Assessing Bob Bradley; it was always about South Africa
by Steve Davis on Jun 9, 2010 7:29 PM EDT
Email
Print
Oh, I know there can’t possibly be as many here as other places. If you counted every person from sea to shining sea who swears they know more than Bob Bradley himself about how best to manage the national team, then triple it, you still wouldn’t achieve anywhere near the number of similar armchair gaffers in Brazil. A few other countries, too.
But the fact is, the number of people out there who feel qualified to critically analyze the national team’s selections has reached a certain critical mass. And that doesn’t make Bob Bradley’s job any easier.
When I’ve mentioned this to Bradley in the past, he seems a little sensitive to it. Not so much that critics are out there. He’s a big boy and he knows the drill. He seems irritated sometimes that journalists ask him about it. He’s not sure there are as many Bradley Bashers out there as some of us seem to think. He could be right, too. One person screaming loud can be heard, after all, over 10 people silent in their blessed content. It’s the vocal minority effect.
Well, whatever you think of the man, I wrote today at SI.com that you should wipe the slate clean. All previous analysis is now pretty much moot. Why? Because all along, assessing his performance was always about the three games now at hand. Enjoy.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Heck...
… you could triple that number and square it, and you wouldn’t come close to the number of second-guessers in England. I spent a little time over there during the McClaren years, and my god, those people can bitch like champions.
I always felt like it was media manufactured for the most part, especially towards SVG
but I wasn’t there for the Steve McLaren experiment, so I was lucky to miss that (I got to watch it on gamecast, and in the e-mails from old teammates)
"Voetbal is pas totaal als je wint"- Coach Adun
"The greatest sin is to spurn the gift"- Coach Alistair
Poor McClaren
That guy never knew what hit him.
Not mediocre. Right about average
I dunno
I agree that his judgement should be based on results, but are we really going to be jumping for joy if we just make it out of group play? I mean, of course i’ll be happy, but I expect this team to be able to make it out of this group. For me what will really define him is how we do after group play.
Getting out of group play is a passing grade. His rating goes WAY up with every victory past that point.
Los Angeles is like Manchester. There is a red team that wins championships and a blue team that doesn't.
Agreed.
Getting out of group play proves that he can get the team to play to their potential. (And let’s be honest, as much respect as one has to give to Slovenia, the U.S. are better than them.) In the second round, it’s likely the U.S. would be playing Serbia or Germany… and if we were to beat either of those teams, that would be a major victory.
by vineyarddawg on Jun 10, 2010 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess it depends on HOW we get out of group play. Just getting out of group play would be a “C”, because thats what were supposed to do. No one celebrates average.
No one celebrates average ...at what level?
I’m pretty happy that I got my undergrad degree, even if I did manage it with a C average. In other words, I think pulling off a “C” average in grad school is still pretty damn decent. Which is my attempt to put some sort of education analogy on the World Cup.
Well, technically, you're both correct.
oc phil says that “getting out of group play is a passing grade.” You said it would be a “C.”
A “C” is, in fact, a passing grade. And I would agree with both of you.
While we’re talking about it, the only reason Bruce Arena is considered a rousing success (by some) is because the U.S. team got incredibly lucky in 2002 to make it past the group stage, and then they caught another break by drawing Mexico in the round of 16 and managed to beat them. If Portugal gets one goal against South Korea in that tournament, or if we catch Italy instead of Mexico from that group, we crash out and Arena doesn’t even continue as national coach, most likely.
If we go 2-1 (loss to England), which would definitely qualify us for the next round, I think that’s a “C+,” and maybe even a “B,” if we lose in a close game to Germany or Serbia. If we go 0-0-3, however, or 1-1-1, I’d say it’s more likely to be a “C-” even if we manage to advance.
by vineyarddawg on Jun 10, 2010 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe i expect too much, but if we don’t advance it’s utter failure, so I can’t see where just advancing will feel like enough has been done, or that the potential has been fulfilled.
I know Germany is Germany, but, how can we not be excited at potentially seeing a Ballack-less and more importantly Oliver Kahn-less germany?
I totally agree
I think we have a decent shot at any team emerging from Group D. If we actually managed to win our group, outside of Argentina none of the teams from A & B scare me, so we could have a relatively easy path to the semis. THAT would be a success.
by johnnycougar on Jun 10, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
With all due respect...
… you guys need to take a reality pill. The U.S. bring what is probably the most talented squad we’ve ever had, but we’re still only the champions of CONCACAF… the WAC of the soccer world. We’re like Boise State in football.
For our first game, we are playing one of the best qualifiers out of Europe, and in our second game, we’re playing a team that beat the Czech Republic, Poland, and Russia in World Cup qualifying.
If the USMNT advances past the group stage, it will be a major achivement. Any wins beyond that are merely icing on the cake. And as for Germany, Ballack may be out, but Oliver Kahn is 40 years old! Not even a keeper can stay in world-class form that long. And Die Mannschaft still has Schweinsteiger, Klose, Poldoski, Mertesacker, and Butt, among others. We could/should certainly expect to play respectably against them were we to meet, but I think expecting a victory would be a bit much.
by vineyarddawg on Jun 11, 2010 3:04 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the point is that NOT advancing is failure
I can’t see any way around that. Whether or not you think we’re worse than Slovenia, if we don’t advance it has to be considered a failure. Even if your expectations are that we don’t advance, what would you consider success?
By the way, Slovenia lost and tied the Czechs, and also lost to Northern Ireland. They have their ups and downs.
My point above was that we have the easier side of the bracket if we advance out of our group. The best teams on our side are arguably Argentina, England, Germany, USA and Mexico (maybe France). The best on the other side is Spain, Brazil, Holland, Italy and Ivory Coast / Portugal. I like our side a lot better than the other side.
by johnnycougar on Jun 14, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
