It's difficult to get excited about the status quo. In this case, it's difficult to get excited about a status quo that has obvious limitations; Bob Bradley's contract extension may be the most practical decision for US Soccer, but is has a decidedly dull sheen about it. If the goal is to move the US National Team forward as quickly as possible, Bradley's track record over the past four years seems to point to a loss of focus.
But bringing Bradley back is hardly the terrible choice so many want to make it out to be. Cut his performance during the 2010 cycle in any direction and you'll find more success than failure; whether fans buy that as a legitimate reason for him to get another go is more a matter of American expectations, disillusionment with the most practical tactical setup, and a belief that a radically different approach is preferable, even if failure follows. Re-signing Bradley is a low risk move that brings with it a perceived chance for moderate success. Maybe Bradley has taken the US to a ceiling he's simply not capable of breaking through himself. If there are no other options available, and we have reason to believe there aren't, then US Soccer simply decided to take a chance that Bradley will surprise.
The images most fresh in our minds of Bob Bradley as USMNT head coach are of failure against Ghana in the World Cup and a depressingly poor performance against Brazil at the New Meadowlands earlier this month. The former is a problem, and Bradley's glaring mistakes (hello, Rico Clark) in that game stand in accusation of his ability to lead the US into the next cycle. The latter is a toss out game, a showing with too many variables to be fairly used against Bradley from a "moving forward" evaluation. Bradley's ability to learn from his mistakes, and to correct problems that continuously popped up during the World Cup will be crucial to the success of his second four years. In fact, should he not correct those problems in short order, he may not get another four years.
Bradley represented the most cost-effective decision for US Soccer. Better coaches were simply not throwing themselves at the Federation, and with budget concerns a major factor in the process, there was really no alternative to another run for Bob Bradley.
Pretend for a moment that you're running US Soccer. In the aftermath of a semi-successful World Cup, one that saw your team win their group with a few lucky breaks but fall in the Round of 16, your coaching situation is in flux. You know that two-cycle coaches are rare, and the Bruce Arena experience is fresh in your mind. You'd like to explore other options, but you're limited by the budget, the attractiveness of the job to international-caliber coaches, and uniqueness of a job that involves working with the still-evolving, and at times frustrating, MLS.
Do you cast your net in search of an American or US-based replacement because change is simply that important? Or do you drum up support in the organization for a big-money option, an internationally-known coach that may demand a premium to manage the US? Keep in mind that a flashy choice will bring plenty of positive PR to the program, but that it will come at a price, while an American replacement will appear to be a lateral move. Your cost-benefit analysis, which is a must for a governing body attempting to grow the game at all levels for both men and women, might just make your decision for you.
Bradley is probably cheaper than Klinsmann. Klinsmann's resume is not so overwhelming as to make up for that fact, and there are very real questions about his coaching acumen. For a federation without a long list of available candidates and an ability to pay less than might be necessary to entice more, the choice was fairly simple. Four more years of Bradley.
Bob Bradley was not a failure as USMNT manager between 2006 and 2010. He did not perform so poorly that re-signing him is a guarantee of disaster in the next cycle. He's simply not exciting, he won't wow anyone with innovative tactics, and his demeanor is dour and subdued. Whether he can move the program forward is up for debate, and his player choices must get better.
I've seen it suggested that it might even be preferable to replace Bradley with an experimental choice and damn the consequences. If the new coach bombs out going for it, well at least we tried. That's how little excitement Bob Bradley engenders in the fan base. Even calamity is more enticing.
But US Soccer can't afford to lose ground. That's what Bradley represents; the safest bet to hold ground in the next cycle, even if the chances for a leap forward are less than we'd like. Someone else, likely more expensive, requiring a learning curve they might not successfully navigate, could take the US into the future with excitement and the possibility of more improvement. But they might also fail miserably, leave the team in shambles on the way out, and jeopardize the progress made by the program during Bradley's tenure.
It's a rationalization. That doesn't make it invalid. Fortune may favor the bold, but misfortune will follow the reckless.
In the end, I'm disappointed. I was curious what someone else might do in the job, and I thought Bradley may have reached the a natural limit of his potential. But I'm not distraught, nor do I think this move precludes team from getting better or having a successful World Cup in 2014. I'll hang on to the hope that Bradley has learned from the last four years, will get better as a coach, and take the team forward. That's certainly a possibility.
But US Soccer needs to have a quick hook should anything go moderately awry. Bradley's mandate shouldn't automatically extend four years simply because he signed a contract of that length. The first test of Bradley's ability to improve the team, integrate new parts, and prove that he learned from the mistakes of the World Cup (goodbye, Rico Clark) is the Gold Cup next year. It's his referendum, and the team's performance should determine if it's Bob Bradley in 2012 and beyond.
Unfortunately, bringing Bob back was the best choice considering the circumstances.
