AMSTERDAM — Much has been made in the United States about the decision and whether or not the recently re-signed Bob Bradley has the right stuff to take the US team deep into the tourney on the biggest stage.
Of course, it's always good to get the outside take unclouded by emotion. So, as we are wont to do from time to time, we surveyed some Euro-opinion about the contract extension granted coach Bradley through World Cup 2014.
England-based Gabrielle Marcotti of The Times and SI.com believes Sunil Gulati and US Soccer made a good call in keeping Bradley for another go-around.
"I think you don't judge somebody on the strength of four games in the World Cup," he said. "That's the ultimate goal, but I think what you look for is forward progress, developing an identity and developing players."
Marcotti feels there were ups and downs to the World Cup campaign in South Africa, but says that the expectations couldn't realistically have been too much higher for the team's showing.
"You don't punish or reward for the results at World Cup for the national team," he said. "But that shouldn't be the criteria. The criteria should be: What work's been done so far and what's the best way to go forward? And if you believe that the national team is going in the right direction, then it makes sense to stick with Bradley."
"If you have a chance to get [José] Mourinho or Guus Hiddink, that's fine,” Marcotti continued. “But if you don't and Bradley wants the job, and the best you can do is [Jürgen] Klinsmann—who costs 10 times as much and, some people would say, is one-10th as qualified—then I'd go with Bradley all the way."
However, Franco Spicciariello of Italy's Guerin Sportivo and PlayItUSA.com finds that the federation is guilty on one count of selling themselves short.
"The USSF wasted the chance to give a boost to the soccer movement, at least at the top level, and to its international image," he declared. "Yes, Bob Bradley did a good job, but many times the US’ approach to the games looked shaky and confused from a tactical point of view. Furthermore, after a four-year cycle, it was time to change to avoid the risk of the national coach relying too much on his veterans."
Beyond the issue of potential staleness within the US ranks, Spicciariello ponders the political opportunity missed by Gulati’s decision to re-sign Bradley.
"The other issue is about the fact that fans and observers were expecting a big name, one with experience and a strong personal appeal," added Spicciariello. "Somebody like [Marcelo] Bielsa, Klinsmann or even Carlos Queiroz, who knows well the US soccer system. Basically, somebody who could give the impression that the US means business about soccer. But it did not happen."
However, the Italian scribe is not all doom and gloom. He holds out a bit of hope through prognostication.
"Bradley will last no more than two years,” Spicciariello opined. “And José Mourinho will coach the US to the 2022 World Cup in America."
Right or wrong, the decision's been made. Since we all must eventually look forward, it seemed a fine idea to check in with tactics guru Jonathan Wilson of The Guardian and SI.com.
The Charles Darwin of the chalkboard is unsure whether the notoriously rigid Bradley would demonstrate any tactically evolution during his second cycle. He identifies what he believes to be the team's double-edged sword with the “empty bucket” set-up installed by Bradley during the first cycle.
“In the Slovenia game, the US were very open in midfield and Slovenia kept getting space in that area in front of the back four,” Wilson said. “That's a problem you have with 4-4-2 since they changed the offside law.
"Teams get stretched, where previously they could play with a very high defensive line. The danger area used to about 40 to 45 yards, whereas now it's 65 to 70. That's the problem with a 4-4-2; it happened against Slovenia and Ghana.”
The US under Bradley has a famous habit of giving up early goals, and Wilson can’t help but conclude that Bradley must shoulder a good deal of the blame.
"It seems to me that what [Bradley] was good at was changing things in the game to make them better," Wilson said. "But then you have to look at, well, why are they wrong in the first place?”
