Absolutely and Germany and Brazil are that higher level of play, although I wouldn't discount Sweden - they can be awesome. The past couple of years they have been inconsistent but when on their A game they can play (and beat) anybody.
The USA thinking in recent times they are only going to be tested by first China, then Germany, and now Brazil, is the problem every 4 years. Winning endless friendlies is no more than a confidence boost when neither Germany or now Brazil are utilising, or competing, at the same level of intensity in the friendlies they organise. Yes I understand the CONCACAF region is too weak to guarantee enough proper tests, with the WNT player system still the true dependable pro route for the girls to reach for. The need for endless out of major competition victory is just not replicated by other top nations yet. Brazil and Germany for different factors don't play anything like the real them until the 4 year WC cycle reaches it's climax. USA get to the WC stage and don't look anything like the #1 team, probably because of the very fact they don't or can't use the 4 years in between WWC's to evolve or rejuvenate the team. UEFA and East AFC teams can get away with poor or sporadic friendly results because of their regions superior qualification process, combined with a stronger depth of opposition talent. Factors that gives them multiple games of a true intense value. Brazil are freakishly gifted with top players making the most of very little. If U.S. fan's think the U.S. team plays at the German and Brazil level based on the #1 rank maintained between the WWC's with friendly results, their in for a shock once again. This time another team will step up into the caliber of the so called top sides, and the U.S. better hope it doesn't introduce it's self to them like Germany 03' and Brazil 07' did. Don't over look other teams based on how good or bad the results look in out of major tournament play. We can't see enough of the women's games to do that yet.
My understanding is that the friendly results you refer to have very little effect on the rankings. Germany fell back in them by having a very poor Euro Cup in there somewhere, one which they were most certainly trying to win; not because the US played and beat Mexico and Japan repeatedly... And these types of posts tend to generate and sustain an illusion that the USWNT roster is stagnant, so let me point out (again) that this year's WWC roster will have less than half the players who were on the previous one. Four starters will have changed, five if Solo doesn't make it back. So be clear that you can argue it hasn't "evolved" but not that it hasn't changed. (It is also a little difficult to see how the US playing what competition it can find is less evolutionary than Brazil playing almost none at all. But perhaps they are sort of permanently evolved?)
isn't that what we're saying? where on this board did you get this impression. people don't believe this. we've been saying exactly the opposite - that we can't think that we're at germany and brazil's level yet.
Germany are 5 time consecutive Euro champs . My point was that due to the growing strength of the Euro region, Germany don't have to concentrate on international friendlies in the same way the U.S. have to. Germany will never look like being FIFA #1 in the times between UEFA and FIFA championships any time soon either. The only reason they have a decent friendly record of late is due to them having no WWC qualifying games to hone them as in previous cycles. You can call Bombay Mumbai, or spell Peking as Beijing, there still the same thing. The USWNT has changed names and faces a lot, but the fresh faces that come in are more of the same, or worse than before. Shuffling the same style and pack of players over and over is not really as fresh as people suggest it to be. Post WWC it's time to move at the same rate as everybody else. The very fact a poor national program like Brazil can be so good now only highlights the opportunity the U.S. wastes. With very little support compared to the U.S., or many of the top 10 nations, Brazil has to focus on the bigger picture. Even if the U.S. at one point where miles ahead based on it's pro NT player model, it's lost that advantage. Globe trotting all over the place for endless games where little is accomplished will have to change somehow. Yes, prep for the worst case scenario, prep for a clash of the titans type event vs one or both of Germany and Brazil. I worry though that all that focus on wanting to be better than teams USA think they know, will have left them preparing for teams that have moved on in what they actually produce. I don't want to see another dogged battling style getting USA out the group stage, only to be blown away by another team ready to dine at the elite level big girls table. There are more dangers than Germany and Brazil waiting around the corner. Two WWC semi's in a row vs up and coming powers have resulted in critical beat downs. In both games nobody believed either time USA would, or could, lose so decisively vs nations obviously playing next level women's football compared to everybody else.
A quick glance at the 1999 program I have casually lying around shows me that the preliminary German WNT roster has 4 players (Prinz, Grings, Angerer, Hingst) from the 1999 squad on it. We have one. More internet searching tells me that they have 5 players from their 2003 squad. Three from that '99 group, minus Inka Grings. Notably, Conny Pohlers, controversially cut for the 2011 roster despite being the top scorer in their league, was on the roster in 2003. So that's a total of 7 players in the German player pool who played in the 1999 or 2003 World Cups. The US WNT has three players from the 2003 group in its player pool. As for 2007, 14 players from the German WWC squad are on the preliminary roster. The USA has 9.
I'm sure all of them were around 21 or 20 in 99? They should be all at least 33 now, playing their final WWC's and games in general for Germany. All except Angerer maybe? Point is, there not exactly ancient now, and all the vets have understudies ready to replace them already, just like 99', 03', and 07'. USWNT have 1 player from 99' because that was when the majority of U.S. players were in their full prime. Germany did well in 99, but won in 03' with only a few of it's players in their prime, and many of those have long gone. The German squad for 03' won the WWC in fantastic fashion, notably without many of it's current top players in their prime years of development. The three players from 99' would have been unheralded kids who became major factors for the 03' win. Somebody like Pohlers being cut is only controversial if you look past the fact Germany have some of the games best attacking talents right now. If Germany had failed to win back to back WWC's, or lost it's hold on the Euro championships, maybe there could be a case for arguing on a total revamp of the German team. Fact is, the new faces that come into the team have yet to lower the level of play at all. The 07' German team introduced many young talents from their first U-20 success, and one of the games best players right now in Bajramaj. Your looking at a golden generation of progression and talent for ten years solid. USA has everything to prove in terms of it's development. Names may of changed, but in the past two WWC's the level of play had fallen considerably. U.S. retirements have a lot more to say about possible returnees from 07'. Let's not forget how bad they were compared to Germany in that tournament as a team either, back then less than 9 players coming back for 2011 would have made more sense. Germany has built towards it's excellence based on integrating talented youth, and letting go of vets at the right time. Maintaining that standard mean's you would never have seen a Lilly situation occur with them. They obviously trust in the youth, knowing that the standard of play shouldn't decline drastically when there brought in. I would speculate at 32/33 you tend to see the German girls regularly step aside for this reason. Things like the Algrave cup helpfully line players pockets (which is great), while maintaining the #1 FIFA rank. It does little to prove the teams development, or true level of play though.
if this is true, these other teams should be far ahead of the uswnt who they have "beaten down" in previous games. i don't believe they are. 2007 was obnoxious. it smelled when the coach had a different gk suit up, and got worse once a player was wrongly sent off. but 2003 was a different game. the germans got a minute 15 goal and then played excellent defense and played for the counter. the additional goals were both in added time. it broke my heart to lose that game. but it was not a beat down. our u23 team is always bringing younger players along. to me it's just 6 and half-a-dozen. the u.s. does not yet get the same mens team and community support for their women playing the pro game as germany. so they have to do things differently to keep girls playing at the higher level of the game. it's just the reality of things on the ground. each has to work with the reality of conditions and culture in the country.
Structurally Germany are actually far ahead of the U.S.. They have everything in place to produce the female games top players and teams for years to come. Brazil however are always handicapped by a systemically very weak FA. The only reason Brazilian men have maintained it's player production for the past 20 years is obsessive national culture, partnered with the rise of young player movement abroad. Hey, Germany had to play on U.S. turf to obtian it's first WWC title. Then they beat the then without argument #1 team, and hosts, 3 - 0 in the process . That semi was an amazing game played by both sides, but for Germany it was a far bigger performance and achievement in the female games progression. Way bigger than their 07' victory. The only way this changes is WPS staying around long enough to offset the need of the WNT program in obtaining pro status. It's a long time to wait for a chance, when college eligibility is coming to an end, and players future development in the sport are at a point of winding down or stagnation. This is a big big big disappointment in my opinion. The Euro system of football clubs being major parts of the community can give Euro girls (particularly the German girls) a great platform for future success. The support of the German NT however is not an a pro system, and the media/fan respect and support is still an ongoing struggle. The 11' WWC has helped, but the DFB has done a lot of good work in making sure things are in place to elevate the women's game in to future public consciousness, and not just the present. The German women's game now is still in the process of obtaining the same cultural acceptance USA has in female participation within the sporting landscape. The ever decreasing wider fan support for the U.S. girls juxtaposed with the increasing support for the men, is now a missed opportunity. USSF never moved on with the initial success, forgetting fans and expectations would grow up and move on at some point too. The USWNT is now stuck in a cycle of only being able to win to appear successful, and therefore relevant. The support that was gained in the mid to late 90's has lost it's momentum, with defeats rather than victory annoyingly the only thing carrying more weight with the once supportive wider soccer fan society. With the visible rise of new generation of women's teams and elite players like Marta, it would seem people don't believe, or have lost faith in the past or current style US hype machine.
I think you're missing something when you don't point out that the German team may have been the single biggest beneficiary of the WUSA. I'm not convinced that the Germans (or English) are as effective in "developing players" as we keep hearing, and even if they are, that developing players in depth is related to the performance of the top 11 as directly as people here seem to assume.
I think this WC will be a referendum of sorts on US women's soccer's development system for the full NT. The US does things quite different than other nations and I'm curious to see how it stacks up. It's been 11 years since the team has made it to the WC championship match, including one on US soil, and in my opinion, another WC without an appearance in the finals means the system isn't working. The US has the deepest talent pool in the world, a professional league and a collegiate "farm" system - not to mention the incredibly large youth playing system. We rely on ODP to identify our youngest talent and our youth national teams to prepare them for the full NT. Personally, I don't think it's working but I'd love to be proven wrong this Summer.
I agree WUSA helped propel a few nations to new levels of professionalism. Without the construction of WUSA, the U.S. may of had another 4-6 years of absolute world dominance. Thing is though, WUSA should have helped the U.S. just as much as any other nation. Only top internationals would have played WUSA while it was around, allowing for the best young U.S. domestic options to fill squads, with an eye to future WNT success. Once Germany got to the pinnacle, they have not looked back since. Unlike the USSF, the DFB definitely pushed forward aggressively with new approaches and the environments girls would learn how to play football. There's loads of FIFA/UEFA technical reports on what Germany are up to with their girls. I have read a lot of info about the things you don't see, and it points to a very long gradual move towards a fully pro set up. If anything the U.S. can always claim that it pioneered the drive of pro environments for the female soccer player. However you can't dismiss the continued tactical and technical progress from Germany after they left WUSA either. The style USA choose to play in Germany is vital in assessing this current U.S. crop of players. Some fans just want to win using an at all costs approach in Germany, but I don't think it's going to be good enough to win a WC. It worked for a watered down Olympics, but you make a mistake or play badly in a WC and you go home. That first game will tell us everything about U.S. WC hopes. Like 07 it's KDPR, and that is going to be as tough as it gets if you can't play smart.
i know that the mens side is deeper and has more good teams and players, but the netherlands has never won the world cup. in fact the last time it was in the finals (before 2010) was 1978. that doesn't mean that they don't have a good setup. not winning the wc would be terrible but it wouldn't necessarily mean that we're doing the wrong things with our system based on our circumstances and culture. of course i'm not saying that the ussf is perfect by any means. most of the playing of young girls/women soccer in the u.s. is outside of the absolute control of the ussf. the youth system is rife with pay to play teams which is partly the result of the game being just a pastime and not part of the culture. and the ussf cannot stop it (altho they're trying something in the developmental academy that show some promise). the college system just ignores certain fifa rules. the ussf can't stop them either. and that's the bulk of the soccer played in the country. history doesn't lie. demographics doesn't decree absolutes in the world of soccer. culture does more than demographics can do. and you can't change this country into a soccer culture just by posting it. i always root for the uswnt tho. and i believe that they will win this wc.
While I don't disagree with your sentiments the Netherlands example is a bit different from the standpoint that they didn't go from winning the WC to not winning.
i could easily use examples of winning teams. it wouldn't change the essential point that a knockout tournament should not be used to do all the judging of your system. argentina still produces great players even tho it has gone from winning to not winning the wc.
Luvadagame, I don't understand the cause-and-effect relationship described in your statement, "the youth system is rife with pay to play teams which is partly the result of the game being just a pastime and not part of the culture." It's not self-evident that "the youth system [being] rife with pay to play teams" is partly caused by "the game being just a pastime and not part of the culture." Aren't there other sports played in the US that are rife with pay to play, but that are part of the culture? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'd just like more elaboration. Also, as I think about this, maybe it's that pay to play is the essence of our culture?
Why is that the case? How can the NCAA be in total control of another globally regulated sporting organisations youth to that extent? Comparatively are the USSF that much weaker that they have absolutely no say in how the game is run? How hard would it be to tweak rules to allow the U.S college system to become the envy of the football world, and not the point of criticism. I still struggle to believe the lack of football culture still holds the U.S. back, especially on the women's side. I understand a lack of senior pro environments held U.S. men's soccer back for generations, but USA I'm sure are one of the most qualified nations in FIFA WC youth tournament history. I mean look at the rise of Japanese footballers. They like the U.S. had no football culture to speak of, and in fact had little to no history with the game unlike like the U.S.. With a good league, a national team on the rise, with ever increasing numbers of their players in top Euro teams, they prove as well as anybody football success can be attained with a still very young football culture.
yes. but if we had football culture, then like the football culture countries our geography would literally be strewn with academies where kids learn the game for free, without the academies going bankrupt like friedel's academy did. because the ncaa itself is not globally regulated. this is america! if my kid could play soccer and he had a chance to get 4 years of college education for free, with the cost of college education what it is, i'm sending him to north dakota state. and i'm a soccer crazy!! yes. the ncaa does not care much what ussf says. ussf can't make them stop playing the game the way they choose. popular opinion might, if the culture gets strong enough. the ncaa has made small allowances recently. but that's not because ussf has any hold on them. the value of this is a huge misconception. as has been pointed out many times on this board, qualifying or even winning youth tournaments does not in and of itself make you a great football nation. you have to have a system that keeps turning out enough above average players that keep playing the game so that the cream keeps rising to the top, enabling you to beat other nations at the senior game. japan: small island with a consensus culture. u.s.a.: large country with no consensus culture. tried to get americans to agree on anything lately?
I think using the WC as the end point evaluation of how the US develops players for the full NT is a perfect place to perform such an analysis. I'm not sure where else it should be done. The goal of the NT is to win the WC. If the team is continually underperforming in subsequent WC tournaments I think it's fair to call into question how the system is developing players. As for the US being the only pay-to-play soccer culture - that is simply wrong. Latin America is a pay-to-play culture, just a different one, where players have to pay scouts to get tryouts at the big clubs - it's a de-facto payola system that is rife with corruption. A huge distinction is that since most of the clubs in these areas (not so much in Mexico) rely on transfer fees as its main income source they are willing to search everywhere to find players whereas in the U.S. this doesn't happen.
i absolutely agree. but that's why i said using a wc performance as the only yardstick is the wrong thing to do. but using it as the endpoint is fine. i have nothing against it. in fact i think that's the way it should be done. indeed. but what does continually underperforming mean? acknowledging the deeper mens' side, i refer to the netherlands failures again. but nobody is questioning the dutch system. but i could use argentina too. they haven't even been to the semis, much less the finals, since 1990. but it is clear that they are still producing good players in their system. we're just discussing degree here, but i was just arguing for the wc not to be the only yardstick. i never claimed that the u.s. is the only pay-to-play soccer culture. my point was that it is the norm among countries with a soccer culture for the academies not to charge. we don't have that. so we lose a lot of the good but poor street kids that other soccer cultures even with their corruption snatch up.
Does the USSF actually contribute anything important to it's own sport, especially on it's own terms in which the game develops? Money bags institutions like the USSF should have helped with what Friedel was trying to do. If it were not for MLS with the men, where the hell would the U.S. game/fan culture be now. If the USSF did it's job, something like WPS could of really benefited from better ties with the NCAA teams and players. The opportunity for an athlete to obtain an college education is something all nations would wish they had more of. Male footballers, like all other hugely popular playing sports men, are not the most respected if popular people in most western societies, with acts of stupidity occurring now far to often. Due to the lack of money related status, and better levels of education, the women always seem more rounded as individuals to me. If the college system could be slightly tweaked though, U.S. soccer could really take advantage of some of the most developed sporting institutions around. . You don't need everybody on board. America is so vast, why not focus on certian states with the most potential for successful implimentaion of a serious plan? But yeah, it's a very valid point. Maybe Americans just won't be able to do what's best for everybody, in a nation where the idea of the individual is seen as so much more important. But that means USA has failed on it's women's program then . It's rare to see a U.S. player beyond a defensive role pop up on top player lists any more. The level Hamm's and Akers helped the WNT attain back in the day, meant good players for the WNT are now a given. It's the elite or great ones that should really matter now. The women's program already has the legacy of the very best attacking players, but it's been a very dry time since they left. If the U.S. leaves Germany and then goes to another WWC without a championship or producing any of the top creative players in the game, that's got to be a major fudge up right? If the U.S. don't show well in Germany that could be 15! plus years without producing anything people expect to see from one of the games true leaders. I don't want to see the USWNT have to turn into the Greece side from the 04' Euro championships just to compete for a title .
it's a nonprofit. all the money is allocated/spent. so, yes, of course they do. not exactly the way you and i may want it allocated/spent, but there's enough agreement on the way it is spent that nobody is being hauled over the coals. no. that's not their job. a small token amount, yes. but academies and leagues need to be privately run. we'd be still trying to figure it out. and that's the way it should be. there are not enough soccer people in the u.s. who would support the kind group/socialist/subcapitalist idea you and some others on this board keep pushing. leagues, teams and academies have to be run by private individuals for the most part, for them to be successful in america. keep on dreaming. again, not enough people support that idea even among us soccer crazy fans. it's not gonna happen. ussf cannot fund the d1 league, and it cannot force the ncaa to change its rules. they are separate institutions. one does not control the other. a slow but sure soccer culture is what we'll have to depend on. we just need to be patient. the college system will change. but not thru the pipe dream of ussf having anything to do with it. ussf don't have the money, power, or influence that ncaa has. if ussf call a meeting, and invite ncaa people to attend, they'd have empty chairs in their meeting room, and people laughing at them behind their backs. not necessarily. nothing confusing. read it again beginning with post 139. they won't. there's no chance of that. but i don't care as much for pretty football as i care for their winning. i'd like both, but i'll take the latter, if i have to choose one. like i always say, arsenal plays some of the prettiest football i've seen, but they haven't won any trophies for some time. and btw, i don't see this great difference between german players and uswnt players that you see. maybe i need to see them play more games. brazilian players, yes - that's culture. but to me the uswnt is doing fine with the circumstances it has to deal with (yes, there are some things that can improve), and germany is doing fine with their different circumstances.
I know it's the American way, but football and private enterprise tends to lead to some very disgruntled people down the line. No developed country but the U.S. does things so randomly. Hoping to be successful in American soccer circles alone is not going to cut on the world stage down the line. Japan put a 50 year development plan in place a while back, which is bearing some nice fruits. How far away do you think the U.S. are from having a stream of elite global youth talent come through? Dammmm, LOL that does not sound good. So what gives the NFL, NBA, and NHL the power to sculpt NCAA youth rules in their own image? Is the USSF really that self loathing . That new era Emirates playing Arsenal style stuff is a myth. Propaganda created by London Mafia journalists desperate to give one of there favourite teams an award that made it look like they had achieved something. They played better stuff in the days of Veira, Petit, Henry ect... while winning a few things in the process too. You can play nice stuff without having to walk the ball into the net. LOL, with varying levels of success, Germany are who Sundhage is attempting to make USA play like. Technically the German girls are quicker, smarter, simply better than the U.S. right now. The U.S. girls have honed and maintained far better levels of athletic professionalism, both mentally and physically. This has been a great attribute carrying the U.S. through some very sticky times. Germany like Brazil play to win in an entertaining fashion. It tends to bring the best out of both teams. Both have different cultural standards of what that entails, but both of them have it. I used to think that's what the U.S. women looked to do too, but I now realise it's actually more similar to the MNT than I ever imagined. The better the men get, the more the similarities appear to show through.