2016 FIFA U-20's WWC - Group Match # 1 - USA vs France (pre/pbp/post)

I read that Racioppi broke her leg.

 

So the consensus is that its OK, and in fact the draw was a testament to French's coaching prowess? That its OK that the USA put out such a weak team that it was necessary to park the bus and hope for a point in this game against France? I have to say that the consensus that they parked a solid bus and that fact should be seen as a positive result in that game is disheartening to me. They played not to lose badly and they were therefore "successful"? When did our goals become so modest?

I also don't buy the "development" excuse for the U17 s failures and possibly now also the u20s. Heinrichs is quoted below stateing that winning is very important to development and I agree. I also don't think its a developmental advantage for Pugh to be playing "down" on this team. She helped keep the bus solid yesterday no doubt to help prevent further embarrassment.

From Equalizer 1/15

Heinrichs admits “the ultimate American conflict, winning vs. development,” is always at play. In a panel at January’s NSCAA Convention, Heinrichs said that sometimes outside expectations for the U.S. women are unrealistic. On Monday she clarified:

"Our goals are to win at every level. We train our players on how to win during the course of their development, from matriculation when we first bring them on as U-14s to when they matriculate through our program. We train the mentality of finding ways to win all the way through the program."

“Any time we enter a tournament we have to play to win, with the understanding certainly at our younger age groups when you go into say an international friendly tournament, that part of the process of developing is playing the players that we bring to a tournament. So you might mix your starting lineup a little bit. The goal is always to win, the goal is to find ways to win. The expectations in terms of our community and our fan base and even U.S. Soccer is to find ways to win, but we want to make sure that along the process, we are not sacrificing development pieces, like playing time, opportunity to play different styles of play, different opponents.”

I am disappointed that the aspirations of US soccer has sunk to this level. Regarding red shirting, I do think that some of the better attacking midfielders chose school over national duties. But that in itself is a somewhat troubling statement as to the future of the USWNT

 

Oh, I agree that it's not ideal. But I've been resigned to that fact for more than one full cycle. Given our W-17 and W-20 history over about the last six years, we have gobs of data that says we're not close to the best in the world. Apparently, our methodology has fallen behind. Change will come slowly (over years), as we evolve entire systems and ways of thinking to adapt to the new(er) reality. (And even then, we're about a couple decades behind them in that race, too, so they're a constantly-moving target.)

The goals for this one team are necessarily modest if we're realistic. I actually hate the way we play and look tactically inept, as if North Koreans know more about soccer at 15 than we do at 25 (and know more about teaching soccer than all of our club coaches combined). But these problems, once revealed, cannot be fixed in 1 day, or 1 year.

I don't blame US students for choosing not to redshirt. WNT-20 actually is worth close to $0 in USA: you cannot get paid a dime for it, and it doesn't guarantee anything at the WNT level.

I'm skeptical about our current leadership. (In soccer, too -- including MNT ) Are they visionaries in the midst of a long process (Bezos/Musk), or simply in over their heads? Alas, we can't just peek at the answers in the back of the book.

 

The US Soccer industry is a country club meant solely to extract money from parents pockets and promote and protect friends in the organizations without any transparency or accountability. It's the same coaches and their friends who have been failing this country for years.

As is typical in the US, the big business of soccer wants every opportunity for profit without any competition or accountability and it affects soccer at every level.

The uswnt will never suffer imo because top players will always find a way. It will never be as good as it can but they will always be near the top because we will almost always hold the athletic and numbers advantage. So long as the uswnt doesn't falter, nobody will ever seek change in the youth game.

 

forgive the length.

^^^This^^^

sounds like you wanted us to play the free flowing style against the better french just as a matter of principle even though we'd likely lose.

i find it sad too.

but i'm also happy that we are
not taking girls away from academic advancement to play low pay, no future pro woso.

we must compete pragmatically with our high school and college girls who fly in for 2 week practices every few months.

bunker against the french. free flowing against new zealand. some combination against ghana. we like to think it's all about us. and that sounds great. but the other team always determines how well you can play your game.

in the forseeable future, (until woso is viable enough - maybe never - to have girls mortgage their future and go pro early) we won't have the skill level of the french, germans, and english, but maybe some combination of brain, brawn, and indomitable will can see us win wcs at all levels.

we didn't have the skill level of the north koreans in 2008, and we didn't have the skill level of the germans in 2012. But we still won.

 

Because ... soccer happened to them