Fairly accurate analysis. This wasn't just one person's view either. The commentators on National TV basically said the same thing, verbatim. I'm looking forward to seeing LLoyd play high in a diamond mid, where she should have been playing all along.
You mean Foudy? Yeah, she's always right. Ask Hope. Commentators also said Marta was brilliant, even though she sprayed most of her shots into Pele's VIP box seat and was held scoreless. ( I wonder why she did that? I'm pretty sure he can get all the soccer balls he wants) It seems actually putting your shots on frame isn't much valued by comentators. For the record, Brasil had ONE more shot on goal than the USA.
Brazil had the much better play of game, regardless of shots on goal.. no it was jp and chastain, not fowdy. i love hope and her problems with authority though. adds some excitement to this team.
if a midfield is repeatedly outplayed in a series of games like that, they're not going to win so many of them. if boxx, the mainstay of the midfield, was outplayed, then they would not have won all those games. so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. i keep asking: who are you going to put into that all-important slot in her place? who's better than her?
casocr - i agree with what you said. boxxy and lloyd often failed in the mid together, especially in big games. but Pia was playing them side by side.... a formation that didn't favor either player and actually hurt both their games. boxx will be responsible for covering less ground and llloyd and focus more on mid to final third...which is her strong point. I will say, I think Pia should have a plan B.. As we've seen these two disappear for numerous games at a time over the last 5 years. However, I think after 4 years Pia has stopped trying to fit a round beg into a square hole, at least in this department.
I don't think Pia has developed any players for that position on this roster in the formation she seems to want to play. That's why I said there are no real options. Pia has not brought in the players to replace Boxx. I agree 100% - the slight changes have helped but I would like to see her go even further. Something like a 4-1-3-2 line-up where Boxx is playing that holding position in front of the defense. At that position I think Boxx would be very effective - using her strength and ball-winning abilities.
Pia hasn't developed any players? I'm not sure what that means. To a great extent, the system below the WNT needs to develop the players and provide them to Pia for further development. The entire development job can't possibly be hers. So, the question is, what players has the system below the WNT developed. I think there's one down there, but I also think she's a cycle away. Who do you think is coming up the chute?
Oh, I agree. It's not Pia's job to develop players from the bottom up, but I do think it's her job to develop players at the international level - give them the experience in international friendlies and during tournaments that will prepare them for the WC, Olympics and WC qualifying (the only competitions where results count, not how you play). I think we rely too much on the u-23 and other younger national teams to get this experience but it doesn't compare to the full national team. I've said this before, I like what some other nations do in always having 2-3 18-22 year olds on every game roster (non WC, Oly, and WC qualifying) - I think that experience is the development I'm talking about. One player I would have loved to see developed in this roll is Angeli - she's a great defensive mid. Edwards is another I like. Basically, I think Pia can "develop" these players a little faster by giving them more full NT experience.
The other thing previous national coaches have done is convert forwards into some of the best defenders in the history of the sports, such as Fawcett, Rampone and Chastain - Akers was even converted into a sweeper, a position she learned under the Nats. Pia hasn't really done anything unique. Not saying she haaasssss to, but i'm just saying she hasn't. Well, she moved Chupa to outside back, but that wasn't all her idea. Tony D even mentioned Ohara would be a great outside back.
Boxx will be fine for the World Cup, on two conditions: that her role be defined as a holding midfielder (as happened in the Algarve), and that she gets plenty of rest during the group stage. Not to compare her quality with that of Michelle Akers, but they share some similarities - 33 years old going into World Cup, same field position, the midfield relies on her to be the anchor and to win balls in the air, etc. In 1999, DiCicco rested Akers for half the group stage so that her legs would hold up later on. Granted, Akers had chronic fatigue to cope with aside from normal tournament knocks, but the logic holds. You must make your non-tactical substitution choices wisely to conserve the energy of those whose fitness is lacking. What scares me is that neither of Boxx's heir apparents, Osborne and Averbuch, are getting much, if any, playing time in the preparation matches. Osborne has been overlooked altogether for some reason I cannot fathom. Did Pia watch WPS at all last year? Anyway, I think most can agree that Boxx, despite her age, is still the best defensive midfielder the U.S. has. She will be phased out over the next year or two to make way for the likes of Osborne, Averbuch, Angeli, Edwards, Bock, etc. However, by all accounts she will still be in the line-up for the important matches in Germany. It's the coaching staff's responsibility to manage her playing time so that her skills are maximized.
isn't this a copout? it can easily get anybody off the hook for criticizing the inclusion of a player. if boxx has been a bad player since 2007 and was still struggling in 2008, somebody must have surpassed her by now. i'm not buying. it seems to me that boxx is still one of the best dms in the world. so if you criticize her inclusion you probably should come up with concrete names to take her spot.
Your spot on with this analysis. I, too, agree that it would have been nice had Osborne been given more time in the past year(s) but arguing about who should replace Boxx now doesn't help us this Summer. It's too late to do much about it now.
No, it's not a copout, it's my analysis of a player - I never brought up the idea of who should replace here because right now there is no one. Nobody's been developed or been given enough time with the full NT to step in and replace her. That doesn't change my belief that she is not going to help us defeat Brazil or Germany in this WC (maybe Sweden as well but I have a tough time reading this year's team). I'm a bit confused by your post - earlier, when people say play player X over player Y you chastise them for criticizing a coach who is watching these players at training. You question posters for doing this all the time. Now you want me to do this? Boxx might be our only option this year, but it doesn't make her one of the best DM's in the world. Just because a player starts on the USA doesn't make them the best in the world. Central Mid is a weakness for this team and a huge reason why the team's level of play has dropped off in recent years. That's been my theme in this analysis - not who should replace her. Are there some good young CMs in the system, yes (see mine and other people's posts), but they haven't been properly prepared to help us this summer.
fair enough. it's just a reasonable followup question tho. if boxx can't help us, it's reasonable to ask who can. no confusion there. i like leroux - have always liked her. if people ask me my preferences, i want wilson at right back. i'd play tina ellertson in the middle of defense. so i always ask people their preferences, and i proffer mine when asked - doesn't mean that pia is wrong or doesn't know the players or lacks coaching ability. so i try to avoid stepping over that fine line that enters the arena of pia doesn't know what she is doing, and i know more soccer than she does. that's what i criticize people for.
I understand. Part of me wishes Pia would switch to a 4-1-3-2 and have Boxx sitting in front of the defense. I'd like her in that role. Then the three midfielders could be more of our attacking, fast, technical players. Some mix of O'Hara, Tarp, Rampinoe, Averbuch and Lloyd.
from the reports at algarve that's basically what Pia used.. Lloyd was told be play high and boxx stayed back. the wingers had a lot of movement.
several people like this approach - it saves boxxy's legs. my only question is who will cover the space between the staying back boxx and the rampaging amids. that space needs defensive cover too. it's where the game is really controlled. and none of the amids are really good defenders. i'd really like to see this approach in action for the above reason. lots of space in the midfield can get you carved up. i'd like to see how it works against brazil or germany. maybe they've figured something out. i'd just like to see it.
It's funny how everybody is talking about games vs Germany and Brazil in assessing U.S. options and level of play. Neither of those teams are what USA need to be worrying about, as both those sides look to dominate the ball which actually suits the U.S. style perfectly. It's the games against teams who are good tactically allowing USA possession from the back that create the biggest problems. The factors required to fall into place for the USA to be playing both Brazil and Germany at the WC, I'm sure would mean USA reaching a final. Even ranked #1 that's still pretty bold speculation right now. Not so long ago Boxx was one of the best mids in the world due to the U.S. being totally superior athletically to all but one opponent, Germany. Once that began to change, Boxx has been getting increasingly over run by improved opposition mids. All she needs is quality help though, but this situation has never been fixed. Glaring poor foresight from coaches, and a lack of quality support from her various center mid partners being particular points of blame for this. Llyod can't dictate play, and it's why Sundhage is desperate for consistent quality in wide play. On the plus side Llyod is very athletic with great physical presence (code for she foul's really well ), producing one thing better than any other U.S. player right now, superior ability to shoot. Boxx does one thing Lylod another, but Boxx is still the WNT's best all round mid for the WWC.
it's realism. it almost doesn't matter who the uswnt beat at algarve. germany and brazil are the world's best 2 teams outside the u.s. they will present the biggest challenge to the uswnt winning the wc. huh? these are exactly the teams the u.s. needs to concern themselves with. not having the ball is not going to suit the uswnt at the world cup. they don't have their previous athletic superiority that allowed them to just counter and score. they are going to have to stop the germans and brazilians from just passing the ball around them. what are you talking about? which teams are these? the teams below germany and brazil may not want to press too high because it opens themselves up at the back. but allowing the u.s. back line time on the ball isn't going to help their cause either.
Germany & Brazil will only challenge the USA if they actually meet. The U.S. should have to play quite a few games before they even get a sniff of those two sides. I for one think U.S. fans need to to keep a firm focus on the huge opener vs KDPR, then the second game vs a dangerous Sweden team in what could be a potential knock out fixture. Get past those two games then begin comparing USA to the efforts of the German's and Brazilian's. When teams attempt high pressure vs USA it can cause U.S. players to panic. The resulting panic tends to cause the U.S. defenders to play it long, with A-rod, Rapinoe, or O'Rielly benefiting from the space left open to run into. The U.S. still have a hell of a lot of decent pace within it's side when it's used running in straight lines. With this in mind the ball over the top always becomes a valid option for them to use, knowing they have the speed to chase most things down. When the opposition drop off the U.S., they tend to begin applying pressure when U.S. mids show to receive the ball. This tactically is when I see the USA get caught out over and over again. The U.S. attempts at transitional build up play were simply sloppy and at times ponderous, it just looked plain uncomfortable. This weakness allowed physically inferior sides to shut down much of the U.S. attempts at building an intelligent attack. You allow the U.S. defender to have the ball because you know what they will do with it. Hit a long ball in a 60/40 or 50/50 chance type play, or pass to a marked midfielder who will struggle to keep the ball when harassed. The fact Sundhage felt the wingers were still under preforming a while ago would suggest transitional play is still weak. This may have improved, and may improve further before the opening WC game, but I need to see them play again to really comment on a few things. Things like the current Llyod/Boxx/Wambach trio, and the wingers with overlapping full backs dynamic. At the Olympics you saw the the rough blue print of Sundhage's 2011 teams style. The U.S. used rope-a-dope against teams which used the ball well, harnessing a solid 2 lines of 4 set up to repel attacks. One of the forwards dropped back into a third center mid role (Hucles) leaving the speed of Rodriguez to keep defenders honest and occupied. This style relies heavily on having a solid defence with huge reserves of athleticism and energy, exactly what this USA team still looks to be built on.
While I agree that the US needs to worry about their first round teams (a very difficult group) when you are analyzing the team at the international level you do so against the world's best - Germany and Brazil. Using Finland as a point of comparison does no good. The analysis that has been going on here has been "how does the US stand up against the world's best." With that said I do worry about Sweden - always have. They are a very dangerous side but I have a tough time figuring them out this year because the Swedes have been so inconsistent. Korea? They scare the hell out of me because they are technical and athletic and somewhat unfamiliar (you just don't see them play much).
if we wait until then it will be too late. we need to prepare for them now. it's likely that if we only look at the swedes and dprs of the world that we'll fall short against germany and brazil. but i guarantee you that if we push ourselves to compete at the higher level with germany and brazil that there is a greater likelihood that we'll be able to handle the first round.
But it is pretty hard to get to meet oposition of Germany's type level, since that pretty much is only Germany, and they also seem to think US would gain more than them from a training match-up. It is impossible to meet any team of Brazil's type and level since that only exsist after they gathered their full A-team (and that pretty much only happens for the big tournamnets) and played one or two real games together (and that only happens at the big tournaments). So the "real" Brazil WNT pretty much only exists from mid-group stage until they out of the torunament for WWC and the Olympics, other times Brazil still plays the same type of game but not as good, more at a level of Japan/Sweden than US/Germany.
In fact the sample is so small that it might just be that they have played over their heads a few times in big tournaments...
that's why i said we need to "prepare for them". what i'm saying is that we cannot be satisfied with the kind of football required to beat teams like japan, sweden, canada, north korea etc. we must prepare ourselves for a higher level of play.