World Cup Qualifying: United States-T&T report card and more stuff

• 

  Bill said,

  Glad to see the ratings back!

• 

  Creaven said,

  Thanks for covering for me the last match .

• 

  Bill said,

  Earlier this week I mentioned Grant Wahl’s interview with Bob Bradley on the Sports Illustrated website. I read it with interest, and came away feeling a bit more warmly toward Bradley. He watches a lot of soccer, and seems to have a deep knowledge of the game. During the process of reading the article, interview I kept on wondering why does he seem so out of depth as our National side’s coach? On the other hand, the recent performance of the National team seemed to confirm everything we dislike about his reign as coach. Two tepid, mediocre and inept performances against competition we should be dominating. Two wins and vital points for World Cup qualifying were earned, but in a manner that leaves many of us scratching our collective heads.

  I’ll make a confession here; I’m not cut out to coach. I was a reasonably successful athlete, playing American football through high school, starting on a State Championship team (growing up in Oklahoma with a conservative father didn’t leave any room for Soccer). My adult life and role as a parent helped the beautiful game find me through my children. I volunteered to coach, and feeling over my head, I immersed myself in the game, trying to learn everything I could. I became a referee. As long as volunteering and showing up was the chief measure of success, I was a good coach, but competitive soccer turned out to be my undoing as. I can’t deal with the politics of the parents, or effectively coach my own child. My personality simply isn’t right for it.

  What’s the point of my confession? I’ll state up front that Bob Bradley is probably a gifted coach, certainly far more gifted than I am. By all accounts, I have no place criticizing his ability. Nonetheless, I have no problem stating that he is not a World Class coach, and way over his head right now. As the interview sunk in, the foundation of what he is doing wrong became clearer. It has to do with his fundamental view of how the game is played and what make the difference between winning and losing. In the interview, he lays out the evidence of his squad selection, and choice of tactics. What I find the most troubling is that I believe his view is in line with the standard view of the game in the United States. This means that even if we rid ourselves of Bradley as the National side’s coach, we’ll still have his basic philosophy in another form.

  What does he believe about the game? He gets it right in the sense that the game is decided in a handful of moments, where mistakes are made and the side that makes fewer mistakes and capitalizes on their opponents mistakes will win. Bradley’s problem starts with his belief that creating and capitalizing on mistakes depends on having better athletes. He also takes the conservative approach so as not to allow opponents to capitalize or create the mistakes to be taken advantage of against us.

  This explains almost everything that a lot of us fans can’t stand. He will choose the better athlete over the better player. This explains the absence of Torres, and the probable failure to give Castillo a shot at left back. It explains why Dempsey who has played horribly, continues to get on the team sheet. It explains his cautious defensive tactics, and why the defensive line clears balls up field rather than using skill to maintain possession. In keeping with this approach, he also denies the USA from having the players who can “unlock” the other team’s defense except through players with exceptional speed thus only giving us a counter-attacking approach to offense. In a nutshell, it explains why we are mediocre, and we can expect a three and out performance in South Africa.

  What really irks me about his philosophy is the seeming failure to understand how this game is different. The approach is quintissentionally American in terms of sport where size matters. American football and basketball is dominated by athletes who are freaks of nature particularly in terms of their size. Baseball’s recent steroid abuse is more of the same. In soccer brilliance in terms of skill or ingenuity and intelligence can create a chances out of nothing or destroy an opponents chance. Those three characteristics: skill, ingenuity and game intelligence succinctly describe what soccer in the USA is missing. Despite knowing about the finest in tactics and the history of the game, Bradley seems to deploy none of it when structuring our game plan. I’ve long held that the failure to innovate at the coaching level will hold the USA back. What Bradley does is worse, our tactics aren’t even modern; they are regressive and second rate. Our team (and the MLS, college and youth soccer for the most part) tries to play like teams in the English Championship (i.e. second division).

  For the USA to progress to being a soccer power, we need to first embrace the tactics of the modern game. Beyond embracing the modern game, the USA needs coaches who innovate and change the game in some creative way. We need to develop players who are soccer players first (with skill, intelligence and ingenuity), and athletes to boot. Our current generation of coaches and players probably cannot do this, but the next generation could.

  This leads to my frustration with the soccer establishment in the US. Change is needed for the US to improve internationally, but the soccer establishment is woefully conservative. Youth players succeed by being big and fast, skill and intelligence are secondary at best. Coaches succeed with stale, defensive and overly physical tactics. The referees allow the game to verge of being brutal, allowing the above stated tactics to succeed. Skill and a possession (Latin style) of play are ultimately unsuccessful competitively because of the how much physical play is allowed. All of this culminates in what we see on the pitch at the National level. All those little things happening around the Country at practices, in parks and fields every Saturday leads to international mediocrity. The rank and file soccer establishment is fine with Bradley, because he thinks just like they do.

  p.s. The La Liga game on ESPN2 this morning was “un-televized” for some combination of Auto-racing and Tennis. US Open I can understand, but drag racing is unforgivable. I guess deep down, I should have expected ESPN to screw this up.

• 

  lbgc said,

  I feel your pain Bill!

  I also coach youth soccer. I’ve been at it for 10 years and finally feel I’m actually starting to ‘coach’ rather than just organize activities for my players.

  Your comments about more talented players getting beat by more physical less talented players is spot on. I had a girl on my team get her head taken off by a boy on the other team this past weekend. She had to leave the game and her parents took her to a Patient First clinic her arm was hurting her so bad. What really upset me was this girl has been taught all her life to ‘blast it outta there’ anytime she gets the ball. I finally had her gaining some confidence on the ball and dribbling it. I’m afraid this other kid took all that away. The other coach apologized saying the kid is also an american football player.

  Anyway…it’s a vicious cycle…the US National Team displays this crummy version of play and most people watching it want to emulate it at the youth level…

  Good to have the ratings back Creavan…don’t blow your $13.60 all in one place.

• 

  Shawn Gillogly said,

  I’m all for using Holden on the flank, Dempsey as an AMC, and Altidore as a sole striker in the Honduras match in a 4-4-1-1. We can’t play the 4-2-2-2 against a team that will actually force our wingers to defend. The formation is too narrow and exposes our lack of pace in our fullbacks.

  Bradley’s problem is three fold. One of the aspects is actually commendable, unfortunately.

  1) He’s very loyal. At the club level even, this is a good thing. Players believe in him, they generally play for him. And they want to succeed for him. At the national team level, it really doesn’t help as much though. Players aren’t going to be mercenary about national teams, they’ll play or they won’t. And that stubborn loyalty means that players who have no business on the pitch get picked over and over.

  2) He’s got blinkers on in-match. He is very good in his pre-match tactics, generally. He has the right ideas typically about how to exploit the other side. The Costa Rica debacle aside, I can’t think of a match where he didn’t have the right idea to deal with each team. This is unlike Arena, for whom tactics were hunch-based. Where Bradley falls flat is when it’s time to adjust pre-match tactics to the realities of the in-match situation. He’s too slow with subs. He’s too predictable when he does make them.

  3) He’s not sure how to use his best players. The problem with Dempsey in the lineup is he is simply exasperated with how he’s played. Bradley cannot decide how best to use him. It’s clear that both at New England and in Fulham, he is best served in the withdrawn striker/AMC free-role. He’s wasted on the flank. Not because he can’t cross (he can). But his creativity is not served when he’s locked into flank play. And the more he has to defend, the more he laments not being able to get forward and attack defenders.

  Lots of coaches have this problem. They prefer grinders to creative players. Unfortunately, in a national team, you need both.

• 

  Bill said,

  I think Dempsey is a special case worth thinking about. The Dempsey I see in the Fulham shirt has very little resemblance to the Dempsey I see in the USA shirt. Why!?

  1) Theory 1: Dempsey is being misused in the USA lineup, and in a good role in Fulham. The reality is there isn’t much difference in position and he has a lot more freedom in the USA shirt. At Fulham he works his socks off, plays defense and does the dirty work. In the USA he is a lazy showboat… WTF?

  2) Theory 2: He has to perform to get on the Fulham teamsheet; for the USA he’s an automatic choice. At Fulham he’s one of the guys and not THE STAR. For the USA he’s the big fish (competing only for being the #1 star). As a result, he doesn’t do the hard work of a squad player.

  I think its a little bit of Theory 1, mostly on the basis of how the USA plays tactically, i.e. little possession play, and mostly Theory 2, he’s not being challenged for playing time. Both problems lie squarely on Bob Bradley for blame. He is mismanaging Dempsey quite badly. Frankly, he should be benched unless he starts performing at a level appropriate for his ability.

  For Dempsey’s part, he should realize that the hard work that he seems to avoid in the USA shirt is necessary if he wants to be the star… he is not Christiano Ronaldo! in the USA shirt he seems to act like he thinks he is.

  While we’re on the topic of CR9, the one reason he isn’t the best player in the World now is his failure to do off the ball, and defensive work. On the other hand, Messi works with or without the ball, passes brilliantly and plays defense plus scoring goals that are breathtaking. This game is a team game, and contributing to the team is a lot more than just scoring goals. This is something our Dempsey should start practicing while in the USA shirt, Fulham Dempsey seems to get it.

• 

  Shawn Gillogly said,

  It’s a lot of part 1. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. Sure he’s being a bit petulant. But it’s not about being ‘the star.’ It’s about being frustrated about being played in a non-optimal role.

  At Fulham he is an AMC or a withdrawn striker. His job is attack, attack, and attack, often in a free role. At New England he was typically employed the same way.

  With Bradley, he’s expected to cover the flank, and then…if the ball comes to him…he can cut inside and play aggressively. But with neither fullback pacey enough to protect against a fleet winger, Dempsey is expected to do a LOT more defending than he is with at club level.

  Tactically, that’s about the difference between being employed as a defensive central midfielder or a fullback. The roles and expectations on Dempsey are radically different.

• 

  Beaumont Livingston said,

  It’s real simple about Onyewu not playing at Milan – he isn’t good enough. I think Giuseppe Favalli is rated above him, let alone Kaladze, Nesta & Thiago Silva. He really might not play except for the Coppa Italia, which would be terrible for us. HE wasn’t even in the 18 for Livorno match!

• 

  Bill said,

  I took a look at Dempsey’s position at Fulham. You can get an idea of where he is playing by looking at the tracking of his passes/tackles on the Guardian website (their “chalkboards”).

  Last season he was almost exclusively deployed as a wide midfielder. This season he has mostly played the same with the exception of the game with Aston Villa, where he was more central and probably more importantly because Murphy wasn’t in the lineup.

  I can contrast this with his position via Castrol stats at the FIFA website for the Confederations Cup. There he invariably ends up being more central than Donovan, and perhaps is the most consistently central of the “offensive” US players.

  This would seem to indicate that he may be most effective in a wide role, and at least a Fulham is second choice for Central-Attacking mid behind Murphy. I still think its more attitude and effort that he lacks in the US shirt plus the decided downgrade in tactical quality represented by the USA’s chosen approach.

• 

  Beaumont Livingston said,

  And there is no chance Mourinho leaves Inter right now for Argentina – he is the highest paid person, including players, in Serie A. The only way he would leave is if someone bought him out of his contract, which Argentina is not in a financial position to do.

• 

  Bill said,

  OK. Now the USA is in South Africa, and Bradley is vindicated… with Conor Casey no less. I’m happy for our collective success, but fear that it will delay the changes needed to make the game flourish.

  Sounds like its time for a good discussion of the future and our fate in the WC. I for one believe that we win despite Bradley, not because of him.

Add A Comment