They created numerous opportunities where a striker was alone in the box without a defender between her and the keeper. Almost all of which they hit too close to Murphy or didnt keep on frame.
Yes, French mentioned Japan's exceptional off-the-ball movement. My response is why not do more man marking? Is that not possible? I was amazed at how little the U.S. did to break their progress--we didn't challenge the ball much, or were unable to, didn't anticipate passes and didn't very often break up passes until they were around the U.S. box, which they were for most of the game! I wonder how much general fitness is a factor. I think the fitness level of Japan and NK must be off the charts, and playing in humid weather probably did not help us. I wasn't surprised that they had the better of possession, but I was very surprised at how helpless the U.S. team looked.
This US Team was a joke! Michelle French needs to either be fired from the federation or resign on her own immediately! Style of play and player selection falls solely on the head coach. What the US displayed was a group of "athletes". I saw not one soccer player on the field let alone a soccer team. We were schooled and outclassed by North Korea and Japan. We got lucky against Mexico. Our constant preference for "athletes" over "players" is catching up to us badly! While we continue to teach "kickball" the rest of the world is teaching their girls "SOCCER"!
It wasn't so much the fitness as both North Korea and Japan made the ball do most of the work. We just sat back in a bunkered position in hopes of weathering the storm. The U.S team was simply outclassed!
In reaction to a French poster bragging about how good the French U20 team is, I went back and did a comparison of how the two teams did in terms of game outcomes: France (eventual runner up) v USA: tie France and USA v Ghana: both ties France and USA v. New Zealand: both won by 2 goals France and USA v North Korea (eventual champion): France lost 3-1 in regular time; USA lost 2-1 in extra time Japan: France won by 1 goal, USA lost by 1 goal It's pretty unanimous that the USA looked not very good (that's being generous). But in terms of results, the difference is relatively small.
Yeah, but France beat Germany, and USA beat Mexico, in the Quarterfinals. That's some differentiation there. However, USA never got the opportunity to play Germany. Who knows, maybe they beat Germany by 2 goals, if Pugh & Sanchez catch fire.
USA was very fortunate that Mexico, North Korea and Japan badly misfired their shots in their games. North Korea and Japan each had over 20+ shots on goal vs USA's 1 to 2 shots on goal. If both NK and Japan would've converted at least 25% of their shots, the scoreboard would've been more reflective of what was displayed on the field. Going by just "results" fails to address the real issues. It's like putting lipstick on a pig and saying how beautiful it is when it's still a pig!
While criticizing the US performance is legitimate, as I indicated, your post is ridiculous. Based on these games, North Korea, Japan, and Mexico shoot poorly. In fact, if you're using your numbers, you could make the case that whatever other flaws the US has, its shooting is massively better than any of those teams. And, your pig analogy doesn't work. Just stay with the basics. The US scores and game results weren't great, but they weren't bad either. But, notwithstanding those results, the US looked bad. Leave the sarcasm and hostility behind.
you should watch full games instead of scores. It's called soccer, a special game, where only limited information can be sent through scores.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda... If Cousins' arm doesn't touch the ball, and PRK doesn't get the PK call, then maybe USA advances to the title game and goes on to defeat France, and we are having a different conversation. In this sport, the scoreboard is what matters at the end of the day, and when it consistently reads the same, then it typically means something. Defensive soccer, never looks pretty, and most people hate it, but it's what got Greece and Portugal their Euro Championship titles. Maybe PRK, Japan, and France have a great passing game at the cost of not practicing shots on goal as much. It's not uncommon for a team to focus on one aspect of their game and totally fail on another. Look at Japan vs USA at the 2015 WWC final. USA took advantage of Japan's set piece weakness, which I'm sure they scouted.
The US team was clearly very organized... defensively. There is a reason the shot% against the US was so bad. The US forced teams into taking low percentage shots. This style doesn't look pretty. To many it may even look like "athletes" doing a poor job of being "soccer players". Yet, it's actually incredibly difficult and takes very skilled and intelligent players to pull off for a full game. Personally, I was very happy with how the US handled defense. Now if only they could've been as organized when they won the ball.
Dont u think it's a big concession on the US' part to become a defend and counter team? That French had to play that way is pretty much admitting that the US just isnt good enough to go toe to toe with these teams. And if this is about development, wouldnt they be better trying to play? On all levels the US strategy has become force or hope for mistakes that can give them the ball in the attacking third instead of being able to get it there consistently themselves.
Throwing results and play aside....Im not sure u want to get locked into the same coaches long term at this level. If the coach is doing really well ud want to move them up. If not u want to bring in new coaches with new ideas. Isnt two cycles enough before change is made at the development level?
Your response is absolutely ridiculous! The U.S team had flaws in every department! Name one area or player that looked good out there for us. You want to put lipstick on this pig? Have at it! To me if it looks like a pig and walks like a pig guess what.....it's a pig! And yes North Korea and Japan shot poorly in their games vs the U.S. team. We should've lost by 6-7 goals easily to them.
PAHH LEASE!!! Go learn the game first and then come back and have an intelligent discussion with me. Yeah Portugal won the Euro's and were heavily criticized by everyone for their "anti soccer" style of play. Luck also played a part in their games.
Ultimately it is the result that counts. However, how you get there and how you develop your program to get there for prolonged success should be the priority, especially at the youth levels. I don't think playing like Greece is a recipe for long term success. IMO, that kind of play is an underdog role. Look at all of the top clubs and nations in the world. Occasionally you get an outlier such as Greece but most international success has been by technical and tactical progressive teams such as Spain and Germany (in the men's game). Traditionally Italy has been a defensive team that relied on their Catenaccio (not so much anymore) but they were always very technical and tactically savvy. Can you say the same for the US? Not to pick on one player but an example of how a style like that ultimately breaks down was the left back from the US. I believe her name was Ellie Jean? I saw constant giveaways and general technical breakdowns on her part. Even when she wasn't under pressure she would just lose the ball out of play or play a hopeful ball to the front. Have the team play a organized defensive style, sure that is one way, but at least be able to attack with numbers and be technically proficient. The way the US played is not going to be fruitful for long term success.
Both North Korea and Japan had over 20+ shots on us. How is that low percentage? Nice to hear that you like a team that plays "not to lose" vs a team that goes out there to win! The U.S team was schooled and outclassed in every department by NK and Japan. We should've lost by at least 6-7 goals.
Of course score matters and it matters a lot. What I mean is if you want to evaluate your soccer system, and find issues and solve them, or you care about the future, scores can only give you very limited info. You mentioned Greece soccer, which is a good example. For that Greece team, it's a success, but does Greece become a powerhouse of soccer? Can't soccer fans criticize the Greece soccer and have higher demand? Another example is England Men's national team. Image if they still play the old England style, they can still be competitive, and the results could not be so different than current England, then why do they try to change their style and do a loads of attempts to play a more advanced style? more technical, focus more on controlling, instead of long ball and hustle? In the end, I found someone really mistake defensive style. To play defensively doesn't mean to play blind, kick ball. Italy play defensive ball, and Portugal got the recent euro cup title with defensive style, doesn't mean they play a kick ball, also doesn't mean they consistently made bad pass/first touch, and boosted blind long ball, that's how this US team played.
They don't ever produce world class players. So, fans don't typically have a high expectations on their program on the international stage.
Is this how you start an intelligent discussions? What are you 13 years old? Thank you for sharing your maturity level with us.
Oh I'm sorry to have hurt your little feelings! If you can't handle it then don't dish it! We can agree to disagree with each others beliefs.
Sorry to chime in in a non-Japanese thread, but, apart from noticing that the whole of Juanele's post seems very reasonable to me, as well as most of his comments use to be, I found especially interesting his observation about Ellie Jean, since I had wrote basically the same on Nadeshiko Japan's boards at HT of the third place match, last saturday: