No, you have all of the details wrong here. Ellis didn't put Wambach in for the second half, she STARTED the game against 33rd-ranked Nigeria and scored with her LEFT FOOT off a corner kick and played the entire 90 minutes. We only beat 33rd-ranked Nigeria, 1-0, and they played the last 25 minutes with only 10 players after NIG had a player sent off for a 2nd yellow. I've watched all of those games at least a half dozen times, including recently, and have never heard anyone with your takeaways with how Abby played well or that it was good coaching decision to play her, it was just the opposite, which makes me question whether you've actually watched the games at all. Wambach was out of shape and out of form at the 2015 World Cup. She retired from the NWSL in 2014 and didn't play professionally in 2015 and it showed throughout the entire year until she retired at the end of it. In the first game against Australia, the announcers and analysts were already saying that she wasn't playing in the NWSL and looked rusty. Nigeria is a team that the US should have beat easily, so there's nothing impressive about a very shaky 1-0 win against Nigeria, especially when Nigeria played the last 25 minutes with only 10 players. They got the win, but you really have to have your rose-colored glasses on to think that it was good coaching and anything other than a good result from a very bad performance. Yes, Wambach scored, but she didn't play well at all and the offense and team struggled, mainly because of the play style they played because she was in the lineup. After this, she was finally benched and played a total of 28 minutes in garbage time in the last 3 games. It's no coincidence that these are the 3 games the US turned everything around and started to play much better. Do you not remember just about everyone talking about the team playing "Abby-ball"? It was a complaint about the US play style with her in the game. She made very few runs, just stood in the box waiting for service, and the team didn't press. When the US lost possession, they didn't press because Wambach couldn't (she was too out of shape) and they just backed up and allowed the opposition to dribble the ball freely up to midfield. In fact, she was the one that frequently waved everyone to back off when they lost possession. The first game Wambach was benched, the QF game against China, ARod started and they pressed like crazy. Everyone (analysts, fans, announcers, etc) was talking about how much better the US looked when pressing. ARod didn't have a great game offensively against China, but the US played much better as a whole because ARod was able to press like crazy up top and it created a lot of turnovers. In the final 2 games, Lloyd moved up top with Alex and has pretty much been there ever since. Just to answer this... Am I one of those people that thought they shouldn't have taken Abby? No. I didn't have a problem with taking her, but having watched all the games leading up to the WC multiple times before the tournament, I definitely didn't think she should be starting.
Overpowering Ellis hate? How about overpowering Ellis apologetics on your part. Once again, the US was struggling in the first four games. The announcers, analysts and fans were all saying it. So you're saying, that it was Ellis' plan all along to... 1) Play Wambach the first 4 games and bench her the last 3? 2) Struggle in the group stages and round of 16 (and make little to no changes)? 3) Play Lloyd in the midfield for the previous 15 months and finally move her up top for the first time in the game Holiday and Rapinoe were both coincidentally suspended from? If Ellis had all the answers all along, why didn't she make any of these changes before she was forced to? Why didn't she make all these brilliant tactical moves in the 2016 OG instead of the terrible tactical moves and roster decisions she made?
I've also heard this opinion stated in the Soccer Press a lot lately and I'm not nnnnearly smart enough to argue it merits. If we accept this premise as Gospel, no other Top Team is implementing the tactic. (My promise of no more spreadsheets lasted a little over 24 hours). Of course, numbers are opponents FIFA rankings and the last column in May are very late May or early, early June Matches. Interesting that the Aussies play the Orange on June 1st in a Friendly. And what can be said for Germany and Japan taking a powder for 2 months leading up to the WWC?!? What the heck. Yes, their last matches were in early April against tough opponents I grant you that. It may not be the exact equivalent to a 90 minute Match, buuuuuuut our 1st Team affectively faces about the 8th ranked Team in the World every day in Training.
Not sure if it's just me or not, but your spreadsheet isn't showing (broken link). PS - Spreadsheets are good... you wouldn't believe the one I have for the USWNT.
Yeah, I can see it but here are the base numbers (1st 2 are April Matches and last 3 are May Matches) USA 06, 20, 19, 49, 26 GER 07, 09, - 2 month powder ENG 05, 13, 00, 17, 49 FRA 07, 17, 00, 34, 19 TAN 05, 38, 00, 26, 00 AUS 01, 00, 00, 00, 08 JAP 04, 02, - 2 month powder
Because one jumped into the other player's face? There's nothing here to understand or think about. If what you're saying is right, it's not even a foul on Dunn. And no one believes that.
Not apologetics-- just pointing out that the same events are subject to a different interpretation if one doesn't bring with the preconceived notion that Ellis can do no right. The US struggled so badly in group that: 1. They won the group 2. They held Nigeria scoreless when no one else did. 3.They held Sweden scoreless when no one else did. 4. They beat Australia when no one else did. It is the world cup-- the other guys can play too. The route to winning is "survive and advance" not "overpower everyone." She didn't make those changes until they were needed, that's why. That is absolutely as valid an analysis as 'the World Cup winning coach is a complete idiot and got very lucky and we sophisticates are horrified and angry that she did.." Do the things you need to do to survive and advance-- it isn't a video game team that will be all right as long as the power don't fail... If you pay more attention to what the "announcers, analysts,and fans" are saying than to using your head about what your eyes are seeing, you're apt to buy a lot of worthless bridges... And do be aware that the announcers basically use one of two lines; if it is 0-0 or 1-0 or 0-1 the line is "this isn't what we are used to seeing from them" and if it is 2-0 or better the line is "the US is so good they always beat everybody bloody." If you, the listener, start from the point of view that "X is inept," be it Ellis or Morgan or Horan or Sauerbrunn or..." then of course you will hear the blah blah blah as confirming that point of view. I often watch games with the sound down just to avoid that effect, and I'm pretty resistant to it.. And as for the "terrible tactical moves and roster decisions she made" in the OG, well, the very shape of your paragraph suggests a predetermineded analysis. I didn't see the event that way, and I think "that's just your opinion, man." You don't have to love her-- I don't especially-- but it makes no sense, it is imbalanced and unhealthy, to deny her the credit she has earned. She is one of the few coaches to bring home a World Cup-- the proof is in the pudding, and pudding was provided. If you'll only accept flan, you are watching the wrong sport.
Yeah, and there were some rabbit poops in there too, for sure... but I left out one cherry, too-- Nigeria was so bad they tied Sweden-- just like everybody else in the group,
A bad coach could go into a tournament with a bad plan and, due to injuries or cards or other factors, be forced to tweak the lineup/formation/style of play and stumble upon a combination that works during the group stage or first knockout match and then stick with what she/he stumbled upon and win the remainder of the matches with relative ease. Or a good coach could go into a tournament with a plan and find that it is not working well and then tweak the lineup/formation/style during the knockout rounds and find a lineup/formation/style that works and use it through the remainder if matches. Or a bad coach could place a group of players on the field that just happen to work and dominate the matches throughout a tournament. Or a good coach could carefully choose a group of players and place them on the field and have them work well together and dominate the matches throughout a tournament. That is a good coach or a bad coach can have their team win a tournament through virtually any set of moves and those of us on the outside would have no real way to tell what the actual reason/cause was. However loosing in a tournament, like the Olympics, can be more easily judged and Ellis screwed up team management and put them in a position to under perform. But they did NOT lose, they drew and then Sweden advanced on penalties. The line, after an under performance, is what adjustments are made and do they work and can the coach keep the players on mission. So far Ellis more "good coach" boxes checked than "bad coach" ones. Even her moves through the friendlies when viewed against her stated goals seem to indicate that she is a good coach as she has seemed to achieve all of her stated goals at each stage of the progression. I have criticized her for moves that I disagreed with and I have criticized the team for under-performance several times BUT the team seems to be exactly where Ellis wants them to be leading into this WWC. I would also like to address one move that I disagreed with during the earlier matches: That is the experiment with Pugh at the central attacking mid position. I doubt that Pugh will ever be really effective there but it was early in build up and it was an experiment that was reasonable and it gave Pugh really good experience in case injuries force unusual rotations on the team or other situations occur where the better attacking mids become unavailable. Pugh is not, on this team, the first or second choice at attacking mid. But she is the fourth or fifth and giving her actual game experience at that roll gives the US cover it did not have before. Is Ellis a good coach or a bad coach? I would have to say, on the balance, she is a good coach. I just wish it was easier to tell what she is thinking with each of her moves/lineups. The only position where I feel we have a weakness that has not been handled well by Ellis is goalkeeper but even there I cannot see a better set of choices than that she has made. We are just going to have to deal with the fact that we have become spoiled by having the best keepers in the world and learn to adapt to just having one or two in the top ten or so. I doubt that we will have any problem with our group at the WWC and the knockout rounds are, as always, anybody's guess. Once you are out of your group anything can happen. Coming up against something as simple as bad conditions and a hot goalkeeper can turn an easy victory into a hard fought tie and then the shootout is anybodies to win or lose.
The USWNT has a tremendous talent advantage which means it is hard to judge whether Ellis is a good coach. She has never coached a pro club and has never coached a team without a talent advantage. She has won the World Cup, but not anything else ever. She also was in charge for the worst result in USWNT major tournament history and minor domestic tournament history. She brought Brian to the 2015 WC; but there is no indication she was ever going to play her or understood that playing her in a holding role would unleash Lloyd. Conversely, if she did know and didn't do it from the start, what does that say about her? It is probable that she felt she couldn't make that kind of move because the players wouldn't allow it. I think she is an average coach who is incredibly weak in the locker room. She doesn't have the confidence or respect to make hard decisions and so rarely tries. If the leaders on the team want Solo out and are ok with Naeher, she will just play Naeher the whole cycle and not worry about looking at Franch. In 2015, Wambach and several others were running the team. Now it is probably Morgan, Megan, Brunn, and probably Ertz. Winning the WC might have given her the confidence to actually be a head coach, but the Olympic and the She Believes debacle with the 3-5-2 put her right back to doing what the players want. The team can win with an average coach, they are that much better. They can win with a coach that doesn't command respect. Internal leaders on the team command respect from the other players. But their chance of winning is less.
A lot of this is "in a vacuum". The USWNT doesn't operate in a vacuum, and it doesn't have the operational freedom - for economic reasons - that the men's team has. It is far more beholden to sponsorship income and match promoter needs. Additionally the USWNTPA CBA gives the coach far less short term flexibility with regards to experimenting with non-core players. This mainly affects the "bad coach" scenario you bring up, and I don't know if the best coach in the world could've done much more with regards to 2015 roster selection other than swap in Dunn for someone else. It's really hard to say. Lest we forget what happened to the last WNT head coach when he was a couple rounds of friendlies away from doubling the size of the WNPTA.
Only reading and responding to this first... will probably get to the rest in a little bit. Try to dig a little deeper. Once again, I question whether or not you've even watched the games. You seem to be only focusing on the outcome and ignoring how the games actually played out. What does winning the group and holding Nigeria and Sweden scoreless have to do with how Abby and the offense was playing?
The idea, overtly expressed by Ellis, and quite reasonable IMO, was that we changed horses so late in the cycle that she didn't think it was sensible to try to revamp the offense; but she thought the cup might be won with defense-- and that is exactly what happened. She said what she thought she could do, and went out and did just that. It hardly seems reasonable to argue that she should have done something else, focused on something else just to please you or me. I did in fact watch every game of the cup, ours and theirs, and I also watched several of them over some months after when this kind of narrative/crap started to crystallize on these forums. I didn't see those games your way at the time, and on rewatching also didn't. We didn't exactly fire on all cylinders in all of them, but the narrative you are espousing seems simplistic and forced to me. You are free to buy it if you wish, but it is getting to where it feels like you are leaving me with the check, so I probably sound a little irritated at times. Just try to understand there are people with decades of sports watching and evaluating who maybe notice things that you don't-- it isn't just that you notice things we don't. This forum is in effect a public place, and I hate to see it treated as if it is in Munich and 1938. Elis isn't even Jewish...
Rapinoe and Holiday started every game except for the suspension, but you're saying Ellis would have benched one of them to bring in Morgan Brian for this game? LOL... rose-colored glasses and apologetics at its finest right here. She was forced to make drastic changes to her lineup because Rapinoe and Holiday were suspended. No, you provided ZERO ANALYSIS of what actually happened in the games or how they played out. In fact, the only recap on anything in-game you provided was 100% false (Wambach sub scoring off header). Your only analysis is from the final stat sheet and results. When judging Ellis as a coach, your only analysis is from the results and not from any of her actual roster selections, lineups or tactical decisions... but, ironically, you don't apply this to OG16.
Oh, give me a break with the BS apologetics again. You're just making stuff up now. Ellis was revamping the offense almost every game leading up to the WC. Wambach, Leroux, Press and Morgan were practically a revolving door. Wambach's minutes in all 10 games of 2015 prior to the World Cup... 28, 90, 55, 11, 59, 6, 18, 90, 45, 59 (46.1 min/G)
would be quite stupid to endanger yourself that way. you, of course, go for the ball. football is full of such bang-bang plays all over the pitch where both players must make a play at the same time. It’s a key part of the excitement of the game. sometimes players get injured in those plays without either player being card worthy or even sometimes without a foul being called.
It all depends on defense and coaching. The Romans are better trained but the coaching is inferior. I also think they are quite a bit over confident. The Huns are more athletic and will probably rely on that advantage and press the Roman's defense to the breaking point.
This narrative/crap isn't something that started to crystallize on these forums after the fact. This narrative was in existence before and during the 2015 WC. Just like people were questioning Ellis taking Rapinoe to the 2016 OG prior to the first game. They were questioning the decision even more when she played like crap in the final group stage game against Colombia, when Ellis started her and had to sub her out at 32' because she was gassed after 20'. The final straw was wasting 2 subs on Rapinoe to get 27' out of her in the QF against Sweden. "Simplistic?" OH, THE IRONY! I provided details of what actually happened IN THE GAMES, including tactics. You only looked at the final result of the game and what happened in other games that the US didn't play in. "Forced?" MORE IRONY! You realize I'm in the overwhelming majority here, right? My analysis matches with most announcers, analysts and fans. While that doesn't mean I'm right, at least I'm backing it up with in-game analysis. My opinion was and is completely independent of others that came up with the same conclusion. How is it forced when I'm backing it up? You're backing it up with just the final results events that didn't actually happen... • Abby didn't start and scored on a header • Ellis didn't want to revamp the offense that late in the cycle, when she was revamping it almost every game, and the stats/facts clearly back that up. Backing your opinion up with just the results and events that didn't actually take place is forced. You know what's irritating? • Backing my analysis up with details of what happened in the games and you providing none of it. • You looking at only the outcome of the game for the entirety of your analysis. What in the world have you provided that I may not have noticed? Let's recap... WAMBACH vs NIGERIA I didn't notice that Wambach came on as a sub and scored on a headed, because it didn't happen. ELLIS DIDN'T WANT TO REVAMP OFFENSE I didn't notice that Ellis didn't want to revamp the offense, because this is false. She was revamping it non-stop leading up to the start of the WC, constantly switching the lineups up top, and even in the early games. YOUR ANALYSIS IN RESPONSE TO MY IN-GAME/TACTICAL ANALYSIS The US struggled so badly in group that: 1. They won the group 2. They held Nigeria scoreless when no one else did. 3.They held Sweden scoreless when no one else did. 4. They beat Australia when no one else did. WOW! Real in-depth evaluation here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I enjoy having debates and sharing opinions with people who can actually back things up and/or support their position. You, however, just make things up and offer ZERO analysis of anything that ever happens in-game. You just refer to the results to form your opinion, but only when it suits you (eg - 2015 WC, but not 2016 OG). After having a few conversations with you over the past month, and seeing your conversations with almost everyone else on this forum, I'm finally giving up wasting my time responding to you. WTF is wrong with you? No, this isn't 1938 Munich, it's the United States. Try reading the First Amendment sometime. Don't bother responding, I'm blocking you now.