Article: "Is this the best US women's national team ever?"

I usually hate stuff like this because it's hard to compare given that the state of women's soccer has rapidly developed since 1999. I think all the essentials are there and as much as I sometimes want to pull my hair out in frustration over Ellis' tactical and personnel choices, I can see something developing in the team. Only time will tell if that something becomes substantial enough to win not just the Olympics but the WC in 2019.

 

"The players I'm looking at right now for this Olympic team are players that I believe will be around in 2019," she said. "It doesn't mean they're going to make the team in 2019, but they're players I think can still have it in their repertoire to be competing for a spot in 2019. That's important, because I want to make sure, again, that one eye is on the future."




Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...s-national-team-ever.html#ACEVeBHDE3SOjgyL.99

 

Tough to say but I still think the greatest women's player of all time was Akers. Anyone else is a very distant second.

 

I'm going to start with a quote from @BrooklynSoccer.

Yes, I definitely think this team is getting progressively better than previous USWNT teams. Regarding a previous poster's comment about comparing generations of teams, I will defer to a comment from Germany's coach Silvia Neid. During the 2015 WWC she said something to the effect that her 2007 team (which won the 2007 WWC) would not have been competitive against the teams fielded at the 2015 WWC.

 

I would also add this:
Women's soccer is still an afterthought in most countries and confederations.
However, I believe that in another generation the quality gap between the top 20 teams will be very close.
The USWNT needs to keep improving and fielding better players and teams if they expect to stay on top.
This thread's original question should, IMO, be the mission statement of the USSF for the USWNT.
Otherwise, we are going to be unpleasantly surprised when some up and coming team dethrones the US.

 

What made Akers so much better than Hamm or Lilly?

 

Her versatility. While Lilly could also play numerous position, everyone who played with Akers said she could play anywhere on the field and be the best at it.

 

Not sure it's the best team ever but it is probably the most talented. To be the best team ever I would expect them to easy handle the other quality teams not just eek out wins and dominate bad teams.

 

I say that about Golden State

And lately they've eked out wins over bad teams, so they must suck. Worst 72-9 team ever

 

That statement certainly doesn't hold true for the men's game. The reason being that there is so too much parity among the teams, where even a mediocre team can make an exemption team struggle. The women's game is heading down the same path. Traditional weak countries are playing more disciplined and making things tough for the top 5-6 nations. Case in point, #3 France barely beat # 39 Romania (a penalty kick was the difference) and #4 England was lucky to tie # 28 Belgium, both matches played on on Apr. 8th.

 

To be fair, they really are the worst 72-9 team ever!
They should have been 74-7 at this point.

 

I didnt watch either of those matches but generally when u get a #4 vs #28 or a #3 vs #39 the lower ranked team does everything they can to reduce scoring chances and hope for a draw. The US saw a bit of that against England. On the other hand France and Germany were wide open games. Ud think if the US were actually their best incarnation ever that they would have done better than one goal wins. I also think there is a difference between a talented team and talented individuals. Pugh slaloming thru good defenders like cones isnt something from the recesses of Jill Ellis dank little mind, it's just Pugh being absurdly gifted. For me Ill be ready to bend the knee when offense looks like it did against Columbia in Hartford when the opponent is Germany, France or England.

 

Isn't this an unreal expectation? The 99ers sure didn't do any of that. They eeked out a number of wins vs top teams.

 

She had a harder shot on goal from a longer distance.

She was superior in the air.

She had a far more elevated game sense.

Her passes far more often led a player to where she was supposed to be running, not where she was at the time.

She always made clutch penalty kicks.

Her will to win was even more iron than theirs.

And, after being the greatest striker ever, when a dozen knee surgeries and Epson-Barr inhibited her speed, she became the greatest midfielder of all time. That would be like Joe Montana blowing out his elbow and then becoming a greater linebacker than Lawrence Taylor.

 

In addition to Carli being Carli, Mallory Pugh may be the difference here.
Previous USWNT teams did not have a player like this.

The trio of Carli (clutch), Hope Solo, and Mallory Pugh, is the most talented trio in USWNT history.
The world can't beat Carli and Hope when they are on top of their game.
Now you add in Pugh? Game over.

 

Well if ur gonna crown them the best US team ever there needs to be some kind of standard. If u wanted to call them the best defensive team the US has produced u can at least quantify that by how few goals they have given up.

 

It's BigSoccer, man. Ludicrously unreal expectations is what we do.

 

That generation lost more often to the top teams than the current team has.

 

It's an impossible question, as put. For example, where do current Germany and France rate in relation to Germany and France in other eras? The level of opposition was different in other eras. The average quality of international players now is vastly higher than it was in other eras.

The best one can do is ask whether, relative to their opposition in other eras, how do the current women compare to their opposition in this era. That is a question for which there is a measurable answer. Look at the teams' records against equally ranked teams from the different eras. If you do that, and if the current team's record is better, and if you accept that overall individual player quality has improved, then if the current team has a better record than teams from other eras, you have the answer to the question.

 

cpthomas, from an objective point of view, you are exactly right. I get the feeling the article is trying to be subjective though. I'm willing to say I believe that subjectively, this is the best women's team ever. Naturally, I can't prove it!

 

For me it's just about how well they play the game of soccer. If u think this team plays soccer better than any other iteration then so be it. Maybe u think it was 2012 team where Morgan and Wambach put up absurd numbers and the team had its way with everyone except Canada. Maybe it's the 99ers. I dont think u can concern urself too much with whether all players or the competition has improved. I think that's all relative.

 

To me, if I understand what you mean, this is a different question than who is the best. I take "who is the best" of two teams as meaning, very simply, "if the two played a bunch of games, which team would win the most?"

I'm understanding what you are talking about as the question of who plays the most preferred "brand" of soccer (technically, tactically, etc.), which depends on the evaluator's personal preference and for which there is no "right" objective answer, only opinions depending on personal taste. It's sort of like asking in tennis, whose tennis do you like the best, Federer, Murray, Djokovic, or Nadal. Not who is the best, but whose tennis do you prefer the most.

Or, am I not understanding what you're saying?

 

Nope we're on the same page. If ur asking who would win one of those baseball card classics we used to have in wiffleball, that's a whole nother question...or maybe that was the original question and I took it wrong.