US Soccer this past World Cup cycle as evidence that we know enough to criticize the coach's (or Sunil's) decisions. Numerous examples can be cited to demonstrate that complete and accurate information does not have a direct correlation to the amount of news coverage a topic receives (especially through outlets like Twitter and various blogs).

mdeclouet said...

...and from some meager team in the EPL, he's a worthy candidate to take an interest in, so he can't be that poor a coach, but probably a poor argument (I'm not knowledgable enough to make a case one way or another). I'm not against the re-signing, so much as I'm curious about the Klinsmann rumors that were flying around.

wilablog said...

Interesting thing about Klinsmann, if you are to believe what is talked about in some media outlets, is that he was never the tactical brains behind Germany, Joachim Löw was.

pele1410 said...

That us correct about Klinnsman, that's why he didn't last at Bayern. I've never been in favor of him as the US coach. The rumors about him I suspect were either A) bargaining by Sunil against Bob or B) actual interest which would be very bad on Sunil's part. Klinnsman wanted total control of the entire US system, from the Nats down to the U-10 kids. Sunil and USSF were net going to give that up.

And judging by the same media outlets and insiders, I'm not sure how much interest Villa really had in Bob. They've kept the guy who took them right out of Europe.

My vote is for Dom Kinnear, except I don't want him to leave the Dynamo.