I think the debate as to whether to start Abby or not is going to be important leading up to the Sweden game. On one hand she has a yellow card and we cannot risk her sitting out in the quarterfinals if she gets another against Sweden. But it would be nice to let her play and try to get a goal before going into the quarterfinals. I really do believe once she gets one the goals will keep coming. Right now my vote is to let her start and give her 45' to see what she does. If she doesn't get one in the first half then bring her out and rest her. Just my thoughts on it but it will be interesting to see what is said leading up to the game.
While I agree about possibly benching Wambach because of the yellow card, I think we're assuming a lot, if we are assuming we would have to beat both Germany and Brazil to win this thing. While it looks like that's what should happen, I would rather put it off until it actually has to happen. The later, the better. Japan and France may have a lot of say in this before it's over.
This team is fast, strong, physical, but lacks precision, technical ability, and intelligent interplay in the final third. This is the usual modus operandi for the Women's team. Their style of play works against the lower teams, but when they run into Brazil, who is quicker and more technical, or Germany, who can match all of our positives and are a bit more disciplined and tactical, the result will not be a good one. I'm expecting more of the same. There is also the surprising French to deal with this time. Pia Sundhage is a better coach than Greg Ryan and April Heinrichs, but I think the team played best, i.e. a bit more technical, under Tony DiCicco. A great deal of this is down to the state of our player pool and the way in which our players are developed, for which Pia cannot be blamed. Anyway, I expect us to bow out to Germany (or France) in the semifinals. I hope I'm proven wrong.
One of the things to consider for the Sweden game is that Seger is out on yellow cards--that should make things easier for the US.
I'm not looking at number of goals anybody scored but in how they looked. Right now, France and Japan have looked the best but I want to see them play again to be sure I really hope we find the scoring touch again and start playing better but im not so sure were good enough this time. Hope im wrong
If Heather O can't go then I hope Pia has seen enough of Heath. I'd rather see Morgan, Mitts, or Lindsey or even Sauerbrunn play right mid.
oops...Forgot O'Hara at right mid whose speed would give Sweden something to occupy their time while Wambach puts a header on frame please.
I agree that they can be an indicator; but again, let me reiterate my point: our buildup and intelligence in the attack was poor today. Yet you answer with stats that have no bearing on my point. Since you asked: I would say Brazil did sputter. Their pressing in the midfield against Australia was terrible they over-committed and lost their shape. In the second game, they did away more or less with that tactic, but their attacking buildup was way too direct. This is understandable due to their lack of recent play together. I believe the commentators said they've played just one warmup game before this world cup. I do, however, expect them to get much better as they start to develop cohesion, especially in the midfield. On the comparison with brazil's stats vs ours, there can be no comparison. We were playing a much weaker colombia team, and brazil was playing a stronger Norwegian team. I don't share your infatuation with stats. And so I've responded to your request... As per your Marta straw man argument...what I agree with you, the 1st goal should have been disallowed. I don't see what she has to do with our poor showing in the attacking buildup. I agree, we have to take these games one at a time; we have our ups and downs, but we've rarely attacked effectively, except against PRK. That is why I'm worried that we've reverted to rushing our attack. What I loved about the PRK game, we were patient with our attack, we changed things up, both wings were able to dribble by their markers and effectively stretched out the defense. Instead of ALWAYS trying the 50/50 pass most of the time, we settled the ball and shielded it while looking for the better pass. This game, not so much. We rushed the pass too often, creating countering opportunities for Colombia when we misplayed the pass or mis-settled the ball. This is EXACTLY what will get us in trouble against better teams. I guarantee you the big guns are looking at our defense and are working out how to counter on our left. I think this is the first time i've referenced the norway loss; perhaps you're talking about other posters as well. The only reason why I've alluded to our loss against norway is for a very specific reason: according to Foudy, they were able to consistently attack our high line and beat us with this simple tactic. This indicates to me that Norway were able to break us down by picking up loose balls in the midfield and countering quickly. I would say there is a 50/50 chance that we will face Norway in the QF. You can bet they will try the same thing again. But have we fixed the problem...? The Angerer vs Solo argument is a red herring. This has nothing to do with my point that we scored 2 of the goals due to goalkeeping error. She was poorly positioned on the HAO goal, but I would concede that it was an absolute beauty. And great job by HAO to notice her off her line. The Lloyd goal was right at her and should have been stopped. I don't think you'll see that against better GKs such as Angerer. The Rapinoe goal was just class, all around. No argument there. Excellent buildup there. She intelligently dribble center and shot at goal instead of crossing first time. I'll drink to that! I only use Germany as an example, but we cannot count on other teams having an off day. I doubt Germany will continue with this spell of bad play. This is totally counter to what they've exhibited for years. If the Prinz controversy doesn't disrupt them too much, I think we'll see them on their A game sooner rather than later. I've never said bunker or get compact...again a strawman argument. All I said was that I would like to see us settle, look, and then pass with composure instead of the constant first time 50/50 ball without first examining our options. I'm not saying we've got to do that all the time, because I do see the advantage in laying the ball off quickly, but we're doing it too much to the point of being obvious. Teams will take advantage of this and close down our passing lanes to counter. I've never said we need to bunker to address the issue with our defense. On the contrary, I said we need to hold possession and play with composure so as not to give away the ball in compromising situations (see PRK thread)
How does sitting Abby hurt her confidence more than not being able to put the ball on frame from numerous chances? Sit her for the first 60 - 70 minutes vs Sweden and maybe sub her in late. She's playing well overall, creating chances for herself and her teammates, but is over 30 and could probably use a rest. She's a vet and can handle not starting - give her some credit for maturity. Start Morgan, not Arod - let's see if she can make the diagonal defense splitting runs, etc that Arod doesn't seem to do. Sit Ramone for this match - she's 36 and we need her legs fresh for the knock out rounds. I'm not a big Boxx fan, but against the more physical Swedes, she probbly needs to be in the lineup. AS for the other sides, I've seen England, and they're slow, expecially in the back - not impressed at all. Brazil has Marta, but they basically pulled everyone back inside their end the whole game against Norway and didn't press at all - I don't see how that works against sides better able to control the ball? (though I thought Norway was especially disappointing - if they did beat us in a pre-tourney friendly, Brazil should win the whole thing in a walk). I haven't seen Germany, France or Japan yet. I don't think this USWNT is very good - way too many easy give-aways against in the first two games, and without Abby in form, I think getting into the semi's would be about the best they can hope for. LB is a real problem, maybe even more than our poor finishing. And no Hungarian refs! Anyone else notice the difference between the WWC play and the U17 boys? The boys would overrun any of these women's sides, IMO.
Despite this being the group of death both opponents were pretty weak and it will be good to finally get a good tough game in before sudden-death begins.
My impression is that Group A (Germany/France/Canada) was generally considered the Group of Death, with Group C in second place. I'm sure Canada thinks so at this point.
No, we weren't in the group of death. I say rest Abby 1st half - she's coming back from her achilles injury, is 30, the rest wouldn't hurt, yellow card, and I don't believe she's worried about her "drought" at all. It'll come. Good to see her smiling. We cannot underestimate Sweden. Rampone needs to start. She had a year off w/ childbirth and is not tired. Hope HAO is OK, but she might need a rest. Miss Tarpley here. Rapinoe and Cheney and Boxx and Lloyd and Lindsey. If you can, Lloyd and Boxx play a half, or as needed. It is important we have our solid players in, in case we need them. Would be nice to get Sauerbrunn some minutes - can't she sub for LeP? Or maybe rest Beuhler a half. GO USA
Group A is group of death for sure, C and D are about the same, I think. Each has 3 legitimate teams fighting for 2 spots.
Group A has teams ranked 2, 6, and 7. Group B has teams ranked 4, 10, 22, and 24. Group C has teams ranked 1, 5, and 8. Group D has teams ranked 3, 9, and 11. Actually, in retrospect, you can probably make a better case for D being the Group of Death considering how #6 (Canada) and #8 (North Korea) actually performed. D is the only group where moving on really came down to the wire.