How Bradley cost the MNT precious points

The MNT rescued a point v England yesterday but here at the CounterAttack, we do not feel lucky. In fact, we are downright furious. England played their best side, took the lead, surrendered the softest goal in World Cup history...and were lucky to have a point. The US, on the other hand, pointedly did not play their best side, and Bob Bradley cost the MNT two points they could have had. Lots of cheerleading from the US media but Ruud Gullit was right that this was a match the US could have won.

Of course Green’s blunder was a gift, allowing Dempsey to score in a second World Cup tournament. You will read that the US were lucky. That is disingenuous by half: blunders are part of the game. Many will disagree but we believe things work out: this makes up for handling no-call in the 2002 quarterfinal match v Germany. That’s just how it goes.

What you won’t read anywhere else is that it was England that were lucky. Not the goal itself; that was skill from Heskey and Gerrard. The problem was that Ricardo Clark was on the pitch and that was a gift from the US to England. Bradley saw fit to put Clark was on the squad and now seems eager to prove that he was right to choose him. We are quite sure Clark is a nice guy. He’s probably many things except an international talent.

Bradley’s personnel choices meant the US were undermanned. The Clark mystery is one but also, why choose Robbie Findley as the other striker? What an enormous waste of a starting spot. For some reason, American soccer is obsessed with speed. It is a running game, yes, but quickness is more important than speed. Findley is fast but what good does that do if he can’t hold on to the ball? What good is it if he is a split-second too slow on decisions, and space is closed before he passes or shoots?

Once upon a time, the MNT had no choices. They were forced to go with players like Findley (see Cobi Jones) or Clark (see Joe-Max Moore) because the pool was shallow. If only Bradley had a player with demonstrated scoring ability in a professional league! You know, someone accustomed to scoring under pressure. We would settle for a player who has suddenly developed into a scoring machine, with the maturity that a nearly a decade of pro sports adds. How about a midfielder who can hold onto the ball and knows how to calm an offense. Hello Gomez! Hello Buddle! Hello Torres!

Going with the ones that brung you only works when those players are the best choices. That was not the case here. Besides being better players, Gomez and Torres both play in Mexico. Both are used to playing a Latin style -- quickness, movement, possession. You know who have a tough time against that? England, who match up well against a physical side. Two guesses which tactics Bradley opted for in yesterday’s match.

You cannot fault Bradley for his loyalty to players, but he is wrong about that. His loyalty should be to the US nation. There is a lack of criticism in the US sporting press, one of the reasons we started CounterAttack, so he gets free reign about that. Bradley was also wrong in his tactics. It would be one thing if we were just arguing a point, being unreasonable. But these were things we precisely said this should not happen, days ago.

The MNT should win their next two matches but hey, the ball is round. No one is saying that the US would definitely have beaten England. We are, however, saying that Bob Bradley’s conservatism cost the US two points that were there for the taking. We can be happy to take away a point yesterday.

Forgive us if we choose not to celebrate.

Image via David Leah from soccer.fanhouse.com