A Believer In The Work

In my life - outside of family - there are three people who have influenced me the most, whom I can point to as being a true role model for me. One was Paul Oberjuerge, my former editor at The San Bernardino Sun, who gave me my start in journalism and allowed me to cover soccer back in 1998. The other was a trainer I had at my local gym, whom you will hear about soon enough. The third was Bob Bradley, recently deposed U.S. men's national team coach. Why Bob Bradley? Let me tell you why (and I don't think I've ever told this to anyone) ...


The work. Believe in the work.

Anyone who spent any amount of time around Bob Bradley in 2006 heard about the work.

Results weren't important because as long as players put in the work in training, things would take care of themselves. In fact, the only way to have a chance of positive results was through the work the players put in training.

It seemed like a strange concept for me. I mean, wins and losses are pretty objective while the work was rather subjective. Chivas USA had had a miserable 2005 season and they needed a turnaround - and a fast one at that. That meant wins and draws, something they'd had far too little of the year before.

And Bob Bradley was the man entrusted to steer the ship in the right direction. Right off the bat, he tried to change the culture surrounding the club, by bringing in guys like Ante Razov and Jesse Marsch, drafting the likes of Jonathan Bornstein and Sacha Kljestan and helping them mesh with incumbent stars in Juan Pablo Garcia and Francisco "Paco" Palencia.

How would that team be judged? I knew that it wouldn't be judged by the work. At least, that wasn't my initial reaction.

Around the start of the 2006 season, I had come to a bit of a crossroads in my own life. I'd always struggled with weight. I had been overweight in my youth, got a bit bigger once out of high school but for the latter part of my 20s, I ballooned out of control, tipping the scales at more than 300 pounds.

I didn't have the work in me to do anything but sit around and eat.

But in March 2006 I began meeting with a personal trainer at the local gym. It was an interesting experience. I wasn't around gyms very often those days... or any days before then to be honest. You don't get to three bills by going to the gym, after all. But there I was, not really having much confidence in myself, feeling like it was a lost cause even before I got into the gym, wondering if I should just leave the trainer hanging and bail.

I stuck with him through our initial meeting, though. I weighed in at a whopping 308.6 pounds. Afterward, the trainer asked me what I wanted my goal to be. I told him that I wanted a one in front of my weight. It was pie in the sky, I was fully aware. Later, we went and worked out. I did the elliptical for seven minutes, the exercise bike for eight more and was sore for three days afterward.

But this time I wanted to give it a good try, this weight loss thing. I hadn't ever really been serious about it, but this time I figured may as well. I had two little girls, ages 2 and 6 months, and I didn't want to be the "fat dad" at school. It was already embarrassing enough being around professional athletes looking the way I did. I didn't want to embarrass my daughters once they were old enough to realize such things.

I remember one of the first times I interviewed Bob Bradley, right around the time I'd met the trainer for the first time. I was sweating like crazy - I used to sweat a lot for no reason. I asked him a few questions. He talked about the work that the team was putting in during the preseason.

It seemed like every time I caught Bob Bradley after a training session, he brought up the work. The work was good, the work was getting better, the work, the work, the work... It was hardly ever about wins and losses, mostly always the work.

I started to put in a lot of my own work in at the gym. As the season began, so too did my weight-loss journey. I was doing cardio, working out on the elliptical. I was doing circuits on different machines, working out my legs, arms and keeping my heart rate up. It was slow at first, painful most of the time and, to be honest, enjoyable none of the time, but I had put my faith in the trainer. And I'd paid about $1,000 for 20 sessions, so I also had that to drive me.

Now, my trainer did not want for me to weigh myself very often. He said the best way to get an accurate gauge of my progress was to weigh myself once a month. He had my faith, so I didn't deviate from his intsructions.

It was tough at times to not weigh myself. I was doing all of this stuff, I had changed my eating habits pretty much overnight (out with sodas, fast food, frozen dinners; in with veggies, home-cooked meals and water). I wanted to have some sort of affirmation that I was headed on the right path instead of the trainer's constant praise.

A light went off. Slowly at first, but it began to flicker.

Here I was, putting in the work. What was going to get me where I wanted to get? The work. What would be the most important thing for me to focus on? The work.

The scale would only tell so much. I could see some weight loss after a week and then relax and ease off on the work.

Much like Chivas USA could have gotten excited about a win and may have started to ease up on their own work.

For both of us, things were paying off, right?

Much like wins and losses, my own weight was not the most accurate reflection of myself back then. It was in the work. I had to stay true to the work in the gym, to the work I put in when preparing meals, when avoiding junk food, when avoiding going over my calories.

I understood what Bob Bradley had preached for so long.

The work had become the most important thing in my life.

After one month, I had lost 10 pounds. The second month, I dropped 13 more. For five consecutive months, I lost double-digit pounds. By November, I was down to 250 pounds, the lightest I'd been in years. I may not have looked like it but I felt like a new man.

Bob Bradley left Chivas USA in December 2006 for the U.S. national team. My trainer had departed my gym only a month prior. I was to fend for myself. That winter featured few workouts but also no pounds gained.

The gym was not a part of my life in December, or in January 2007, or in February. By March of that year, I told myself that one of two things would happen - 1) I would go back to the gym, re-dedicate myself to the work and lose the rest of my weight, or 2) I would put it all back on.

Number two was not an option. It just wasn't. I went back to the gym. On my own, I started working out, hitting the elliptical and the weight machines for the most part. Like a cattle prod on my backside, Bob Bradley's words about the work would resurface at the gym.

I weighed myself about once every two weeks. After one stretch that saw me hit the gym for about six out of seven days, I didn't lose a single pound. I had started at 236 and finished at 236. I upped the work. It wasn't good enough and the work became twice as challenging. By October of 2007, I had dropped to 199. By November, I got under 190, probably for the first time since I was in high school.

The work. It worked. Who would have known that such a philosophy would have carried over from the soccer field to a source it was likely never intended to influence?

Me, in June 2005 and at the finish line of the 2010 San Francisco Marathon

Since then, I took up running. I started slowly, running a 5K in June 2008 and a 10K later that year. I ran a half-marathon in April 2009 and ran my first marathon in February 2010. I have run four marathons now and will run marathon number five in March 2012... and hopefully marathons six and seven will follow next year as well.

I'm confident in myself. I am a believer in the work. I'm all about the work I put in when I run. Running a marathon is great but training for it, putting in long runs on weekends and getting my midweek runs - doing the work - is what will get me to the finish line. The work is what counts, not my time.

Thank you Bob Bradley, for instilling the work in me.

No More Gloom And Doom

I just finished writing my column for The Press-Enterprise. Shockingly, it was on Bradley and Klinsmann and how the move was the correct one.

Now, I'll post a link when it's published but one of the points I made is one I've blogged about here. I translated the results from the Gold Cup over to World Cup qualifying and said that the U.S. would struggle to reach the World Cup if such results hold - wins vs. Canada, Guadeloupe, Jamaica, losses vs. Panama, Mexico; nine points from five home games means a longshot to reach the World Cup.

I think more than how the team looks or roster choices that went awry or even bad results (losses vs. Ghana, Mexico), what did Bradley in was this. Say what you will about how easy this region is, if you go in unprepared and not focused, it becomes quite difficult. Mexico found that out both in 2001 and 2009 when they struggled mightily in the early part of qualifying. The Americans would have found that out with a Bradley-led side in 2013 and unlike Mexico, the U.S. wouldn't have been able to rely on their home-field advantage for wins even in tough times (09 wins vs. Costa Rica, vs. Trinidad & Tobago).

It's this gloom and doom that led to the ouster, and this scenario Klinsmann will try to avoid.

With him in charge... well, it's tough to say right now what the team will look like. We will see what sort of team he puts together here before too long. But whatever squad Klinsmann selects, it will be entirely his, not a continuation of the Bradley era.

That alone is hopeful, right?

Bornstein's Reaction

Bob Bradley had his many detractors for various reasons but one anti-Bradley sentiment centered on his choice of one player - Jonathan Bornstein.

The 2006 MLS Rookie of the Year did well in his initial call-ups to the national team but overall has had an up-and-down time of it with the United States, mostly down. Perhaps the final straw was Bornstein's performance in the Gold Cup, when he came off the bench against Mexico and was beaten repeatedly in El Tri's 4-2 win.

Now that Bradley is gone, Bornstein is gone too - or so the thinking goes. Thus, Bornstein is not exactly thrilled with the change - again, that's the thinking.

What does Bornstein have to say about this?

Bornstein took part in a press conference in Monterrey, Mexico, where Tigres are preparing for a league fixture against Queretaro and according to published reports had this to say:

"Durante cinco años, en ese tiempo ganamos mucho, tuvimos muchos buenos tiempos,. Es muy triste y desafortunado que esto pasara. Pero así es el negocio, esperemos ver el futuro de Estados Unidos, pero los cinco años pasados fueron buenos.

“El futbol de Estados Unidos escogió a Jurgen Klismann para crecer el nivel no sólo de la Selección Mayor, sino también de los Sub 17 y Sub 20, todos. Este es el plan con Klismann y vamos a ver.”

Which translates to...

"For five years we won a lot, had a lot of good times. It's sad and unfortunate that it happened but that's part of the business. We'll see what the future of the United States brings but the last five years have been good.

U.S. Soccer chose Jurgen Klinsmann to grow the level not just of the national team but also of the Under-17s, the Under-20s, all of them. That's Klinsmann's plan and we'll see.

With regards to Jurgen Klinsmann taking charge:

“Vamos a ver, siempre con un nuevo entrenador, siempre hay nuevos jugadores porque él tiene jugadores que a él le gustan y para mí es un comienzo nuevo y tienes que trabajar mucho más para demostrar tus habilidades a un nuevo entrenador y por mi yo voy a tomar la decisión como es."

... which translates to...

"We'll see. Whenever there is a new coach, there are always new players because he has players he likes. For me, this is a new start. You have to work hard to show your abilities to a new coach. For me, I'm taking the decision for what it's worth."

Bradley's Firing: Winners, Losers

Bob Bradley is gone from the US national team, and with his ouster and impending replacement, the national team figures to undergo change. Certainly this team will be different now that Bradley is gone, with some new faces coming in and some old faces gone.

Who stands to gain from the move? Who may find it difficult to maintain his spot on the team or get back onto the team?

Winners

* Maurice Edu. The one spot where the U.S. has true depth is at central midfield. Bradley seemingly has alternated with central midfielders throughout his tenure. Michael Bradley has been the lone automatic starter but at times the same label was given to Ricardo Clark and Jermaine Jones. Edu, however, might be the team's best central midfielder yet his time in the position was limited at best. Edu was solid when he came on during the World Cup but Bradley turned to Clark in the decisive match against Ghana, and Edu was all but passed over by Jones when he debuted for the team in 2010. Edu has his best chance now of locking down a spot on the First XI, a spot that should have been his awhile back.

* Chad Marshall/Heath Pearce/Todd Dunivant/Omar Gonzalez: The US defense is and has been miserable, but that does not mean there aren't any good American defenders. In Marshall, Pearce, Dunivant and Gonzalez, Bradley had four top MLS defenders at his disposal but rarely called on them. I have to believe that a Marshall-Gonzalez pairing flanked by either Dunivant or Pearce on the left would have done better than Goodson-Bocanegra and Bornstein did. Marshall has been the best defender in MLS over the last 5-6 years yet who gets called ahead of him? Tim Ream, who has not even done a fraction of what Marshall has in MLS. And who had a poor showing in the Gold Cup, bad enough to relegate him to the bench? Tim Ream.

* Mexico-based Americans: Jose Francisco Torres, Edgar Castillo, Herculez Gomez... all talents the U.S. can utilize yet none were effectively used by Bradley. Torres and Castillo have seemingly fallen off the map, and while the players haven't logged many minutes with their respective club teams in recent seasons, they were never given a clear chance of winning a spot on the US when they were at the top of their club games. A new set of eyes might feel it's worth a chance to give players who compete in a league that's better than MLS a shot of winning a spot on the national team. There is one obvious exception to this which I'll get into below.

Losers

* Jonathan Bornstein: Few could figure out why Bornstein was constantly given playing time when his play with the U.S. did not warrant it. Yes, the left back position is one of need but there have been other options throughout Bradley's tenure but few have gotten so much attention at that position as Bornstein. The former Chivas USA star had his moments with the team but overall his play has been shoddy, highlighted by his disastrous performance in the Gold Cup final last month.

* Sacha Kljestan: Another former Bradley player at Chivas USA, Kljestan also received more play with the US than warranted. Perhaps it was the potential Kljestan showed when Bradley drafted him fifth overall in 2006, or the potential he showed under Bradley that season or in 2007, but with the play Kljestan received it was as if he was being groomed to take over the position on a full-time basis.

* Oguchi Onyewu: "Gooch" was the defender of the future, the rock that would lead the U.S. into the next two World Cups. Then he got hurt. And then he struggled to find his form. Yet Bradley still insisted on keeping the mammoth physical specimen around as he took up a spot on the World Cup team although he was clearly not ready to play, and then took up a spot in the Gold Cup 2011 squad when again he was not ready for action. Onyewu will be fortunate to get another call to the team in 2011.

* Michael Bradley: It's tough to be the coach's son. A lot of the anger and darts tossed Bob Bradley's way hit Michael as well. Michael was in a no-win situation. No matter how well he played, it was never good enough. Michael has scored in some very important games - against Mexico in a 2009 World Cup qualifier (both goals in a 2-0 win); versus Slovenia in the World Cup and against Mexico in the Gold Cup final last month. Yet his goals were never good enough to appease his critics, who wanted both him and his father gone. Now, Michael may very well retain his spot on the team but where he comes up short is in the mental part of the match. His father was sacked, and I have to believe that will affect him. Perhaps not in the long run as much, but he needs to impress the incoming national team coach instantly, and if he's not in the right frame of mind right off the bat, his chance to do so could be done with.

Agree? Disagree? Anyone I left off of either list?

Bye Bye, Bob

Stunned.

As much as this move was warranted and as much as many U.S. supporters wanted to see it happen, my first reaction to the news that Bob Bradley had been fired was that.

U.S. Soccer hasn't sacked a coach since 1998, and before that... well, that might as well be ancient history, right?

That stability, for good or bad, was what made the U.S. unique. Keeping coaches in place for a long time, growing the team slowly and getting to where the team wanted to be with a methodical approach to the process. This wasn't Mexico where there's been a revolving door with coaches or really most other national teams, where that seems to be the case.

So when the announcement dropped like an atomic bomb on Thursday afternoon, I was stunned. Not that it happened but that the federation fired its coach.

Was it the right move? I would find it difficult to argue that it was not. I would find it very difficult to buy anybody's argument that this move did not need to happen. It happened for three reasons, to me anyway...

* Results - The U.S. lost the last two Gold Cup finals, by a combined score of 9-2, to Mexico. The one in '09 was atrocious but the one last month cost the U.S. a chance to participate in the 2013 Confederations Cup. Unpardonable.

* Roster choices - Any manager of any national team around the world is faced with this criticism. "For God's sake why wasn't _____ called up to the team??!?!?" I fill in the blank with Chad Marshall, Todd Dunivant, Omar Gonzalez... not coincidentally, those guys are all defenders. To me the biggest problem with Bradley's teams were the defense was like a sieve. He pinned his hopes on Oguchi Onyewu and when Onyewu got hurt and was unable to recover and is still not back to his old self (which incidentally, he was never a dominant defender and was never going to be one, people were just enamored with his size), Bradley was lost. Jay DeMerit, Clarence Goodson, Tim Ream and Carlos Bocanegra were all shuffled in and none could do much to prevent opponents from scoring.

* Bleak Future - I do believe that had Bradley stayed the future would have been bleak. As I wrote in my previous post, take the Gold Cup results against CONCACAF teams - wins over Canada, Guadeloupe, Jamaica and losses to Panama and Mexico - and translate that into the Hexagonal while replacing Guadeloupe with Honduras and Canada or Jamaica with Costa Rica and the U.S. had a realistic chance of not qualifying for the 2014 World Cup. Losing World Cup qualifying matches at home is the best way to not qualify for the World Cup and the U.S. cannot afford to drop points at home.

This move was certainly stunning in the timing of it and that it happened but the reasons behind it were warranted. That goes without saying.

Bradley did a fine job with the U.S. overall though and it's important to recognize that. It was incredibly risky playing without the stars against Mexico in February 2007 but came away with a strong 2-0 win, and the team followed that up with a 2-1 win over El Tri in the Gold Cup final in 2007. The Confederations Cup 2009 run was unexpected while winning the group in the 2010 World Cup was also unexpected and pleasing to U.S. fans.

But it's time to move on. Actually, it was time to move on after the World Cup but moving on now gives renewed hope that the team will regain its stature and composure by the time World Cup qualifying begins in 2012.

Hope. That's something that hasn't been around the team since last summer.

Bob Bradley Firing

Not long ago, someone with a long history with US Soccer was talking to me about Bob Bradley, and about what I thought about him continuing as coach of the men's team.

I answered honestly that I thought it had been a mistake to retain him, but that I didn't see it as an error that U.S. Soccer would rectify. 

"Bradley hasn't done badly enough to warrant firing," I stated. "It's not something the federation usually does. They haven't fired a coach since Steve Sampson in 1998."

Well, today they did just that. 

Specifically, Sunil Gulati fired Bradley.

I'm genuinely surprised, but not shocked. 

The expectations for the U.S. team are higher now, perhaps, than ever, given the investment in the squad. The team hasn't played that well under Bradley this year. 

I can't help but think back to the idea that Bradley seems to have his best success with squads in the early years of his time. With Chicago in 1998, he won MLS Cup in his first year as head coach, in the club's first year of existence. His tenure with the MetroStars was promising at the start, as was his time with Chivas USA. Bradley's beginning with the USA squad was similarly stellar. 

Which it not to say that the USA team ever was horrible, as it's likely no Bradley team is ever that. Yet there are some players who seem to tune out his motivation and philosophies after a while. 

That's human nature. It happens.

The bottom line is, if Clint Dempsey's shot hadn't slipped away from the Algerian goalkeeper at the World Cup last year, and if the rebound hadn't fallen kindly for a trailing Landon Donovan, then there would probably be a new coach of the USA team right now. One's tenure shouldn't come down to one kick, whether in a positive or negative way, no matter how many celebrations that moment set off. 

That's why I argued at the time that Bradley shouldn't stay on the basis of that kick being successful. It was too arbitrary, too close. 

Luis wrote earlier on this blog that Bradley should go. I didn't write a post myself, mostly because it seemed pointless to write about a firing I didn't think it was going to happen. 

Now that the deed is done, I can give a qualified nod to the move. It's the right thing, in my opinion, if the replacement for Bradley is right. 

But that's another blog post, for another day.

Mailbag

My SI.com article got quite a bit of response, and I've posted a few emails here that are pretty representative overall. 


From M.S.:
C'mon Andrea, everyone knows what a mean and nasty bastard Wynalda is -- he's lucky to still have a job on the air with his bitter criticism of everyone and everything always leaking out all over the place.  And as far as Bradley is concerned, let's face it:  Bradley and Dempsey are the only world class players on the roster.  Their skill and determination stand out against the backdrop of all those others who struggle to even get a game or not get loaned out over there in Europe.  Just take Freddy Adu for example.  What was Bob Bradley thinking?
The guy has to go to a lousy club in Turkey to get playing time.    Anyway . . . it is obviously going to take years to build up a quality roster, and with Michael Bradley doing such yeoman work in the midfield, great
touch, great awareness, his competitive spirit is an advantage, not a handicap.  Nuff said.

From A.F.:
What a bunch of crap. Michael Bradley is the best friggin player on the USMNT. I don't know what games you're watching. The guy goes box to box, starts all the time, never gets subbed. He fights hard, has undervalued offensive and passing skills and never quits! The only reason he's not the captain is the stupid cries of nepotism.
What does Waldo know about playing holding mid? What an arse.

I'd point out that I didn't ever write that Michael Bradley was a bad player in my article. That wasn't the point. In fact, I think Michael is a good player in many ways, but apparently criticizing that one aspect of his personality (his temper) was taken by many to mean I don't think he is any good as a player. That's not the case. 

 Anyway, about half the emails were like the ones above. Others were like the two below.

From C.P.:
Very well written, fair and factual.  As the US public embraces soccer and becomes more educated, closer scrutiny will surely follow.

From B.S.:
Just wanted to compliment you on your reporting vis-a-vis the Bradley-Wynalda incident.  So many in the US soccer media don't seem to be able to report objectively on what goes on.  Thank you and keep it up.  Hopefully more will follow your lead.


 A couple of emails were from people who specifically asked me not to identify them, including one that I've verified is from someone who played for Bob Bradley for years. Below is an excerpt of that email.


 Former Player:
While I found Bradley to be technically knowledgeable about the game, I have never seen a coach suck the life out of a team like that; he took every ounce of joy, not to mention fairness, out of the game.

Tabloid Journalism?

My latest piece for SI.com is up, and while I worked hard to both confirm the story and verify facts with US Soccer itself, I was accused by some in the organization of "tabloid journalism". 

Never mind that what Michael Bradley said was done publicly, even though it was a small group of people.

What bothered me most about the reaction of those from US Soccer who talked to me was the impression that it almost didn't seem to matter that the incident had occurred. That didn't seem to be a problem at all. There was more outrage expressed that I tracked the story down and was writing about it. 

In my opinion, the story was newsworthy, especially once I got confirmation. My biggest concern now is for possible repercussions for both my original source and Eric Wynalda for verifying what took place. 

That shouldn't even be an issue, but it reminds me of the backlash against Hope Solo when she simply told the truth about Greg Ryan's poor choice with the goalkeeping switch in 2007. Some people don't want others to talk about the truth.

Sack Bradley?

Is it time for Bob Bradley to go?

Most US national team supporters will answer with a resounding "Yes!" when asked that question. I've not been calling for Bradley's head on a platter or anything of the sort, but I'm starting to think that removing him is the only way for the US to really move forward.

Now, before I move on I'd like to point out that I was against re-hiring him after the 2010 World Cup for the simple fact that I think a fresh set of eyes, a fresh perspective and new people are needed at the start of every World Cup cycle. Period. Regardless of the circumstances. It's no coincidence that the US did well from 1998 to 2002 with a new man in charge and stalled from 2002 to 2006 with the same man in charge.

The pattern is repeating itself. The US had a much better 2006-10 than it had 02-06, but now the start of this cycle is already seeing some setbacks and disappointments. The US did not win the Gold Cup, lost to its biggest rival in said tournament final for the second consecutive time, and will not compete in the Confederations Cup two years from now.

Those are the tangible setbacks from this year. The subjective setbacks, the ones that many will argue about, are the ones on the field.

* The defense has been miserable.
* Production from forwards has been non-existent.
* Bleeding in new players has been hit and miss.
* The players who are supposed to step forward and take over now that Donovan and Dempsey are getting up there in age (yes, they are getting up there in age, in soccer terms of course) are not exactly revealing themselves.

Now, how much if this is Bradley's fault? Honestly, this was always going to be an uphill struggle for him. Too much time in the national team's manager position makes for a stale environment and it's difficult to maintain a high level for an extended period of time.

The US isn't exactly a world power but when Bradley came in, the US was the best team in CONCACAF. They are no longer that, and based on how the team played in the Gold Cup, World Cup qualifying might not be a stroll in the spice garden either.

So must Bradley go? Should US Soccer pull the trigger and sack him?

As much as it pains me to say this, yes.

Having covered Chivas USA in 2006 and having seen the kind of changes he made then, and the changes he made with the US national team the next year, and knowing how much work Bradley and his staff put into the team, I know that Bradley's work is just as diligent now as it ever was.

But the US is a team running on a treadmill right now. They're working hard but going nowhere. And that needs to change.

Otherwise, participating in World Cup 2014 might be in jeopardy.

Bradley looks ahead

Bob Bradley briefly describes upcoming rivals.

Bradley for scores for US, Bradley

Michael Bradley scored a goal for his dad on Father's Day.

Audio of young Michael's thoughts on that and the match in general.

Bob after Barbados

Here's video of Bob at the presser, sharing thoughts on the game.

Bob Bradley post-match press conference

Listen to the audio here. About 15 minutes worth of questions and answers.

Roster for England?

We won't know who makes the final list until it's actually released but I'll take a guess at who may or may not be on it based on some Bob Bradley tendencies.

- Bradley doesn't like to yank guys away from MLS games if he doesn't have to. That being said, don't expect Brian Ching, Ricardo Clark or Kenny Cooper to make the team for England, as Houston and FC Dallas play on May 28 as well. A notable exception to that is Landon Donovan, but the Galaxy doesn't play until the weekend.

- Bradley won't throw any uncapped players into the fire, at least none that have to travel a long way to do so. He said as much before his second-ever match. Against Mexico on Feb. 7, 2007, Bradley did not call up any of the then young, untested foreign-based players such as Benny Feilhaber, Jay DeMerit or even Michael Bradley who had two caps in 2006. His reasoning: it's asking a lot for youngsters to make a trans-Atlantic trip and try to settle into an unfamiliar camp situation. Thus, I wouldn't expect Robbie Rogers or Michael Orozco in the mix.

- Bradley likes to maintain positive relationships with club teams. Whether its MLS teams or foreign clubs, Bradley will sometimes leave players off the team if it may upset the club and potentially the player's situation there. I wouldn't Orozco for that reason aside from the previous one for the fact that San Luis is still alive for the Mexican league title. Also, I'd guess that DaMarcus Beasley will be left off. With Rangers, he injured his knee, rehabbed and finally returned enough to play a few minutes. I don't think Rangers would be too happy to see Beasley, then, take the field for 90 minutes against England.

Anyway, those are just a few of the tendencies I've picked up on from Bradley during his tenure with the US national team. We'll see if I'm off the mark or not when the roster is released, possibly within the next few hours.

A slight chance

So this snowball rolls into hell. . .

Years ago, I wrote a story about Guiseppe Rossi, an American kid who was raised by a soccer coach father who taught him to love the country of his heritage, Italy. Rossi was so talented, he was able to move back to Italy at 14 and start a professional career there. He went on to sign with Manchester United. Now he plays in Spain.

Because of his parents, Rossi is eligible to play for Italy and has in fact featured for their youth national teams numerous times.

FIFA rules say that a player can switch to the country of their birth if they've only played for youth teams of another country, but that the move can only be made once. It also has to take place before the player turns 21. Rossi is nearly there - his birthday is in early February.

Last year, Luis had the scoop about U.S. coach Bob Bradley, who is from the area of the country where Rossi grew up, keeping in touch with Rossi. That left the slim possibility that perhaps Rossi was still considering the U.S. as an option.

But the deadline is almost here, and it doesn't seem like an eleventh-hour change of heart is going to happen. Perhaps that's why Bob seemed a little testy when I asked him about Rossi.

I'm not one to worry about the decisions of players. As individuals, they should choose what they want to do. I'm mystified at those who rail at Rossi for playing for Italy, just as I'm puzzled by those who decry Landon Donovan's choice to play in MLS. One's life belongs to no one else.

I still stand by my call in 2005, though. Rossi is a very good player, but not so superlative that he's an automatic choice for Italy, especially when political elements seem to come into play in selection. If Rossi hopes to play in a World Cup, choosing the U.S. team is a safer bet.

I don't think he'll do it, though. I find a kind of poetic irony in the fact that it's likely that both U.S. fans and Rossi may one day rue what might have been had his choice been a different one.

Bob on camp

Here's about seven or eight minutes worth of conversation with Bob Bradley.

At the end, I asked him about Jonathan Bornstein and his trip to Israel. Bob wanted to reply off the record, so I shut off the recorder. Sorry, but I've got to respect that.

Cults of personality

A reader left a comment asking about the personal styles of the national team coaches, in terms of how that affected training.

I thought about it for a while, and came up with a few observations.

Bob Bradley is all business. I've never seen or heard him crack a joke during practice. He's intense, and that filters down to his players. They focus because he always demands concentration. Funny has a place - off the field.

Bruce Arena had more of a jokester turn. He'd call out things to players, usually a humorous insult or observation of some kind. It would lighten things up a bit for players, and I think it also served as a sort of bonding ritual - to get razzed by Bruce. That seemed to encourage players to do that to each other as well. It seems to me that players walking off the field after training with Bruce were always kidding each other more than they are now.

I remember when Bob Holtzman, another reporter, was working on a Bradley story soon after Bob had gotten the interim post. He asked players to give an example of Bob telling a joke or funny story.

Every player he talked to said yes, Bob did have a sense of humor that he occasionally displayed, but not a single one could think of a joke he'd told.

Another quirk I remember about Bradley, something I don't recall Arena doing, is that Bradley stands in goal sometimes during scrimmages or shooting drills. No, he doesn't play goalkeeper. He stands in the goal, perhaps to watch the shooting form of players from there. I'm not sure if the viewing angle is different than standing safely behind the goal. Anyway, I never remember Arena doing that, though he in fact was once a goalkeeper.

In general, though, what I've observed about a lot of soccer practices is that no matter who is in charge, they run through a lot of the same stuff. Small-sided scrimmages, skill work, shooting drills, etc.

Overall, though, I think the Bradley Era may differ from the Arena one partly because of circumstance. Expectations have really grown for the national team. The 2006 World Cup was a disappointment because fans wanted so much more. The entire squad was going to have a higher level of pressure under Bradley, and consequently, a more serious tone, because of the feeling that people care about the team now, that results matter. So it wasn't just Bradley that contributed to a more somber tone.

Arena and his players rode the high of 2002 for a while (perhaps for far too long, considering how Arena clung to some instrumental players from that time, like Reyna and O'Brien).

What I've observed is that even good coaches have styles that sometimes mesh better with some players than with others. The spark that they bring to a national team, however, can settle into a routine after a while. Inspiration is a tricky thing - what worked once often won't work again, simply because it worked before. A type of ennui can set in.

I think Bruce stayed Bruce, but wasn't as effective doing exactly what had worked before as time went on. That's why I believe that Bob shouldn't stay on as national team coach even if the U.S. performs well in 2010. I hope he takes the initiative to move on of his own volition.

There are reasons why national teams around the world, including the most successful ones, change coaches so often. Clubs are different, obviously, with a number of leaders lasting for years and years. With a national team, though, one needs constant fresh ideas, tactics, evaluations and the ability to energize players quickly.

Hat trick hero

Impressive scoring total for a defensive midfielder. Perhaps it's time for Bob to start becoming known as Michael Bradley's father?

First year on the job

For my weekly Press-Enterprise column, I wrote about Bob Bradley's first year on the job. There is one game left on the calendar of course, Saturday's friendly at South Africa, but the year is pretty much over, to the point where I think you can reasonably assess his performance.

I didn't attach a letter grade but if I had to, I'd give him a B. He won the Gold Cup and had a couple of important friendly wins - the 2-0 win against Mexico and the 1-0 win at Switzerland. But I wouldn't give him anything higher than a B because of the United States' performance in Copa America.

Bob answers questions

Some questions from Andres Cantor to Bob Bradley.

Audio here.