I don't have any problem with the team they brought to the Gold Cup (only major argument would be for Timothy Chandler). The goal was to get to the Confederation's Cup, which 1 year prior to the world cup would provide really important experience for young players that will need to make an impact in 2014 (specifically on the backline). It's easy to say in retrospect "hey we lost the gold cup anyway, we should have at least done it with a young team to get them experience"...but really, what would have been better: Losing the Gold Cup with a young team, gaining experience against guadaloupe, panama, and canada (and mexico, to be fair)...or winning the Gold Cup, despite using players who might not be around in 2014, so that a young team can prepare for the world cup with matches against teams like Italy, Brazil, and Spain in the confederations cup? It didn't work out the way we hoped, but the latter is the better option. There is still a lot of time before the next world cup. I don't think the USMNT lost a great chance to develop new players/chemistry/whatever in the Gold Cup. Between qualifying, friendlies, and another Gold Cup, they will likely play 30ish games before 2014. That is a lot of time to develop the next iteration of the USMNT. I just don't agree with criticizing Bradley for the team he used...now if he (or whoever may be coaching) is still using a Goodson/Bocanegra combination in the middle when qualifying starts next year instead of using some combo of Ream/Opara/Gonzalez/Agbossumonde/someone I'm probably missing, then that's a whole different story.