Nice to see Pugh and O'Hara back on the roster. Has Franch ever made two rosters in a row? Good to see someone else in the fray. Maybe she'll get some pilayng time in these matches. I hope. Who ever said the Ellis doesn't like UCLA players?
In my opinion, which admittedly matters very little, these two friendlies are somewhat less that worthless. Chile is so poor that the only thing that might be gained from playing them in a meaningless match is an injury or three. But I guess "team building" might be considered a gain of sorts and I guess it might have been hard to find a better matchup at this point and we do need something in the run up to qualifying. Also Chile is probably a little better than every team in CONCACAF except the US, Mexico, Canada and maybe Costa Rica. So, maybe, these games will not be totally wasted. But it is a bit like a great white dining on a minnow not hard to do and quite unsatisfying for the diner. My only real concern is injuries as I stated earlier.
will dunn play left back & o'hara right? may be the best attacking/defending ob pair. is mace being groomed as another "flex" player - defender (even tho she no longer plays the position at ucla) + late game speed attacker up front? if so, williams' spot is gone.
i think they'd prefer more challenging matches. but you can only play the feds who are available. it's not as simple as picking up the phone and making a call.
Yes. you are probably correct and, like I said, there is little strength in CONCACAF past the top three so really the US can only fail to qualify on a total collapse and that is unlikely to happen. But I do think that the US could find someone like Iceland, Norway, Sweden or any of a number of teams with more pedigree and more quality for these friendlies if they really tried.
disagree. i think they'd take any one of those over chile in a heartbeat. but all 3 of those teams have important matches in the next few days. (euro wcqs & all that).
I was just using those as an example. There is also Japan, China, S. Korea, Australia and some of the African teams that would be better choices. Of course the US could want to assure that the test is not too tough at all. They may want to as sure of a win as possible.
they just played japan, china, and australia. they all want to play someone else now. the african feds are terrible, hard to sign contracts with and schedule. then why did they waste time playing mostly challenging teams all year?
So you are saying that a crap team like Chile is the best they could do? Most of the challenging teams were played in the meaningless "tournaments" in the US that are really just glorified friendlies of course there are no real tournaments available. The justification for trying for an assured victory is that they may want to build confidence leading into qualification. There really is no way to really know what the motivation is for a given set of friendlies but I really think that the team has been poorly served by location. The players need to get used to travel and, even though the US is big, playing nearly every friendly at home is not, I believe, a good choice. Is it cheaper? Yes. Does it help to fill the USSF's coffers? Yes. But is it best for the Team? I think no and playing bad opposition at home just makes the experience have less value. In matches like these the players learn very little about what it means to play international soccer and the coaches learn very little about how given players will react to pressure or travel.
Didn't we just play all those teams a few weeks ago? Regarding the roster, call me selfish but I'm super pissed that Ellis chooses to take Mace away from UCLA during the toughest part of their season. I'm guessing she watched the UCLA game last Friday.
Jill Ellis was the Head Coach of UCLA for 11 years from 1999-2010. I'm sure she still has a fondness for Bruins players, although she herself never won a College Cup with tons of talent over those 11 years. Always got beat by the likes of Randy Waldrum or Anson Dorrance. IMO, she was not a good college coach and she is still not a good coach.
As I said earlier I was just throwing out examples of teams better than Chile that we could have chosen. There is also Brazil, Korea DPR, Austria, Italy, Vietnam, Ukraine, Argentina, Canada, Finland and even more and every one of those are better than Chile. The point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of choices and I do not believe we have to dip so far down in the pool to find someone to play. Chile is just a perplexing choice to me. They are so weak that I do not think any improvement can be made by playing them. The top 5 or so (possibly all) NWSL teams even without their stars are better, most top college teams are better, the average U17 boy's team is better, even many women's club teams are better. If the idea is to get better then pick any of the above but if the idea is to enrich US soccer then, by all means, pick a bad team we are sure to beat easily.
Tried and failed to find a Chilean Match on Youtube beyond just highlights. Just curious about their style of play and wondering if the Match is likely to become "chippy" like games v. Colombia (or "Columbia") and the Diving Divas. Hope not.
I saw Chile play last year a couple of times and they looked like they wanted to try to play a 4-4-2 but it degenerated into what looked like a 7-2-1 quite quickly. If they try to play the US straight up it will get real ugly real fast. They are not even good enough to bunker effectively so their only chance is to play hard and slow the game down as much as possible. I believe we will see a lot of fouls and the US will have almost free play anywhere except in and right outside Chile's box. They do have some speed but it will not match up well against the US's speed and none of our backs will have any real problem with them unless they take a nap. If Dunn and Pugh are playing on the same side expect them to really burn Chile a LOT. Even with some experimentation by the US I would be very surprised if Chile had more than two shots on goal. Of course at the level Chile plays a player or two that improves suddenly or one or two that get discovered or a goalkeeper that plays above their history can suddenly jump the team several levels. I doubt that will happen but it is a possibility. All in all I expect that the game(s) will be a blowout but you never know for sure. Chile does not have any answer for even the weakest team the US can field.
I see by the United States Naval Observatory Master Clock that it is 11:00 EDT, which means that the United States Women’s National Team will invade McSkillz's Backyard and take the StubHub Center field in exactly…………… 1 Week – or 7 Days – or 168 Hours – or 10,080 Minutes – or 604,800 Seconds
I agree with the injury worry but I also have a new worry now. Ive been watching the Women's U20 WC. Specifically watching Japan take apart all comers. Beat downs on Germany, England and finally Spain. My worry is that if their game translates to the Sr. team, we could face trouble from them and other teams like them. They are playing a far more advanced version of Soccer than the USA currently plays and more is more advanced than a coach like Jill Ellis could ever develop. Not sure she even understands it? Mark my words.... If the USA fails to adapt to what is now going on from teams like Spain and even more so, Japan.... our reign as a top team will soon pass. They are amazing... we're not. It will come down to a organized, long term, consistent strategy (top to bottom) vs Jill Ellis kick n run. It will require someone in US Soccer, like the yet to be named Woman's side GM, to realize that a change is required and that includes the coaching if they can't adapt, or don't agree with the new direction. This must happen and hopefully before the Sr WC and before where shocked
Actually the system(s) we play will work against highly technical and adaptable teams just fine as we can adapt to whatever system gets thrown at us on the field and any system can play against any other if the players are good enough particularly when the players on the field must play defense together and then transition to attack. The problem US runs into is that many of our best players lack a full set of skills and get lazy when their primary skill set breaks down or is not called into play. I noticed, particularly with Japan in the U20s, when the attack broke down the forwards that had progressed into an offside position hustled back into position so they could participate should the ball be won back. What happens with the US is that when the forwards attack and lose the ball they slowly walk back up the field (resting?) so that if the ball is won back there are fewer players that can participate in the second attack. The same kind of things happen at the defensive end where the defense kind of falls asleep when the ball is away and that makes the US very vulnerable to a fast quality counter. Also we, the US, almost never have a full set of skills and do not even understand that they are lacking. This falls back on the basic underpinnings of our development system where we lock players into a position based on evaluations that take place often as young as 10-12. The best players are not limited and always strive to be in position for the next play or crisis. Right now in the US we do not have even one of the top 15 or so players in the world because everyone of the US players lack an important skill. Every single soccer skill is important to every one. An example of the usefulness of an unexpected skill comes from a little story from years ago: I gave a four day goalkeeper clinic during the time when the I had given my team a few days off. On the first day of the clinic I saw my top forward in the line with keepers from my and other teams. I pulled her aside and asked her why she was there. (This girl was scary smart and always looking for a way to get better) I also asked her if she was looking to change position. She told me that she felt she would become a better player if she understood the position she always had to beat if she wanted to score so she wanted to learn how they train. I decided to let her stay but would tell her to go if she was just going through the motions. I did not need to worry. She participated it every drill at full speed and she was actually, at the end, one or the four or five best at the evaluations at the end. I noticed in the next few team practices that she was working of something but I could not really tell what but in the next game I saw "it." She was changing her shot in many situations to better take advantage of what she found was the hardest thing for keepers to do. (Save balls low and just outside foot reach) She had always before tended to go higher or try for corners and that caused misses outside the goal. That was a little change that I think resulted in her scoring percentage going up quite a bit and she missed the goal a LOT less but sometimes even the best shots get saved. That is just one example but it highlights what is missing in US soccer and that cannot be fixed by "system" or by coaching at the level of the national teams. In fact it is mostly too late to fix it by U17. Our youth system is badly flawed and the steps that have been taken to fix it have, so far, just been bureaucratic nonsense. We have lived and continue to live on athletic prowess and limited skill sets and a few real "stars." That has served well but it has been showing problems for years and now the holes are getting really huge. The one thing we can directly address is the laziness after the ball is lost or sent away. That is addressable by coaches by simply telling the players what is wanted and not playing those that do not deliver BUT that is not going to happen either because the worst offenders are seen as the best players by the "public" and a coach failing to play what "everybody" thinks is the best will not last long in our coaching quagmire. So I think we will just have to live with many second rate performances and just hope our "stars" can continue to pull off the improbable.
Sometimes you and I have different opinions, but I agree with you completely on this. One piece of this, I think, is that coaches mostly see players' physical attributes and abilities and, based on that, slot them into a position the coach thinks the attributes and abilities are suited to. Of course, at 10 to 12 years old, it's too soon to know where their physical attributes and abilities are going to end up. But of equal, and possibly more, importance, coaches don't take players' personalities into consideration (except for the super-aggressive 10 to 12 year old who wants to attack constantly and score goals). Different personalities are suited to different locations on the field. Who's a risk-taker? Who is a perfectionist? Who's loud and crazy and can shake off gaffes?
I have my tickets and am going. Is Chile the best, no, but the US is and we need to give everyone a shot at us. We can't keep playing the same top 5 teams over and over again. We will get to compete against them plenty in the big tournaments just by default. I like the choice. Again, if anyone is going to the game, the American Outlaws are hosting a party for the Night Before the Game and Legends in Long Beach from 7-11 pm. It would be great to see a few of you. click on the image to make it bigger
I used to tell my players and assistants that, in general, I would put my "flakes" either all the way forward or all the way back. Forwards need to be a bit crazy for the reasons you stated and goalkeepers have to be crazy to dive at the feet of onrushing attackers. Of course that does not always hold as the best defensive mid (usually a position requiring stability) I ever had was the biggest trickster I have ever coached and her practical jokes are legendary. She was totally lost when I tried her at any forward position for a long time. However three years later she became a top scoring forward as she changed. Then she noticed boys and decided she wanted to be a mom more than anything else and a few years later got married at 22. She now has three kids of her own and they are all good soccer players. That is my, and I think your, point. Players that are "stuck" in one position may become very good at that one spot but they also often will fail when situations present them with the unexpected. At young ages players need to not only be exposed to other skills and positions but they also need to be "forced/encouraged" to play the unfamiliar and coaches should never jam a player into a little box and leave them there. But the proper development of youth players is hard and there are not a lot of US youth coaches that will put in the effort and just as few parents that will accept a few losses to produce better all around players. Our culture is built on the Vince Lombardy principal where, "Winning is not the most important thing, it is the only thing." That attitude can make kid's teams great and thereby often ruin the player's future.
... and to me. but arranging and signing a contract with a fed for a match is not a straight forward - get the best team - proposition.
I see Rapinoe is out for the Chile games -- which probably means she is also out for all remaining NWSL games. Rodriguez was called up to replace Rapinoe. I don't see the wisdom of that. Call up someone who's under 30.
I guess that means the US will only score five instead of nine on each match. The game is useless against such a bad opponent so anyone with even the slightest of injury should not play and no one that is really needed or hard to replace should play either. I do not see any value in these two matches at all. There is nothing to be gained except money and a LOT to lose to injury. I guess that makes Rodriguez a good call up. She is not very valuable to the WNT in the run up to the WWC or to the WWC itself.
Just got my tickets today for Stubhub this weekend! Section 132 baby! Are you jealous? Are you? Are you? Are you? You darn well should be! I'm be there ready to rock the REDWHITEBLUE! Who else is going?