U can thank Alex Morgan and to some extent A-Rod for that. If the US had failed to qualify in 2011 I think that would have broken the camels back. Instead they beat Italy, made a run to the finals and all was well.
Yeah, two golds and a silver in a shootout is scandalous. If we could only get the results germany has in that span.
I'm a little sick of this spin. It could be true (I haven't seen it refuted), but given the deaf ear the fed turns towards players (see Heinrichs, Ape) I find it very difficult to believe. It seems to me this was a fed move and they leaked that kind of stuff to give a patina of legitimacy to a move they were always going to make for their own reasons.
Morris - at what point to do you feel the Feds were ready to move on from Sermanni? Prior to the Algarve cup he was 16-0-3. If there were signs of trouble in the ranks, wouldn't it come from the players, and wouldn't that potential discord drive the negative results. After watching the Denmark game it seemed shocking and evident that it was dispirited broken team. I'm new to this board and realize there are many very experienced knowledgeable posters. I enjoy reading the opinions shared and I'm learning as I go along. What is interesting to me is the dynamic on the women's side. Since the nats have long been the top rated team...the gold standard. The value to the Feds and the importance to maintain the stature and integrity of the "brand" is paramount. With players under contract to the Feds it is almost completely restrictive to experimentation, true competition, and roster turnover. Which makes it nearly impossible to move on from more than 1-2 aging fan favorites per cycle. What is fascinating to me is the apparent lack of communication in the interview process with Sermanni and the Feds. What exactly were they hiring him to do? They had to realize the potential for disaster knowing his intentions to emphasize a possession based game and the roster he had to work with. Did he realize there were certain players that were untouchable? Was there confidence that he could revamp the style of play with the existing roster.... Seems like a complete whiff by the Feds. So getting back to the original point...IMO the players are the brand and the Feds are in tune with anything that negatively affects the brand...there must have been a disconnect between the players and Sermanni while he was still getting positive results.
Concern over the US national team leading into the World Cup is nothing new, as we're reminded of in Richard Farley's article on SoccerGods "The US looks bad right now but..." which is garnering some interest from women's soccer fans. As I've been calculating and comparing performance ratings between some of the top rated countries in the World Cup --as well as the US team under Coaches Tom Sermanni and Jill Ellis -- I went back to 2010, the year leading up to the last World Cup. I also estimated performance ratings for the US in 2011, the World Cup year and also for 2012, the Olympics year (up to and including the Olympics Final, but leaving out the friendlies that filled out the rest of the year) period coach performance rating (weighted *) 2010 Sundhage 2130 2011 thru World Cup Sundhage 2110 2012 thru Olympics Sundhage 2280 2013-2014 Sermanni 2140 2014 Ellis 1999 performance rating estimated using FIFA's published ratings as of match day and weighted to give more importance to World Cup, Olympic matches, as well as qualifiers and friendlies between top 10 teams. What do you see? I see 2010, 2011, and Sermanni's tenure as showing a fairly consistent baseline, with of course 2012 being a highly successful year due to winning the Gold Medal at the Olympics. But under Ellis, the performance is lagging behind as measured by FIFA's semi-Elo system. For reference here are the ratings for the top 10 teams over a period from November 2010 to the period just before the Olympics to the most current rating just released in December. The obvious thing to notice is that the performance ratings for the US in 2010, 2011, and under Tom Sermanni place the US slightly below their top opponent's rating (Germany) through that time but above everybody else. But dipping to a performance rating of about 2000 puts the US well behind their top opponents and back as part of a more crowded pack. rank November 2010 rating Pre-Olympics (March 2012) rating current (Dec 2014) rating 1 USA 2185 USA 2178 Germany 2176 2 Germany 2153 Germany 2168 USA 2158 3 Brazil 2116 Japan 2120 France 2091 4 Sweden 2063 Sweden 2066 Japan 2084 5 Japan 2036 Brazil 2040 Sweden 2000 6 North Korea 2005 France 2021 England 1984 7 Norway 2002 Canada 1981 North Korea 1981 8 France 1998 North Korea 1970 Brazil 1968 9 Canada 1974 England 1966 Canada 1962 10 England 1973 Australia 1956 Australia 1957 As a rough guide, we can use the standard Elo scale to estimate the probability of one team advancing in a knockout stage match over another team. A 100 point difference roughly equals a (.640) probability of the higher rated team advancing. 100 pt difference = .640 200 = .760 300 = .849
But the US has not been below 2000, according to your charts. In 2010 I see JP as #5. In 2011 they won the WC. Stats are nice but don't tell the whole story, and cannot account for all variables.
Sorry, I wasn't clear about the difference between "rating" and "performance rating". A team's official rating is something built up over a period of time. When I talk about a "performance rating", it can be for a very short period of time. For instance, we can ask what was a team's performance rating for a single tournament (Algarve, World Cup, etc). It's a measure, using the ratings of their opponents, of how a team did in that period of time. (It doesn't even have to be for periods of time. For instance we can ask what is a team's performance rating against top 20 teams. Or away games vs home games. Or games on Tuesdays. In Belgium. Or not. We can ask what is the performance rating for any group of games we care to define.) So, you're right, the USA's (official) rating hasn't dipped below 2000 in any period that I covered. In fact, I don't know if it's been below 2150 in ages. But in 2014, measuring only the games the US played in 2014, its rating for those games is below 2000. And that's true also measuring only the games the US has played since Coach Ellis took over this year (first as an interim coach and then a couple months later after she was named permanent head coach). I hope this helps. FIFA's rating system for women is actually pretty good and I'd like to see more women's soccer fans become acquainted with it.
Since you're talking about a "performance rating" based only on 2014 games, I'm guessing you're doing this as though the US is a brand new team beginning in 2014 and you are working them into the FIFA system accordingly? Assuming that's what you're doing, I count 13 games in 2014. As you know, that's about 17 games short of the number needed (30) to get what's considered to be a reliable rating within a FIFA-like system. It doesn't mean the performance rating numbers are meaningless, but it means they at best have meaning only in a very gross sense. In a very gross sense, I have no idea whether the differences you illustrate over time are meaningful. Am I right about this or am I missing something?
Good question. Yes but it's much less dire than that. It's estimated using the ratings of those 13 opponents, yes. But those ratings are the accumulation of all the games between all the nations that make up the rating system, including all of the USA's games against other countries over the years (subject, of course, to that technical thing called the k-factor which determines how much weight is given to more recent games than past games and eventually reduces the impact of games furthest in the past) So take it for what it is - performance ratings use the whole accumulated data to evaluate how a team did in a certain group of games, for instance in a short period, or in a tournament. It can be used to try to identify more sharply a trend. Or, as here, it can be used to help compare the performance of different coaches. Right now it helps confirm some of the fears of those who opposed hiring Jill Ellis. Don't fight it , cpt! Let the data keep them happy for the moment.
Got it. I'm just trying to get a sense of how much weight to give the numbers in my own thinking. The performance rating actually uses the same gross concept as the NCAA's Non-Conference RPI (forget the details, of course). On another Ellis thought: I think she actually has a pretty firm script for what she wants to be working on in different games, from tactical approach to substitutions. And, she seems to hold to it religiously. I wouldn't be surprised if she has a script for all the way to the WCC. I give her credit for that, it shows she's resisting the temptation to only care about winning in the lead up to the WCC. But, I also think it ultimately could be a problem, not in relation to preparation but in relation to whether she can draw the best out of the players once they get to the WCC. She may be a little too cool and calculating and not "fluid" enough to maintain the kinds of player relationships needed to get the best out of the players. I just don't know, but there may be a reason (other than bad luck) why her past teams couldn't get over the final hurdle. And another Ellis thought: I disagree with the criticism of her for being quiet on the bench during games. I'm a Clive Charles fan, and he was very quiet on the bench during games, with very few exceptions. His theory was that the time for players to be learning was during practice. During games, it was up to the players to figure things out. In fact, there's a very good argument that coaches who are instructing players from the sidelines during games actually are disabling them from thinking for themselves.
For performance ratings measuring a certain period of time, the numbers are significant. The number of games may be small but the opponents' ratings have everything behind them - all the games, all the data in the system. You just have to be careful about what to make of it. Teams can go through hot streaks and cold streaks and if you look at too small a period, of course it's dangerous to say too much about a team's future performances based on what might be a hot streak or cold streak. But the table I made should be alarming - it shows that the US is not accustomed over the better part of a year to be performing well below the level of the top 2 or 3 rivals. I agree with some of your other comments about Coach Ellis. Some criticisms of her, such as about her quiet demeanor on the bench, are probably misguided. You mention Clive Charles. John Wooden was a calm presence on the bench, too. And Phil Jackson, while not impassive on the bench, was famous for not calling timeouts and counting on his players to "figure it out". Still, something's not working at the high levels of the game where it needs to be. Just as many of you predicted or feared.
Of course, it's why you play the games and all that. (and good they do because it was a wonderful World Cup as disappointing as it was for USA fans when they lost). But as far as the ratings go, I'm rather impressed by what they told us. In the last ranking /rating report before the World Cup, Japan was actually #4 with a rating of 2062. I had no idea at the time. I wasn't as familiar with the ratings then and how it worked and must not have been paying attention at the time. If I knew then what I know now about the ratings, I would've given Japan a much more serious chance of beating the USA in the Final (technically, from a rating standpoint, it was a tie but anyways...). Or maybe not. Maybe I would've tried to see if Japan's rating was somehow fluky. After all, Japan had never beaten the US, right? Rarely even got a tie. But four years prior to that Japan's rating hovered in the 1940 range and would be around the 10th to 12th ranked team. Now, suddenly (or so it seems to me), by 2011, Japan has a rating of 2062 and is the 4th ranked team in the world right up there with Brazil at #3 and Sweden at #5! Sure, the US and Germany both seem a level above the rest but, still, the ratings identified Japan as one of the elite teams in the world! That's a rating success as far as I'm concerned. Here's the top 5 rated teams heading into the 2011 World Cup: US 2191 Germany 2153 Brazil 2098 Japan 2062 Sweden 2043. That's a pretty insignificant difference between Japan and Brazil. To the US and Germany, that's a significant difference but not an overwhelming one. Roughly speaking, a team 100 points lower than another would have an expected 36% chance of advancing in a knockout round. An underdog to be sure but one with a real chance at an upset. I estimated the performance ratings of Japan and the US in 2010-2011 leading up to the World Cup. Japan's performance rating was 2059, very close to its official rating. The US performance rating in that time was 2141, a noticeable step below its official rating of 2191. Based on the difference in performance ratings, around 80 points, the US would have about a 61% expected chance of advancing past Japan in a knockout round while Japan would have a 39% chance. Very good fighting chances - or so it would seem to me if Japan had ever beaten the US before! I held off looking at Germany's performance ratings for that time period before the Cup because they, surprisingly, played very few games, although what games they played seemed to indicate they were in very strong form indeed. While the FIFA ratings didn't predict a Japan victory in the World Cup, as no one should expect, it did well alerting us to the fact that Japan was indeed one of the elite teams in the world and if the two favorites, the US and Germany, faltered, they would be one of the teams with the best chance to win the Cup. Actually 16 games, I believe, under Ellis. I'm including those matches where she was the interim coach beginning with the 2nd China friendly.
On a slight tangent but since I've been bringing up performance ratings here using the FIFA ratings, how much of an effect has Alex Morgan's presence or absence been felt the last two years? Using games in which Morgan has played at least 25 minutes, under Tom Sermanni the USA performance rating was 2261 (!). In games she didn't play (and 2 games where she played less than 25 minutes), the USA performance rating was 2049. In just those games without her in 2013 (excludes the games early in 2014 including the "disastrous" Algarve), the performance rating was 2169. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Morgan is herself responsible for 100 to 200 points rating difference but she pretty clearly has some impact on the team. Under Ellis: with Morgan - performance rating 2029 without Morgan - 1986 Under Ellis, in 4 out of the 7 games Morgan played, she played 45 minutes or less, mainly as a direct result of either coming back from injury or getting injured (in the qualifier match against Guatemala) Is it possible a healthy Morgan has around a 100 rating point impact (or more) on the team?!?! USA performance ratings with and without Alex Morgan: Coach with Morgan without Morgan Sermanni 2261 2049 Ellis 2029 1986
As a fan of USWNT, I really don't like to see this. We must hope for her good health over the next six months.
I'm surprised nobody has responded to this yet. I would trade these results two times over for a World Cup title or the knowledge that we had progressed in development and other areas to a point that we can win in 2015. I for one find the gold medals to be toxic to the system. When the US loses in 2015 but wins yet another gold medal in 2016 [bold] nothing will change [/bold]. Germany will be better prepared to win in 2019 & the US will be on a victory tour. Dismissing what Germany has done in the past 12 years because they haven't won a gold-medal is ludicrous beyond belief when you see the stars on their jerseys and understand where, and when, they came from. I think we should we be paying very close attention to what Germany is doing, and I think the US would benefit greatly from emulating them. When, if it ever happens, the Olympics become a under 23 tournament for the women like it does the men, will you still qualify gold-medal victories as legitimate success for the USSF that justifies decisions and behavior like that we have seen in the past 12 years and in particular the past year?
While I think there is plenty of room for criticism of the US developmental programs, at the senior National Team level I think it's fair to say that results in the World Cup and Olympics at this point are what matter, with the World Cup coming first. If the Olys become a U23 program, that will change so far as they are concerned. I don't think it's fair, however, to imply that "decisions and behavior" trump results for the senior NT in those events. In fact, if the results are there it's hard to make a case that decisions and behavior at the senior NT level matter. The times when decisions and behavior come into the picture are when there is not success at the World Cup and Olympics level, which will bring the US developmental system into question. Until that happens, it is very hard to bring them into the picture in a convincing way. I do agree with you on the importance of seeing what Germany is doing, the question being whether the American culture would be able to digest and implement what is being done in Germany. The current fractionalization that is going on here now doesn't give much home for a nationally coordinated and disciplined program such as Germany has implemented. The USFS has made an attempt at it with the Reyna curriculum, and I don't think that attempt has been very successful so far. I think that there's also a reality out there that's hard to face up to. Just as North Carolina no longer is the force it once was in college women's soccer (it's still a force, but not close to what it once was), it's inevitable that other countries gradually will catch up to the US women. Completely dominating teams in a sport occur in the early days of the sport, but if the sport is successful and spreads, the likelihood of ongoing domination by a team becomes statistically more and more unlikely. The issue for the US is, What is attributable to statistical reality and what is attributable to not being as good as we could be? That's a very tough question for both fans and coaches.
I personally dont care if the other countries catch up. It's great for the sport that the big three has evolved into the big five and closing on the big ten. My problem is simply this; does the US get the most out of their talent? If other countries r producing more talented players then more power to them, but if the US is still producing the top talent and it isnt translating into good competitive soccer on the international level, then it needs to be fixed.
The US tied China in Brazil, lost to Brazil 3-2 after going up 2-0, and then tied Brazil. This is "good competitive soccer" by any reasonable measure. So, by your test, there is not anything that needs to be fixed? On who whether the US is/isn't producing more talented players, there is a lot of disagreement here on BS.
My main complaints about Brasilia were how Ellis coached. While I have no problem with the playing field being leveled I dont expect to have the US coach help with the leveling. As to talent, I believe we r producing more and better athletes than any time in the past. Where we seem to be lacking is in producing both athletic and technical players who could play whatever style the coach chooses to play. We tend to produce a very narrow range of player limiting how a coach can use them.
We have a massive talent pool, so much so that most of us could name a starting 11 with just small, speedy players, a starting 11 with big, tall and strong players, and a starting 11 of smart, crafty, and technical players. I'm not worried about development right now so much as I'm worried about the coaching. The better word I think is managing. Getting the right combinations of players based on the opponent and style of play, be able to motive your players to play how you want them to, and to be able to make adjustments on the fly or at half time.
I saw this column by Mark Shawhan on Soccerwire yesterday. I think he hit every nail on the head regarding Ellis' (poor) performance so far: http://www.soccerwire.com/news/nt/uswnt/uswnts-course-in-this-world-cup-year-steady-as-she-goes/ "The U.S. has plenty of players (including in the current senior team camp) who can possess the ball through the middle just fine; but that’s not how they are being directed to play. Apparently it is too much to ask that the WNT keep the ball on the deck..." "Similarly, notwithstanding Ellis’s talk about moving to a fluid, open, attacking possession style, what we have seen on the field from the WNT, (and indeed the U-20s) since Ellis took over, though, is too often the same old story—a couple of passes followed by a punt or cross toward a big center forward, and a focus on set pieces."
Love it or hate USSoccer seems to be going with plan "A" and hoping for the best. If that's the best we can hope for, maybe they should consider launching a plan "B" as well. Like most plan "Bs", the hope is u dont have to use it. What if they took the U23 program, actually gave them some money and said build a possession style soccer team. Give them all the camps they need and some friendlies to gauge their progress and just do it. The only risk is money wasted...it's not like they r sending them to a major tournament. Either keep Swanson or bring in another coach who will teach a possession style and make them use it. Give the coach a free hand to bring in the players who will make this work. What does this get u? Unfortunately not much if the full team has a great WC. Even if they dont u might not get the USSF to make a change for the Olympics, but after that uve hit the ground running. U now have the young core of a possession style team with two years training behind them. Then u integrate the players from the full team who fit this style and u have another two years to perfect this style for 2019.
So more fodder for speculation. Is Paul Rogers leaving as GK coach a reaction to the Solo suspension? The direction the team is going? Hard to believe MLS is an upgrade.