Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine

Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Merv on March 07, 2012, 02:40:56 PM

Title: Michael Bradley
Post by: Merv on March 07, 2012, 02:40:56 PM
http://tiny.cc/Iasf2b

Decent article, this. I always felt he'd have been useful for us, given the chance.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: spangley1812 on March 07, 2012, 02:49:01 PM
http://tiny.cc/Iasf2b

Decent article, this. I always felt he'd have been useful for us, given the chance.

I agree IMO he wasnt given long enough but in the games he did play he didnt impress but he is having an outstanding season in Italy
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Monty on March 07, 2012, 02:51:58 PM
http://tiny.cc/Iasf2b

Decent article, this. I always felt he'd have been useful for us, given the chance.

I agree IMO he wasnt given long enough but in the games he did play he didnt impress but he is having an outstanding season in Italy

He had nowhere near enough game time to prove his worth, agreed. He should have had some credit in the bank on account of being a good player for some years, but fitness issues seemed to get in the way.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: SteveN on March 07, 2012, 03:29:05 PM

A good opportunity missed, a better than decent player in my book who we should have persevered with.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Rip Van We Go Again on March 07, 2012, 03:45:13 PM
I'm in the minority then, I thought he was awful against Man City and couldn't string a pass from 2 yards.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Concrete John on March 07, 2012, 03:49:20 PM
I'm in the minority then, I thought he was awful against Man City and couldn't dtring a pass from 2 yards.

It's a minority ot at least two if you are!

I saw nothing in him to warrant offering him a contract, with the biggest issue seeming to be his inability to handle the pace of the game here.

I will admit that was based on limited playing time, but he did nothing to justify further playing time over who we already had to see if he could improve.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: luke25 on March 07, 2012, 04:09:16 PM
I only remember him playing twice for us and that was two times to many.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Merv on March 07, 2012, 04:16:20 PM
Agree he wasn't anything other than ordinary in the two games he played for us, though I never put too much value on a debut at Man City when everyone else stunk the place out too. But considering his pedigree up to that point, the fee he would have cost, our other midfield options, I think it was a missed opportunity.

We could do with someone of his attitude and application now in that midfield.

Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Mister E on March 07, 2012, 05:51:27 PM
Agree he wasn't anything other than ordinary in the two games he played for us, though I never put too much value on a debut at Man City when everyone else stunk the place out too. But considering his pedigree up to that point, the fee he would have cost, our other midfield options, I think it was a missed opportunity.

We could do with someone of his attitude and application now in that midfield.


Agreed.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Ad@m on March 07, 2012, 05:57:21 PM
If sorting our wage bill out is the priority then MLS may be the way forward.  Bolton signed someone in January from MLS whose wages over there had been £34k.

Not per week, £34k per year!
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: SoccerHQ on March 07, 2012, 06:20:00 PM
Was pretty happy we signed him. Played very well in the world cup and a tough tackling box-to-box midfielder was exactly what we needed.

But he had a poor debut at City and never really got another chance after that. With thre cost cutting we were never going to spend 4m on an unproven midfielder.

Him, Makoun and Delph should've been our new midfield to replace Petrov but for one reason or another, it dosen't look like to me it's going to happen for the other two either here.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: supertom on March 07, 2012, 07:06:02 PM
We could have done with him this season in retrospect. He's  good enough to be in our starting 11 right now. That doesn't say much mind you. He, nor Makoun, got enough time to show their worth. Bradley was poor in the brief times he played, but he was shit amongst shit at that time. Okay, we're even poorer this season and that in turn may effect him, but he seems to be a player, who given a run would be fairly dependable.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Ross on March 07, 2012, 07:12:32 PM
I'm in the minority then, I thought he was awful against Man City and couldn't string a pass from 2 yards.

Me too.  I thought he looked one of the worst footballers I'd seen wear the shirt, and I've seen Alan Hutton.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: TheSandman on March 07, 2012, 07:13:01 PM
I love how people feel they can make a full judgement on a player from four appearances of which I think one was a cameo, another against Blackpool when we had only ten men on account of Makoun being sent off, a game where we played a shadow side and one other I've forgotten.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: FiveKenMcNaughts on March 07, 2012, 07:13:12 PM
I think with more points on the board last season he would have got more game time, as it was we couldn't afford the luxury of giving a player the time needed to adjust to the pace of the premier league

I was quite excited when we signed him, although not too dissapointed we didn't make it permanent.

Have to admit though, it did cross my mind when McLeish said he had made the decision that we wouldn't be signing him (one of his first actions as manager) I did think of Wilson Palacios who he did the same to at Blues.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: ozzjim on March 07, 2012, 07:13:18 PM
American players tend to adapt. I would have risked it given his age.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: garyshawsknee on March 07, 2012, 07:17:07 PM
Was pretty happy we signed him. Played very well in the world cup and a tough tackling box-to-box midfielder was exactly what we needed.

But he had a poor debut at City and never really got another chance after that. With thre cost cutting we were never going to spend 4m on an unproven midfielder.

Him, Makoun and Delph should've been our new midfield to replace Petrov but for one reason or another, it dosen't look like to me it's going to happen for the other two either here.

I thought he looked really good in the WC,played well against England which isnt saying much i suppose. Needed more time to bed in,he couldve adapted in time,just like the Jean the second. It could all be ifs and buts,truth is though,weve been struggling all season in midfield and these two could have helped.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Legion on March 07, 2012, 07:31:31 PM
I'm in the minority then, I thought he was awful against Man City and couldn't string a pass from 2 yards.

He didn't impress me either.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: PeterWithesShin on March 07, 2012, 07:38:56 PM
I love how people feel they can make a full judgement on a player from four appearances of which I think one was a cameo, another against Blackpool when we had only ten men on account of Makoun being sent off, a game where we played a shadow side and one other I've forgotten.

Indeed. He played less than 20 mins at Blackpool after Makoun went off, the Man City cup debacle, 10 minutes at the Emirates and a couple of minutes against the dippers last match of the season. He just about managed 100 minutes in a Villa shirt. Which apparently is enough for some on here to write him off. It really is a joke.

Meanwhile months or years into their Villa careera Zog needs more time, as does Ireland. And Bannan. And Albrighton. And Fonz etc.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Doorbell on March 07, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
He hadn't impressed me in his time at villa, but I don't think he'd had enough time to adapt or build up his confidence in a new league, ok some players take to it like a duck to water, but others need time...how long did it take stilian petrol to start finding his feet?!!
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: SoccerHQ on March 07, 2012, 09:54:37 PM
Was pretty happy we signed him. Played very well in the world cup and a tough tackling box-to-box midfielder was exactly what we needed.

But he had a poor debut at City and never really got another chance after that. With thre cost cutting we were never going to spend 4m on an unproven midfielder.

Him, Makoun and Delph should've been our new midfield to replace Petrov but for one reason or another, it dosen't look like to me it's going to happen for the other two either here.

I thought he looked really good in the WC,played well against England which isnt saying much i suppose. Needed more time to bed in,he couldve adapted in time,just like the Jean the second. It could all be ifs and buts,truth is though,weve been struggling all season in midfield and these two could have helped.

I loved that goal he scored against Slovenia, the desire he showed by running 30 yards to get on the end of a knock down and score.

By all accounts, he played well for Monchengladbach and is doing well in Seria A so yet a bit of a missed opportuinity I think certainly as Delph has been given countless chances, keeps getting injured and still isn't convincing me he can dominate prem games.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: KevinGage on March 07, 2012, 10:07:14 PM
You don't necessarily need pace to play CM in England.  Barry has never been overly blessed in that department.

But Bradley did look lightening slow, and didn't have enough quality on the ball to compensate for it.

I accept he only had a limited time with us, but things like pace and technique can usually be clocked fairly quickly.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Monty on March 07, 2012, 10:12:27 PM
You don't necessarily need pace to play CM in England.  Barry has never been overly blessed in that department.

But Bradley did look lightening slow, and didn't have enough quality on the ball to compensate for it.

I accept he only had a limited time with us, but things like pace and technique can usually be clocked fairly quickly.

Except he was really unfit, and his technique was proven from a couple of years previously of very good performances. I believe it was unfair to write him off.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Dave on March 07, 2012, 10:15:19 PM
I love how people feel they can make a full judgement on a player from four appearances of which I think one was a cameo, another against Blackpool when we had only ten men on account of Makoun being sent off, a game where we played a shadow side and one other I've forgotten.

Indeed. He played less than 20 mins at Blackpool after Makoun went off, the Man City cup debacle, 10 minutes at the Emirates and a couple of minutes against the dippers last match of the season. He just about managed 100 minutes in a Villa shirt. Which apparently is enough for some on here to write him off. It really is a joke.

Meanwhile months or years into their Villa careera Zog needs more time, as does Ireland. And Bannan. And Albrighton. And Fonz etc.
*nods*
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: KevinGage on March 07, 2012, 10:29:30 PM
You don't necessarily need pace to play CM in England.  Barry has never been overly blessed in that department.

But Bradley did look lightening slow, and didn't have enough quality on the ball to compensate for it.

I accept he only had a limited time with us, but things like pace and technique can usually be clocked fairly quickly.

Except he was really unfit, and his technique was proven from a couple of years previously of very good performances. I believe it was unfair to write him off.

He played for Monchengladbach and Heerenveen before he came to us, so probably fair to say he was one of the better players at struggling or small clubs.  Also, he was such an asset and his technique was so good that even a team like Monchengladbach decided to let him leave on loan, despite battling relegation at the time.

Being unfit might mean that the quality of his performance would dip after 50/60 minutes.    But he looked like he was running through treacle and misplacing passes all over the shop from the get go. This was even into March/ April, and he joined us in January.  So it's not exactly as if we threw him in at the deep end, after months out of the game.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Lizz on March 07, 2012, 10:54:58 PM
I'm in the minority then, I thought he was awful against Man City and couldn't string a pass from 2 yards.

He didn't impress me either.

Until reading this thread, I'd completely forgotten he played for us. Not sure whether that's a reflection on my memory or his contribution to the cause.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Shoody on March 07, 2012, 10:58:23 PM
In retrospect it was a bad move by us to not sign him considering how well he's playing this season.

Would've loved to have seen our midfield under Houllier this season.. Bradley, Cabaye, Makoun, Delph looked promising last season.

I miss Ged. From some of the things that came out he had some good ideas for players to bring in.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: luke25 on March 07, 2012, 11:06:29 PM
I'm in the minority then, I thought he was awful against Man City and couldn't string a pass from 2 yards.

He didn't impress me either.

Until reading this thread, I'd completely forgotten he played for us. Not sure whether that's a reflection on my memory or his contribution to the cause.
Its always the players we sell or the ones that are injured tha would've been or will be our saviour.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: KevinGage on March 07, 2012, 11:08:38 PM
It's genuinely hard to ascertain just how things would have panned out. 

With time, would GH's more progressive ideas and approach shone through?   Or would he have continued to fall out with players -even the ones he signed?  He always gave off an air of a technical consultant too, someone who wasn't entirely wrapped up in the project and had other irons in the fire.

That said, I'd have preferred even Gary Mac to continue rather than the current bloke. If that had meant pissing off Dunne, Collins and Warnock that would just be a bonus.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Monty on March 08, 2012, 12:24:55 AM
You don't necessarily need pace to play CM in England.  Barry has never been overly blessed in that department.

But Bradley did look lightening slow, and didn't have enough quality on the ball to compensate for it.

I accept he only had a limited time with us, but things like pace and technique can usually be clocked fairly quickly.

Except he was really unfit, and his technique was proven from a couple of years previously of very good performances. I believe it was unfair to write him off.

He played for Monchengladbach and Heerenveen before he came to us, so probably fair to say he was one of the better players at struggling or small clubs.  Also, he was such an asset and his technique was so good that even a team like Monchengladbach decided to let him leave on loan, despite battling relegation at the time.

Being unfit might mean that the quality of his performance would dip after 50/60 minutes.    But he looked like he was running through treacle and misplacing passes all over the shop from the get go. This was even into March/ April, and he joined us in January.  So it's not exactly as if we threw him in at the deep end, after months out of the game.

Being unfit can have all sorts of effects on a player (and he got injured, IIRC, since joining us, further setting back his rehabilitation).

Besides, yes he was one of the better players in weak or struggling teams (and I'm willing to call his time at Heerenveen irrelevant), but in Germany that didn't affect the quality of the opposition, and technique is all about what you do to react to opponents. He's a good player, who is proving that, and I feel we missed out. I'd certainly prefer him over Delph, Herd (though I do like the kid) and, FFS, Heskey in mid-fecking-field.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Pete3206 on March 08, 2012, 12:31:09 AM
It comes to something when we're lamenting the absence of Gerard Houllier. The man was a walking disaster. Now we have walking disaster Mark II.

As for this Bradley fella, I only remember his appearance at Blackpool. He was atrocious.


Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: KevinGage on March 08, 2012, 12:45:10 AM
Perhaps with more time some of his other assets would have come to the fore.

He might have given us the height and strength we need in the middle of the park and he usually weighs in with a few goals for club and country.

But any manager coming in will have his own ideas about the players he wants, so it's no surprise that the Big Eck didn't sign off on that one. That his own choices have largely been gash is a different argument for a different thread.  B-lose were apparently set to sign him had they stopped up in 2009, so maybe he felt what he inherited  at VP was better and it was an unnecessary outlay.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Monty on March 08, 2012, 12:57:19 AM
Perhaps with more time some of his other assets would have come to the fore.

He might have given us the height and strength we need in the middle of the park and he usually weighs in with a few goals for club and country.

But any manager coming in will have his own ideas about the players he wants, so it's no surprise that the Big Eck didn't sign off on that one. That his own choices have largely been gash is a different argument for a different thread.  B-lose were apparently set to sign him had they stopped up in 2009, so maybe he felt what he inherited  at VP was better and it was an unnecessary outlay.

I'm not even blaming McLeish for this one, just saying that, through circumstance, it's a missed opportunity for the club.

And if he thought what he inherited at Villa was better, fine. As you say, it's an entirely different debate, but the retention, or perhaps prioritisation, of Delph ahead of Makoun seems a strange one to me.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Phil from the upper holte on March 08, 2012, 08:37:24 AM
Quote
If sorting our wage bill out is the priority then MLS may be the way forward.  Bolton signed someone in January from MLS whose wages over there had been £34k.

Not per week, £34k per year!

Quite right, I saw this morning Ballotelli was fined 1 weeks wages £120,000 nothing short of disgraceful
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Merv on March 08, 2012, 08:50:30 AM
I'd have thought a player with poor technique would have been instantly shown up in Serie A, too. It's just interesting to see how he's getting on at Chievo. By the sound of it - not the first time I've read similar reviews - he won't be there long.

The sickener, for me, with Bradley, was that when the decision was made not to sign him - and I think the fee at the time was reported as £2.5m - the explanation was that AM had other options in mind. I braced myself for a better midfielder coming in...
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: pedro25 on March 08, 2012, 09:27:41 AM
But we got Jenas!
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: SoccerHQ on March 08, 2012, 07:02:16 PM
I thought it was 4m Moncengladbach were asking?

How much did Chievo sign him for in the end?
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Vanilla on March 08, 2012, 07:12:38 PM
I love how people feel they can make a full judgement on a player from four appearances of which I think one was a cameo, another against Blackpool when we had only ten men on account of Makoun being sent off, a game where we played a shadow side and one other I've forgotten.

Indeed. He played less than 20 mins at Blackpool after Makoun went off, the Man City cup debacle, 10 minutes at the Emirates and a couple of minutes against the dippers last match of the season. He just about managed 100 minutes in a Villa shirt. Which apparently is enough for some on here to write him off. It really is a joke.

Meanwhile months or years into their Villa careera Zog needs more time, as does Ireland. And Bannan. And Albrighton. And Fonz etc.

He did look like a headless chicken against Citeh, but to be fair, the whole team were dire that night.

Agree absolutely re: Zog/Ireland, both of which have had ample experience in the PL before they joined us.

In fact how many non-British players have Villa brought directly in to the PL, who weren't given a fair crack of the whip over the years?

Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Ad@m on March 12, 2012, 08:58:17 AM
In fact how many non-British players have Villa brought directly in to the PL, who weren't given a fair crack of the whip over the years?

Bosko Balaban - he was going to be the next big thing you know!
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: N'ZMAV on March 12, 2012, 09:08:46 AM
Angel was given a very fair crack of a very expensive whip. As was Bouma. Laursen & Carew.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Dave on March 12, 2012, 09:11:41 AM
And if today's rumours that we are considering Jermaine Jones have any credence, makes you wonder why we would want him, but not the younger, better Bradley.

I don't think I've seen a more anonymous midfield performance than Jones' for Blackburn last season. And I include our own in that.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: N'ZMAV on March 12, 2012, 09:14:57 AM
He must have been bad, I don't even remember him being at Blackburn. Avoid that one Villa.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Mazrim on March 12, 2012, 09:26:52 AM
I've never heard of him and dont remember him playing last season. Which I suppose says it all.
I therefore hope there is nothing to the rumour.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Dave on March 12, 2012, 09:32:22 AM
Well it is in The Mirror. So I wouldn't expect that there is.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: N'ZMAV on March 12, 2012, 09:33:56 AM
The Mirror. Always true.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Mazrim on March 12, 2012, 09:35:59 AM
They say the mirror never lies...
I don't like textspeak but... lol!
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: curiousorange on March 13, 2012, 11:37:38 PM
I wasn't arsed about him coming, wasn't arsed about him staying, wasn't arsed about him leaving and I'm not arsed how he's doing now.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: luke25 on March 13, 2012, 11:43:16 PM
And if today's rumours that we are considering Jermaine Jones have any credence, makes you wonder why we would want him, but not the younger, better Bradley.

I don't think I've seen a more anonymous midfield performance than Jones' for Blackburn last season. And I include our own in that.
He gave away that totally avoidable penalty at 0-0 when we routed Blackburn last season I think.
Title: Re: Michael Bradley
Post by: Greg N'Ash on March 14, 2012, 12:42:37 AM
Ho hum... Maybe we missed out on a bargain but in the grand scale of things its hardly a Davies, or a Sidwell or a Cahill or a "insert applicable name here" and after all, its hardly a similar game over there
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal