Rebooted USWNT Thread

France is so good. Really fierce.

From a philosophic standpoint, both France and Germany are developing a female pro system that is beginning to leave ours in the dust. England is not far behind.

Essentially, the big clubs - you'll note that PSG is heavily represented on the French side - are sponsoring women's teams. UEFA is pushing it, hard, but socially it's very trendy as well.

So their younger girls come up through a meaningful youth program and the good ones continue on, at 17 or 18 (or 16 sometimes) into a full senior side trained by some of the best club staff in the world, 12 months a year.

Our girls at that age go to North Carolina for 4 years. I know I mention Lindsay Horan a lot, but this was what she tried to avoid. She had a full ride offer from Anson Dorrance and turned it down to sign, at 18, with, yes, PSG. And in a short time she was becoming a legitimate star, playing Center Mid in UEFA Champions league against Bayern Munich rather than gearing up for the big Thursday night match against Weber St.

It's no different than what American men were facing ten or 20 years ago. Exactly the same thing. American colleges turned out 22 year olds who were years behind players who spent those same years playing reserves for Chelsea.

We'll continue to produce good players, but they're beginning to show the flaws in our system.

 

If you think this weak shit will get me to do something or other, well, forget it. Timon is dead right - this is superdave level stuff. He's been chasing me around BS for years and years. The difference is he's MUCH better at it. Doesn't work for him either, but at least he has style.

Meanwhile, I just got my 1956 Buick Roadmaster back from the shop, and I'm spending the weekend cruising Southeast Ohio with my labrador (thanks again @TKyle ) in the riders seat with his silly ears flapping in the wind. It will take a lot more than sophomoric trolling to bug me right now.

So basically, get bent.

 

Funkhouser?

 

Repped for the dog in the front seat.

 

So, given the fact that the US women are no longer going to dominate on the world stage, how many years will it be until they suffer a fate of non-coverage on the American sports media stage similar to what the men's team deals with? Americans love winners and underdogs and the national soccer teams are about to be neither of those things.

 

I am glad I have zero knowledge of this reference.

This thread reminds me of the times when I agree with hang (which is honestly nine times out of ten, maybe eight point five); yet the way he presents his offhand comments makes arguing alongside him quite un (untenable and undesirable).

 

Fascinating question.

Offhand, I'm going to opine (I do so love to opine) that it will depend on whether USSF responds by making some radical changes. (read: spends a lot of money).

Previously, our University system was the best way for female players to continue to develop. There was nothing much else, anywhere in the world. US colleges were chock-a-block full of foreign girls who had no place else to go.

Look at the boys/mens side of the equation. The Development Academy thing is beginning to spit out quality players who, when they reach 18, have someplace to go, either MLS or overseas. Not only do they have opportunities, they actually have choices.

USSF has been pumping up the Girls Academy and while it's not where the boys are (wheeeeeeere, the BOYS are, wah, wah, wah) (don't like Connie Francis? bite me), it's growing. When the girls age out of DA, where have they got to go? NWSL or Eastern Carolina University? Neither one of those is worth spit. (Go read about the NWSL Sky Blue team. The only facility at their practice field was a porta potty. They had to wear their training gear home to shower. They had to wash their own uniforms. The hotels they stayed in were filthy and dangerous. It's a joke)

Europe has come up with an answer, and the US is going to have to do the same. MLS teams, with their big, swanky training facilities, are going to have to start women's teams, a la Seattle Reign.

And USSF is going to have to take the money they're shelling out supporting individual players, plus a lot mor, and support MLS Femme.

I can see no other way. But I also have a hard time believing it will happen.

 

I hope MLS does not waste resources on women’s soccer. They have along way to go before they can haul dead weight.

 

I'd settle for every MLS team having a USL-C team and a non-pay-to-play academy first.

 

I get your point although some here might take issue with the way you phrased it.

I think though that with a good deal of facility sharing and other economies of scale, double headers, cross-marketing and all the rest, along with some SUM money and all the dough USSF is currently spending to keep the ladies in Butter Brickle and Starbucks, it doesn't seem like a huge stretch.

 

That’s fine but the second you make a team the (mod edit)’s will be asking for equal pay.

 

For that Nats, that's (relatively) easy. Percentage of the gate/bonus/FIFA money--based on if you play or not. That makes it based on performance. But then, everyone is equal. The stars get the same as the scrubs. Betcha some would not be fond of that.

 

I don't know. If the rest of the world's soccer players beat the American big, strong athletes enough times (and a lot of us seem to agree it's going to begin with this year), then it's going to get more difficult to get big, strong athletes to play soccer and then we're just another 13th-ranked national team that may or may not make it out of the group stage every four years.

I don't know how to - and probably couldn't do as well as others anyway - articulate it but unless something changes in the Women's national program, they're going to be relegated (see what I did there) to a fate of anonymity on the world stage just like the men.

As much as some people hate to admit it, modern soccer is a game of economics and the countries that are pouring money into both their player pool and development are the countries that win trophies.

 

There have been some interesting games so far. Germany, England and Australia struggled. France and Norway beat up outmatched teams. Jamaica didn't play afraid against Brazil and it was a fun game to watch. The most fun so far was Italy and Australia and, related to the comments above, they indicated that there is now a heavy investment of the Italian clubs into the women teams. Based on what I saw on the pitch, there was a good style of play they were developing and they were rewarded with the win. I think this next generation will slowly pass the USA by. Teams like Brazil and the USA, locked in the previous generation racking up hundreds of caps lose the development that you're seeing in France, England, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. They're hanging on through the physical style they play but the gap is smaller and smaller each year.

 

Interesting about Italy. Of course what's really going on is that they're looking around for future income growth centers and womens soccer has more potential than anything else they can think of. They know it will take 10 or 20 years and may never actually be realized but the costs to them are negligible and the possible upside worth the risk.

Your comment about caps is interesting as well. The US team is chock full if women with 50, 70, 90 caps and more. Other countries have a Marta or a Kelly or a Sinclair, and theyve got those numbers but not the whole damned squad.

And if the strength of the US team is the depth of players, these girls ought to be fighting like dogs over those roster spots instead of swanning around knowing they have safe, guaranteed slots.

Isn't that exactly backwards? Mens teams with great depth - Brazil, Italy, Germany - are shark tanks and no ody cared what you did yesterday; there's always 3 hungry young kids working their asses off to take your job.

They push the veterans hard. It makes everybody better, unlike the US womens system where no matter how ma y hungry young girls want to fight for a position, you can take a vacation.

 

Not related but related... Sometime the state of something can be realized / acknowledged if The Onion has an article making fun of it: U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Handing Out Flyers To Advertise World Cup Tournament

 

I'm no Sticker here, and I typically enjoy watching the US women. Went to WWC '99, went to their last friendly at Crew Stadium, blah blah-blah*

But... we watched the second half replay of Canada vs Cameroon. Wow was that some poor soccer.


*

 

Weird. Rodney Marsh and Tommy Smyth just told me today how the quality was so good!

Could be because during their RIVETING* interview with Steven Goff, Tommy had to read TWO full promos ensuring all listeners that the WWC can be heard on SiriusXM.

* - not really. Goff sounded like he wanted to do anything except for that, and the hosts sounded like they were reaching for something to say the whole time. I could tell Rodney was trying too hard when he talked about Brazil's "goals of the tournament" against Jamaica.

 

Oh the announcers routinely proclaimed how great both teams, and their individual players, were.

It was WWE-esque.

 

Sweeden has looked like a team full of pretty skilled players. Some quick dribble moves, decent first touches, combination play. It's been decent to watch. Chile is a bit over-matched by them but have managed to make it to half time at zero.

The previous match between New Zealand and Netherlands was back and forth but a tad sloppy. NZ hit the bar, had the better of the other chances but ceded possession to the Dutch. The Dutch didn't create many clear cut chances but always seemed to be knocking at the door. They won it at the death. I feel bad for the Kiwis, they definitely played well, even well enough to win.

Likely the best of today's slate of games have already been played. Thailand, I can't imagine, can put up much resistance against the US.