I wasn't able to watch the game, so it was interesting to read Grahame Jones' article from the L.A. Times about Brazil's injuries and then reading some posts here that the U.S. was in fact guilty of some cheap shots. I know these things do happen, but I hate when they do, regardless of who's the guilty party. This is the link to the Times article. You might have to register to read it. http://www.latimes.com/sports/olymp...aug15,1,2923088.story?coll=la-olympics-soccer It does sound scary.
aah, those saintly Brazilians . . . if you just re-watched the game, did you see Marta nail her after the play to draw the retaliation? Certainly the US has some physical players and can hang in there with teams that basically are looking to foul in order to make up for lack of athleticism or skill or because it's their national way of defending (see Big Phil Scolari for a detailed clinic). Rene is a great coach, and if he gets anywhere by whining I'm all for him. But not every collision or injury is the result of dirty play. It's hard to look at that game and feel Brazil didn't give as good as they got.
Where did I call the Brazilians saintly? Don't mischaracterize what I said. I was only referring to the US play.
Wow this thread is pretty amazing. All the US has done is win both their games, give up one goal. They will clearly advance, need only a tie to win the group, and probably don't even need that. Looking at the thread you would think the team were defending champs and heavy favorites and were getting eliminated in the preliminary rounds. The US could hardly be in a better position going into the 3rd game. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and quit looking for reasons to justify your belief that Julie Foudy and April Heinrichs are the spawn of Satan or something. Against Brazil, great goalkeeping and good luck kept Brazil from scoring the first half. Terrific play from the US won the game in the 2nd. You could actually see it coming towards the end of the 1st half as they managed to complete a pass or two, and you could feel the Brazilian frustration build up. Could they have beat Greece by more? Yes. Did they stink in the first half against Brazil? Yes. Will they need to improve their play to win gold? Yes Are they capable of doing that? Yes.
People like you make me ill! Whining, crying, diving are not a part of the game. In fact, they can be classified as unsportsmanlike conduct and today a Costa Rican player received a card for doing it. Anyone who thinks that these "tactics" add anything to the sport - any sport - is someone that I don't want to compete against. When I played, I hated to play against people like that and I had no respect for any teammates who played that way either. As a coach, I dropped teams from my schedule if they went too far over the line. There's a difference between someone who thinks that they've been fouled and someone who tries to magnify every little complaint. I can respect someone who plays through it, but the crybaby is just an unpleasant person to be around. The goal of sporting competition is to enjoy comradship with athletes that you respect. Unfortunately we all have to live with cheaters and their enablers - and you know who you are. I actually went out of my way to distance myself from them. I hope that you change your mind on this.
No one is likening Ape and Foudy to Satan, well maybe Thomas Flannigan. Yes, the team is doing just fine on paper, but even the most player worshiping observer can see that the quality of our play has diminished. If the US were some second rate program, I would be estatic with our performance. However, the US program has been one of the best programs in the world, and a supporter can expect more under those circumstances.
And I was worried about the quality of our play I didn't record the game, so I can't go back and watch, but I wonder what the early ratio of Brazilian to US fouls was in the first quarter of the game...or even the first half. I remember seeing one flash of the statistic on the screen and it was heavily Brazilian. But I don't have the numbers. If I knew the breakdowns I'd posit (good grief, I never use that word) that our 'quality' fouls were the result of having had enough and deciding to push back hard.
http://www.dailycomet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040815/APS/408150681 Two points: 1. Apparently practicing the 4-3-3 formation during the friendlies paid off. 2. April can change strategies at the half.
Sounds like the same strategy we used against Sweden in the WWC opener. If you can't beat 'em. Beat 'em.
Point number one is well taken. Point number two I read differently. The article sounded as if the change were preplanned. I could almost credit an Ape worshiper with such a thought. I think that you are right - the change was an adjustment. But, any international should be able to make an adjustment like that.
If I can interrupt the name-calling for a bit of actual soccer analysis... Kudos (for once) to the US coaching staff for making the halftime strategy change. Walker was spot on that the US change to a 4-3-3 really made a difference. Brazil was winning the midfield in the first half. The US kept bypassing it with balls out of the back, and when they did find Hamm or Wambach, those two were closely marked and had no midfield support coming up to help (also pointed out by Walker--about a 1000% improvement over Gebauer in the booth). The 4-3-3 the US team used looked like this: Code: Lilly Hamm Wambach Foudy Wagner/Tarpley Boxx Markgraf Reddick Fawcett Rampone The key is the midfield shape--pinched in, with the width coming from the three up top. That put three in the middle of the park to help shut down the Brazilians playing so much through the midfield. Three up front also stretched the Brazilian defense horizontally to open up gaps the US could exploit. Another thing the announcers didn't notice was the US defensive strategy changed significantly, in conjunction with the formation change. In the first half, the US played low pressure and a low restraining line. The didn't pressure Brazil at all until Brazil got to about the half line, and even then didn't mark hard. Thus all the Brazilian possession... much of it, especially at the back, was allowed by the US in the first half. That was a bad tactical mistake against a team that plays short passes on the ground. It can work well against a long-ball team, a la Norway, as it takes away space behind the defense to play into. But it was absolutely wrong against Brazil, and the US nearly paid for it. But in the second half, you can see the US pressuring more, and higher up the field. It wasn't necessarily due to Brazil getting tired; part was pressure brought to bear by the US that wasn't there in the first half. The formation change helped too. With three up front, the US had numbers to apply higher pressure. With a team like Brazil that doesn't play down the wing and cross as a big part of their game, you don't need the wide midfielders and can afford to pressure in the middle of the park. The 4-3-3 helped make that happen. I still see too much cross-and-hope in the US game, and too little individual attacking and combination play. And the players didn't do that well on an individual level either. But the coaching staff picked the wrong tactics against Brazil. This time they at least figured it out in time. That's the difference between April Heinrichs and Bruce Arena in a nutshell.
So what do you think? Do you think we played dirty? I went back and looked at the incidents that hurt their two players, and the contact did not look any harder to me than what they were doing to us. I didn't see any Charmaine Hooper elbows. The collision between Tarpley and Elaine occured at 71:40. Tarpley cut her off from the ball, but her elbows were in at her sides. I didn't see anything dirty. At 75:49 Cat Reddick shouldered Kelly off the ball. Kelly went down hard, but the incident didn't look any worse than what happens to Mia all the time. In fact, at the time Lori was complimenting Cat for her technique, for getting her shoulder ahead of Kelly. And at 87.29 Marta deliberately shoved Rampone when the ball was gone. Rampone retaliated and got the yellow. Again, it was a shove, not an elbow or a kick. I think we got more aggressive but it went hand-in-glove with our finally getting to the ball earlier. What's your opinion?
This from a coach who obviously told his players to go out and foul the US players as much as possible (and as much as that apparently inexperienced ref, who let things get out of hand because of that, would allow.) His was the much dirtier team...
Yellow accumulation rules changed for Group G: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/oly_yellow_card_change_soc
Amen to that, both the dirtier team part and the ref. She was either inexperienced or clueless. Persistent infringement isn't all that hard to spot (yes, I did ref) if you've got your head in the game rather than elsewhere. The good refs spot it and stop it. And then there are the others. GCbenji...great analysis...thanks much. Now, just a bit more for you. How about your thoughts on the last statement. I can take it two ways. One is that Bruce goes in with correct tactics and April doesn't. The other is that April changes tactics when the ones she went in with don't work and Bruce doesn't. This isn't at all a criticism of what you wrote...simply curiosity from someone who respects your analysis.
I didn't see the game but I agree with your tactical comments. Brazil is not that strong if you apply the right tactics. I watched Canada dominate them in a friendly just prior to the WWC. Canada's plan: 1. Pressure Brazil hard in the m/f to disrupt their passing game 2. High defensive restraining line with one speedy stopper low 3. Long balls in to the box to pressure the relatively weak Brazilian defense into costly mistakes for Canada's opportunistic strikers to exploit Canada not only had better possession (something Canada rarely enjoys) they played most of the game in Brazil's end and had enough good scoring chances to run the score up to 4 or 5 goals to Brazil's one. Brazil's offensive game was limited to a couple dangerous counter-attacks. They were fortunate to only lose 2-1. The USWNT wouldn't play Canada's longball style but lots of pressure on the Brazilian defense works regardless how it's done.
Now this unfairly benefits the US. Wambach gets suspended for a relatively meaningless group game by getting carded in the first two, other groups players getting carded in their first two games miss a do-or-die quarterfinal. It's also ridiculous changing rules in the middle of a tournament - beforehand would have been the time to file a complaint.
It's ridiculous having a tournament with uneven brackets. At-large berths for Norway and Canada would have made this a more meaningful tournament, would have permitted four groups of three (top teams or two teams advance to single-elimination medal rounds) and would have obviated the yellow card issue. That being said, I'm glad the Wombat got her card against Brazil, clearing the slate for the quarters. That benefits the USA.
And hopefully, the USWNT had planned for her to get a card in that game no matter what by delaying a late throw-in. It's something Alexi Lalas did in a meaningless semifinal qualifier in 1996/1997 to clear his slate for the hexagonal. But it was something John Ellinger did not have Freddy Adu do in last year's U-17 WC. In fact the Ellinger completely butchered his handling of cards, but that's for another thread. One thing to keep in mind is that the Olympic tournament exists as an uneasy truce - and compromise - between FIFA and IOC.