What Bob Bradley, Sunil Gulati had to say Tuesday
“We certainly believe that the work that went into past four years, the experience we’ve had, will really work for us as we put one cycle behind us and begin the cycle of the next four years,” Bradley said.
You can hear the entire hour-long news conference on U.S. Soccer’s podcast later … or you can scan the highlights here.
Among them:
Gulati allowed that, yes, he did think long and hard about the tendency for managers to do worse on their second World Cup go-round. It was a significant consideration and a concern… but not much more than that, he said.
“I came to the conclusion that the experience and the record, the work over the last four years, overcome any issues over the last four years of staleness,” Gulati said.
(Much more … read on)
Here’s what Bradley had to say about it. “I think around the coaching world, the ability as a coach to continue every day, every year, to challenge the players the right way, to know how in cetin moments to re-energize yourself, to re-focus yourself, in some ways to re-invent self … I think that is what coaching is about.”
Bradley specifically cited time spent around Manchester United and storied boss Sir Alex Ferguson as the kind of time that can create new ideas and improve the ways and means of his own performance.
Gulati would not comment on whether he interviewed Jürgen Klinsmann. He was asked twice about other candidates, and once specifically about Klinsmann. “We’re here to talk about Bob’s appointment,” Gulati said. “And we’re not going to talk about other conversations we may or may not have had with other candidates.”
As for the timing, Gulati said the decision had been made by Monday morning. The two talked and it became clear that both were at the point where they just needed to sort out the economic details. So Bradley flew to
The right call? Personally, I always thought Bradley did a good job overall. Like the rest of us, he had some bad moments. His lineup choices in the second-round match against
I honestly thought that Gulati would make a change. But I also thought Gulati, who is much more pragmatist than ideologue, would not make a change for change’s sake. I thought that if he turned up a very good candidate who could offer new ideas, then the choice might make itself. In absence of that (i.e., an eager Klinsmann or a globally hot commodity such as Chilean manager Marcelo Bielsa), I thought Gulati would happily fall back on Bradley. That is, apparently, exactly what happened.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I want to know why it wasn't Klinnsman?
free special ed.
I want to know why Klinsmann and Bradley are the only options? Isn’t this where we ended up 4 years ago? Why haven’t Sunil and co managed to come up with any viable alternatives in 4 years? Am I really supposed to believe that there are none out there?
by GKINMD on Aug 31, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wondering the same thing myself.
I’m of the mindset that no coach should have two cycles. Maybe I’m improperly gun-shy after Arena’s second go-round, but I saw that someone had reviewed how coaches did in their second Cup, and found that half of them did worse.
I’m not sure there’s a better MLS coach out there… but there certainly are a few that are on the same level.
I’m not ready to try and lure a non-Yank coach. Not sure it would really improve things anyway. Maybe it’s silly to change for change’s sake, but I think Sigi or Kinnear would have been solid choices.
Oh, well. Not much to talk about now.
and the other half?
If half did worse, doesn’t that mean that the other half did as well or better? If there’s a 50/50 chance he’ll do as well or better, I’ll take that.
I'm not thrilled
…but I’m not disappointed (or surprised) either. I don’t think there were any big names (or small ones) beating down the door to get this job. Klinsman was the only big name we’ve ever heard connected with this job…and I don’t see where anything would have changed as to the control issues that Klinsman wanted, so we’re back to Bradley. I was hoping for Bielsa myslef, but that was probably never likely.
I hope that Bradley can treat things as if he’s starting over, and avoid falling into the trap of hanging onto to “his guys” for one cycle too long. I also hope he’s willing to experiment tactically a little more than he has in the past.
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
Disappointed
and I am one who it will take a long time to get over the Ghana starting 11, specifically Ricardo Clark. I hope to get over it soon and I’d say after this news it’s about time I do.
That being said, I can’t say there were many other options out there apparently. The one thing I can be excited for is a familiarity that the USMNT will have which could be a good thing, let’s hope so.
Ready for October and the beginning of the next cycle.
Question: What kind of lineup do you expect to see in the October friendly in the middle of European club season?
by I need more Esteban on Aug 31, 2010 2:23 PM EDT reply actions
UGH
I want das German
" Only build on positives , don't stack the negatives...Instead of criticizing , what was a positive?" - Donavin Darius
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
Who, specifically
“His lineup choices in the second-round match against Ghana will remain a sore point for many passionate U.S. supporters”
Steve, you’ve said this (or something similar) a couple times in the last week or so; what part of the lineup, specifically, are you referring to? Clark?
I personally don’t have much of a problem with Bradley, and think that most of his shortcomings can be blamed on the shallow player pool he has to draw from. I did hope that we’d see someone new, though. Just for variety’s sake. I guess I wouldn’t get along with Gulati.
It wasn't a shallow player pool...
…That resulted in him starting Clark over players like Edu or Feilhaber. I even wonder if Stuart Holden would have been a better choice. It was bad decision making on the roster available that got us knocked out at the stage we did.
-Ben R.
Yes, Clark (and Robbie Findley)
I think most of the consternation was about those two starting choices. Maurice Edu had looked better than Clark. Findley had done little to that point. I didn’t get into the specifics in yesterday’s post because I’ve written extensively about it in the past … as we all have.
Clark Clark and more Clark
why start Clark?
Who gave the ball away in his own half leading to the first goal? Ricardo Clark is the answer.
by I need more Esteban on Sep 2, 2010 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Here's to hoping we practice coming back from early deficits...
This isn’t a horrible move, but it is horribly meh. Maybe we are all morons but it was clear to most people I know (many smarter than me) that Michael Bradley – who we all know is a constant in the lineup and mostly rightfully so – requires a “stay at home” defensive partner to be successful because his positioning is sometimes suspect. I don’t know that it was necessarily Clark or the fact that BB insisted on trying to play another two-way MF role with his son, but Edu seemed to figure out (perhaps on his own?) that he needed to stay home because MB was going to roam at will. This seemed to work for us, especially when we also brought in a few more technical players(e.g. Benny). If we all saw it, why couldn’t Bob see it? Didn’t the results when Edu and MB played together speak for themselves? And you’re right, Steve – it made it even worse when it seemed so obvious and then we see the starting lineup against Ghana and he reverts back! Sheesh I had kinda let it fade…thanks for reopening the wound! :)
I won’t give him too much crap for trying to fit Findley into the “speed” striker role since we really didn’t have many striker options anyway.

by 








