Do we have a similar journal entry that gives an outline of a training day? We can also guesstimate the time in the weightroom. SHe says they showed up around 9Am, got dressed and taped, so that would put them on the field about 10am, 90 minute practice so now it's 11:30, assume an hour in the weightroom so now it's 12:30, and hour for lunch is 1:30, and then some people watched TV or got treatment or did email.. I figure that's an hour to an hour and a half, then into the video room at 3pm. Maybe I missed the clue here, but it seems to me that Lil made this sound like quite a normal day. In fact she stresses the fact that they had "2" practices on this day which is the only clue that it might have been unusual. Are there any other sources like this that might give more clues to their training regimen?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes there are indications that that would be concidered a lite day. As mia in an interview after the match against Brazil i beleive indicated that they were doing a whole lot more running then what is described in that particular journal entry. Mia said and I quote "We have renamed ourselves the U.S. women's track and field team, so Marion Jones watch out" there have been alot of similar remarks about doing alot of running. the first day back after a break is typically a lite day. long perhaps but work wise lite. then as I said it builds in intensity from there.
Yea, but all this is anecdotal. Lots of teams run a lot. And what is "a lot". Is a daily 2 mile run considered a lot? is doing 30 sets of sprints a lot? What I am saying here is there any other chronicle (not hint, not snide joke) of an actual routine day with the WNT? I don't have any friends with residency programs in the NT programs so I can't call or email. I thought that at one time there were some relatives of players floating around here who could give us this insight.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote/the best time to make a coaching change would be after the Oly's. because there are no major tourneys for 2 years./quote Agree; and I too thought it was too close to the Olympics to fire April after the WWC. But my point was that April seems to think her job is secure, she intends to remain head coach regardless on the Oly outcome. I'm just guessing this based on her post roster selection interview, where she speaks of 2007...So if the US win gold in Athens, I bet all the talk of having Apes head will stop and she will be coach for long time--filling the '91rs vacant spots with all her and Tracy Leone's favorite young players.
If the US wins the Gold in the Olympics, April will remain the Coach. Also forget about younger players, the 91ers will decide to stay on the team for just one more WWC.
Yes I know, but in case you stopped reading there I said anything can happen. What I'm trying to say is, the potential is there. Anyone can beat anyone at any given time. It depends on will, composure, and preparedness. If you go out there spazzing out whenever you get the ball you're gonna give the ball away a lot. If you don't have the will you're not gonna win the 50-50 balls and you're gonna get out run. And if you're not prepared, (don't know the opponent, aren't stretched, hydrated, fit, etc...), you're not going to win either. Any team can have the edge over another at any given time. That's what I was trying to say. Well April can't stop the oldies from getting older, and if she cut them there would be a major loss of interest in the team. So it's not like April can just shoo them away from the program. It's not like she's been stinking it up since she got to be coach. They had a great record in 2000 and got to the gold medal match in the Olympics and lost on a missed handball. After that WUSA started and the oldies didn't play in very many games in 2001. I don't think they played in 5 because they didn't even have the Nike Cup due to the events of 9/11. So somewhere between 2000 and 2002 the old ones started to lose it physically. They've all had surgeries, excluding Foudy, and havn't been the same since. April is forced to put these players out there because of their leadership on the field, but due to their age they can no longer attack or defend as effectively as they used to. To see what I'm talking about watch a game from this year, then watch a game from 1999/2000.
If there is a replacement for April, I hope it's Chris Petrucell. He's doing a great job with the young ones at the NT level, and has a NCAA Championship with Notre Dame. He brought Texas from nothing to a top 10 team. I remember going to ND games when he was the coach and they had a winning attitude. They were prepared for every team including NC. In fact I remember reading an article about his recruiting "wars" with Anson Dorrance while at ND. Wherever AD went to a house to recruit, Petrucelli had already been there. Boxx, Grubb and Kate M. were coached by him. He has the respect of the women's soccer world and from talking to some of the parents and former players at Notre Dame, they loved him. And for those who believe that we need a break from the North Carolina connection, he doesn't have one.
Ok I get your point. I shouldn't have taken your comments too literally. FYI, that second quote you commented on (re: April) is not mine. defensewins was the one who posed the original question.
Re: SCoach. The worry if we win gold is that Ape could continue on, Thomas Rongen-like, until the team is completely run to ground. The fed also looks smart ignoring "fire the coach" emails given how many they get for Bruce Arena.
I disagree. When April got the team in 2000, she inherited a decent squad. She still managed to screw them up by running the team into the ground in the 2000 olympics, failing to use her bench. After that things just slowly became more and more bizarre. The woman has seen over 70 players in camp, and more in the WUSA. Her failure to integrate younger players with leadership is her own doing. Her failure to name Boxx and Abby, 2 potential future leaders, into her plans until right before the world cup robbed them of valuable experience and a chance to gell. After the last world cup loss, Lewis had this to say: "I've had a unique opportunity to talk to people in the U.S. soccer community about the U.S.'s performance in the World Cup. That includes coaches, high-level administrators, referees and even some players. Most of it their anger, disappointment concern and confusion are directed toward national coach April Heinrichs and U.S. Soccer president Dr. Bob Contiguglia. Almost to a man and woman, they think that Heinrichs has had her opportunity at the brass ring and should not have a chance to go for a gold medal, or for heaven's sake, a silver or bronze medal. I agree. Contiguglia must act before it is too late and the clock is ticking. If this was any other country in the world, an Olympic silver medal (2000) and a third-place finish at the Women's World Cup would be acceptable. But this isn't just any other country. It's the United States, winners of the very first Women's World Cup in China in 1991, winners of the very first women's Olympic soccer tournament on home soil in 1996 and winners of the third Women's World Cup on home soil in 1999. Like the Brazilian men, there are very high standards here. Heinrichs' apologists may point out that we're missing the entire picture, that the team has done quite well during her four-year tenure. But Heinrichs wasn't hired to beat Costa Rica, Mexico and Trinidad & Tobago by ridiculous amounts of goals. She was hired to win world championships and gold medals. That might sound quite cold and calculating, but it's a cold, hard world out there. If you don't produce, you're out. While Heinrichs brings plenty of enthusiasm, work ethic and soccer knowledge to the table, she has demonstrated when a championship is on the line that she lacks the high-level smarts as a bench coach in vital encounters. (What Went Wrong For The U.S. At USA '03?) We saw that at the Sydney Summer Olympics in 2000, when her highly questionable substitution patterns (and lack thereof) confounding observers and the media and painted herself and the U.S. into a corner in the gold-medal match. Her team leading China 1-0 midway through the second half, Heinrichs inexplicitly replaced a defender, Brandi Chastain, with an attacking player. Several minutes later the Chinese equalized and walked out with a 1-1 draw. Heinrichs used only 13 players the entire tournament, failing to give her older players some much needed and deserved rest and give some of the bench players a chance to get their feet wet. So when push came to shove against Norway for all of the gold, she had only two Olympic veterans from which to choose. Norway's Golden Goal in extra time was scored by Dagny Mullgren, a substitute. It appeared Heinrichs had turned the corner at USA '03, using the three allotted subs in each game. But then she decided to rest Mia Hamm for the entire 3-0 victory over North Korea, the team's third and final opening-round match in Columbus, Ohio. Hamm, who had been the hottest player in the tournament up to that point, was never the same after the benching. When push came to shove once again in the WWC semifinals against Germany, Heinrichs again failed to use her bench wisely in Portland. She utilized only two subs -- Aly Wagner and Tiffeny Milbrett -- but keeping a dangerous option and fresh legs on the bench -- Shannon MacMillan while keeping the underachieving Julie Foudy and Shannon Boxx in the game. I'm not saying MacMillan would have scored the equalizer or would have created a goal or two. But the U.S. team was never allowed to find out or play to its full potential in that 3-0 loss. So now the U.S. sets its sights on the 2004 Athens Olympics next August. What are the chances of the U.S. duplicating that result? I would say 50-50 and I feel I am being kind with those odds. ....The U.S. will be a year older and wiser. But will Heinrichs be in terms of the latter? The rest of the world isn't catching up to us. It already has. Once the U.S. could rely on its athleticism and grit to win games. Now, it takes more, more tactical awareness on and off the field. Let's say a worst case scenario transpires in Athens and the U.S. fails to win for an unthinkable third successive time. If that happened in Brazil, the coach would be summarily dismissed and the federation president placed on the hot seat. The U.S. cannot afford failure a third consecutive time. It's time for a change. Even with nine months to the Olympics, there is still plenty of time to right the floundering U.S. ship." http://www.enysoccer.com/newsandfeatures/news/articles/2003/nov/11_15_03_08.htm Another writer: "Some pundits blamed the suspension of the WUSA and the pall that it cast over the U.S. team for America’s woes. But if anything, that should have stoked the U.S. players’ fire. The reasons why the U.S. lost are instead more tactical and physical than mental. Among them: • Loyalty. For too many years, the core U.S. stars commanded roster spots and playing time that could have been used to develop younger players. When it came to selecting the U.S. World Cup roster, so few qualified players had been bloodied that coach April Heinrichs even selected an eventual starter, Shannon Boxx, who hadn’t yet earned a single cap. Selection problems continued when injured vets Shannon MacMillan and Danielle Slaton were brought back into the fold even though neither was ready to compete at a World Cup level. • Age. Some of the U.S. vets have lost a step or two, and it showed. Tellingly, after Mia Hamm was rested--something that would have been unthinkable four years ago--she never regained the momentum she enjoyed in the team’s opening two games. • Poor preparation. The U.S. spent its pre-tournament training playing against weak nations such as Ireland and Costa Rica. That isn’t going to cut it--especially now that the U.S. doesn’t awe its opposition simply by stepping onto the field. • Tactics. Between odd substitution choices and a bizarre insistence on playing an outdated formation, Heinrichs did herself no favors. • A lack of skill. The U.S. has turned from a lithe, crisp-passing team to a physical bruising one that lives and dies on opportunism and set pieces. (Only two of the U.S.’s 12 WWC goals were scored in the run of play.)" http://www.centurysports.net/soccer/socEDIT.html
Defensewins....thanks for those articles, they were great. And I couldn't agree more with what they have to say. Mismangement of our beloved WNT seems to be Ape's specialty. I will simply hold my tongue out of respect for the players and THEIR quest for the gold, and wait for the whole Ape era to come to an end....PLEASE GOD SOON!!!
I just found out on the USWNT official website about the result of the team throughout the yrs of 2004, that we actualy have a great year so far, we only lost twice to Sweden at the Algarve Cup & Germany at the WC, and couple of draws, the rest of the matches were won, I think April Heinrich did ok w/ the team so, .....does it mean we should keep AH for another four yrs ? We probably should praise her instead of criticize her.
Just a response to "qualifications" don't get so caught up in having a "license" that you over look talent. I know a number of "A" coaches who are constantly out done buy "unqualified" or "under qualified" coaches in terms of training , tactics, game management and development. (and no I'm not one of those coaches I'm a state administrator) At some point you have to chose between someone who is "qualified" or someone who can do the job. The only thing that matters is getting the job done.
$$, and an attempt to have people with certain levels of knowledge coaching. But no system is perfect is it? How many incompetent lawyers are practicing who have passed the bar?
But those incompetent lawyers don't make partner level in the firm. Some instruction into rules, tactics, are needed to establish a working knowledge there are the intangebles in coaching. Plus how many times have you seen in any sport a great player isn't the best choice to coach. How many people do you know at work who are tremendiously book smart ("A" coaches) but if it wasn't for their secretary the whole dept would fall apart.
The reason for coaching licenses is that they act like teacher certification - they impose a set of qualifications that ensure at least some level of competency while restricting the pool of applicants and maintaining salary levels. I would point out that former professional players are able to get an "A" license with comparative ease and that the B & A courses themselves require a level of fitness that heavily favors ex-pros or recent college grads. In fact, it is a common assumption that only ex-pros are capable of coaching at a high level (within fed and NSCAA circles). In fairness to this argument, there are a lot of moron coaches who are just that - unfortunately there are a lot of "A" coaches who are also morons. Of course, many lawyers (even the ones who make partner) and Drs. are idiots as well - but it's still unfortunate. This is a great example of a component of world soccer that we have to import even though it runs counter to what most Americans believe (or what works) to be part of FIFA.
Well according to some folks in this thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2891054#post2891054 ...it looks like Pia Sundhage is now a scout for the USWNT... So other than scout out the opposition...can a scout also be an assistant coach in some capacity? Maybe not like during a match but during practices? Wasn't Thomas Stone a scout for the USWNT back in '99?
why doesn't she scout the youth players in the country ? or some other ameteur clubs ? by the way is she a US citizen now ?
Weird; why would Pia "be very happy when April called and asked her to work for the American team"? I guess I'm just paranoid about where Pia's loyalty stands. What exactly does a scout do? Couldn't we find any American coaches to help out--or even use the Oly alternates in this capacity? MacMillan was an assistant coach at UP, Fair watches a lot of MLS these days, TR, not sure about any scout qualifications except she's watched from the bench a lot. Team Sweden must be a bit miffed.
I would rather see totally new blood in there. The next coach has to go in and clean house like Arena did with the men after WC98. I don't know if Carla would be willing to wield the hatchet that is necessary due to her recent connection with the team as a player. There are too many players on this team that think that roster spots and the team belong to them. The team still seams to be run on a serority buddy system instead of on talent. Whether it be ovaries or nuts, our next coach better have a big set ready for use.
Why Carla Overbeck ? does she show any talent in that area ? why alot of people think that she can be a good coach ? does she have any experiences or coaching lisence ?