Am I being a Bob Bradley and U.S. Soccer apologist? I don't think so, but some folks see it that way.

View full size photo »

I wrote a piece for ESPN Soccernet about the United States’ World Cup rickety qualification process, one that just pulled successfully into port – although it did so wearing significant battle scars. 

I’m sure some people will criticize the piece for being too soft on U.S. manager Bob Bradley. Don’t believe me? Read the comments section on the piece in a few hours. Me? I mostly stay away from the comments section at Soccernet. It's unhealthy to do otherwise -- and it makes me say and do things that have the dogs cowering behind the sofa.

I see the growing world of U.S. soccer supporters the same way I see the State Fair of Texas. It’s a fascinating place, full of every conceivable manner of souls. I love being there and experiencing the diversity of thoughts, ideas … amount of teeth. But I can’t do it every day and can never hang around too long. At some point, I have to leave behind the yummy and horribly non-nutritious food and the wildly disparate assortment of styles and attitudes, retreating back to places more chummy and accommodating. 

So, yes, people who know everything there is to know about soccer -- just ask, they'll tell you -- will write me off as being a Bradley and U.S. Soccer apologist.

Here’s the thing with managers and their choices, especially as they relate to Bradley:

Too many people see it all wrong. To their way of thinking, if you’re not ripping the guy, you’re agreeing with him. So they see you as an apologist.

That’s hardly the case. I frequently see things differently than the U.S. manager. But that doesn't mean that I'm right and he's wrong.  I understand that and make the proper allowances.

I just understand a couple of immutable truths that too many fans conveniently overlook.

First, coaches can’t make decisions in a vacuum. In other words, there’s always a bigger plan. You may wonder why he starts this guy over that one. That’s fair enough. But few fans understand everything that’s going into those choices. What are the particular matchup problems a particular day brings? What about a little injury a player may be carrying? Yellow cards? How the individual conforms that day's collective tactics? Is there another match coming up? How does one player combine with another one? And on it goes.

A good manager sets up players for success in the long and short term. They identify what players do well and, generally speaking, don't ask otherwise.

Second, so many fans don’t understand that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So they throw things out willy-nilly, never mind the consequences. "Bradley is an idiot because he won’t play Jose Francisco Torres!" Well, yeah, maybe Torres can do some things on offense that others in the U.S. camp cannot. On the other hand, what do you lose in terms of shape, experience, ability to defend opposition set piece action, etc.? I don’t really want to reignite the Torres debate here. That’s not the point.

The point is that fans don’t have to consider these things. Bradley does. And if he gets it wrong, the entire qualification process could be left high and dry. Is he overly conservative at times? Perhaps.

But are they in the World Cup? Yup.

The manager can't just throw things against a wall willy-nilly and hope that something sticks. The rest of us can.  Fans have the luxury of "selecting" lineups and tactics without those nasty consequence. If we're wrong, well, we just order another beer and turn our attention elsewhere. "Hey, how are the fries at this place?"

I’m not saying that fans must agree with the manager’s choices. Reasonable debate is wonderful and probably a First Amendment right -- although I doubt the founding fathers were too concerned about whether Bradley should deploy one or two holding midfield specialist.  I just roll my eyes at the notion that somebody who sees a few matches on television knows more than a man who spends every waking moment considering every element of his team.

Managers do suffer from blind spots occasionally. Bradley may not always be correct in his assessments, but they come from solid ground, from a place where research, instinct, ultimate knowledge of the source and years of experience meet. Long story short: I may not agree with Bradley on everything ... but I'm smart enough to recognize that just because I don't see what he sees, that doesn't mean I'm right and he's wrong.

I know, I know. "Never mind all that, Davis. Bob Bradley must go!"

Sharpen your pens and read the piece if you like.