A closer look at the argument against Bradley

Yesterday's announcement that Bob Bradley would become the permanent U.S. national team head coach was met with plenty of different reactions and opinions and some of them just make me shake my head.

As most of you know by now I am a fan of Bradley as a coach and support the decision, but I have written enough pro-Bradley columns to not have to re-hash my views on the coach. If you want to read them you can find them online.

If you don't agree with the decision then that's fine too. Jeff Carlisle, my partner in crime over at ESPN, delivered a pretty strong column opposing the hire. I may not agree with Carlisle on this issue but I can still consider his piece a well-presented argument opposing the ESPN column I wrote in favor of the hire.

What really struck me, based on some of the other columns I have read and reader comments I have come across, are the notions that an American coach just can't match up tactically with high-profile coaches from more established soccer powers and that the U.S. national team need some high-profile foreign coach to take the national team to the "next level."

Does Bradley have national team coaching experience? No, but neither did Bruce Arena before becoming the most successful coach in U.S. history. Juergen Klinsmann also never coached in a competitive match before the 2006 World Cup match, no Euro qualifier or World Cup qualfiiers, yet he managed to succeed.

I think some people get too caught up in the coaching success stories like South Korea in 2002 or Greece in Euro 2004, nations that were elevated to unimaginable heights by their coaches at the time. The thing is that both Guus Hiddink (South Korea's coach in 2002) and Otto Rehagel (Greece's coach in 2004) focused on events moreso than establishing a foundation for long-term success. Does anyone think Greece's national team program is in considerably better shape than it was before winning Euro 2004? Not really. And for everything Hiddink did for South Korea would you consider the Asian team a powerhouse these days? Except for the fact that Hiddink helped create inroads for Korean players to play in Europe (no small contribution) I really wonder just how much stronger South Korea is now compared to before 2002.

What I do find astounding is just how much influence people think national team coaches have on individual player development. The biggest factor in any player's development is their club environment. That is where you spend 80-85 percent of your playing and practice time. If you're not in a good club environment then having a good national team coach isn't going to help you. Can a national team coach help the development of a player? Of course, but the notion that someone like a Gerard Houllier was going to be the US coach and sprinkle some magic dust on American players and turn them into Steven Gerrards and Thierry Henrys is absurd.

The hard truth about the U.S. national team is that there isn't a coach in this world, alive or dead, who was going to lead the team to a World Cup title in 2010. Some American soccer fans get furious when they hear that but the sooner they realize this the sooner they will accept the fact that just because someone once wrote a report suggesting that the USA could win a World Cup by 2010 doesn't make the program a failure becuase it isn't there just yet.

Things are going in a good direction. More and more young American players are jumping to the pros and more Americans are going to Europe at younger ages. That can only help build up the pool of talent that will support the national team. Throw in the fact that MLS is finally getting serious about having a real role in player development and there is real reason for optimism about the next decade.

What do you think? Share your thoughts on this topic below:

Comments

[Will]

I think Bob is a great judge of talent and deserves a chance to see what he can bring to the USMNT.

[David Keyes]

I agree that Bradley is likely to have a more long-term view of US Soccer than some high-paid foreigner brought in. But isn't this long-term view exactly why Klinsmann was the right choice? He has an outsider's perspective, but has also lived here long enough to know what's good and bad about US Soccer. I'm not necessarily against Bradley, I just wish it had been Klinsi.

[Matt]

I agree with you 100%. The idea that a foreign coach would simply wave a magic wand to make the team successful is ridiculous. I think the success of the national team has to do with the strength of the US national team as an entire program (including youth development, identification of players, etc) rather than the experience of a single coach. Look at the Netherlands if you want an example of a great national team with no World Cup to show. I'm plenty happy with Bob and he has my full support.

[kpugs]

I agree with some of the previous statements. I think it's very counterproductive--not to mention ill-informed--for people to look for that supercoach from some other country to take us to the "next level". Clearly there aren't too many such coaches or maybe we'd HAVE ONE now. I'm normally not so biased in ignoring the opinions of others but that half of the argument will never make sense to me. Bradley is the right man for the job at this particular time.

[Tony M]

In the words of the Talking Heads: Stop Making Sense.

I thought Carile's article was good, but wrong. This quote is subtly absurd:

"So why am I not sold on Bradley's selection? In my opinion, a coach with international experience is going to have a better idea of what it will take to get it done in 2010"

Why is that absurd? Because BRADLEY WILL HAVE 3+ YEARS OF INTERNATIONAL EXPERIEINCE BY 2010.

He will have qualifying, Gold Cups, Copa, possibly the Confederations Cup, not to mention friendlies against European teams getting read for the the European Championship. The lack of international experience in 2007 will self-correct by 2010.

[Anthony W]

There is two things you have to understand about soccer fans in the USA.

1.They have very low self-esteem.

2. They feel that they were born in the wrong nation and wish they were european

[John]

I have great respect for Bob Bradley. I think he's a fine coach. That said....it's hard to justify firing Arena only to replace him with Bradley--that seems, at best, a lateral move to me. I don't think BB is a Bruce clone--they differ in many regards. But many of the weaknesses I felt Arena had as a NT coach are ones that I don't believe Bradley solves.

[Kelly]

During the mad euphoria of Klinsi Kourting, a lot of Eurosnobs were acting like he was going to come in and cure all ills. But just how was he going to do this? Was he suddendly going to create a U.S. forward who can score at will? Was he going to conjure an American #10 from thin air? Was he going to magik up a Yanqui right back out of the ether? Was he going to cure Donovan's vanishing acts with a snap of his fingers?

Hardly.

Like it or not, whomever is coach, is going to have to work with the players we got, in the league we got, in the system we got, in the region we got, against the foes we got. That ain't going to change radically in four years regardless of the hand on the whip. Klinsi (or Querioz, or Houllier or, god save us from the headlines, Pekerman) was not going to make us Germany II: Jurgen's Revenge; Bradley is not neccessarily going to make us Sampson: 1-6-3 The Second Coming either.

Bradley is as good a choice as any in most coaching categories and probably better when it comes to sniffing out talent, which is more of a going concern here with the USSF being the mess it is.

[Gabe79]

I must confess that i converted into a Bradley fan. His hard work is impressive and it shows. However, after watching the US-Guatemala game, i would like to see the strategic adjustments that he can make when most teams in the Gold Cup follow the same approach.

[Joe B.]

Again. If Ronald McDonald, Mr. Firley (from Three's Company) or even Robert Goulet were at the helm of Germany IN GERMANY for the World Cup—they too would have led that team to the semi-finals. Let's see how Klinsi would do with a Japan or an Austrailia—up and coming Non-European soccer teams that will most likely have to qualify and play out of home. I'll bet the bratwurst the results won't be the same...

[Jasen]

Ives, simply put, you F**KING get it!!!!

this Bradley-interim era has driven me absolutely nuts...i'm sure i'm not the only one who is actually happy it's finally over, but is also still annoyed that it went down the way it did.

ultimately, most people against Bradley are people who just want to see what would happen if we had a foreign coach...well this isn't a fantasy sport, and we don't have time to quelch these curiosities...we're trying to develop a sport here, and we need someone who truly gives a crap in charge.

what Bradley MIGHT lack in coaching ability, he will more than make up for in passion, detail and genuinely wanting to improve American soccer.

[Mauricio A. Cruz]

The key for American success at the global level isn't the Head Coach situation but rather, changes from the organizational level.

IMHO, the people running U.S. soccer are primarily responsible for our disappointing results. There needs to be more games played in hostile environments (I.E. - Playing top/mid-level European opponents in Europe, a novel concept isn't it?) and truly developing a world-class youth development system.

Too many young players slip through the cracks (Guiseppe Rossi?) or aren't recognized early enough. In a nation of over 300 million people, there is talent available. Tap into the Hispanic markets, tap into the African-American markets and make more of a concerted effort to reach young players of all socio-economic levels.

Bradley will do just fine. Gulati and company are the ones who need to step up.

[Derek]

If Bradley had been hired after 2002, it would have been a much less controversial move (even if we needed a fair bit of luck to do as well as we did in that World Cup). The reality is that many look at 2006 as a failure and see Bradley as an extension of Arena...hence a failure of US Soccer to find something new. You can't convince me that the vast majority of fans are basing their opinion of Klinsmann or Carlos Queiroz on a significant body of evidence (since it doesn't really exist).

[josh]

I was definitely rooting for the Klinsi hire, but not because we need some Euro coach. I just thought it would be a fun situation, that would add some interest from the world in our team. But I wouldn't want a Houllier, etc, and never believed that even Klinsi was the "answer." Bradley seems like a talented coach, and I am fully behind him. Now to the real question: how do we get our best athletes to play soccer? Did anyone see the interview with Chad Johnson? Can you imagine him continuing as a soccer player? If there was a clear path to serious money, that would help. But the rise of coverage of both domestic and international soccer on TV is a blessing in disguise. Kids watching La Liga, EPL, and MLS will do more for the soccer culture than any European coach. Looking around at all the kids wearing Ronaldinho jerseys is the most exciting development in US soccer since MLS.

[scaryice]

The problem with Bradley is not that he's American, but that he was Arena's right hand man. Arena wasn't good enough, so why would someone who is his closest match do any better? If we go out in the first round again in 2010 with Bradley, it'll have been four wasted years due to this decision.

The very least we should expect is to make the round of 16.

[James]

Not getting out of the "Group of Death" with two solid European teams in the group in a WC played in Europe is no disgrace.

How the team played is a disgrace.

But, I don't think you can expect Bradley to fail just because Arena had a poor tournament in Germany.

And on the other hand, just because a coach has had success in Europe, doesn't mean that he can do well as the USMNT head coach.

How many foreign coaches have had success in MLS outside of Nowak (who just happens to be Bradley's right hand man....) and Kinnear (but is a Canadian really a foreigner?)?

The one good thing that could have come from hiring a big name foreign coach is that if that experiment would have failed, then perhaps the EuroSnobs would have gotten a taste of reality.

[Kelly]

The main outcry now against Bradley seems to be that he's somehow going to be an extension of Arena. Well, that's hardly true, Bradley is his own man and his own coach. There's no way he's going to be Arena Lite even if he wanted to.

But to view Arena as some kind of failure is at least as patently absurd. During Bruce's tenure the U.S. racked up a consistent winning record for the first time in it's history, took Mexico down a peg or two or three, made the quarterfinals at a WCF and qualified for two WCF's. Hardly the record of some kind of soccer simpleton. And more of an accomplishment really than that of Klinsmann.

Is Arena abasive? Stoic? Non-loveable? Opinionated? Pear shaped? Yes. But in no way shape or form is he a bad coach. The team had a slump at a bad time aganist quality opponents, coach's fault to a degree, but moreso on the players who are professionals and can't be treated like gradeschoolers. Every team has slumps, no matter coach or players, this one just happened under the biggest spotlight.

[rg]

is it that inconceivable that people don't agree with bradley's hiring? are we not allowed? there are lineup issues to that people differ on.

they are opinions people.

and btw...when bruce was hired 8 years ago, our program was at a completely different place to make his hiring without int'l experience equivalent to that of bradley's now. Oh yeah...THAT'S AN OPINION.

[Russ]

Ives,

I wanted a fresh approach, much like Bora brought for the wonderful 1994 team.

Bradley is a fine coach...no question. He is just not what I feel was the right choice after Sampson and Bruce.

I suppose that being in my mid-40's makes me antsy now when this subject comes up. I expected to see much better results from Team USA over the last 30 years than I have seen.

sorry.

[Fc philly boy]

I think if the team has a poor showing this summer then Sunil will be knocking on the doors of some overpriced European managers. Klinsi would have been great but obviously he had doubts so it is better that we have a guy who will give 110% as manager. Re:2010, I think we will have a much stronger showing assuming our group isnt as tough. If players like Rossi dont want to play for the US, that is fine, we have such a strong, young talent pool besides him (Feilhaber, Bradley, Nguyen) that we will make out OK.

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

Here's a research project for you:

List the 32 2006 WC teams' head coaches.

Then list which of them:

1.Had no Int'l head coaching experience at any age group level when appointed senior coach.
2.Had no senior Int'l playing experience.
3.Never played professionally.

Then see how many names are on all three of the latter lists.

Then ask yourself why do we not require the same background to coach the National team that pretty much all other nations do???

[Max]

Ives,

You contradict yourself. On the one hand you say Bradley will leave the U.S. with a better foundation, then you go on to say that player development is not done at the club level. If its not critical to player development, than the purpose of the national team coach is to win games.

The critique of Bradley - as was made clear in the Carlisle column - is that he has NO INTERNATIONAL experience, and therefore has a much higher learning curve. It is not a question of being an American or not. It is a question of having top-level international experience. Klinnsman did not have top-level coaching experience, but as a player he certainly did.

True, Arena did not have this experience and did well, but his approach of absorbing and counter-attacking, while successful in 2002, proved to be a disaster in the last world cup. The U.S. team was consistently unable to break teams down. We could never score when the opposing team put guys behind the ball.

Bradley, unfortunately, appears to bring that same style of play, which I think will prevent the U.S. from reaching that next level. He certainly won't have an effect like Klinnsman, who transformed one of the most boring static teams into one of the most exciting teams of the last world cup.

While Bradley may have been the only option now - as Carlisle said - it is definitely nothing to celebrate.

-max

[tfina]

The reason why I am against the Bradley hire is pretty much the same reason he was hired :

Someone needs to come in and shake up the entire United States Soccer program from top to bottom and there is no way in hell the USSF was going to pull the trigger on someone who would do that.

Bob will do OK I suppose - they'll make the WC2010 and the US will be at the mercy of the draw again. But that's the best we will be able to do for a while until certain things are cleaned up within US Soccer.

Bradley's hire is also proof positive that Metro is/was cursed.

[Ives]

Max, pay attention for me while I respond to your comment.

My comments are not a contradiction because they don't refer to the same thing. What the national team program, actually what the federation can do to help strengthen the foundation of the national team long-term is to improve the current player development structure. That is something I believe Bob Bradley can help do. As for developing the current pool of national team players, he can play some role in that but it still boils down to what these players do on the club level that will determine their success. These are two different things.

This is where I don't think a foreign coach would have been equipped to really help the US team long term, because asking a national team coach to not just help fix the development set-up, but actually learn it, would have been too much to ask.

Bradley doesn't have to learn the US system. He has coached in it and knows how every level of it works. He has the respect of leaders on all levels.

And can we please stop with the Klinsmann comparison? People act like he took Belize to the World Cup semis. Germany had a strong collection of young attacking talents and he put them in the best position to win. Anyone who thinks the current pool of young American players includes Podolski and Schweinsteiger types is mistaken. What Klinsmann did do was play an all-out attacking style to take advantage of the German teams strengths. Playing a 4-3-3 attacking style doesn't turn attacking players into stars. Attacking stars make a 4-3-3 or any attacking formation and approach work.

Here's a question. If Klinsmann and Arena had traded places before the 2006 World Cup do people really think Klinsmann would have gotten the US team out of the group stage? If you do then I guess we're going to agree to disagree.

[Joamiq]

Ives, I completely agree on all counts. I only had one concern initially about Bradley, or any other American coach. I was skeptical of the ability of anyone within the US Soccer community to break free from the established order of late and experiment with player selection, lineups, etc. I thought that a foreign coach might be able to shake things up and motivate players who have become too comfortable in their positions with the national team. That fear has been assuaged by Bradley. Already Donovan seems to be rejuvenated and playing with more spirit (maybe it's primarily a reaction to his failures in the World Cup, but having a new coach probably doesn't hurt), and Bradley has shown a willingness to take a look at all the young players we've been curious about. I might be the only person who feels this way, but I'm actually glad that Bradley had a trial period first before becoming the official head coach - not because I doubted his ability to coach, but because I wanted to see how he would handle the post (admittedly, the whole process could have gotten underway a few months earlier). Clearly he has handled it well. I have no doubt now that he will be a good coach.