PBP: USWNT WWC '11 Final Roster

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by kool-aide, May 9, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    UNC4EVER,

    You are forgetting that Engen declined National team service at the u20 level to play for UNC.

    Nothing wrong with that, but to expect a fast track to the National team later seems a bit shortsighted. I hope she replaces Mitts, who I don't think is ready now, but I would understand if Engen didn't get the nod.
     
  2. Mookie141

    Mookie141 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 10, 2008
    Mooktown
    Club:
    Sky Blue FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Sources say this is correct.


    Mitts is going according to reports saying this is what Pia said to reporters after the match.
     
  3. philafan

    philafan Member

    Mar 20, 2010
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's because very few of them are good enough to earn it IMO. The roster is below (did have have someone in particular she hasn't tried?) and I would only say a few of these players will have a chance in the future, regardless of who the WNT coach is. Edwards should get a call next year I hope and Klingenberg, LeRoux and Morgan have been capped already. I think Naeher and Nairn have been in camps as well. And I'm sure some of the others might get a look when and if they are ready.

    But keep in mind a lot can happen in three years. O'Hara might have been cut back then but she has surpassed most of these players since then. She was NCAA player of the year her senior season.


    U.S. Under-20 Women's National Team Training Camp Roster by Position
    GOALKEEPERS (4): Bianca Henninger (Santa Clara), Chantel Jones (Virginia), Alyssa Naeher (Penn State), Cat Parkhill (Minnesota)
    DEFENDERS (5): Kaley Fountain (Wake Forest), Lauren Fowlkes (Notre Dame), Liz Harkin (Arizona State), Nikki Marshall (Colorado), Elli Reed (Portland)
    MIDFIELDERS (4): Becky Edwards (Florida State), Meghan Klingenberg (North Carolina), Christine Nairn (Maryland), Ingrid Wells (Georgetown)
    FORWARDS (8): Kiersten Dallstream (Washington State), Gina DiMartino (Boston College), Michelle Enyeart (Portland), Sydney Leroux (UCLA), Alyssa Mautz (Texas A&M), Jessica McDonald (Glendale, Ariz.), Alex Morgan (California), Nikki Washington (North Carolina)
     
  4. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    Henniger is a better keeper right now than anybody she is competing with except Hope. Had she been called?

    Winters was captain of that team and has never been given a call up. She was the only player Diccico said should be promoted then to the full team. Never got a call.

    Washington and Enyeart were hurt and are still not back, but they were never called when they were healthy. Both were better than players called up.

    Fountain, Fowlkes, Reed, never called. All were important parts of that Championship team. There are others. Even some not on that list should be called from the U23 team before some that were called up.
     
  5. philafan

    philafan Member

    Mar 20, 2010
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I guess we'll agree to disagree on this. I don't think any of the players you named deserved a call up. Winters, Fowlkes, Reed, Fountain etc.. are fringe WPS players who would have to get in line behind others IMO. I have only seen Henninger play a few times but I would have a hard time saying she is better right now than Barnhart.

    I am not here to argue that Pia has called every player up that she should have (Edwards is the one glaring omission from this list) but to call up five from a former U20 team is actually not a bad percentage. A lot changes in three years as some player progress and some don't

    BTW, watching right now and Nikki Marshall from MagicJack is a player who might be able to help at outside back (the weakest position for WNT right now) in the near future. I'd put her on a list of someone who deserves a chance.
     
  6. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    The fringe WPS argument doesn't hold much water. Some of those players werent called in college when others with connections on the coaching staff were (Sidney). Besides, the more I see of WPS play the less I think it's something to build a National team around. There is some pretty ugly play there. It will be gone in a year anyway.



    I agree Marshall and Edwards should get a look.
    I have seen Henniger and naeher.. No comparison, but the way to tell is to call her up.
    Barnhart is there for her experience, but she doesn't inspire much confidence that she is a player for the future. I think that if Pia was confident Hope was 100% she wouldn't be there. As it is, a 80% hope is better than her. There were some pretty soft goals she gave up, including in the qualifiers. Nuff said.

    And the weakest position on the team is anybody with a first touch to frame, not the outside defenders. That includes anybody in the front half of the pitch today except that Cheney gets a pass for her one good strike. The defenders have a pretty gooD track record this year

    Today proved it.
     
  7. UNC4EVER

    UNC4EVER Member

    Sep 27, 2007
    Imo, this is really a philosophical debate. There are things to be said for a tight sorority of players who know one another and who feel compelled to Win as a way to keep each others back. On the other hand, there is something to be said for trajectory-- Players who suddenly get a huge boost sometimes rise to the occasion, and a Few keep getting boosts and keep rising. The '91s were among that crowd, they were 16 year old children who got thrown onto the world stage (because we had no one else) who were still great 10 years later. We run the risk of missing these new Allstars if everyone needs to PROVE themselves before they get significant international minutes. Hamm, Lilly and Fowdy were amazing exactly because they never had to prove themselves-- they didn't have to audition-- they got thrown into the mill and got the job done. We can create very different players depending on how we treat them (eg., AROD at Boston '09 vs. AROD '10).

    I'm not saying we should turn the WWC pool into the next So You Think You Can Dance, but I would suggest that if we could open up the Algarve and other lesser US WNT competitions, we might have our socks blown off by someone like Engen, Dowling, Singer, Fountain, Nogueira, O'Hara, Press and many others who see a chance, seize it and never look back. As is, these gals all have to have the toughness to overcome a mountain of obsticles to even get a serious look. We may be losing some gems.
     
  8. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    Great post +1
     
  9. philafan

    philafan Member

    Mar 20, 2010
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It kind of does hold water because if they cannot excel in WPS (which is superior talent than NCAA) than they probably haven't earned a call up to WNT and probably were not good enough when they were in college. You can only call up so many players. Many of the players on that U20 team went on to play in U23 but some didn't make it that far. I always thought Leroux earned her callups on merit. So because Ellis has US Soccer connections, you think that's why she got called up and others didn't?

    I don't doubt WPS will be gone in a year but it's hard to judge the quality of the league this year with all of the players shuffling in and out.

    Certainly Barnie is not a player for the future due to her age and Henninger might be (though she is kinda short for a keeper). But I have seen Barnie play extensively on club and in WNT and while Hope is the clear #1, I think Barnie is clearly #2 and disagree that should wouldn't be there if Hope was 100 percent healthy. You are essentially saying that Pia wants her for her experience but not her skill?

    OI do agree with you that the D is largely OK, save for LB. To say Amy L. lumbers around there is generous and Cox is just kind of OK to me. At this point, they just have two natural outside backs (Krieger and Cox) and three if Mitts does indeed get the nod as rumored.

    But I do agree with you 100 percent that the results have been largely OK this year (England game was not good though) and I have no problem with Krieger and whatever combo they use inside (Buehler, Rampone Sauerbrunn). I still worry that with Rapinoe not being a good defensive player at LW and Amy L. apparently winning the LB spot, this could be a problem against really fast teams down the left flank.

    When I said weakest position, I meant one of the actual 11 positions but I get your point too. That was clearly a major issue today. I thought Lloyd had two great shots on frame today and was a bit unlucky (the one saved by the Mexican defender was killer). Is it me or is Lauren Cheney the best all around forward on this team. When she came in the game, the team stopped trying to forced things to Abby and moved the ball around and the result was some great chances. All the Morgan hype aside, I think Cheney should play more. ARod is clearly #4 on my forward depth chart.
     
  10. htide

    htide Member

    Jul 28, 2007
    "After playing the second 45 minutes against Mexico today with no issues, U.S. head coach Pia Sundhage confirmed that defender Heather Mitts has earned a spot on the final 21-player Women's World cup roster."
    http://www.ussoccer.com/Social/WNT-...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

    Um this is a stretch.

    Honestly i like mitts, but there was no doubt she struggled and was smoked by mexico a couple times. If they are honest they would acknowledge her weaknesses but then state that based on their overall evaluation of her and other candidates she was still the strongest choice. But to suggest she was 100% out there or even 50% is not genuine.

     
  11. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    Yeah, I guess I don't think Leroux is national team material. She isn't good with the ball at her feet. She had her success in the juniors by outrunning people. In the big girls game that isn't enough.

    While the WPS has players that all succeeded in the NCAA, they don't play very good ball once they get there. All they do is push the ball to the foreign stars and boot and run. Not interested. The pity is that if they played attractive ball they might have fans who want to watch them.

    AROD has scored something like 9 goals in the last 16 games, which I don't think puts her at #4 on the depth chart. It might put her at #1, and there is the pity. She just can't put the ball on frame. How many shots has she taken in those 15 games?

    The last I checked, scoring percentage is zero when you put the ball over the end line outside the box.
     
  12. BrooklynSoccer

    BrooklynSoccer Member+

    Jan 22, 2008
    I think the defense has looked very suspect, vulnerable, slow with poor distribution most of the year. the track record has proved this, actually. considering what happened with mexico, england, sweden, etc...
     
  13. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    You are just making stuff up. You have forgotten what the April dump and run strategy was like. Those teams couldnt link two passes. The distribution was miles above that this year. If we didn't shoot with closed eyes. we'd be winning by 5 goals.

    As to the defense being suspect, that's a criticism that is your subjective view, conveniently unverifiable. Show me a statistic that supports it. The scores of this year don't.

    They have given fewer goals than it the golden years. Look it up.
     
  14. pattrickwolf

    pattrickwolf New Member

    Nov 7, 2010
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Kids in europe play at higher level than that of college. At 16 years of age, they are surounded within a professional atmosphere. They develope a better understand of the game, play against better competition, and see multiple brands of football due to the fact theres comepetions based in other near by countries.

    Countries like Germany, Norway, Sweden can afford to play their younger players bc there kids play in professional atmosphere sooner than USA. At 24-25yrs US based players are just now understanding what it is to be a professional player. Ncaa Caliber doesnt compete with what those kids in Europe are getting.
     
  15. pattrickwolf

    pattrickwolf New Member

    Nov 7, 2010
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    actually, Buehler, Dimartino, Heath, Averbuch, Casey N, Cheney and ARod were all Gregs. Many of the players you see now were on Axe table after the 07 world cup. Funny lil truth, Averbuch was one on the fence for 07. She was going to be the surprise inclusion. They opted out on bringing her but had full plans on bringing her to the olympics.

    Rachel Buehler was in camps officially and unofficially under greg. Before Gregs out right Fup, the Olympic team was to have a whole new look to them. Pia had a solid group with Llyod, Hao and Co, but severly failed in letting Go of players who shud have called it quits on their international careers. Angela Hucles, was prehaps the only one who retired on time. The rest prolong careers that kept any youth from developing and becoming players they were destined to become. Lilly and Kate M, bless their hearts, but a lil too late. Were they good enough to play yes of course, but at the cost of not allowing a players from U23 and U20 worldcup winning team to develop.

    Any inclusion Pia has made has been last mintue, holy poop she retired or she is injured. I dont see Pia approach as planned. Tony Dicco, has even stated that she did not listen to him or take heed to his player sugestions from the U20 team. That U20 team was loaded and look where they are all now, just Morgan made the jump, that doesnt look good at all.
     
  16. Germans4Allies4

    Jan 9, 2010


    Very interesting post. While I would've dismissed this for the female game years ago, I think there's a bunch of validity to this. From age 17-22, there is a vacuum in American women's soccer. Sound familiar? Yes, same as the men's game. The common denominator in both genders for this shortcoming? College soccer.

    To become a professional, you must be a professional. College is not professional. In addition, there are just too many NCAA rules that limit training and games in a year of college.

    On a side note, as long as the female brigade of coaches is involved in the National Team program from Full Team down to U15, women's soccer will struggle mightily. They are not up to it. Also, between the U23s and U20s, you could field a team just as good and also be a lot younger for the future. This whole cycle has just been destroyed. Thanks, ladies. You wanted an opportunity? Well, you just blew it.
     
  17. philafan

    philafan Member

    Mar 20, 2010
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What I meant by this is that their universities do not have competition equivalent to NCAA, which was not one of my better points because most Europeans at that age play in leagues as you say.

    I certainly agree with you on the boys/men side but the women's game is different. If these Europeans are learning the game so much earlier and the young American WPS players just pass the ball to the European players and get out of the way like Cliveworshipper says, then why does the US get better results in national team play for the most part? Germany is the only European team on the US level and the favorite in WWC but the rest are not on our level.

    It is unfair to compare NCAA to professional leagues because there are hundreds of D1 teams and thousands of athletes competing. Also, practice time is limited and they are getting the soccer scholarships in order to get a free education for four years. But the best of that lot was brought up in ODP and youth development teams and then moves on to U20 and U23 teams in college. The best comparison is actually to look at our youth teams vs. their youth teams and we do pretty well there in competition.

    One other point, I really think it's not fair to compare the Foudy/Hamm/Lilly era players that came on the scene in the late 1980s and early 1990s to the current generation in terms of when they were elevated to the senior national team. It's a whole different world now as the women's game is so much more popular due to the success and popularity of that generation, culminating in the 1999 WWC win.

    Those girls were thrust onto the national team because they were the best players we had at the time and a few of them (Mia) were once in a generation talents. But now we have ODP and youth national teams that we didn't have back then and more importantly, way more girls playing the game -- which makes the competition more fierce and more difficult to make the USWNT as teens or college students. That in turn, increases the average age of our WWC/Olympic teams. With Mitts now on board, this team has an average age of 26 ( would have been 25 with Engen), which I think is the youngest WWC squad since 1999.
     
  18. Germans4Allies4

    Jan 9, 2010
    Get off the results. First, they are declining too. Second, LOOK AT THE PLAY. We are deteriorating at a rapid rise, technically and tactically. ODP is a dinosaur, America will always have high participation but how its developed is the problem.

    And, yes, you can compare NCAA to professional leagues since they are the mediums the players play in in the US and the world, respectively. Don't be content with status quo of the state of American women's soccer.
     
  19. philafan

    philafan Member

    Mar 20, 2010
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You are not correct on Buehler, Heath or Dimartino as they were first capped by Pia and not Ryan-- which I what I was talking about. As I said, the others I mentioned were first capped by Ryan but got their first real playing time under Pia.

    I don't doubt that Pia dropped the ball on personnel decisions. Like many posters, my mock world cup team has three or four different names than the one she selected. But I guess there is a philosophical difference in terms of what constitutes developing players. Do they need to be capped or called up for WNT training or can they progress through youth teams and later WPS play.

    Some think Pia should have used smaller tourneys and friendlies to cap younger players. I see the wisdom of that approach but in the year leading up to the world cup, it might be more practical to focus on your core players that you know have a shot to make the team. For example, is it wise to bring in Christen Press or Melissa Henderson for caps or even training when you know you as a coach that they have no shot of making the WWC team and that you have young forwards like Morgan, ARod and Cheney and you need to figure out what their roles are going to be? Or would it be better for them to stay with their college teams and play with the U23 team?
     
  20. philafan

    philafan Member

    Mar 20, 2010
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    How can you compare NCAA D1, which has 3,000 some odd kids who have various skill levels to leagues that include those countries best talent? the only fair comparison is how our youth teams fare against these supposedly superior women's soccer nations because those are the kids we are trying to develop. Yes, the results are declining because other nations are taking the women's game more seriously. You might be right that our development program needs refining but it's still producing quality players. I am not content with the status quo, just saying that the sky is not falling.
     
  21. Germans4Allies4

    Jan 9, 2010
    Exactly my point!!!! From 17-22, our men and women are playing with/against players of various levels in college while our opposition is playing with/against professionals on a daily basis. Exactly.
     
  22. philafan

    philafan Member

    Mar 20, 2010
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm going to stick to the women's game here because I think the men's game is a completely different animal. Our best college-aged women's players are selected for u20 and u23 teams so they are not just playing against college-level talent. I would also say the best players tend to play for the best college programs that have pretty good coaching and competition for the most part.

    Out of curiosity, what kind of a program would you institute instead if you were ruling the US soccer world for youth and college aged female players?
     
  23. luvdagame

    luvdagame Member+

    Jul 6, 2000
    this (the ncaa system) is not going to change significantly. and i really love this game. but i don't think i want it to change.

    american parents are not going to give up a 4 year college scholarship on the tiny chance that their daughter will somehow grow up to make a pittance as a pro soccer player. and they are right. (and by ncaa rules you can't play as a pro while you're on scholarship).

    btw, i've heard (not on this board) some call for olympic rules for the ncaa.

    that would be a significant change. that would help the game.

    but it aint gonna happen.
     
  24. Germans4Allies4

    Jan 9, 2010
    The players with U23s and U20s are with those groups too little to have an impact. Yes, there are some good coaches and competition in college but it doesn't matter, in terms of the development we're speaking of, because of the NCAA rules on playing and practice opportunities.

    First, I would sit down with Sunil Gulati and Claudio Reyna for about a week to hash out ALOT of things regarding how much they truly do care for Women's Soccer. Then, change the coaching personnel from Full Team all the way down.

    Second, abolish USYSA and have all players run through USSF, our national federation, in a single entity system. This system would be tied to professional teams that have reserve and youth setups and residency/education. The college system would still be in place for those who 1) don't make it or 2) hope to get identified the "safer" way because the "right" education is so important in this country.

    Third, my name would be Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

    The other option and an easy start would be if NCAA playing limits were lifted. If NCAA had a Fall/Spring 30-game season and no limits on practice time, it'd actually be a neat model for year-round development. But, will NEVER happen. Academics, student welfare and all the other blah blah blah stuff you hear with a college football playoff system would reappear.
     
  25. Batfink

    Batfink Member+

    May 23, 2010
    Attilan
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    It's interesteng that both MNT/WNT have struggled to find a serious #10 since both programs have taken an ever more organised approach over the years.

    The WNT will remain a top tier women's program thanks to the top athletic nature and understanding throughout the college system. For all it's faults, it will continue to supply the WNT the best athletes in the world, but top athletes aren't always guaranteed to be the top practitioners of football.

    To suggest the core the 91' vintage were a one in a generation type talent pool, is a bit of a nostalgic viewpoint. Those U.S. girls had seriously benefited by being the first women's program in the world to obtain help from top level athletic institutions. Progressive legislation shot the U.S. from nowhere instantly to the top, and now the WNT program is feeling the early effects of other nations in the process of doing the same thing.

    Germany have looked increasingly strong at all levels thanks to a more inclusive approach within it's highly developed male system. Without a NCAA system in place, more Euro nations are now following the German lead when producing female talent. This pattern is slowly being replicated on other continents too, by also utilising their more developed men's facilities and approach.

    The USSF has said it's noticed this global trend, and is attempting to fight back with domestic initiatives, that should give better balance in the players development before and between college. We'll all see if this results in better players, or just even bigger and stronger girls coming through.

    Using 91' level talents as models of success won't cut it, as the U.S. probably has Hamm level players right now within it's ranks. For a modern player to be as influential within a game as Hamm though, would require the U.S. producing a player better than what Hamm offered. Does anybody within U.S.soccer know how to get things in place for that type of player to succeed, because besides athleticism other nations all ready do.
     

Share This Page