BRENT LATHAM – Let me start out by saying that Michael Bradley is one of the better players the U.S. has today. He’s easily one of the six or seven top American players, has room to grow, and gives his all for the badge.

That said, it looks to me like time to rethink the idea that the central U.S. midfield is just Michael Bradley plus one.

Jermaine Jones showed in his first two national team games – imperfect though his play certainly was in both – why he’s the man in the middle for the U.S. for the upcoming cycle.

Jones will be but 32 in 2014 and, if healthy, despite opinions to the contrary, still very close to his prime – which is a cut above what the U.S. had before him, as well as Bradley, Maurice Edu and Ricardo Clark have all developed.

So what happens now?

Little, it would seem.

Michael Bradley was a peak performer for the U.S. at the World Cup, but since then a troubling tendency to give the ball away and make errant passes seems to have reemerged. But Bradley – unlike absolutely everyone else – always seems to see 90 minutes in every single game the U.S. plays no matter the situation. It’s hard to remember the last time he’s come off.

Let’s forget that Michael Bradley is the coach’s son for a minute, and give the elder Bradley all the benefit of the doubt here. What could be the benefit of Bradley seeing 180 minutes over two experimental games when you’re trying other things, including some new formations?

My first though was that Bob Bradley wants to see Michael and Jones team up as much as possible, as the likely combination in the center of midfield heading towards next summer’s Gold Cup. That makes some sense.

But the offense still lacks a bit of spark playing with two essentially defensive mids, neither of which commits completely to going forward and both of which tend to occasionally get caught out of position, though I saw Jones sprinting back into his defensive place more often Tuesday night than I remember seeing Bradley do that.

It may hurt some to hear it, but in essence, Bradley and Jones are the same player. Jones is just better.

Since any slight against Michael Bradley is generally taken as an assault on the program or even the country, I’ll emphasize that Bradley is a great player with lots of upside. He’s just not where Jones is right now. Bob Bradley, to his credit, seems to understand that.

But then, doesn’t the question become not who pairs with Michael Bradley, but with Jermaine Jones? And is the answer still Michael Bradley?

In some cases, it will be. But not all.

To spark more offense, it would be helpful to see Stuart Holden in the middle on top of Jones. Or what about a more reliable defensive alignment with Maurice Edu behind Jones – giving the German-American more license to venture further up the field? At some point it would be interesting to see Jose Torres pair with Jones as well.

But none of this will happen if putting Bradley on the bench is anathema. I can’t think of any better time to try Edu or Holden with Jones than this week’s friendlies, but instead it was Jones and Bradley for three halves.

That the other half, first half Tuesday, was a ridiculously conceived three holding mid alignment that forced Edu into action alongside – right alongside – the other two, show the lengths it seem the coach will go to in order to keep Jones and Bradley on the field together.

But at some point, one of them is going to have to go if the U.S. is to try anything new, ever. The U.S. has a surplus of good center mids, but it’s too crowded for all of them.

The question becomes again, will Bob Bradley take the leap and sit his son if it’s best for the team? So far, there’s no indication it will happen. But Bradley has surprised before. I think that day is nearing.

by Brent