Aug 12, 3:48 PM EDT Women's Soccer Coach Seeks Rule Change By JOSEPH WHITE AP Sports Writer THESSALONIKI, Greece (AP) -- The U.S. women's soccer team could lose its best scorer for an important game because of the Olympic tournament's quirky rules, and the coach wants something done about it. "We're at a competitive disadvantage," coach April Heinrichs said following her team's opening game, a 3-0 victory over Greece. The problem stems from an Olympic format that never seemed even-handed from the start. Simply put, the organizers threw elementary math out the window when drawing up the schedule, leaving the Americans and three other teams caught in the middle. There are 10 women's teams in the Olympic tournament. The teams could have been split into two equal groups of five. Instead, they are split into three groups - one with four teams and the other two with just three teams. The United States happens to be drawn into the group with four teams. That means the Americans must play three first-round games - against fellow group members Greece, Brazil and Australia - in just seven days in the stifling heat of a Greek August. The teams in the other groups play just twice over seven days. To compound matters, the usual tournament rules regarding yellow card fouls remained the same. If a player gets two yellow cards in the first round, she is suspended for the next game. Sure enough, U.S. forward Abby Wambach received a yellow card in the 49th minute Wednesday against Greece. If she gets another yellow card in the Americans' third game - a game that teams in other groups don't even have to play - then Wambach will be on the bench for the do-or-die quarterfinals. Wambach, by the way, has scored 15 goals in her last 16 games. She's scored twice as many goals as any U.S. player this year except for Mia Hamm. She is an indispensable cog in the American attack. Heinrichs has been tactfully grumbling about the rules since the format was announced, but Wambach's yellow card prompted the coach's strongest words to date. While it's too late to change the size of the groups, Heinrichs publicly called on FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, to change the yellow card rule for these Olympics. "Look at what they've already done by having us be in a group of four, with fatigue, injuries possibilities - and also yellow card accumulation. ... All teams in our group that want to advance are at a disadvantage," Heinrichs said. Heinrichs said the U.S. team appealed to FIFA to change the rule Tuesday, before the first games were played. FIFA has been slow to respond. "So far, it hasn't been discussed," FIFA spokesman Alain Leiblang said Thursday from Athens. Leiblang said the teams have known about the yellow card rule for months, but that no complaint had been made until this week. He said there is a chance the rule could be changed, but he gave no timetable for any such decision. Why was the uneven format created in the first place? It was the result of that dicey process known as the political compromise. There were eight women's teams in Sydney four years ago, and FIFA wanted to expand to 12. The International Olympic Committee agreed only to 10. FIFA accepted 10 - then added the quarterfinal round, meaning that eight of the 10 teams would advance past the first round. To fit in all those games, the groups had to be small - thus the unbalanced finished product. "We had to negotiate hard to have 10," Leiblang said. "It's very complicated with 10 teams. That's why we wanted 12." Heinrichs was asked if she would tell Wambach to deliberately get a yellow card in the team's second game, Saturday against Brazil, so that the forward would sit out the third group game against Australia instead of the quarterfinal. Heinrichs' response: "I'll let FIFA step up and take responsibility for this competitive disadvantage first. That would be a preferable solution." And if no change is made? "We will deal with it."
if this last part is true, it is the real problem (for the old u.s. team) with this kakamame tournament setup. we are the oldest team in the tournament!! does not bode well. we'll be dogmeat when or if the tired 'mericans meet the 1-game-less-played germans.
hammstar, you and elroy and heartplay are dreaming if you think that hamm can stand up to the rigors of the quick counter in this extra-game-to-play-heat-of-august tournament. she is indeed playing well, but as i mentioned in a recent thread, i have seen mia caught from behind by a defender recently. something that never used to happen. i understand the mia to central, o'reilly to forward suggestion, but it is not something they haven't tried. when they use it they still have only modest success, (o'reilly does not have that 6th sense of where wambach will be) and if they start with it they lose the opportunity to bring the spark off the bench, and at the same time relegate an extra body (vital for an old team) like wagner to the unusable or hardly usable pile. the fact is that we are doing fine. it's just that the team is old and slow and lesser teams are much better than they were at end of the last century when we could beat them handily.
i have no idea why only you and a few others see this. this game is not all about speed. but when our team is old and slow, and the other team is younger and has good team speed, a lot of our supposed advantages go out the window. also some people are thinking of women's soccer circa 1999. this was the first time the greeks were in the olympics, and they do not have a pro womens' league. but their play and some of their individual moves on the ball that had their fans cheering and their speed and organization on defense was much better than some repeaters in the last olympics. btw, o'reilly doesn't ever seem to come in for wambach. wambach is always replaced by parlow these days. your assessment of the brazil game is right in line with what i'm thinking and have posted before on this board. let's see how the u.s.a. gets around and behind the brazil defense, and let's see how fawcett et al deal with the quick moves and speed of the brazil forwards.
I've been saying for about a year or more(and posting here),that we've become really THAT slow. The oldtimers have lost pace, M&M who had decent pace are gone, and the none of the youngsters seem burners either, except maybe O'Reilly.
word! especially the ones who use to be fast like lilly and mia, who are both still good by the way, bother me when i see them not having the speed and quickness that i used to revel in, and that used to break down the other teams constantly. i've never seen them play, but i'm anxious to see our u21 team. i understand that they have some speed.
Rampone and Bivens are the two speedsters on the back line but Bivens didn't make the 18. We will need that speed against the Germans.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mia still has her speed she is just battling a tight Hammy right now. Really having trouble getting it to losen up for her.
Hi, this is my first time posting to the board. I've really learned a lot about the USWNT and tactics from others' posts, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to share their knowledge and opinions. I was wondering what y'all thought about preparing differently for an offensive-minded team like Brazil as opposed to a bunkering (I've been listening to Wendy G-P...) team like Greece. Does it become more important to have speed at certain positions - say flank defenders or side mids? Is this type of game more to Wagner's advantage (given her playmaking abilities) or to her disadvantage (given her lack of speed)? Are there particular players on the USWNT who are particularly well suited for a more wide-open game? Thanks!
Ya know, there is always someone who extrapolates, someone who reads trees and shouts forests, someone who gets hit in the head by a falling leaf and screams that the sky is falling. Luvdagame, I believe that you are one of those "someone's". No one is saying that the Nats should go into a constant screwball kick and run counter game. They need to counter at the appropriate times. In every one of the "bunker" matches leading to the Olympics there were times when the other team was enough in the attack to be spread out. During those times, the opponents are vulnerable to a quick, accurate outlet pass, from which an experienced attacker can decide whether or not to counter. That just doesn't happen. All I want is some offensive creativity. Even the talking heads are asking for it.
It was a sham that Pearcey (nee, Rampone) didn't start v. Germany in the WC. Bivens may be a speedster, but she was more then outclassed by Germany and was constantly being beaten. She was often beaten so badly that she couldn't even thug her way out of it. But....Mitts isn't the answer either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Shinguard...Welcome to the boards. glad you decided to get involved in the posting. Playing against a bunker is completly different then playing against a team like say Brazil. Brazil will not bunker. they will not have 8, 9, players behind the ball. tactically with regards to defense you must be much more vigilant. Against a bunker the front runner is usually playing so high that she is cut off and has no help in the attack. A long ball is more oft used to find her. something she can run onto and shoot quickly. In a Match where you are playing a team that has an attacking personality your defense is not going to be able to play as high in support of the mid and the attack. You will not see as many forey's into the attacking third by the defense. Those are generally posession runs, and are done when we have a good surge developing and the other team scrambling defensively. anotherwords a quick counter. it can be started from anyone defensively through and up to the forward position. while bunkers are difficult to break down for the simple fact that they have numbers up defensively leaving the opposition outmaned in the attacking third, playing a team like brazil affords more options and seams to exploit. it is easier to spread the defense and open up holes then it is with a bunker. speed most certainly can and is a factor. and yes it depends on where it is as to how affective it will or can be. for instance. I would not play CP as a forward because she is too slow. she gets caught from behind and striped. I would however have no problem playing her out of the right flank mid. because from there she has time and space and can service the forwards as well as get endline (if she is on the weak side defensively) to service the box. I would like speed at A-Mid. I think that position to a degree requires it. can it be played by a slower player? Someone with average speed? Yes, but; in my opinion not against a highly aggressive physical team. If the attacking Mid is constantly under preasure when she recieves the ball, she is going to struggle to a.) Pass with accuracy, b.) spray the ball around C.) control her space with any consistancy and D.) be involved in the attack as another man crashing the box. Part of the Attacking Mids responsibiity is that play is designed by the use of the formation and structure of the formation for play to move through this pivitol player, as this player is used as a distributor of the ball. if that player is taken out of the game and unable to perform her assignment. it forces the team to use the width and not play as direct. and of course removes a vital option. The player at attacking mid. must be accertive. they must be able to hold the ball well when preasured, and have the tenacity to go after it defensively when it is in their space. This is where Aly fals short. she has shown she can do it. But; not consistantly. and her speed is average. I do not feel that speed is neccessarily required for an outside back to be able to be involved in the attack, but; certainly it does not hurt. If the run is times well and you have other defenders and midfielders prepared to slide behind that player to protect that position from a quick counter then i think you are going to be ok. as for players more suite to a wide open game. I think any player is more suited to a wide open game. One player that loves it in particular is Mia hamm. She excells at picking defenses appart. In a bunker it is much harder because because more oft then not you are not 1 v 1 but more like 2/3 v 1. No matter how good you are that situation makes your job much harder. course these are just my opinions and I am sure there are those who will disagree with me. But; hopefully you got something out of it
Originally Posted by luvdagame: hammstar, you and elroy and heartplay are dreaming if you think that hamm can stand up to the rigors of the quick counter in this extra-game-to-play-heat-of-august tournament. she is indeed playing well, but as i mentioned in a recent thread, i have seen mia caught from behind by a defender recently. something that never used to happen. i understand the mia to central, o'reilly to forward suggestion, but it is not something they haven't tried. when they use it they still have only modest success, (o'reilly does not have that 6th sense of where wambach will be) and if they start with it they lose the opportunity to bring the spark off the bench, and at the same time relegate an extra body (vital for an old team) like wagner to the unusable or hardly usable pile. the fact is that we are doing fine. it's just that the team is old and slow and lesser teams are much better than they were at end of the last century when we could beat them handily. elroy's reply: Ya know, there is always someone who extrapolates, someone who reads trees and shouts forests, someone who gets hit in the head by a falling leaf and screams that the sky is falling. Luvdagame, I believe that you are one of those "someone's". No one is saying that the Nats should go into a constant screwball kick and run counter game. They need to counter at the appropriate times. In every one of the "bunker" matches leading to the Olympics there were times when the other team was enough in the attack to be spread out. During those times, the opponents are vulnerable to a quick, accurate outlet pass, from which an experienced attacker can decide whether or not to counter. That just doesn't happen. All I want is some offensive creativity. Even the talking heads are asking for it. ----------------------------------------------------------- not intending that impression at all. i'm saying that mia can't do the quick counter because she is not as fast as she used to be. i have seen her caught from behind more than once recently. lilly has slowed even more, and wambach was never a speedster. any speedy middies (we don't have any) and backs (rampone, markgraf) are at a disadvantage because the teams we play do not bring their defenders up high to support the offense. they are usually staying close to their box ready to bunker at the slightest loss of the ball. counters are not the best use of your offense against such an opponent. furthermore, the defenders we are playing against these days are faster than the defenders we used to beat up on in the "good ol' days". i also said i understand the mia to mid, o'reilly to starting forward option. but as i said, they have tried that option at the end of games, and o'reilly has been able to get behind the defense with only limited effect because of o'reilly not having that 6th sense of where wambach/parlow is, but also because even when they are losing, opposing teams still tend to bunker, and a counter is not the best use of your offense against a bunker. in fact it is counterintuitive.
probably just an indication of age catching up with her. she certainly doesn't seem to have the speed she used to have before her injury/slump.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- luvdagame. ...what slump. she has 8 goals and 13 assists on the year so far. I watched her kick China's butt and out run them all over the place despite it. She just re-aggrivated it right before the China match. so I expect to see continued improvment.
A player does not have to possess blazing speed in order to counter effectively. It is easier to move the ball at speed than to cover the ground oneself. It does require training, vision, and hustle. It also requires willingness. This coach simply is not willing. The quality outlet passes simply do not happen. Under those circumstances any counters are doomed before they begin. This problem interests me b/c I have listened to coaches of women at very high playing levels talk about why the women's game is different b/c of relative lack of speed. It seems to me that quick, coordinated ball movement could make up for that deficiency. Yet we really don't see much of that type of play in the women's game. Go figure.
Bivens weakness in the WWC was a lack of international experience. Instead of continuing to call most of the founders up for each and every tournament between 2000 and 2003, Heinrich's could have spread a lot of experience around to a lot of players that we could really use now. We never won the Algarve Cup until Heinrichs was coach. We haven't won a tournament that counted since then. Instead of taking the same old stars for four or five caps they don't need, Heinrichs should have been bleeding a new generation of players. Don't blame Bivens. The talent was there. The experience wasn't. As many problems as I have with the WWC roster, Heinrichs really couldn't have put anyone else on that team. She hadn't developed any players. The US Women's player pool is maybe 25-30 players, and most of those are either near retirement or injured. In January, Bruce and April both called in camps of 28-29 players. The 11th most capped Women's player had 50 more caps than the most capped men's player that Arena called in. The men's player pool is probably around 50-60 players. After 3 years of the WUSA, there's no reason the Women's player pool shouldn't have 40-50 players. No reason other than the fact that meaningless friendly after meaningless friendly featured founder upon founder. Kristine Lilly has what, 250 caps? We complain that we don't have any other left flank players. Well, if Kristine had been left at home for a couple of years and 30-40 left-wing caps had been doled out to promising left flank players in the WUSA, we might just have developed a replacement. Same thing goes for all caps that Julie, Shannon, Brandi, Joy, Mia, Briana, Christie, Kate, etc... have been gaining the last 3 1/2 years. The USWNT has engaged in virtually no player development since Heinrichs came on board.
hey hamm-star, can't say you're not unfailingly positive! but if she really has a hamstring problem, that would be the quickest recovery on record.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- she pulled it, she didn't tear it off the bone. it is not serious. it is just tight. So it cuts somewhat on her stride.
Andy..you said this: Kristine Lilly has what, 250 caps? We complain that we don't have any other left flank players. Well, if Kristine had been left at home for a couple of years and 30-40 left-wing caps had been doled out to promising left flank players in the WUSA, we might just have developed a replacement. Same thing goes for all caps that Julie, Shannon, Brandi, Joy, Mia, Briana, Christie, Kate, etc... have been gaining the last 3 1/2 years. The USWNT has engaged in virtually no player development since Heinrichs came on board. not true. we have Chalupa. but; ape decided not to bring her. i think it was a mistake. She was the only other left flank mid player we had. and I thought she played well. She was in camp alot. She got some experience coming off the bench. But; i personally feel like ape may have made a deal with the under 21 coach. maybe he asked for her. don't know. all i know is a fine player did not make the roster.
Re: Heinrichs wanting the rule changed The world hates us, and the more we lose in sports, especially on big stages, the happier they are. We therefore have to get over this fact and raise our game so that it doesn't matter what quirks in the schedule we come up against. If US Soccer and April Heinrichs cannot put together a team that is capable of winning the games it has to win in order to be considered the best in the world, then that is an indictment of them, not FIFA or the IOC.
I haven't seen anyone miss the forest for the trees this badly in a long time. If you don't get my point, I can't help you. Sorry.