Are you talking about the World Cup or the Olympics? How could we judge whether or not we're good enough to win the WC when we have no idea what the competition will be like? We should make the final of the Olympic Games.
Nah - I've been wrong often enough that it doesn't really bother me that much any more. Much more interested in the result than having my prediction be right.
Let's look at this from a different angle . . . what do you guys think ended up being the correct answer?
Three of the five answers posit luck as a factor. I rule them out as correct answers. Also, there were a number of very strong teams in this tournament: Japan, Germany, France (who we may have been fortunate not to have to play), England. So, one could not have said at the outset that "should win" was the right choice. By process of elimination, that leaves "too early to tell" as the right answer then. And, that is right for several reasons. One, Morgan Brian was not in the starting lineup at the outset and the team did not show ability to move the ball from the defensive line upfield until she was inserted into the lineup. Two, that only happened because of the Rapinoe and Holiday suspensions (perhaps the Colombia game referee should have been named the USWNT most valuable player?). Three, it was only with Brian's insertion into the starting lineup that Lloyd was moved upfield and began her wrecking-crew phase of the tournament. Those two events (Brian's insertion into the lineup, and the concomitant liberation of Lloyd) were not known at the outset as occurrences that would develop. So, "too early to tell" wins by process of elimination.
Interesting, my view was that luck is a factor. You've got to be good and a lot of the time you need some luck too. This is especially true in soccer, where it's the nature of the game -- very difficult to score, but with some scores lucky -- that upsets are relatively common.
Yep. Luck is a massive factor at times. The two WC finals were remarkably similar, except when it came to finishing chances.
I'd like to address the USWNT's progress more generally. I've always believed that the team was never as good as they were hyped to be, and that includes most of the teams of the past. I know what some might say to this- how can I say this when we won those WC and Olympic titles. The fact is that until the last few years there was a very short list of countries that had serious competitive programs. So, unlike the men, the women were mostly competing against countries that they could outmuscle, outwork, etc. Their technical and tactical deficiencies were rarely noticed, or at least not mentioned very much. Now people are noticing these deficiencies, esp. when they're competing against countries that have women with better skillsets and better tactical chops, like France. For me. watching the U.S.-France game was like two ships passing in the night. I think it might get worse before we see improvement in our results and standing. Fortunately, the Fed. has realized this, and among other things has instituted the DA. Without getting into a discussion about DA vs. ECNL, I'll just say that this move was part of a recognition that youth coaching and development must improve if we are to stay at or near the top of the women's game.
While your comparison of two ships passing in the night might have some merit, I've seen nothing to suggest USSF recognizes this. While I wish the DA the best of luck, I don't see it as a savior.
Just MHO on a topic for which I feel a lot of passion. There must be a greater emphasis on developing technically sound players. These sound players can then add multiple tools to their chests to be used when they encounter a problem to solve during the run of play. Right now too few players being selected for NT development are coming equipped with the basic technique much less the tools needed to advance the level of our sophistication. We are still celebrating the forwards who score by stripping weak defenses of the ball in their defensive third and running the ball into the goal. We need to develop more players who can work the ball into the goal through combinations and sophisticated runs inside the opponents attacking third. We can no longer count on these one dimensional athletic players to win games for us. How successful was Long in the SBC? One garbage goal created by a forward stealing the ball from a defender and charging in. That said I think Press has more dimension than all of our forwards except maybe Horan. Who is a forward actually. Lavelle has the technique and needs others with sophistication around her. I would like to see Press and Horan up top with Lavelle as a "10". Heath would be much better without Lloyd since she looks to play that black hole too much and doesn't often enough consider other options when presented. Pugh and Dunn are both speedsters to add that flavor. I would like to see Dunn behind Pugh and they overlapping each other on the right. Would be fun to watch. We don't get smoked in the back with Dunn's recovery speed. She alone won the u20 wc in my mind with a great recovery run playing right back.
The best way is to have a system u want to play and populate is with players who can make it work. If CBA restrictions make it impossible then the fallback is play a more basic system that allows for a roster that is less flexible. IMO what u can't do is use the Ellis method of picking a system and then plugging ur set roster into it with no regard for whether the players can actually play the positions. In this regard I don't believe it's matter how many technical players since the key seems to be versatility not technique.