Bob, it's been real.

Last night, Brazil tore through the US as easily as a four year old through his Christmas presents. To make matters worse, the US fielded largely the same squad that started the World Cup, while Brazil picked players mostly from their U-21 side. The disparity in quality was so stark that many American fans in at the Meadowlands started cheering for Brazil!

If the US ever needed a barometer to see how far they truly are from contending on the world stage, this friendly was it. I will concede that the game was just that - a friendly. The American players who just returned from the World Cup obviously had little interest in this "come-down" game, while the Brazilians were anxious to impress their new coach. Even if the US had played with passion, the Brazilians just posed too much skill and savvy. This game was so thoroughly weighted toward Brazil that I can't imagine any scenario where the US even manages a draw.

The subplot throughout the night was whether this would be Bob Bradley's final game as coach of the US team. Bradley's contract with the USSF runs out in December, and he expressed interest in the Aston Villa vacancy. The man who decides Bradley's fate is Sunil Gulati. After the team's lame exit to Ghana in the World Cup, Gulati gave no ringing endorsement of either the team or Bradley, claiming the team was "capable of more." Most fans would agree, as this game was a perfect example of what Bradley's teams look like against top competition. The team was mentally unprepared, lacking imagination, a step slow, and, in general, way less skilled.

I've followed sports long enough to know these "Will he get fired or not?" situations are more complex then they seem. Unless your owner/president is prone to knee-jerk reactions (i.e. Steinbrenner in the 70s), the process will take much longer than you expect. The reason is simple - the president must take time to sift through potential replacements. If no suitable replacement surfaces, the coach will likely receive an extension. In Bradley's case, Gulati does have a suitable replacement in Jurgen Klinsmann:

Shortly after the World Cup, Donovan was asked about the coaching situation. Donovan, not surprisingly, fully supported his coach and said the Bradley team had excellent chemistry. When asked whether he'd prefer a foreign-based coach, Donovan expressed concern, implying that a foreign coach might have difficulty understanding the soccer culture in the US. My guess is that Donovan was thinking of the Sven Goran Ericsson/Mexico situation. Mexico hired Ericsson shortly after the '06 World Cup. After spending his entire career in Europe and likely having seen Mexico only a handful of times, Ericsson was thrust into the Mexican fire. He tried implementing his own defensive philosophies on a team and culture that was built around ball possession. The two styles clashed. Despite the wealth of Mexican talent, Ericsson did not get the results, and he was fired with Mexico on the brink not qualifying for the World Cup. His replacement, the Mexican Javier Aguirre, refashioned the team in the traditional Mexican mold, and Mexico qualified by winning four of the final five games.

Jurgen Klinsmann would be a different story. He's married to an American and has lived in the US over a decade. He's practiced with the LA Galaxy and has no doubt kept tabs on the US team since his flirtation with the coaching job in 2006. Would Klinsmann be an upgrade? My guess is yes. With his extensive experience as both a coach and player, Klinsmann would add an an air of class to the US nats. He worked wonders with the Germans in 2006 but fared less well with Bayern Munich in 2009. To be successful with the US team, Klinsmann would have to do something about the porous US defense. In the four years of Bradley's tenure, the defense regressed. He tried new faces but failed to uncover any defensive savior. The US also has a well-documented string of games without a striker scoring a goal. No doubt Klinsmann's goal-poaching acumen would help in that arena.

Yet, we all know the coach's main responsibility is much simpler. The coach must put the players in a position to succeed. Bradley failed miserably in this area by trotting out over-matched players like Ricardo Clark, even after they had been exposed. Perhaps it was Bradley's loyalty blinding him. That was certainly the issue with Bradley's predecessor, Bruce Arena, who inexplicably relied upon pedestrian Jeff Agoos throughout the 2002 World Cup run. The hallmark of Arena's reign, however, was a unique ability to uncover talent, which often made up for his blind loyalty. Arena got the absolute best out of marginal talents like Tony Sanneh, Chris Armas, and Pablo Mastroeni. In fact, those players were not on the national team radar until Arena took over. He successfully replaced the aged '94 Old Guard like John Harkes, which Steve Sampson (in the '98 campaign) could not. Arena also bravely included Landon Donovan and Damarcus Beasley in his starting lineup when the two were just 18 years old. Beasley's career, by the way, has been in constant decline since Arena's departure. Perhaps Arena's biggest accomplishment was harnessing the talent of mercurial Clint Mathis. He had a steep decline following the '02 World Cup, but for those four years leading up to that Cup, he was simply incredible. Here's proof:

Arena somehow got the absolute best from Mathis, turning him into a superstar. He equaled that club success on the national stage:

That's why it was maddening when Arena would often sit Mathis. Arena would regularly trot out these bizarre lineups that seemed doomed on paper. Claudio Reyna at right midfield. Carlos Llamosa at left back. But somehow that team got results, and that's why I called him "The Professa". He just seemed smarter than the rest of us.

As for Bob Bradley, he often got results, but they often seemed in spite of some dubious coaching decisions (like the draw against Slovenia). And the World Cup '10 squad was the worst mentally prepared team I've ever seen. I also have a hard time thinking of any player that he uncovered. I'd say Dempsey had his best days under Coach Bradley. Yet, I'd argue that Dempsey's improvement was largely due to his time at Fulham, and he performs more consistently for club than country. Michael Bradley did come into his own under Bob, but Michael actually got his first caps under Bruce Arena, as an 18 year old. Sifting through the entire player pool, there is one who's flourished under Bradley - Benny Feilhaber. Whether due to ego, talent, or bad luck, Feilhaber had a terrible time getting minutes for any club team. He was even kicked off the 2008 Olympic team due to an attitude problem. Yet, with Bob Bradley, Feilhaber was a revelation. So, I'll give Bob that. He also sorta ushered in the Charlie Davies era, but it sure took him long enough. Davies was clearly the best striker option for months before Bradley finally settled on him as the answer. And there's also Altidore, who fares well with Bradley.

So, after four years, Bradley can claim Feilhaber, Davies, and Altidore as true success stories. But I want more. Those three players were no-brainers. They all came up through the youth system and, in the case of Davies and Altidore, shone at the Olympics.

Bruce Arena was far superior with discovering and maximizing talent. Arena's teams were often maddening too, but Bradley simply has more tools and is getting the same old results. Arena brought the US from mediocrity to respectability. The next coach of the US needs to bring the team to the next level.