Was US Soccer Right to Fire Bob Bradley?

So the big news out of the sports world today is that the US Men's soccer team fired its coach, Bob Bradley.  I think people generally fall into two polar camps when it comes to Bradley.  There are those who think he does a very good job and understands the American player exceptionally well, and others who think he's a doofus who can't do anything right.  The second camp has two primary lines of criticism- one is that the US isn't creative in the attack and plays an ugly "boot the ball up the field and pray" style, while the other is that Bradley is inflexible in his player selections and formation choices.  I think the first line of criticism is completely wrong, while the second has some merit.  In this post, I think I'm going to sum up what I thought of Bradley's tenure as a whole, and then talk about what I think he did right and wrong.

As a whole, I think Bradley did a good job.  The results kind of speak for themselves.  He won a Gold Cup.  He took the team to the final of the Confederations Cup, beating Spain along the way.  He qualified for the World Cup easily.  And he won his group at the World Cup.  That makes him easily the most successful coach in US soccer history.  Did he have some luck along the way? Sure.  He also had some bad luck (refereeing decisions against Algeria and Slovenia in particular at the last World Cup tended to go against the US).  But he put the team in a position to succeed.  And they did a pretty decent job.  I think what was ultimately behind that is that he understood the players he had, and put them in a position to be successful.  He didn't try to turn Michael Bradley (a holding midfielder by nature) into a playmaker, or try to make Landon Donovan a central playmaker when his best spot was on the wing.  The team played a compact, counterattacking style, and it played that style pretty well.

Which is why the first line of criticism that you hear is so misguided.  The US plays boring soccer under Bradley, they would say.  The midfielders don't possess the ball.  There's no creativity in the attack.  All of that is true.  But that's 100% not on Bradley.  Could the US play possession and score exciting goals against, say, Belize? Sure.  It'd be a lot of fun and we'd all love it.  Now imagine if they tried to do the same thing against Brazil.  The result would be an epic disaster.  Like when the MLS All-Stars played Man United last night, but probably an order of magnitude worse.  But why is that the case, one might ask.  Spain plays beautiful, flowing possession soccer and scores boatloads of goals.  Well, the difference is that Spain has David Villa and Fernando Torres scoring those goals, and Xavi, Andres Iniesta and Xabi Alonso setting them up.  The US has... Jozy Altidore up top, supported by Clint Dempsey and Landon Donovan.  If they're lucky, Stu Holden  isn't injured.  The big difference between Spain and the US is simple: Xavi and Iniesta are brilliant passers who go full games without giving the ball away.  The US has... Mike Bradley, Maurice Edu and Jermaine Jones.  Who give the ball away on half of their passes, and aren't creative.  So, where Xavi can make defenders pressuring him look foolish, the US's center mids are prone to cough the ball up if they try to possess under pressure.  And if that happens even against a team like Mexico (to say nothing of Brazil or Spain), the results are going to be devastating.  Especially when your center backs are Clarence Goodson and Carlos Bocanegra instead of Lucio and Thiago Silva.  The US under Bradley played a system that fit its personnel.  Players were disciplined, defended diligently, and attacked opportunistically.  We packed the midfield and created opportunities on counter-attacks and set pieces.  And, for the most part, it worked in a way that trying to pretend we had creative midfielders wouldn't have.

On the other hand, Bradley did have a tendency to trust the same players game in and game out.  Everyone watching knew that Jonathan Bornstein was a disaster at left back.  To a slightly lesser degree, so was Jonathan Spector.  If those were really his least bad options (and quite possibly they were; post-Patella tear Oguchi Onyewu isn't good in the middle, and Jay DeMerit is over the hill, so Carlos Bocanegra might actually be desperately needed at CB), he needed to adjust his lineup; either shift a holding mid out to cover the left back, or have the left midfielder (usually Dempsey) track back and support him.  If they were supposed to do that, I didn't see it, since every time one of Bornstein or Spector was in the game, they ended up getting beaten like a drum by any half-decent winger (the latest example was against Mexico in the Gold Cup final; once Steve Cherundolo got hurt and Eric Lichaj had to shift to right back, Mexico had a field day funneling its attacks up the right side, taking advantage of Bornstein.  And it wasn't a single game-- it was something that has been happening since Bradley took over, but he really hasn't solved.

So the question is, what can we really hope for from a new coach? Well, a coach can only do so much.  The key is players.  And even having a guy who's great at developing talent isn't all that much of an advantage, since national team coaches don't get enough time with their teams to do a lot of player development.  So the next coach has to be, first and foremost, a tactician who can motivate players to do great things.  Unfortunately, the best tacticians are super expensive, and aren't too desperate to come to the US.  Guus Hiddink is happy in Europe.  Jose Mourinho has no reason to coach any national side at this point, and especially the US.  And other top tacticians are either unavailable, not interested, or both. 

So where does that leave us? Well, the only realistic options are bringing in a young foreign coach who has some interest in managing here, or bringing in another American who knows the American players and their strengths.  I definitely lean toward the latter, and here's why.  The prototype for the former approach is Jurgen Klinsmann.  He was a legend for Germany, but since retiring, has come to the US, even playing in men's leagues in Southern California under an assumed name.  He's still young (turns 47 in two days), and has had some coaching success.  Well, at least on the surface.  All of that falls apart under some scrutiny.  Klinsmann's tenure as Germany coach is actually completely unremarkable.  His reputation is built solely on the fact that he took Germany to a third-place finish at the 2006 World Cup.  But that "success" falls apart under scrutiny.  Germany actually played really badly in the run-up to the World Cup.  The complaint was that they lacked talent.  But the reality is that the German national team is ALWAYS better than the sum of its parts (heck, before the 2010 World Cup, who thought Mesut Ozil and Thomas Muller were top-quality players?).  Just look at their World Cup history-- they finished 3rd in 2010, 3rd in 2006, runners-up in 2002, quarterfinalists in 1998 and 1994, and champions in 1990.  In that context, 3rd place is about par for the course.  Or at least it would be before you consider that the 2006 World Cup was held in Germany.  Just so it's clear how much of an advantage that is, hosting any international event is HUGE.  You don't have to travel to another country.  The crowd is overwhelmingly in your corner in every game.  And you're familiar with the stadium.  Until 2010, a World Cup host had NEVER failed to get out of the group stage.  In 2002, South Korea got to the semifinals as hosts (and even a down Germany is MILES more talented than South Korea, whether Guus Hiddink is coaching or not).  France never won a World Cup until they hosted it.  Conclusion: Hosting is HUGE.  In that context, Germany's performance doesn't look all that impressive.  Then, in his next managerial job, he took over Bayern Munich (by far Germany's biggest, most prestigious club, and always one of the best in Europe), and was run out before he could finish one season.  At Bayern, if you don't win the league, you're a failure.  Klinsmann bombed out of the Champions League at the quarterfinal stage, and his squad was in third place in the Bundesliga when he was sacked.  So why do we want Klinsmann? Because he likes America, speaks good English, is famous, and his Germany squad didn't implode playing at home in 2006? Doesn't sound like much of a foundation for success...

I say bring in some fresh blood-- someone who understands American players and is an innovative tactician.  I think it's our best bet for the next cycle.