USWNT v Brazil (SBC Finale), March 5, pre/pbp/post.

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by Semblance17, Mar 2, 2019.

  1. Lookingforleftbacks

    Galaxy
    United States
    Dec 17, 2016
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    FWIW, if we win the World Cup again, I will gladly admit my error and stop doubting her. However, if we don’t, I don’t want to hear the same BS “other countries are catching up,” or “we were unlucky,” arguments that we heard at the Olympics. We have at least as good of a talent pool as any other country and we’ve had plenty of games and time to see that talent and how it works together.
     
    jnielsen and Patrick167 repped this.
  2. blissett

    blissett Member+

    Aug 20, 2011
    Italy
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    This so reminds me of Karl Popper's falsifiability! :) In a good way, I love Karl Popper!

    Disclaimer: I am not an USWNT's fan, so, for the sake of this discussion, I guess I can say that I am seeing things from an unbiased point of view (or at max, slightly biased against USWNT :giggle:).

    I don't like too much a priori bashing of any coach either (it happens on every board, Japanese one included, although at different levels), but doesn't your philosophy, if taken to the extreme, prevent from any kind of criticism against a coach? It's a sure things that we can see and know much less than he/she does and that our access at the relevant info to make correct judgement calls is severley limited. So, should we just sit there and have faith that the coach surely knows better?

    Honest question, not rhetorical or ironic, just curious to know your answer, because it seems to me that your position, if followed to the consequences, leads there.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  3. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    Well, again, I'm asking people to consider the question themselves, not answer me on it.

    But seems to me that it makes a lot more sense to frame criticism more along the lines of "I'm concerned about x" than "Ellis is an idiot and Huerta is the solution to all our problems and she can't be trusted to see what's as plain as the nose on her face and should be fired and would be but for a big conspiracy to frustrate us (because I'm just voicing what I know everybody else here believes.)

    All I'm asking is that folks be a bit more reasonable about their likes and dislikes, not that they swallow some party line the other way. I don't happen to like Ellis' approach to fullback play-- but I can understand why she wants it that way, and accept the notion that she might be right, as opposed to saying "who ever heard of backs being encouraged to play offense at the expense of defense? She's crazy/Irresponsible/stupid/ignorant."

    She's won a World Cup, and done it with somebody else's roster and with an approach that is not her preferred way of going about such. I refuse to believe that that was entirely accidental, an example of God playing dice with the universe.

    So my answer to your question is-- it depends. It is a lot easier to lose a tournament than it is to win one, and there are a lot of ways for a team to fall apart and really only one for it to come together. So it is altogether possible for us to lose the World Cup because we just don't win it-- it takes at least some luck to win one no matter who you are. If you want a guarantee, get a Wesringhouse.

    But 2011, for example, was pretty obviously won by Japan, not lost by Sundhagge. It took a confluence of unlikely events to beat us, and "whattaya gonna do sometimes, anyways?" So if we come within 90 seconds of the win twice before losing, yeah, I'll probably count it as a highly successful tournament and no blot on Ellis' escutcheon. If we don't get out of group and look really really bad in not doing so, then I might not be so forgiving. Proof is in the pudding.

    Until then though, it seems to me she deserves a little more polity here than she's getting; than her record justifies. This constant stream of "Heads is just luck, tails is all her fault" is just depressing. We can't all be Jackdoggy, but we could try to be a little like fans...
     
    blissett repped this.
  4. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    I don't see vilification outside of some posters that love a certain player more than the team.

    It comes down to how much you trust not only Ellis; but that roster decisions are made 100% on sporting merit. Unlike every other national team, men and women, I do think the annual contract structure leads to sub-optimal rosters. For example, the use of college players instead of actual professionals in camps.

    Your Huerta example is telling. Has she had a shot at the roster? Was she tried in her best position? Has she had college kids called over her because the CBA forbids calling her? If she is just as good and younger but another player is on salary, who wins? How can you compete in practice if you are not there because veterans negotiate a CBA that limits competition?

    Not saying Huerta is anything, just seems like everything isn't 100% a meritocracy.
     
    goaleemama repped this.
  5. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    I don't understand how you could look at some of Ellis' decisions and think she knows what she's doing. she seems to stumble on good things by accident or because of necessity/injury (Morgan Brian and Julie Ertz in the last world cup, Julie Ertz in the MF). She thought Allie Long as a centerback would actually work, and Julie was benched for half of 2017. The outside back situation is mind boggling. She claims to want offensive OB's, but is playing Sonnett and Davidson there. Dunn is getting exposed against better teams, and has only been playing the position for about a year because again, Ellis was forced to play her there after Smith didn't work out. Why is Emily Fox still on the roster? Why did she think Pugh and Lavelle would work as a midfield tandem, when they both lack defensive presence and Pugh is not a CM period? She has one good opponent left to test her players. That's it. We'll probably win the lead up games against weak teams, alex will finally get her 100th against a tomato can, Dunn will successfully defend against a weak Mexico side during the sendoff, and everything will be rosy until the knockout rounds.
     
    jnielsen, goaleemama and Namdynamo repped this.
  6. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    Nothing is ever 100% efficient in the meritocracy plane of existence. Colleges red-shirt freshmen who are ready simply so that seniors can get a full shot, medical staffs disqualify players who are actually fine, coaches get into personality clashes with players and vice versa (it is a multiple miracle that Dennis Rodman had a real career) and systems are set up sometimes to solve one problem which cause another-- which doesn't necessarily mean that the first problem didn't need solving or that the second is more important than the first. Entropy and friction are both facts of life, and neither is truly our friend... Ya do the best you can,

    Huerta has been in several camps, and has played some- enough that even if it wasn't "in her best position" it made me feel as though I had a pretty good look at her physical abilities: good enough to play if needed, not good enough to take anyone's job. And its been several contract years now-- if she has clearly proven she's better, they've had plenty of opportunity to put her on contract and take someone else off.

    Pretty sure if she'd been the obvious solution at midfield instead of back that would have come our in practice. I mean, Mewis was 15, just visiting her sister and filled out a scrimmage and the staff saw her potential immediately.
     
  7. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    I rest my case.
     
  8. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    And despite that potential she is seemingly dead to Ellis. Everyone saw that Mewis should have been playing in Horan's absence, except Ellis. Only after a lot of public criticism about Pugh and Lavelle did Ellis put in Mewis, and lo and behold the midfield looked much better against Brazil.
     
  9. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    Multiple players have said sponsorships matter in terms of playing time. I think that's part of why Pugh can't seem to play herself out of a significant role.
     
  10. luvdagame

    luvdagame Member+

    Jul 6, 2000
    #135 luvdagame, Mar 12, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
    ...and therefore, you can guarantee it, all this carping and over the top criticizing will disappear once the uswnt contract system is dismantled.

    case in point, the usmnt has no similar allocation/contract system, so just look at the measured responses on the usmnt board to berhalter’s 2nd roster callup.

    http://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/march-friendlies-ecuador-chile.2095210/page-11

    from post #271 after today’s roster announcement.
     
  11. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Really multiple players have said that? This is the first I've heard of it. Which players, and where I can find exactly what they said?
     
  12. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    carli lloyd's book is probably the most googleable quote.
     
  13. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't have the book and can't find any quote about sponsorships and playing time. Do you know exactly what she wrote?
     
  14. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    It was something along the lines of "you might think the best players take the field, but they don't. sponsorships matter, team higher ups backing you matter, veteran support matters. if USSoccer discovers you at a young age, they have a vested interest in helping you succeed and you will have the red carpet rolled out for you."
     
    goaleemama and cpthomas repped this.
  15. lil_one

    lil_one Member+

    Nov 26, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I have the book, and did a search. Here's the quote I think you're referring to: "So much of it comes down to where you went to school, what coaches are behind you, who is pushing you behind the scenes, and who your allies are among the veteran players. It also comes down to whether you are among the anointed ones, as decided by the U.S. developmental people. If they've 'discovered' you and nurtured you and decreed that you will be the face fo the team going forward, you are assured of having the soccer equivalent of the red carpet rolled out for you."

    The quote is actually more about coming up through the developmental infrastructure. No mention of sponsorships. (Actually the word "sponsorship" does not appear in the book, and "sponsor" only appears when Lloyd is thanking hers.)

    So to get back to the main point: Pugh did come up through the youth teams, and there may be politics involved, as there often are. I don't see sponsorships playing a role though.
     
    jnielsen, cpthomas and taosjohn repped this.
  16. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thank you so much, lil_one. I think, when one is alleging facts as a basis for criticism, it's important to know and be sure the facts are absolutely correct.

    So, at this point we haven't seen here any direct evidence that, or of a player saying that, sponsorships are involved in determining selections and playing time; or that, or of a player saying that, team higher ups (other than "veterans") are involved in determining them. We do have Carli saying that veteran support matters; and that the US soccer system identifies and "anoints" players they think are going to be the best, for whom the red carpet is rolled out, although she doesn't say that determines selections and playing time rather only that an "anointed" player will be given the best possible path to success (red carpet rolled out).

    Should veteran support matter? I think the answer is, "probably," but the question is how much -- I'd say, a little.

    Should US soccer identify players it thinks will be the best and put them on a path they think will lead to success? I think the answer is, "yes," but the question is does their having identified such players create a bias that keeps them from seeing and advancing other players or from seeing that an initially identified player isn't going to pan out? (As I understand the men's developmental systems in major soccer countries around the world, they do identify players they think will be the best at a very young age and do put them on a path they think will lead to success. Is something wrong with this?)

    PS - no criticism of hocbz intended. I appreciated the effort to remember the details what Carli wrote.
     
  17. luvdagame

    luvdagame Member+

    Jul 6, 2000
    #142 luvdagame, Mar 14, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
    ”red carpet rolled out for you” applies somewhat to sullivan (i’m sure there are other examples) too (midfielder of the future, captain of youth teams, call ups out of college).

    i picked her to make this wc roster, but unless something untoward happens she’s not making it.

    i’m sure it goes against some people’s personal script, but that’s not how you make the team in the final analysis. The coach has to see a fit for you.

    zerboni and mcdonald didn’t have red carpets rolled out for them, and it looks like they’re close to making this wc team.
     
    cpthomas repped this.
  18. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    I thought Hope Solo touched on the sponsorship issue if Carli didn't, somewhere, when she was running for USSF president. How it's all linked to SUM and the establishment leadership. Maybe in a recorded interview. I feel like I"m not making this up. Granted Solo has an axe to grind with a lot of people but it wouldn't shock me if the moneymaker players, through sponsors/merch etc., get some level of preferential treatment.
     
  19. luvdagame

    luvdagame Member+

    Jul 6, 2000
    evidence tho?

    isn’t hope herself some proof against this?

    how many breaks did she get....
     
  20. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    Not sure how Hope is evidence against this issue. She did lose some sponsors but she was still the biggest name on the team for a long time. It didn't hurt she was the clear best at her position, either. With a player like Pugh or even Morgan it's not clear that they are the best in the country in their position and maybe other factors come into play.

    Also, Carli seems to be on the team for her name more than skill at this point.
     
  21. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    but have they or will they ever get a real chance to prove themselves? They don't even play. Carli will come on as a 9 sub before McDonald or Christen, which is ridiculous imo.
     
  22. luvdagame

    luvdagame Member+

    Jul 6, 2000
    #147 luvdagame, Mar 15, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
    hmm...there's hundreds of hours of tape of them playing and staking their claim to the coaching staff in camp.

    maybe we should get fox to put that (instead of a glorified 2 hours) on tv.
     
  23. goaleemama

    goaleemama Member

    Nov 10, 2011
    Not to make it just about Huerta, because there are several players I think who should be there, instead of the ones who I'm scratching my head over. Huerta comes to mind because she is the player I've seen, in person, play the most. I could go along with what you're saying if there weren't players with MUCH greater recent success waiting in the wings, than those who were called up.
     

Share This Page