Woe is Bradley

The US Nats came out of mothballs this week to take on Poland and Colombia in two friendly matches. These were the first games since Bob Bradley was retained as coach.

If you read this blog regularly, you know I'm not a big fan of this decision. In the weeks since Bradley's official rehire, Jürgen Klinsmann chatted with the media about why he didn't take the job. He didn't get too specific, other than to say he wanted 100% control over the team. Apparently, Klinsmann's definition of 100% control differs from the USSF. What exactly caused the impasse? Neither Klinsmann nor the USSF offered any particulars, so we're left to speculate. Perhaps the USSF wants total control over the scheduling of matches? Perhaps the USSF wants to protect MLS players from too much national team duty? It's impossible to know for sure.

What we do know for sure is that the USSF President Sunil Gulati was very interested in Klinsmann. When the Klinsmann talks broke down, Bradley was the consolation prize.

Stone-faced Bradley was never a national team darling. He was installed as interim coach after the USSF fired Bruce Arena. He won a handful of games in what would become his trademark ugly style, and, apparently, Sunil Gulati could not ignore the results. Gulati hired him for the 4-year cycle.

While the team often employed negative tactics - crowding the midfield, zero possession, no flow - the US somehow managed to finish first not just in CONCACAF but also in their World Cup group. What's most surprising is that, despite the negative tactics, the US defense was shockingly porous. Yet, the team was resilient and showed no fear in frequently overcoming early deficits. The Bradley teams relied on set pieces, energy, and sheer force. It didn't look pretty, but, in the end, they got results.

It was a good four years for US soccer. Not great, but good. Bradley helped develop a few players - his son, Michael, Charlie Davies, Jozy Altidore, Benny Feilhaber, and Stuart Holden. The problem is that it's hard to imagine Bradley leading the team to heights greater than he's already achieved. Not only is the team somewhat stagnant in its current form, but the key components (Dempsey and Donovan) may be past their prime by 2014. Bradley's not known as a master tactician nor a savvy uncoverer of talent. He's a hard worker. His teams reflect that. I just don't know if hard work is enough.

Against Poland, Bradley called in most of his regulars from the 2010 World Cup. He did "experiment" by starting Jermaine Jones - a naturalized midfielder from FC Schalke - next to his son Michael. Jones' impressed immediately. He lobbed a perfect ball over the defense to a streaking Jozy Altidore who calmly buried it for a 1-0 lead. But the US was exposed shortly after. Poland seized control of the match, dominating possession and chances. If not for some heroic saves by Tim Howard, Poland could've gone into halftime with a 3-1 lead. Instead, Poland had to settle for just one. The second half was no different. Poland dominated the flow of the game with their superior skill and tactics. The US spent much of the match defending and chasing, though, in typical Bradley-team fashion, they wisely took advantage of a restart. Off a corner kick, Onyewu buried a cross for a brief 2-1 lead. Poland again equalized, and the game ended 2-2.

Overall, the US suffered from relatively poor midfield play. Dempsey was the main distributor of the ball, but I'm not convinced that's his best role. Stuart Holden and Dempsey managed to stay dangerous most of the match, but the US definitely missed the flair and speed of Landon Donovan. Without Donovan, opposing defenses can push farther into the attack. The threat of a counter is minimal.

Bob Bradley's lack of tactics was even more apparent last night in a listless 0-0 draw to Colombia. Bradley did install new faces into the lineup - midfielder Brek Shea, Jermain Jones (again), and defender Eric Lichaz, but his formation was a total clusterf*ck. US fans used to cringe every time Bruce Arena would field two defensive midfielders. They knew that Arena was - in essence - throwing the white flag. The move said to the other team, "We know you're more skilled than us so we're going to clog the midfield and tackle and pester our way to a draw." Bradley, like Arena, had no fears of the two man midfield and used that formation the entirety of his first 4-year cycle. As US fans, we're now used to it. The one silver lining of Bradley's "empty bucket" (as fans dubbed the formation) is that the d-mids do at least have a passing interest in offense. Michael Bradley, in particular, has a nose for the goal. So, we tolerate the empty bucket.

But last night was just a joke. Bradley opted for not 2 but 3 defensive midfielders. He had the gall to call his lineup a 4-3-3, meaning he was starting three "strikers." Unfortunately, only of the strikers is actually a striker. The lineup quickly morphed into a 4-6-0. Stuart Holden and Brek Shea (both playing out of position at striker) spent the entire game following their midfield tendencies. The three d-mids, Edu, Jones, and Bradley, couldn't string two passes together and regularly turned it over. And the lone striker - Jozy Altidore - received such little service that he drifted back into the midfield too, just to get a better look at the action.

In all my life I've never seen a 4-3-3 lineup not register at least a shot on goal. The problem is that Bradley fell prey to the biggest coaching mistake. As I've said repeatedly on this blog, the coach's main job is to put his players in a position to succeed. Inserting Holden and Shea as strikers is no way to accomplish that. It was Shea's first game as a US Nat, fer chrissakes. Play him in his natural position. Utilize his skill-set. Don't put the square peg in the round hole. But it didn't stop there. Michael Bradley, Maurice Edu, and Jermaine Jones were all playing the same role. They've got similar skill sets and, to the surprise of no one, spent much of the game running into each other. As trained d-mids, they've got the same instincts, tendencies, so of course their going to want to do the same things.

Bob Bradley can pat himself on the back for experimenting, but, dude, what a waste. He should be experimenting with players, tactics, and lineups that might help push the team forward. That 4-3-3 (aka 4-6-0) lineup was doomed to fail. Jim Rome, who's never watched a soccer game in his life, could've told him that. You don't run an offense with 3 Quarterbacks. *Sigh*

To Bob's credit, he did fix the formation dilemma at half time. He brought in Dempsey and Eddie Johnson. So, at least he could run a standard 4-4-2. The US had a little more flair and did at least manage a few shots on goal. They didn't score, but I chalk that more up to lack of skill. Dempsey, Altidore, and Bradley are good players, but they were simply off.

So with these two friendlies behind us, the US heads into the winter months with a losing record for 2010. The US hasn't had a losing record for a calendar year since 1997. Part of that is, of course, the stiffer competition, but the past three friendly matches were on home soil. Most countries win those matches. If the US hopes to progress to a world power, they should too.