Thoughts on Bradley

Much has been written of late about Bob Bradley the current US Men´s National Team Coach, especially with the generally poor performance of the USMNT since the World Cup.  Losses in friendlies to Spain (0-4) and Paraguay (0-1) were followed by a desultory Gold Cup campaign including a loss in the group stage to Panama (1-2) and eeking out a win against minnows Guadaloupe (1-0) before being dismantled in the final by Mexico, 2-4, in a match where the US had a lead of 2-0 with a quarter of the match played.

To be fair, my thoughts are based on my perceptions ¨from the cheap seats¨ and my suppositions may be incorrect.  However, I will try and be as clear as possible about the assumptions I make, so as to validate my conclusions in the case my assumptions are, in fact, correct.

First, I truly believe it was a huge mistake to offer a four year extension to Bradley´s contract after the World Cup, and an even bigger mistake for Bradley to accept.  That is not a reflection of past performance: the US was credible in the World Cup, getting out of group and going out with a noble defeat to Ghana, and was brilliant in the Confederations Cup in 2009, scoring a famous victory against Spain and outplaying Brazil for 45 minutes before the Brazilians put their best performance in for years (or since) to come back and win the final.

Bradley staying on for a second World Cup cycle is madness -- anything less than a final appearance will appear to be a step backward for him, and by reflection, the US program.  A WC final appearance is beyond our capabilities, thus the contract never should have been tendered, and Bradley committed professional suicide by accepting.  Perhaps he didn´t want to return to MLS, but after the 2014 World Cup, or his sacking, he will lucky to get a part-time job in the NPSL.  Had Bradley and the USMNT parted ways, a new coach could have come in, talked about the great work of Bradley as his predecessor, and moved the program forward.  Everyone would have looked brilliant and all of the pressure would be on the new coach.  As it stands, the squad looks stale, and Bradley out of ideas.

Which brings us to the Mexico match.  First, to be fair, the Mexicans are superb, probably the best Mexico side in my memory.  They are solid in the back, creative in the middle, and lethal up top.  De la Torre has the squad playing a flowing, dynamic style we are more accustomed to seeing from Brazil than from Mexico.  After the wreckage left behind by Ericksson, it took the FMF a couple of tries, but they have found the man for the job in ¨El Chepo.¨

I have not gone back and watched the match again, nor done a detailed analysis.  I think my impressions watching the match as an involved spectator are, however, telling.  Watching the match live, I felt like the Americans were wholly unprepared for the match.  Curiously enough, the Mexicans had exactly the same starting XI, and broadly the same game plan they had shown against Honduras.  It wasn´t as though de la Torres changed seven players and completely re-organized the squad.  I saw no evidence they came out to play Mexico at all.  Rather, they appeared to be a skilled team facing an opponent about whom they knew nothing.  That, I think, is the most damning thing one can say about a manager: the squad wasn´t ready.

To whit: the American organization was nonsensical.  Far too much space was allowed between the lines with Jones and Michael Bradley playing in traditional central roles of a 4-4-1-1, allowing space which Barrera, Guardado, and most especially Dos Santos eagerly exploited.  The Americans looks as though they expected the wide forwards to play as English wingers would in the 60s: carry the ball to the by-line and hump it into the box for big lad wearing the #9 shirt to put a head on it or the clever chap in the #10 shirt to pick up the rebound.  The Mexicans however, were much cleverer than that, Guardado and Barrera seamlessly exchanging positions with Dos Santos and rarely attempting to make the byline, but rather get the ball into dangerous areas early.  Cherundolo was the only American defender who looked like he might have an answer to the Mexican movement of and off the ball. 

Thus we come to our second baffling decision by Bradley, the substitution of Cherundolo at the eleventh minute.  He was injured, but it was clear from his reaction to the substitute´s board that he felt he could continue.  Could he?  I don´t know.  And neither did Bradley.  Bradley had the best medical staff the USSF could muster on the sidelines and he did not avail himself of their services.  Rather than pull Cherundolo for an evaluation and play with ten for a couple of minutes, Bradley made the classic amateur (and NCAA coach with an open-substitution rule) mistake of pulling the player.  It betrays a lack of understanding of the game to play with ten, a lack of trust in the medical staff to make a quick determination, a lack of trust in the players to play down, and critically a lack of preparation.  Any manager at senior level will train the squad to play with ten.  With an injury or ejection, the squad adjusts into a predetermined organization and pattern of play and adjusts as needed.  Bradley´s quick substitution leads me to believe that preparation, fundamental to anyone working at senior level, simply wasn´t done.

Next is the substitution itself.  Anyone who saw the match knows Bornstein was woeful.  Sometimes a player is dreadful (unless the player is Kenny Dalglish or Roberto Baggio) and there is nothing the manager can do about it.  Fair enough.  However, Lichaj, moved from one side to the other in the switch, is a telling case.  He looked completely lost, as if he had no idea what his fundamental task was or his primary marking responsibility on the right and Guardado had the freedom of the park.  It appeared to me as if Lichaj had no idea that it was a possibility he might change position.  If that supposition is correct, that is a double failure: first, each player should broadly understand every other role on the pitch, and secondly, the manager should have a series of Plan Bs available and communicated to the players before the match begins.

However, the Americans, much against the run of play, went up 2-0.  Bradley´s response was, well, watch the Mexicans score.  With a 2-0 lead, especially when you have been dominated in the center of the park, a response is needed.  As the US were playing without a true forward, a plethora of options were available to either press the Mexicans high, denying Castro and Torrado time on the ball, or to back in and choke the space between Hernandez and the backing trio of Barrera, Dos Santos, and Guardado.  Instead, no adjustments were made, and the Mexican class shone through, and less than half an hour after the US went up 2-0, Mexico gained the lead.

In the final twenty minutes, I couldn´t tell you what system or organization the US were playing, and I am trained to be able to do so.  I am sure I could spend a little time with the film and give you some meaningful diagrams, but the impression was a squad without any ideas and a manager grasping at straws.  The Agudelo for Bedoya substitution changed nothing but play Agudelo out of position and thus generate more passing opportunities to Guardado due to Agudelo´s naïveté in defense, and the Klejstan for Adu substitution wasn´t noticeable at all, as Klejstan was just as anonymous for the last ten minutes as Adu had been for the fifteen minutes prior.  Although to be fair, Adu was probably the best player in a US shirt for much of the first hour.

So -- where do we stand?  If my suppositions are correct: that the squad was not adequately briefed, that there was no plan B, that no preparation was made to play a man down, and from observation: Cherundolo was substituted without a hands on evaluation by medical staff and no meaningful adjustments were made to the changing situation, then I have to say, Bradley must go.

No doubt Bob Bradley has been a loyal and valuable servant to US Soccer.  However, a change must be made and a manager with tangible senior (and preferably non-MLS) experience must be brought in.  To continue with Bradley is a disservice to the game, to our country, and to the legacy of Bob Bradley, already past high-water mark and receding fast.