On Bob Bradley

The SoccerScribe is at again. I'll leave it at that. This must have been what it sounded like when the ships off the coast of Normandy in 1944, unloaded on the coast to pave the way for the waves of boats, men and machines.

At least as important as any tactical or technical expertise he can impart, the ability to motivate is critical for any coach. It's why, particularly at the younger levels, teams that appear to be incredibly overmatched can achieve previously thought of out-of-reach goals.

But even at the professional level, where the much more wheat is separated from the chaff and players all have passed some level, the capacity to inspire divides the good coaches from those merely handed the whistle.

Bob Bradley has won pro titles, but none since and _ more importantly for purposes of this discussion _ Peter Nowak left Chicago. In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is another call to "Throw Bob under the Bus." He's had three years at the House of Happiness known as the MetroStars. Whether it has been his player selections or his total incapability to get those choices to play consistently for him, he hasn't gotten it done.

For a man who has said in his own distinctive "style" that the soccer media has a long way to go to catch up to world standards, Bradley should realize world standards don't tolerate mediocrity in coaching _ particularly at his salary level. Partly, it is his head-scratching choices (just think Sergio Galvan Rey!) But more importantly it is a failure to motivate those who he has picked. He's had some talent, which he either dumped, traded or sent to the moon, from youngsters Rico Clark, Brad Davis or Pablo Brenes to vets like Eddie Pope, who, the argument went, wasn't enough of a leader on the field. Hmmmm. Leader on the field, i.e. someone to motivate the players. That's the COACH'S job. Bradley may go on the theory that professionals should motivate themselves, but when you have about half your team that are barely out of high school, that's a fool's errand.

This is where I bring Nowak back into the picture. I'm now very convinced it was Nowak, not Bradley, who was the inspiration that led the Fire to their titles, the same Nowak who took a D.C. United team from four years of playoff wilderness to the MLS title last year in his first season. And that amid a lot of criticism to "Play Freddy". Nowak somehow managed, mostly with the players he was left with and one 14 year old kid that he probably would not have chosen if for no other reason to not have to deal with the circus that surrounded him, to get the most out of his players. Whether on the field, or on the touch line, Nowak apparently has the quality of leadership.

Bradley, conversely, has constantly overhauled his roster, acquired Jaime Moreno and then ditched them, and given time to players that shouldn't have been on the team at all (I still don't see the magic of Cornell Glen and would love to know how much beer went to Columbus in THAT deal).This season, his son Michael has the most minutes of any player on the side. Blame injuries if you want, but I think its fair to ask _ in light of the team's performance and some of the players left on the bench _ if that is in the best interest of the MetroStars or his son's career. Whatever Bradley's qualities are, leadership does NOT seem to be among them. Bradley has always had a prickly relationship with the media. Anyone who dares suggest his decisions are questionable gets rebuked rather quickly and arrogantly.

It's not necessary to love or even like the media. However, the soccer media in this country does not have the impact of our counterparts in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. We're not given the same space, time or freedom to express our opinions. So his method of interaction demonstrates his temperament, which is disturbing.

His rumored behind-the-scenes response to the arrival of Alexi Lalas as GM, as reported last week on this blog that the beloved coach had to do Lalas' dirty work and that the former goateed one isn't liked by "anyone," is yet another example that Bradley has outlived his usefulness (and I'm not sure that I can point to a time when he had a utility!) Bradley has had three years without subordinates trying to undermine him and hasn't done better than a first-round playoff appearance. Shouldn't Lalas at least get three months?It is whispered that Bruce Arena doesn't make a major decision without consulting Bradley. THAT is distressing enough. I'm now beginning to wonder if the Nats wouldn't do even better if Bradley was limited to having no more contact than watching them on television.