US vs Canada May 8 in Winnipeg: Pre, during, post-game discussion

Interesting discussion.

As I watched Leroux play last night for Seattle I wondered whether she might be preparing herself for a possible starting position as outside mid replacing Rapinoe or O'Reilly. She seemed to be trying to improve her footwork and passing rather than just trying to break free with her speed. Leroux a couple of times has actually joked that she's going to replace Rapinoe. If Morgan comes back strong and Press shows up big time this year -- as she did last year -- Leroux might see her best opportunity not as a forward but as an outside midfielder.

I anticipate that Dunn will be starting left back at the next WWC. Cox and O'Hara are good there, but Dunn has more upside.

Brian a starter as a central midfielder? Hmmm. Cheney is inconsistent and Lloyd has her liabilities....Maybe. Brooks could conceivably challenge, but I doubt that, barring injuries, she'll get the playing time to establish herself in the near future. Ditto Julie Johnston.

 

so we put Leroux as an outside midfielder, but then that means she will replace someone better at that position like rapinoe heath tymrak or even oreilly. I think leroux is just a straight up forward, she will be able to play in the outside mid but not provide anything special

 

This US team badly needs Lori Chalupny's veteran leadership and solid play. She is cleared to play by top US neurologists but the US won't welcome her back to the team. There has to be a clear explanation why she is being barred from the team which she clearly belongs with based on her outstanding club form which she's been showing for years since she was banished from the USWNT.

 

Do you think USSF wants to deal with lawyers when she is 45-50 yrs old and can't remember a thing or is complaining about constant headaches? No way I'd let her back on the NT.

 

Presumably the Fed's insurer's neurologist has a different opinion. And there's this law, HIPA, which maybe bars the Fed from providing any "clear explanation."

And I hate to contradict you, but no, it is not the case that "there has to be a clear explanation" any more than there has to be clear explanation of why Tiger Woods drove his car into a tree or why Julia Roberts and Lyle Lovett got divorced or anything else that isn't really our business...

 

I've already said this before, but I'm glad that there is someone else catching on that Lereux could do very well as an outside mid.. Allowing Morgan and Press to be the starters, which I believe should happen. However, after thinking about it, Lereux is too good of a forward to be content with that, and she is most dangerous on the forward line. Why would we not put her in her best position? It also wouldn't be the right idea because it wouldn't be in our benefit to switch her from forward to mid and back all the time. It would mess with her and the team.. And what would happen if Morgan got hurt again or Press ends up doing poorly in front of goal? Are we just going to say oh now there's an open stop at forward so now you can play there and someone else can play outside mid!... No of course not.. It would be better for Lereux and the team if she were to be a 60th minute sub than a starting outside mid.

But like I said, she's too good of a forward to even be a sub like that and along with solo, llyod, press and Morgan, she is the most important player... So there are two solutions...

Either as I just posted play the 4-3-3 with press in the middle which would allow the US to fully utilize the trio. Why wouldn't you play your star forwards when they are all amongst the best 10 in the world?

Or play a 4-4-2 with press and Lereux against the weakest team in the group.. Morgan and Lereux against the 2nd weakest team, and press and Morgan against the strongest team...

I honestly feel that press and Lereux only struggled at algarve together because both of them were too concerned in outshining the other. Even a couple of months ago, wambach was considered a potential starter; but now that it's clear she will be lucky to even make the roster, that somewhat unhealthy competition between Lereux and press won't exist as much as now it's just 3 forwards in the equation, not 4. And with the 4-3-3 it wouldn't exist at all because they would all be starting.

But we actually have seen press and Lereux work well together against the Netherlands which actually at the time was like a 2nd string US team. And part of the reason they didn't appear to work well this year was because both have at times fluffed shots or opportunities that they would normally score .

 

Re leroux, well, it's where Harvey is playing her. She's far from ideal in that position but she's trying to make the best of it and you can't argue against the team results so far. But Rapinoe seems to fit that system -- the issue some people have been raising about her is she seems to go hot-and-cold. O'Reilly seems to fit as well. Not saying she's better than some of the other younger players but she fits. Would O'Reilly fit at KC replacing say Merritt Matthias as a starter? I think you'd say yes, she would thrive in that system.

Dunn is a dynamo. She'd be a plus in almost any formation; I don't know exactly where she'd fit best at KC but she'd certainly fit.

The Holiday (Cheney) role is maybe the biggest question. If she has a bad run of form or if she's just too inconsistent there, who else is there and are we too dependent on her in that system for the national team. Morgan Brian - yeah, a possibility but we really have no assurances she could fill the role at this level, do we? Unless she's shown in in closed practices.

 

Some good points. But as far as not playing her in her best position, the counterargument is it's not about her best position but what approach gives the US the best chance to win the World Cup against the other top nations in the world. And, what I'm hearing (because I haven't seen the most recent games) makes it sound like we're lapsing back into the one-dimensionality of our play back around the Ryan era and we're not getting enough creative play through the midfield. Our players are good enough that we can compete that way. But is it our best chance going forward or does it carry with it the higher risk of a disastrous tournament?

 

seems like it's been pointed out a few billion times on this board why mia et al were brought in in their mid teens. there was nobody better ahead of them in the infancy of the women's game.

to keep doing that particular "same thing" in u.s. woso in 2014 because it turned out "pretty good" in the 90s would be anachronistic folly, and to keep referring to it as a solution is shallow thinking.

as far as we or the scouts or the coaches know, there are no 16 year olds who can challenge the uswnt players for a spot.

if you know one, please name them.

 

I agree with your premise, but for the sake of discussion, thoughts on Mallory Pugh? (though she's not even 16)

 

This is always a hit against Rapinoe but it honestly has not been very true over the past year+. I posted this on Equalizer a few weeks ago so it doesn't take into account the Canada game, but here it is:

 

i'm on record. check my posts.

outstanding player. proof that the ussoccer coaches will move you up if you're that good. was moved up to the u17 and was outstanding. was moved up to the u20s and is still doing well. might go to the u20 wc.

if you're asking if she's ready for the uswnt? no. don't think so.

 

The point isnt that Mia Hamm was 16 yrs old, the point is that a drastic change was made and succeeded.
It could have just as easily failed. The comcept of playing on the national team- shouldnt be to use it as a livelihood, and occcupation, but a reward for younger players for their hard work and dedication to the game. And I dont want to hear the standard replies - of these older players are the best we have, they may be, but that shouldnt excempt them from being replaced. Maybe it wont succeed, but isnt half the fun, watching the new players develop, and maybe one of them becoming an outright excellent player.

 

So what would reward older players for hard work and dedication to the game?

I mean, this sounds like something out of the Olympic "Introduction To The Pretense Of Amateurism" handbook of 1964...

 

these older players are the best we have.

as we find new ones who are better, these older ones, and even some of the younger ones who don't measure up, lose their contracts.

sounds like a plan.

these older players may be the best we have. but let's replace them with others who are not as good.

sounds like an even better plan.

these older players may be the best we have. so let's not only replace them with others who are not as good. but have fun watching the catastrophic result while maybe, ONE of them turns out great.

 

(Emphasis added.)

This is not right. The concept of playing on the national team should only be, which group of players has the best chance of winning the World Cup. There are thousands of young players who work hard and are dedicated to the game. There are at least hundreds of players it would be fun to watch develop, with one of them maybe becoming an outright excellent player -- including a lot of 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, etc. year olds.

 

There wasn't even ODP. It was organized in 1982 and took a decade before players all around the country were identified.

 

The question is 'is it the best use of their talent?' and not what positions they were asked by the coach to play in the past. Dunn with her dribbling skill is wasted playing in outside back. So is Kling. Of course if you can place Messi at outside back, he may still do a good job but he will be wasted playing there.

 

Of course the whole point is to win the WC, but is the assumption being made that only older, more experienced
players can do that? Look at the excitement K Buchanan has brought to the Canadian team, and fans.
Alone she cant win anything, but could be the building block for a great future.
This current US team is dictated by endorsements and contracts, not potential. I whole heartedly agree what is the point of having ODP, and elite club soccer, if we are going to stagnate at the highest level? Last game was just
another example of that. Just for arguments sake.

 

Although I agree with your comment in spirit, we have to realize that a majority of the players that will be chosen for the 23 person WC roster are still in their early to mid 20's:

Brian (21), Cox (28), Dunn (21), Engen (26), Harris (28), Holiday (26), Klingenberg (25), Krieger (29), Leroux (24), Lloyd (31), Lloyden (28), Morgan (24), O'Hara (25), O'Reilly (29), Press (25), Rampone (38), Rodriguez (27), Sauerbrunn (28), Solo (32), Wambach (33), Heath (25), Rapinoe (28), K. Mewis (23).

The average age is 27, which is great. If we take Rampone out of the equation then the average age is around 26.5. I would much rather take this age range over another team with a 22 or 23 year old age range come the next WC.

 

I just checked and the average age for the USWNT at the 2007 and 2011 WC's was also 27, so at least we're consistent.

 

get your point. except she may be the best outside back we have. her talents are definitely not wasted there. her defence and attacking from that position may be the difference in a wc game.

not arguing that she can't be used elsewhere. she is that good. but she's definitely not being wasted at ob.