In Bob I Trust

It's no secret that a lot of USMNT fans aren't too fond of Bob Bradley.  I think it's also safe to say that many look back fondly to Bruce Arena's first cycle at the helm.  So, why not compare the numbers and see how the two stack up in terms of competitive matches before their first World Cup?

To remove any sort of skewing due to understrength friendly rosters or the sort of "exhibition game tactics" that sometimes take place when player evaluation is the main goal, I've only included what I just referred to as "competitive" matches.  This includes, for both, World Cup qualification, two Gold Cup tournaments, and one Confederations Cup.

So here are the side-by-side comparisons.  Records are in the W-D-L format:

World Cup qualification:

Bruce: 8-4-4
Bob: 13-2-3

Bob had a pair of extra qualifiers (the second round against Barbados), but even without those two wins he still holds an edge over Arena.

CONCACAF Gold Cup:

Bruce: 7-0-1 (1 title)
Bob: 10-1-1 (1 title)

Despite the fact that Bruce was able to field many more eventual World Cup participants in both Gold Cup squads because of the more MLS-heavy nature of the player pool, he was not able to reach consecutive finals, something that Bob did with the USMNT's run to the final last summer.

Confederations Cup:

Bruce: 3-0-2
Bob: 2-0-3

Bruce has the numerical edge on this one, but the opponents that he faced were not exactly of the same level that Bob Bradley and company faced in South Africa.  Bruce had a quality win against Germany, an understandable loss to Brazil, a close loss to Mexico, and wins over New Zealand and Saudi Arabia (not exactly international soccer titans).  Compare that to Bob's win over Spain, win over two-time defending African champs Egypt, loss to Brazil, unlucky loss to Italy (thank you, soft red card), and close loss to Brazil in the final, and Bruce's edge doesn't seem all that impressive.

Overall:

Bruce: 18-4-7
Bob: 25-3-7

% of Ws

Bruce: 62.1%
Bob: 71.4%

% of Ws/Ds

Bruce: 75.9%
Bob: 80%

Bob played six more competitive matches over the course of his first three years, yet he has the same number of losses as his predecessor.  Overall, it's hard to deny that he's had more success in the build up.

----

So why the displeasure?  Is it because expectations have so substantially changed that we demand more than we did a decade or so ago?  Well, yes.  But there isn't much else that Bob could do after winning the Hex, winning a Gold Cup, and reaching the Confederations Cup final.  We're not yet on the same level as Brazil or Italy, so losses against them aren't exactly disappointing.  CONCACAF qualifying is also far too tricky to come out of without a couple of road losses.  Yes, it would have been fantastic if we could have held that lead in Azteca, but it's a little harsh to blame that loss on Bob Bradley.  Let's look at on the bright side instead of focusing on the negative: under Bradley, the US got a lead against Mexico in Mexico City and then were just ten minutes away from earning a draw, all of which happened with a swine-flu ridden Landon Donovan on the field.  It's generally believed that our team is much deeper and more talented than it was back in Bruce's first cycle, and with that growth has come greater expectations.  And despite what many disgruntled fans would like to believe, Bob has gotten the results on the field to match that progress.

Is it because Bob hasn't had the most impressive record in friendlies?  Could be.  Maybe it's just me, though, but I don't care about winning friendlies, I care about winning tournaments.  Yes, results against quality teams in exhibitions are nice, but do they matter?  The main objective of a friendly is not to obtain a good result, it's to evaluate your players and give the team some preparation as a unit.  By my view, I'd say Bob has been doing exactly what he needs to do as a coach.  Sure, it seemed very odd when he pulled Jay DeMerit last week and put Jonathan Bornstein at CB, but it wasn't about the result.  It was about seeing if another outside back could provide some emergency cover at CB if needed in South Africa.  He already saw that Jonathan Spector could do just that in the November friendlies, so this time around he gave the other outside back a look.  It was simply more player evaluation ahead of a big tournament. 

What I believe to be two of the main reasons behind the substantial discrepancy in opinions of the two cycles are aesthetics and retrospect.  Bob's defensive style with an emphasis on the counter attack isn't exactly the most appealing, so it's understandable that some might believe a change is necessary.  Heck, Bob is pretty dry in interviews and what not, as well.  But even mighty Brazil learned in 2009 that sometimes it's better to have substance over style (for those without an eye on the Seleção, manager Dunga took some heat from the Brazilian press because his side wasn't playing the "joga bonito" style that has so long accompanied their national team).  It's not the most fun to watch as fans, but the results it has produced, though not the prettiest, are hard to deny.  We don't exactly have the team to get up and down and really push the attack against the elite teams, so why all the anger when Bob opts for a staunchly defensive approach?

It's also a lot easier to have fond memories of Bruce's first cycle in charge thanks to what his team accomplished in Korea/Japan.  That quarterfinals run is what most fans remember about his first cycle in charge.  Had Bruce crashed out in the group stage, we might not have such high opinions of that era.  The bottom line is, though, that to this point, Bob Bradley has been more successful than Bruce Arena was at a comparable point in the '02 cycle.  We don't see it that way, however, because of what happened afterward.  Bob hasn't yet had the opportunity to leave a legacy on the world's biggest stage, but his track record of results in competitive matches should have us hopeful that he can replicate that 2002 run.

Of course, Bob isn't flawless. There have been a few bad decisions (Beasley at LB comes to mind), but those have been placed under such a microscope because of the aforementioned displeasure that they are disproportionately discussed. I'm sure if we took the time to examine 1999-2001, there were a couple of miscues from Il Bruce.  It's just the nature of the position.  You try to find the best combinations and formations; if it works, you're a genius, if not, you're a fool.  At some point, though, it pays to take a couple of lineup risks (Conor Casey in Honduras, anybody?). 

Even if Bob manages to make a deep run in South Africa, I feel like the negative opinions will still persist.  Do people genuinely think that all the success we've had since 2007 has been in spite of Bob Bradley's coaching?  Maybe I'm just not an astute enough observer, but that really seems unlikely. 

Fans have found plenty of reasons over the past three years to dislike the Bob Bradley era.  But when it comes down to it, he's gotten the results (however ugly they may be) and he's left no stone unturned in terms of player selection.  To me, that sounds like an effective national team coach.