don't forget, Sweden was missing their 2 usual starting CB's & DM(Caroline Seger, who was rostered earlier but was apparently a no show). With the excellent service provided by Press, Lavelle & Ertz, makes me wonder if just about anybody could of looked good/scored 2 or more goals vs essentially Sweden's 'B' squad. Once those 3 got subbed, Lloyd's performance went way down
The central defense was certainly the 'B' squad, missing the top three CBs and Seger but the attack, GK and wing defense was all the A-team. The Swedish FA had updated that Seger and Sembrant couldn't come allreday on November 2:nd, but someway that info didn't seem to reach anyone in the states that could pass it on.
Players that helped themselves with the new coach (in my opinion): Lloyd, Press, Sonnett, Heath, maybe Lavelle (who didn't accomplish much but looked good). Players that didn't help themselves: Naeher, Pugh, Short, Horan. (Yeah, Horan had some good moments. And so did Short. But overall, not so good.) Players who I would have liked to see more of the ball: Mewis, L.Williams.
I didn't watch the match and I'd like to see this moment. At which minute did it happen? Was it included in extended highlights that are currently available on YouTube?
I think she's just grown a lot and hasn't played into the new size yet. One tends to forget just how young and slight she was when she first made an impression, and how easy it was to knock her down if you could stay side to side with her. Now she's forcing her way between double teams and knocking other people down-- and that's a bit different game for her. Give her a year to adjust and the lightning may return-- the speed seems to still be there mostly...
With my usual provisos, that I didnt watch the whole game (missed the first half, saw the goals later, saw most of the second half, though without my full attention); have not followed how these players have performed with their clubs, etc. ... ... I liked what I saw of Short. She played with a lot of self-confidence, even under pressure, passed crisply, combined well, got forward. She could have done better on Sweden's first goal, but that was a larger team letdown, certainly not just on her. My guess is that she did help herself.
People shouldn't be dropped because of their age, but because of their play. You play your way on, and you play your way off. I can easily see/imagine Lloyd winning another WC-- much easier to imagine than Pinoe, say. She's not looking anywhere near like the last of Birgit Prinz yet. And I can imagine her winning yet another as a coach. Not my preferred style of coach, but Bobby Knight won a world championship didn't he? and he's really not my kind either....
Unfortunately I do not retain recordings of friendlies so I cannot go back and see those kind of details, sorry. It was near the midpoint of the half, I think. Also I do not watch, or even know where to find, extended highlights. Once I have seen the match I do not need to see highlights.
Short may not be better than Dunn at outside back, but she is better than any other outside back in the US. Short was left of the WC team not for her lack of ability, but to make room for other less talented players who are best friends with the superstars.
I agree about Short. Anyone who saw otherwise wasn't paying attention. If someone wants to harp on the back line look no further than Sonnett...
Absolutely! It was a tragedy that Casey Short didn't make the WWC team. She was replaced for an old has-been and everyone knows it.
Even Rapinoe says Short is the best one-on-one defender in the world. Jill was an idiot for leaving her off the WWC team.
Yep. Jill was an idiot that barely managed to put together a team that was quite dominate in winning the WWC. That was surely an idiotic performance.
1. The old has-been played great. 2. The old has-been could play the side needed better than Short, who is better at the other side. 3. The old has-been actually completed passes-- lots of them-- in the offensive end, which Short never showed any ability at on the NT, until maybe last night. I would still have taken Short, I think, against the possibility of a pressing need developing to shut a specific winger down in a single game-- she's awfully good at that-- but the need never developed, not even against France. I'd have taken her and wound up not playing her... As far as I could see, Ellis didn't make a single mistake-- everything she did justified itself somewhere in the tournament. And that maybe is the reason she got the job instead of you or me.
What did seem interesting going forward was 1. he did get some offense out of Short in what was still largely Jill's offense. 2. the defense was almost a zone, and that seemed to cause Sweden a whole lot of uncertainty and hesitancy. 3. That nagging sense of uncertainty that seemed to crop up between Brunn and Dahlkamper a couple of times a game under Jill, uncertainty as to who was supposed to do what when the ball is recovered in the defensive end, that seemed to be completely gone. It was never a big deal, just a few seconds sort of fumbling about by normally very decisive players; but I wondered if he had noticed and addressed it. 4. I thought Sonnett played really well and I'm not so sure she's an easy cut for the Olympics anymore; she may be coming into her peak right now. 5. Who made the central run on Press' goal-- was that Tobin? Press just owned the defenders, played it perfectly as a choice between stopping Press and shutting off the pass until they had hesitated too long and could no longer stop Press. Terrific goal, a lot more sophisticated than it looked because the best parts of it were in what didn't happen, not what did. 6. That said, realize that Sweden didn't have their first choice central defense, and they simply aren't populous enough a country to get by with that, and it showed much of the night. They just aren't that deep with experience usually, and the folks who had to start were just a little imprecise in their positioning all of the first half, and it showed in the goals. They may look a lot better by the Olympics-- I wouldn't be counting a lot of chickens based on this result.
With regard to Short, I saw Swede wingers put in at least half a dozen good crosses while being guarded by Short. She was also partially responsible for Sweden's first goal, the assist coming from a player she was guarding. Sweden clearly picked Short's side of the field as the most vulnerable. Had I been planning strategy for Sweden I would have picked on Sonnett. But maybe the Swedes were right.
Well, remember that all the teams we played at the WWC kept attacking Dunn's flank, and we know how that worked out. However, I do not think that Short was particularly good in this match. Based on this performance only I would not want her to have been the one we relied on at the WWC.
Not sure who the best one on one defender is but it is definitely not Short. In the NWSL championship she was beat throughout the game.
Btw at half-time it looked like USWNT was on their way to a new first. The Swedish WNT have never lost by more than 4 goals ever (and last time the MNT did it was agaisnt Soviet back in the days England was World champions and before we even had a WNT).
Mal (and I'm a Mal fan) always struck me as player that lived off of her speed. The gambit was: would the skills come? She's still very young. We will see. Hopefully, she doesn't end up the Theo Walcott of the USWNT.
My perception is that Mal's bread and butter was beating people with speed. I doubt she's lost a step. I think that she's just not getting the ball in positions to do that anymore. And, yes, confidence may come into play. I think she'll keep working on her game and improve. But, right now, I'd have Lynn Williams ahead of her. For the counter-arguers out there - I'm still a big Mal fan. I just think she looks like she's plateaued and I'd have another couple of players ahead of her right now. I think she'll improve and will be in the mix for a long time.