Me Chewing Out an Imaginary Bob Bradley

Why did you turn to a 4-5-1 formation? I know Jozy getting injured against Jamaica took out our best striker, by a wide margin, but why does that mean putting someone out top alone. If anything, Agudelo or Wondolowski need a partner in attack. They're not the type of strikers to play alone. The only U.S. striker who has the capabilities to play alone successfully is Altidore. So why in his absence did you not replace him with a midfielder and not a striker? Another problem was you didn't call the best inform striker we have. Charlie Davies is recovered and scoring goals like mad for DC. He should've been on the roster.

Then there's the starting line-up against Mexico in the final. Not only did you not even bother to start an actual striker, none of the six midfielders you started actually played the role. Dempsey is definitely capable of playing that role, but he was never the most forward midfielder. It really seemed as though there was a lot of confusion as to who should fill what role. Bedoya and Adu both were playing RM. Donovan seemed to be playing CAM, which is a role he's capable of playing, but he really belongs out wide. Dempsey was on the Left. Bradley and Jones played a central holding role. It was really just a cluster fuck in midfield.

There is a reason why no one's ever used a 4-6-0 formation. It's because it doesn't work and no one with even a rudimentary understanding of Soccer strategy would ever try it. It's surprising that we even managed any goals yesterday. It was lucky that for the first time in this tournament our guys actually finished efficiently.

What made it most evident that this team is not progressing is the failings in defense that have been a signature of tenure as manager. It is either lack of talent or poor coaching. If it's that the players aren't good enough, why have failed to bring in new defenders to try to improve this problem? There are plenty of good defenders eligible defenders who haven't gotten a real look under your regime. However you've stuck with roughly the same group of defenders. I don't think that's the case though. I think those are the best defenders that our nation has produced an they are more than good enough.

It is clear that good defending is not the priority of the coaching staff. There is an absolute lack of discipline. There isn't any understanding of who should have which responsibility. The frequency of defensive errors by this team is unacceptable.

It's unfortunate that our Soccer Federation felt that you getting the team into the knockout rounds was good enough to give you another stint. If it were up to me, you'd have been let go then. We can't afford another wasted four years. I hope the painful underachievement since The World Cup by this team will be enough to open their eyes and bring someone new in. Our window is closing. This cycle will be our last/best chance and you have become a hindrance to greater achievement.

-Michael

U.S. Soccer Needs a Hub

I've been ranting on Twitter about the terrible locations the U.S. Soccer Federation has chosen for the important matches of the Gold Cup. The Semi-Finals were in Houston were U.S. fan support was at a minimum the support the other teams was high. Green was the dominant color because the overwhelming majority of fans that were there were supporting the Mexican team against Honduras. The atmosphere around that match was so much more energetic than the U.S. match. It seems like if we're going to host the tournament we ought to at least give our team the home-field advantage. I'm certain the final tonight at the Rose Bowl in Los Angeles will be much of the same with Mexican support greatly outnumbering U.S. support.

I think the United States Soccer Federation needs to stop treating our National team like a touring team. I understand that the United States is a big place, but we need to behave like the other soccer powers and recognize the demographics and have what I'll call a soccer hub. Every time the U.S. Men's National teams takes a trip to Mexico they play in the same place. Azteca Stadium in Mexico City. It's exceedingly hostile, it has high elevation and terrible pollution. The United States has never won a game there.

Why shouldn't the United States do the same thing? We should give ourselves the greatest home-field advantage we can for big games. It's not that the team shouldn't play games outside of one place, but important games should be played in the most advantageous place.

I have come up with a list of five cities to potentially to fill this role. The rankings are not arbitrary .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Seattle, Washington

Stadium: Qwest Field (67,000)

Hispanic Population: 6.6%

An important factor is that it has the most rabid and largest fan base of any professional soccer team in the United States. They're already well organized, loud and have a love for the game. That's not mention that Qwest Field is probably the loudest stadium in the country. The Seahawks are often accused of pumping in artificial noise because it gets so loud. Also, importantly it has a low Hispanic population.

There are two cons with Seattle. First is location. It's in a corner and a very long trip for the member's of Sam's Army not located in the Northwest. Second is weather. Seattle isn't exactly a warm weather city, but it isn't exactly a cold weather one either. Given that most other CONCACAF teams are entirely warm weather a cold weather city would help in those winter qualifiers.

Seattle is probably the best location for Fan Support and the worst in terms of environmental advantages.

2) Boston, Massachusetts

Stadium: Gillette Stadium (69,000)

Hispanic Population: 17.5%

Boston showed that they can turn up for a big game before the Gold Cup with that (forgettable) friendly against Spain. It's definitely a cold weather city and a pretty small Hispanic population for that major of a city.

The fan support in Boston won't be as strong as it would be in Seattle.

3) Denver, Colorado

Stadium: Invesco Field (76,000)

Hispanic Population: 34.1%

Denver is definitely the environmental winner. Not only is it a cold weather city; it also has elevation on it's side. However, our biggest rival is Mexico and elevation isn't a problem for them. It would be an issue for nearly everyone else in CONCACAF thoug

The problem is the high Hispanic population, which is overwhelmingly Mexican. Also fan support for the Rapids isn't great and I don't suspect the Men's National Team could come close to filling the stadium.

4) Chicago, Illinois

Stadium: Soldier Field (61,500)

Hispanic Population: 28.9%

The coldest of the cold weather cities. Also Soldier Field is a historic stadium that would make an excellent home for a team. It is also as centrally located as you could hope for.

However, it has similar problems to Denver. High Hispanic population and not great support for the Fire.

5) Columbus, Ohio

Stadium: Columbus Crew Stadium (20,000)

Hispanic Population: 4.5%

Well, this is just selfish. Columbus always does turn up the U.S. team though even in shitty conditions like cold, rainy/snowy like against Mexico in 2009. Columbus Crew Stadium is also the first soccer specific stadium built in the country and the only one on the list. A really low Hispanic population as well.

The problem is capacity. Columbus has a huge stadium, but that one doesn't work at all for soccer (see Crew prior to the current stadium.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to apologize if I sound like a Latino hater. I'm really not. I welcome immigrants into the United States. I don't care if they continue to support their national team. I just want the U.S. to have a home field advantage. Large groups of Hispanics supporting their team in the stadium runs contrary to that.

What do you think of this? Any other cities you'd like to suggest?

Thanks for reading and please comment.

-Michael