Llyod, the Algarve, and screamers. I remember seeing some vid of her scoring a cracker in a past Algarve tournament similar to the Iceland goal. It's a shame she creates so little for others. In the current system Llyod has definitely become the most important part of the U.S. attack, but maybe not in the way it was originally intended. Now that the mood is all rose petals, chocolate, and wine again, who's been lined up for warm up games other than England and Scotland in England? I have been told through the BS grape vine that with WPS around the corner, the U.S. players only play league games with their clubs, but then train between WPS games at NT camps. Is this due to having to play fewer warm up games before the WC than usual?
Or because the U.S. believes they will have greater success if the team trains together every week until the World Cup...
the effect is the same, whether she scores the goals or provides them. it's just a tiny bit of optimism. but they haven't played any top teams, and they haven't won anything yet. so the mood is not all rose petals, chocolate, and wine. it won't be until they have actually won the wc.
She'll have to keep on scoring then, her record of providing chances for others is Grinch like. I guess when winning is your crack, they got the regular dose of optimism the Algarve tradition usually brings. But seriously, as long as a good footballing U.S. side shows up at the WC, I'm all for whatever gets that happening. They can't have any more excuses for poor football in a major tournament, they need to play like a #1 ranked team this time.
no. they just need to win. in the modern era, they've never played glorious football, so i'd like it, but i'm not expecting it.
And while other countries are developing their young in these type of tournaments, we are fielding the same, "the USWNT is my birth-right" players.
It's really a toss-up at this point, since Taylor and Engen are very similar in playing style and ability. I wouldn't be surprised if they formed a future center back partnership with the USWNT. The differences are minimal - Engen is probably the better 1v1 defender, and Taylor is a better passer and can offer a bit more offensively (she played midfield for a while with Sky Blue). Cox can put in a beautiful cross and has big tournament experience, but both Engen and Taylor are better at defending, IMO. She just gets burned on the outside too easily.
our u23 is always "sending a young team". in the years when there is a big competition (wc, olympics) we're usually getting the team ready. we can't "send a young team". there are other times for that.
Hey, come on now . Why work so hard to maintain a ranking, only to throw it out the window when the real competition comes around? I totally agree that championship winning teams don't have to play beautiful to win. In fact being able to work hard and do the ugly things right creates the type of foundation winners base all good creative play around. This dogged quality is what always really makes USA such serial contender, but at some point you have to build on that. There has been no huge rebuilding process for integrating youth since 07, and the WPS has given the present crop of players serious development time surrounded by the worlds elite players. Is it so unfair now to hope for USA to show why they are perennially ranked as the worlds top side? Even if they are more top 3 than #1, that's still top three in a 16 team WWC. The U.S. may have to be more dynamic this time around any way, as I can't see the defence being as strong as previous years.
Got stats? My impression is that the defense is as good or better than ever, but the offense doesn't score as it did in the Hamm-Akers-Milbrett days. Other than Abby, who's already there, who on the team has a chance at 100+? Most of the current crop would have to play into their 60's to make it.
But I think that is also due to the opposing teams defense as well. Other countries have gotten much better and the U.S. doesn't have many high scoring games because of it.
I don't know to many dynasties built and maintained on ugly. Ugly is usually a typical short term route to success, used by teams attempting to topple better sides or best long established footballing institutions. After attaining success, If such teams don't evolve on to better things, they eventually stagnate and break up. Winning at all costs is great, but If USA finish outside the top 4 once, the amount of points and games they would need to play to regain that #1 FIFA rank would be hilarious. That's if that #1 rank is all that matters . Bingo. I can't see the U.S. winning games based on it's defence holding teams scoreless in regulation to often. Each instalment of the WWC leads to new attributes being attached to the women's game. Still believing the U.S. back line is as strong as it's ever been is totally overlooking the progression of other nations abilities to create goals. I doubt even Germany will keep the goals against column clear this time. Right now only a few individuals exist who could do the 100+ international goals trick. If Marta played for the U.S. she may be the last player for some time to achieve a century of international goals. Brazil like a few other top nations still struggle to play enough friendlies for their top players to achieve such a goal scoring feat.
But the argument was we played bad defense compared to the teams of old, And that the offense is as good. Is that true or not? Stats please.
Alex Morgan (6 goals in 14 matches/503 minutes for a 1.07 goals/90 minutes ratio), but she's pretty much the only one, which more supports your point than refutes it.
I think in this case, it's almost impossible to use stats to prove or disprove. The US plays a completely different schedule each year, with different opponents of far differing skill levels. And these teams don't always have all their best scorers present when the US plays them. It's not like league play that can be compared from year to year. So how do you compare, other than subjective opinion. I will say that it seems as though lately, our defense has given up a lot more quality chances to opponents than in the past. I don't think that a game like the Concacaf semifinal would have happened to the defenses we had 10-12 years ago. But then again, Mexico is improving at a very substantial rate, so how do you measure how much of it was our defense and how much of it was their offensive and overall improvement. I tend to agree with Batfink from a purely subjective point of view. But statistically, I could never prove it.
well, the uswnt certainly wasn't built on ugly. and even tho it has been maintained with more grit than style, there are no style points. so, yes, i'd like to see more free-flowing football - and they do that sometimes. but, more importantly, i'd like them to win. i promise you: i will be on this board happily discussing their lack of form and style as long as they win. but if they play flowing arsenal football and lose, i'll still be posting, but i'll be very upset. True. But that's a pretty fat "if". it matters more than the style and beauty of their game. the drop in the number of goals scored is simply a function of the improved sophistication of the women's game all round. in the big meaningful games, defenses of just about all the women's teams have improved - yes even the uswnt. in the olympics the brazil team was the best brazil team we have ever played. better than the brazil teams that fawcett et al defended against, and we still held them. what's happening is that when we might have beaten brazil and germany 3-2, 4-3 or 4-2, today we might beat them 2-1 or 1-0. (yea, yea, i know they could beat us too, but i'm backing the uswnt to win most often). note this observation made by fifa of the women's game: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/womcompwwc/01/32/71/88/fwwc_25facts_28.11.2010.pdf
Well this aint Basketball where it's so easy to base stats with facts. I hold little value for many stats based facts regarding football, having learned football is understood better judging from what I can see. I never said the U.S. defence was now a bad vintage, I just made the assessment it's not going to look as good as past ones due to stronger outside factors (better opposition). From the little I have been able to see, the current U.S. back 4 can give up clear cut chances to sides once deemed ordinary. They may not concede goals from many of the chances they give away, but if they give the same opportunities to the better teams in the WC they will. Well that's in less Solo get's back to her commanding best any way.
Yes, forget the Arsenal/Barca football love fest. Teams and nation's need to find there own identity and push it to the highest level of perfection they can attain. Plus USA don't need or have another 30 years to accept then perfect more foreign philosophies on the game. If the present USWNT style/Identity is to be athletic and physical in nature, it was represented in it's finest form with the sides 96-99. The modern era player equivalents of those sides have just not materialised, with the levels of play becoming less and less enthralling too. So is it not already upsetting to think that a nation with a team that used to have so much potential to it's game, now only has the end result box score to hang any sort of pride on. Ahhh definitely true, but the next step is for teams to be able to tactically transition smoothly between defensive and attacking phases of the game. This should produce greater creativity in attacking play, helping the generation of chances that actually end up on target, thus producing more goals. Because of recent advancement's, all sign's indicate a very attacking WWC. It's why Sundhage is so desperate to get good wide play into her team, after seeing the potential benefit and threat it can be in stopping and scoring goals. More teams now have the fire power to trouble each other, with the level of cynical play seen in the men's game still very low. Besides KDPR in the U-17's, Holland in the last women's Euro's, and USA in the Olympic final, I don't see many female sides pulling off overly negative styles in the pursuit of success. Maybe we can look forward to seeing more teams using defensive negativity in the future due to the increasing levels of professionalism. In the 2011 WC though, defensive negativity will still be the exception and not the rule for success.
Even if the US plays a different schedule each year, you can compare the rankings of the opponents and watch the rosters. If you don't use stat then yes, it's just subjective opinion and you shouldn't get upset if others call you on it because they have their own.
In terms of the backline of past versus current teams, I think nostalgia sometimes colors our memories of the past. When I cast my mind back, I remember plenty of mistakes from even the most solid players. Sometimes good counter attacks or diagonal passes will victimize even the best defenders. Remember Chastain's own goal? The issues at left back are not new--Chastain, a huge personality, had her weaknesses (not the fleetest of foot, more comfortable in attack). Then a stream of good players for whom it really wasn't their best position (Slaton couldn't get healthy enough): Roberts, Rampone, Whitehill, Markgraf . . .. Even Chalupny seemingly didn't love playing there and she was the most successful there. Even one of my cherished favorites, Fawcett, could get beat. A converted midfielder, she often wandered up the field. I think chemistry and complementary skill sets are often more important than individual skills. So, if a player isn't flashy or has a weakness, yet seems to work with the line as a whole, maybe that's enough. With this team, I don't think the defense is the primary concern (especially if Beuhler stays central). From the games I've seen, the team is successful if the midfield is successful.