8/6 Olympic Semifinal

I was never overly impressed by Rodriguez, but Morgan was not ready to start. She wasn't the player she is today. I don't think she puts up anywhere near the goals-to-minutes ratio as a starter in 2011 as she did as a sub, simply because as a sub, she got to come into games fresh against tired defenders who had been chasing around a very speedy Amy Rodriguez for 60 minutes. Morgan had moments of brilliance, but also looked out of her depth at times. As a starter, that's not acceptable.

So yes, I do think Rodriguez was the better choice to start last year at the WWC. Some of Pia's decisions were suspect IMO (particularly starting both Lloyd and Boxx every game and more generally the overall style of play that she favors), but I honestly believe she got this one right. Morgan has been getting better all the time, and is on her way to being one of the best female players this country has ever produced, but at the WWC last year, she was a young, inexperienced player gaining some serious experience as a sub in important games. Seeing the way Morgan has transitioned into a starting role, I think Pia has handled Morgan's development as a player perfectly.

 

That's exactly what some people have said in the past. Then when she was handed the starting role (in less than half a year later) she exploded out of the gate and performed even better. I guarantee you that she would've destroyed Rodriguez number if she was a starter in 2011.

And that is acceptable for Rodriguez who seldom have any moment of brilliance and looked out of her depth for almost every game that she started?

A player with 0 goals and 0 assists all tournament was the better choice to start? You were wrong then and you are just as wrong now.

I guarantee that most (from coaches, pros, writers, and BSers) would disagree with you and Pia's decision regarding Rodriguez starting over Morgan in the last WWC, especially now in hindsight.

 

Sorry for the long post below . . . I wanted to get my points out clearly for the last time on this subject in this thread. No more from me about Pia's Morgan/Rodriguez decision in the WWC after this post as we're derailing things a bit. Namdynamo can have the last word if he wants.

Not based on how Morgan actually played at the WWC as a sub. Today's Morgan would have, but she's matured as a player since then. She's a smarter player now who makes better decisions on the ball. She gained a lot of experience (and confidence) coming into those big games as a sub, and was more effectual than I believe she would have been as a starter.

Rodriguez didn't have technical brilliance. She had speed. That's why she was in the starting lineup. Her role (as it seemed to me watching the games on TV) was to wear down the defense with her constant full-speed running. This didn't lead to goals for her in the WWC, though if I recall correctly, it did lead to some goals in the lead-up to the tournament. (I know she scored a crucial goal in that frigid qualifier against Italy I attended at Toyota Park to add to Morgan's tally in Italy.)

You can't possibly know that. Give me a link that shows another coach or pro (or even a few writers, though I'd put less stock in them) criticizing Pia's decision.

I can give you an example of a coach who would have almost certainly agreed: Bob Bradley, with his much-maligned decision to consistently start Robbie Findley at WC2010. I disagreed with Bradley's decision, because IMO Findley was further off the standard of the men's game than Rodriguez is for the women's game (not to mention he was incorporated into the team incredibly late in the cycle), but the decision was very, very similar, and clearly tactical. It wasn't about skill or who was the better all-around player.

I think a lot of people have blinders on when watching Alex Morgan (I think I understand part of the reason) and they seem unwilling to acknowledge any negatives in her game. Those negatives (particularly her decision-making when on the ball) were prevalent last year and have faded as she gained experience.

Again, I think Pia has handled her development as a player perfectly, by not thrusting her into a starting role too early. If Morgan was starting a year ago and fell into a goal-drought, I think she would have become frustrated and not added much to the team due to her sometimes lax decision-making. She then would have been subbed out for . . . Rodriguez? I'd much rather take the reverse. The experience she gained could easily have been negative rather than the positive experience she earned as a sub. Her decision-making has markedly improved since then, and when she had a goal-drought in this Olympic tournament, she contributed a few clever assists.

 

News reports that there will be no sanctions against the CWNT for post-game comments.

(Sorry I can't give links - just read online synopsis.)

 

O Canada!

http://www.tropigol.com/2012/08/07/source-canadian-player-had-verbal-altercation-with-ref/

"The player was involved in a verbal confrontation with the Norwegian game official in the tunnel at Old Trafford....The player, who was not identified, said a derogatory remark to Pedersen..."

 

Posted this in another thread, copy-pasting here
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012...nada-before-olympic-bronze-medal-soccer-game/

I can imagine it now:

Investigators: We're done with our investigation.
FIFA: Not yet.
Investigators: But, we're do--
FIFA: YOU ARE NOT DONE UNTIL AFTER THE BRONZE MATCH.
Investigators: ... Okay. We're not done.
FIFA: Good. Go investigate more. Give me your report after the bronze match.
Investigators: ... Right.

As a viewer, I'm glad that 3rd place match will be two full strength teams, but this is pretty cynical.

Anyway, sanctions, if any, will come after the bronze match.

 

I think Katreus got the gist of it on the Canada investigation/possible discipline. Maybe I'm cynical, too, but I'm glad that they will be full-strength for the bronze medal match.

As for Sundhage's develoment of Alex Morgan, I'm one of those who think the coach has handled this perfectly. There's no way to know for sure (Road Not Taken and al that) and nandynamo brings up very good stats. A reasonable person could easily take the other side in this but I'm with AndyZ here although, like him, I'm not sure how far to push it in this thread much beyond the excellent points he makes.

What, ideally, in our minds does it even look like when a coach makes just the right decsions on how fast to bring along a player? What does it usually look like? Often when thrust into a bigger role or a starting role, a promising young player struggles a bit and some fans start to grouse about that while the results aren't that good.**

It's also not like Coach Sundhage could see that Morgan was ready from her club play either. Her college career didn't make it obvious (California not being a Stanford, Notre Dame, etc). And she wasn't regularly starting or playing a full 90 for the WNY Flash either (not her fault -with Marta and Sinclair on the team)

How she's able to contribute even when she doesn't score is something she's gotten much better at, as I think AndyZ mentions. Teammates have said her tactical awareness has really grown by leaps and bounds over the last year.

** Sometimes I'm reminded of a conversation the philosopher Wittgenstein reportedly had (and which was recounted in one of Tom Stoppard's plays). Wittgenstein remarked to a colleague, "Why do you suppose people often say it's natural to have believed that the sun revolved around the earth rather than the other way around?" And the colleague replied, "Well, I suppose it's because it looks like the sun is revolving around the earth." To which Wittgenstein replied, "Well what would it look like if it looked like the earth was revolving around the sun and not the other way around?"

I think when you wonder what it looks like when a coach brings along a young player perfectly it looks like Coach Sundhage bringing along Alex Morgan.

 

What was deficient about Morgan as a sub in the WWC? In my mind and many others she had already passed AR as a starting candidate before the WWC rolled around. Moreover, citing her play at the WWC is baffling given that for many her excellent play there is what clinched it. Honestly, AR had performed well below what we should expect for a USWNT striker for some time. Somebody did need to move in at that forward slot and Alex was the best option. If you were on these boards you'll know that people were clamoring for this. Morgan was the best player on the pitch in the WWC final. Scoring the big goal coming in at the half after other players couldn't finish all those opportunities in the first. A perfect cross that landed squarely on Abby's head to assist the 2nd goal, and being the most dangerous player late in the game, drawing an ejection of a Japanese player. Also scoring in the semifinal against France. Her performance in clutch situations on the biggest possible stage in the the sport propelled her well ahead of AR if she wasn't already in the minds of many. Prior to those matches in the WWC she didn't play at all or saw very scant time at the very end. Citing the WWC as an example of why she wasn't ready is logic turned on it's head in my opinion.

I don't disagree that subbing her for matches before deciding to start her was the right move. But it's a catch 22. You need experience to be consistently effective as a starter but you can't gain that experience unless you start. It's like job experience in general.

Yet, Alex was the fastest player on the team from the moment she arrived.

Pia opted to go with the 1 striker formation and play five in the midfield. She had planned on employing it through the Olympics. She has admitted Alex forced her to change that plan after her performance in the CONCACAF Olympic qualification final against Canada. She went with 2 strikers in the match to exploit a stretched formation of Canada not to audition Alex as the starter. This was not Pia's plan all along and it wasn't to do with not "thrusting her into the spotlight too early."

 

There's nothing to back you up that Morgan wouldn't have been a better starter than Rodriguez as a starter for the WWC. There are stats and history to back me up that Morgan would've been a much much better than Rodriguez as a starter.

Morgan has speed, technical brilliance and high soccer IQ, and you want Rodriquez who just have speed to start over her? In the most important soccer tournament for the women?

There are a ton of links that criticized Pia for the decision not to start Morgan earlier, especially now that she has exploded when given the starting role.

And Bradley was totally wrong for that decision and roundly criticized by every one for it. He also did that because he lost Charlies Davies to injuries and he needed someone to play the Davies role in trying to replicating the success at the Confederation Cup, but Finley failed miserably. If Bob has Charlies Davies, he would never have even bring Findley on the WC team let alone starting him. Morgan is Charlies Davies (and now she has turned out to be a Landon Donovan), Rodriguez is Findley.

Are you telling me Bob would've started Findley over a Davies or young Donovan (who Bruce Arena started as a 20 yo in the 2002 WC, not to mention a 19 yo Damarcus Beasley) in the most important women tournament in the world? Ridiculous.

 

I don't have a problem with the players that made comments playing in the bronze medal game, but I have a huge problem with Tancredi playing in that game. Let's face it, if she's penalized after the Olympics it's almost like not penalizing her at all. I mean, at that point, who cares.

 

It's amazing the expertise of folks who don't see these players daily in training to judge way better than a coach who won a gold medal. #givemeabreak

 

At first blush, you might be right. But just think: the refs will be watching her like a hawk. There's no way she lasts 90 minutes if she plays her usual violent game, so she'll get booked and thrown out, leaving Canada at 10 players. Or maybe even worse, she tones it down to not get carded, and that takes away the most valuable aspect of her game: that of the "enforcer." So, even if she plays, she's a handicap.

 

Since Pia has won a gold medal, she's never wrong about anything.

Even the greatest coaches in the world like Pep Guardiola, Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger, etc... are wrong from time to time but to some here Pia's never wrong.

Look, Pia's a great motivational coach, a good tactician but she is not a good talent evaluator and not good at seeing faults in her starting lineup until it is very obvious that she is wrong, then she is forced to make changes (I have a hunch that Jillian Ellis has a lot of say in this lately). If you give the USWNT player pool to Wenger, Ferguson, Guardiola, Japan's WNT coach, etc... I am pretty sure they would have different players call up and starting lineups than Pia, would that still make Pia right and every body else wrong?

 

Give you a break? You're being unreasonable.

If we were not free to express our opinions, which may include criticism of coaches and players from time to time these forums and discussions would not amount too much. Just because we may feel differently than the coach about a particular decision does mean that we feel we have more insider knowledge or feel we should coach the team. No, we don't know what happens in practices or at camps But a player's performance on the field is there for all to see. Overall Pia has done a good job. She's the coach for a reason. But I don't agree with everything she's done. So am I simply to shut up and just defer to whatever Pia decides because she's the USWNT coach, has all the information at her fingertips, and should be beyond reproach from anyone not on her staff? Of course not. I will continue to criticize starting Buehler, among other decisions. Because that's how I feel not because I think I know "way better" without having direct first hand knowledge. Address the argument don't question my qualifications.

 

I don't see why the governing body for the olympics can't discipline her. If they can penalize people for not giving a full effort when they compete in some games I don't see why they can't penalize people for violent acts against fellow olympians.

 

They probably realize how volitiale the situation is. If they suspend Sinclair and Tancredi for the Bronze Medal Game and Canada loses - the Canadiens will say we were punished twice.

If Canada were to somehow win the Bronze (I agree suspending them after means nothing) maybe some of the sting of the two calls goes away.

 

I agree with the above posts about punishing Canada twice. That said, Tancredi probably deserved a red for the stomp, so Canada shouldn't feel too entitled. They played a great tournament, however. Great respect for that team. Had they won, I would've rooted for them in the final.

It seems like there's a lot of anti-criticism commentary out there not just for women's soccer but for all of the Olympic sports. Criticism is a good thing. It shows that you are a student of the game. Perhaps we critics need to qualify some of our comments before delving into our critiques. (i.e. show respect for the players and avoid overtly disparaging comments). But to take away criticism (both good and bad) kind of ruins any kind of quality discussion. I would much, much rather be talking about lineups and tactics than Hope's Twitter comments. (anyone else with me?)

 

I don't see suspending someone for stomping on the head of a competitor as punishing them twice for a bad call. Suspending Sinclair would be more in that category.

 

"Not surprising. I'm sure it was "taken out of context." Seriously this woman needs a handler and she should not be allowed to tweet or talk to the media without a handler near by. Oh well. It's freedom of speech right "​

That is still Aaron Heifetz, the same one in '07, who she ignores. You have to have sympathy for him, at least I do.

 

I don't think Tancredi is being punished twice at all. Not even once at all. In fact, she's gotten away with it twice, once during the game because the referees did not see it and once for the bronze medal game because officials wimped out on making a decision. So in effect, she's basically gotten away with it and hasn't been punished yet. If she would have received a red card, as she should have, she wouldn't be playing in the bronze medal game anyhow. So why was the decision so quick on the Colombian player, but this one is harder to figure out? That's just a coward's way out of the situation.

Like I said, I can understand not punishing Herdman, Sinclair, et al, for comments made, because of the "heat of the moment" and the "emotions" of the match. That's a far cry, though, from one player's blatant attempt to injure another.

 

I could use the extra check. He's the same guy from 2007? I like the idea of job security. He gets no sympathy from me.

 

Arod doesn't just have speed, she has more technical skills than Morgan. Morgan is a way better striker now and her performances have proven that. Don't lump Arod as a player with just speed. Arod is the most versatile player on the team outside of Cheney, KO.

 

I don't. His JOB is to handle situations like these. If you can't be respected you can't do your job.
He is the first to be in front of the camera when it comes to interviewing the players after they have won games, during camp or special pieces. If you are not able to assert your position at work, maybe you shouldn't be working there anymore.

You can't make people respect you, you have to earn it. Doesn't seem like he has it.