but parlow came in with fresh legs when the defense was tired and slowed down and pushing up more because they were behind. this i have said before is the perfect way to use her!! you can't compare that to mia being marked like a hog and playing against a fresh team from the start.
So I suppose Parlow just got lucky when she was drawing that double team from Germany a few months ago when she started the match? Maybe the Germans had tired legs 10 minutes into the match when Parlow was schooling them on the flank 2 at a time. This is pointless. Mia beats people. All I am saying is shoot the damn thing when you beat people! This has nothing to do with Parlow, or anyone else on the field at the time.
Fascinating posts. Particularly those of SCoach. When I saw several of them, I had to look up SCoach's info to make sure it wasn't me. It was refreshing to see someone else understand this team's history. Let's keep something in perspective. The USA has NEVER been DOMINANT in this sport. Yes, the best at times and for stretches, but look at the results: one-goal win on a late steal to win WWC '91 as an underdog third place in WWC '95 Olympic win in '96 on a semifinal golden goal after a questionable penalty to tie it (good thing we had Akers who always made the big penalties) and a second-half goal to win the final by a goal WWC '99 semifinal win on a goalkeeper foul-up to give a gift first goal, a series of stellar saves from Scurry and a late penalty (set up by a brilliant back of the head flick from Akers to a breaking Hamm) and a final win on penalties '00 Olys golden goal loss WWC '03 semifinal loss after a corner kick flick of the head goal that Garafrakes could probably not duplicate in 250 tries. The margin between victory and defeat is small indeed. How great would the US soccer program been considered without the Akers penalty to force OT in the '96 semis or the gift and saves in '99 v Brazil? The difference between first and possibly fourth place finishes was slight indeed. The difference? Generally, Akers, women's soccer's greatest player ever. Considering that Heinrichs has not had Akers during the big tournaments, it's hard to fault her. If you watch tapes of the USA in '03 and '99, and you are modestly objective, you have to concede that the '03 team played a better game with crisper faster passing, more speed and generally better ball control skills. True, the Germans were even better in '03 but even then they required golden goal time to beat a team (Sweden) that the USA defeated soundly in the first game. The margins of difference have been and have continued to be small. Heinrichs has been criticized for not developing players but that is really misplaced. Biggest disappointment? Wagner. Deer in the headlights. But she has not adjusted to the fact that the game is faster here than in college, that she has to go get the ball more and she has to fight off some stronger more powerful players. But that is not something to blame on Heinrichs; it is Wagner's responsibility. Heinrichs has made some less than perfect personnel decisions. Lorrie Fair lasted way too long. Foudy should have been benched. But, there is a team mood to consider. Tim McCarver played extra years because he was Steve Carlton's catcher. Management's choice was limited. Probably so too was Heinrichs'. Besides, I have a theory that I want to explore later. I think the WUSA was awful for USA player development. Most coaches adopted a defensive boot and chase approach to the game that minimized skills development but may have produced wins. The USA is still paying the price. In any event, thanks for elevating debate here, SCoach.
The ability to come here, post the truth, and not be lambasted for it is thanks enough for me. It is incredibly refreshing to have a group of posters openminded enough to look at things from different perspectives and take something away. I've learned a ton here from other people which has been marvelous for me.
I got a bad "rep" for saying that I thought Wagner was basically a waste of space. I was happy to see that I wasn't the only one who thinks this. In any case, Parlow looks akward on the ball as well and seems to make a hash of some good chances. She looked close to the best I'd ever seen her play in that one WWC match though - you know, the one where she got subbed off by April. Anyways, Mia has lost her confidence and I don't know if that PK miss in the WWC has just stuck with her or if it started before that (I think it did). She was still productive for the Freedom in that attacking mid role, as well as being a great strike partner for Abby. In any case, if she is having confidence issues in front of goal, use her as a winger or attacking center mid, cause she's still class on the ball and with her passing.
This is a great example of the US media perpetuating the myths about this team. People read this stuff and believe it First, the media might boast the USA has the world's deepest offensive talent pool but it's a hollow boast. Right now there are a number of countries with more dangerous strikers and that's the bottom line. Second, the USWNT offense has shown little finishing power (set pieces excepted) for a lot longer than the last two international matches. This is not some new, temporary aberration. Third, the USWNT was never a world-dominating force. Good enough to win the big tournaments if things went their way but never so dominant they blew away all the competition.
we're not the only one, look at the Portugal Men's team, there're all kind of attacking options, they're dangerous strikers but, has problem with finishing as well, sometime the goal scorer is a deffender....
By the thesaurus entry "deer in the headlights", her picture appears. Why do you get a bad rep? Which shoe company bet on Wagner last year before WWC '03? I remember starting a thread called "Betting on the Wrong Blonde" because the Wombat performed so much better in the World Cup.
I'm not sure if it's bad form to publically "out" a person who repped you or not. In any case, I said that anything good that happens after Wagner touches the ball is purely accidental.... Here's the post: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2771447&postcount=16 I followed that up with more harsh words about her, but mostly April. I don't really care, I don't post here to win popularity contests after all.
Wagner can pass beautifully in an open field, but opponents know that, so she's easy to frustrate. She cannot win or hold balls. After finally watching the game, I feel Wagner did look better than previous performances, but not good enough to be a starting A-mid and getting the bulk of the minutes there. I guess its too late to change now, but I'd feel better with Tarpley and Mia sharing time there, with Mia at forward when Tarpley's in. Further, if we don't start scoring in the run of play, we are in deep do do once we play big teams who can match us on corners in size. See Canada & Germany. Foudy had the best game she's had in a while, and that was good to see. O'Reilly will pay dividends and give defenses fits. I would love to see more of her. That's one good thing April has done, recognized her ability to get behind the defense, and our need for speed on top. Our defense has looked vulnerable. The issue is not Joy or Brandi being out, but bad decision making by players who should know better by now.
1. The whole world got a lot better from 99 to 03. The WWC03 Final may be the finest Womens game ever. 2. The U.S. was the best "single game" team at the tournament. We likely would've beaten anybody in the first game. But we were an old team, and we would've struggled against any of the remaining teams two weeks - and four games - later in the semis. Both Germany and Sweden were better designed to survive the rigors of tournament soccer. - And to be fair to Sweden we were extremely lucky not to see Scurry sent off with a red card about 10 minutes in for bludgeoning Ljungberg - who's ineffectiveness after that assault may likely contributed to Sweden's loss.
There wasn't any contact between Scurry & Ljungberg whatsoever, Ljungberg threw herself trying to avoid contact with Scurry...yellow card would be fair enough
You really are the worst poster on BigSoccer, aren't you? I was 15 maybe 20 feet away from the collision. I heard the collision. This is how close I was.
Sometimes we digress. Back to the team at hand.... BIG AL thanks for the O'Reilly plug. We take what we can get. You can only imagine why I'm so big on HO. Next year will bear me out (unless she gets hurt).
That is typical soccer player, little collision but dramatize it, makes it look like bad for the refferee to see....there's another thing worse than that called : diving.....you learn a little more about this game, huh ?!
Live in your fantasy land. I heard the violence of the collision. You can't fake that. And she's not holding her shoulder because it hurts, she's pulling on it to stretch out her lower back. Scurry plowed into Hanna's kidneys. Sorry you refuse to believe anything bad, but the US was very lucky not to be down a player after that. Very lucky.
Ok, that's your opinion AndyMead & i respect that but, the close up of that encounter in slow motion on tv was just so clear to me, therefore, i will stand on my opinion. If you have time (&tape of this game), pls watch that particular part again and you'll see what i'm talking about.....,
i'm certainly not a j&b supporter, andy, but the slomo replay did indeed seem to correct what i and everyone else thought happened. she anticipated the hit, jumped and fell hard on her shoulder. she goes airborne a fraction before bri gets there. mho, but i may be wrong.
As much as I love Bri, even I wouldn't say there was no contact between her and Ljungberg. There was quite a bit of contact, actually. Bri said as much herself.
You can't actually tell what they're focusing on. They're talking to her, and one has a hand on the back of her shoulder, but that doesn't mean they are evaluating her shoulder. I always put a hand on an injured athlete's shoulder -- it's a calming thing for them.
From cybersoccernews: "There are two contrasting takes on the recent game against Canada The coach and team are upbeat. Heinrichs: “We dominated, but they did a good job hanging in there. I’ll take a 1-0 win any night. We created a plethora of chances and another night we might finish four or five of them.” Foudy: “We are coming out of this game with some really positive feelings about how we are playing. We played really well and played two strong halves. We really dominated the game on both ends.” Grahame Jones of the LA Times, who has covered the WNT since 1991: “Based solely on its less than impressive performance Saturday, the United States women’s national soccer team will struggle to win the Olympic gold medal …. Unless, that is, it considerably lifts the level of play from its last two games…. [the] squad with the single exception of midfielder Kristine Lilly, was uninspired. There was no passion to its play, no spontaneity and no inventive flair. It was a solid, predictable performance, the grind-it-out, wear-them-down, by–the-book sort of soccer that can turn fans into former fans.” There is something to be said for both views. First, the US played far better than it had in the previous game against Japan, when they were seriously flat and also unable to deal with a slick passing Japanese team which over-ran the US mid-field. Canada does not have a slick passing mid-field, they play hard-nosed defensive soccer. Thus there was no chance that they would expose the same weakness that the Japanese exploited. Moreover, Canada was seriously out of physical and soccer shape. They haven’t had but a single workout for some months, so domination by the US doesn’t say much at all. It is true, as Heinrichs says, that the US created a lot of chances, but it isn’t clear that they would have scored a bunch on another night. It is noteworthy that once again their goal came on a set piece - a corner kick. Since last year's World Cup to date, US goals are overwhelmingly taken from set pieces, the ability to score from the run of play has been slender for some time. I was not at all impressed by the back four. Most of Canada's threats came when the back line was challenged and turned the ball over dangerously. How does one mediate between Heinrichs and Foudy’s view and Jones? The likely answer: the team did play well within its limits – unlike the Japan game – but it is a limited team, not given to the kind of sparkling performances Jones recalls from the old days." http://www.cybersoccernews.com/uswomen/040708olympic_rosterMR.shtml