USWNT v England (She Believes), March 4, pre/pbp/post

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by lil_one, Mar 3, 2017.

  1. BlueCrimson

    BlueCrimson Member+

    North Carolina Courage
    United States
    Nov 21, 2012
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That was definitely the most indefensible sub. Just.... why? Does Long have some secret clause in her contract that stipulates she has to play every game or something? There was no reason to take Mewis out when she was one of the two best players on the field.
     
    jnielsen and RalleeMonkey repped this.
  2. CoachJon

    CoachJon Member+

    Feb 1, 2006
    Rochester, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I watched the U23 England vs USA LaManga match and was sorely disappointed with the play of the NWSL high draft picks.
    Hatch got pushed around all game and could not receive a ball with her back to goal to save her life. Andrews did nothing for the attack or the defense.
    Lavelle's performance showed me she is playing at a way higher plane than the rest of the 2017 draft class. And I do not think she played with too much style at the expense of substance.
     
  3. babranski

    babranski Member+

    Dec 15, 2012
    Raleigh, NC
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    She said post game that she had a ton of space in the wide areas to work with. While I thought she looked good I can't help but wonder if she would have dissapeared in the muck if she had been playing in her more preferred CM position. Also can't help but wonder what would have happened if we had an actual winger in the wide areas & not central minded players. Can't help but think about what Thomis is going to do to us on Tuesday.
     
    kernel_thai repped this.
  4. Semblance17

    Semblance17 Member+

    United States
    Apr 27, 2013
    Lighthouse Point, FL
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #54 Semblance17, Mar 5, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2017
    By my own admission I tend to oversimplify things, but I think you may be slightly misrepresenting my argument, as well as those of others who have posted here. Of course in the context of a tournament of friendlies at the beginning of a cycle results aren't everything. But they aren't nothing either, and the way they come about can be very telling about a team's strength. "One play here or there" might have been the reason England was able to score, but not the reason the U.S. failed to score.

    I don't recall anyone implying that getting meaningless consistently positive results against weak teams would be preferable to playing friendlies against stronger teams in which losing is a very real possibility. But getting results and developing players are not two mutually exclusive endeavors. A loss does not by definition equate an optimal learning experience any more than a win by definition teaches nothing and creates complacency. Moreover, it's very difficult to prove in real time that a process as abstract as development is occurring. So although goals for and goals against aren't perfect indicators of how things are going, I don't think it's an flagrant error to consider them.

    All I'm saying is that since the U.S. couldn't finish last night, I would have at least liked to see them salvage a draw. Ironically the commentators were convinced that getting a draw was actually England's objective when they took their time with one of the corners that led to their goal. Instead the U.S. failed to protect their own net in the final minutes, which compounded their previous mistakes and was, to me at least, an extremely painful way to end the game.
     
  5. kernel_thai

    kernel_thai Member+

    Oct 24, 2012
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    And that's where we disagree. Until soccer gets scored like figure skating with the judges deciding match on style points and technical merit, soccer remains a very simple game...score goals. For all the wondrous things Lavelle did with the ball last night, one of them wasn't make a simple pass to a forward making a run toward goal. In fact the one pass she did make that could have led to something was ignored by the attacker who had already given up hope that she would do it. Give me substance anytime and if u want style in a cold arena, watch figure skating.
     
  6. kernel_thai

    kernel_thai Member+

    Oct 24, 2012
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    If ur gonna play this system u need wing players who r a threat to score so that the defender have to come out on them. Square pegs is dumb!
     
    jnielsen repped this.
  7. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Looking at individual players some:

    Morgan seemed to be a complete non-entity. I don't know if it was a failure to get open, a failure of players to deliver the ball to her when she was open, or what -- she seemed so absent I couldn't tell. I'm seriously wondering if her slight frame is ending up with a career that's finished.

    When Press and Williams came in, they weren't very effective. On the other hand, at that point it was a totally make-shift lineup so maybe it wasn't their fault.

    JJ was poor. She was involved in the muck-up at the end, but she also almost cost the team a goal earlier when she mis-judged a header in front of the goal. When she had the ball, it was "nervous" time.

    I agree with those who felt Mewis played well. In fact, really well, especially as the game wore on.

    Dunn and Pugh were ok, but they joined everyone else with poor shooting. The US had plenty of opportunities, but just missed them. I don't take this as catastrophic (at this point), but if it continues it could be a significant problem.

    Lavelle, for the first time out, started not so well, but played better as time wore on. Given it was her first cap, she did better than I expected. She made some very good plays, and got off one of the best US shots of the game.

    I thought Horan had a reasonable game, making some nice plays and passes. But, her speed of play at times was too slow and her pace is a little slow at ties in recovering to help on D.

    It was hard to figure out what Lloyd was doing.
     
    jnielsen, lil_one, Namdynamo and 2 others repped this.
  8. CoachJon

    CoachJon Member+

    Feb 1, 2006
    Rochester, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think she responded to the question about after you were moved more centrally, why didn't we see as much of you on the ball? I think her response was 'there are a lot of bodies in there' and followed by saying there was more space outside. I did not hear her say she had a ton of space or even use words to that effect.

    If there was a ton of space outside, I don't think folks would be complaining about her excess fancy ball work; she would not have felt she needed it. BTW, I think she agreed with you about the muck in the middle.
    And we do disagree in the interpretation of what we saw. And I think you misinterpreted my 'style' comment. I am not in favor of style over substance at all. But I do like sizzle with my steak. Many of the posts preceding mine praised her ball work and, like you, felt it detracted from her success in the substance of the game. My point was that I did not see it that way, overall I did not see ball work that sacrificed substance frequently throughout the game. So we do seem to disagree on that.

    I was watching a very first cap player actually seeing a lot of the ball and holding her own under the circumstances. In comparison, how many of the 'simple passes to a forward making a run toward goal' that you wanted to see from Lavelle did Crystal Dunn make on the other side of the pitch? Dunn had at least one excellent cross in the air that I remember. Do you count crosses as a simple pass to a forward?
    Dunn was able to work her side with more success than Lavelle did hers, but then it is Dunn w/45+caps vs. Lavelle @ zero. One would expect Dunn to out-perform Lavelle.
     
    cpthomas repped this.
  9. David 2016

    David 2016 New Member

    Mar 6, 2016
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Looks to me our team wasn't in good balance. The English team had good tactic. They locked both wings. When we started to figure out/Mewis took the ball to their center 1/3 more. The team looked dangerous for about 5 minutes then Mewis was sub out??? We need to balance out both wings and center. The center midfielders need to play more vertically.
     
    jnielsen and CoachJon repped this.
  10. David 2016

    David 2016 New Member

    Mar 6, 2016
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Well, it was a good game to test our options.
     
    jnielsen repped this.
  11. CoachJon

    CoachJon Member+

    Feb 1, 2006
    Rochester, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  12. Dundalk24

    Dundalk24 Member

    Jul 20, 2007
    PA/OH
    They conceded a goal that resulted from a corner. Set pieces issues again. You're not wrong that the result, and more specifically that goal, highlighted a major recurring fault with this team. However, I think it's important that people don't evaluate the overall performance on this specific match in a vacuum. England plays quite differently than Germany. England's record against the US is much more respectable than Germany's. Why is that? Is it mental? It's much more than that in my opinion.

    The US has scored 2 goals in 3 matches since the beginning of 2015 against England. The English girls don't tend to give up many transition goals because their defenders recover. In their own box they do several things very well...in my opinion better then any team in the world...they do a good job of marking runs off the ball, closing down passing lanes, shutting down penetration by players in possession of the ball, etc. It's a damn geometrical gauntlet they put out there. You may arrive at the top of their box but the "none shall pass" organization and mentality is on full display. And the great thing is they can implement this without going full bunker. The English do have a weakness to exploit, their set piece defense in front of goal still isn't good. It wasn't good in the World Cup and it is still an issue for the English, in large part because they are vulnerable in the air. Fortunately for them and not so much for us is that our set piece attack, as on the other end, has been atrocious.

    Converting chances to goals depends a lot on what type of shot you're taking. Getting many high quality shots against England is a tall order. It has been for some time. The most likely manner to thwart the English tactics is to score directly or indirectly from set pieces, cross for a header, or hammer an outside shot on frame. So, yes, the USWNT inability on each of these fronts was exposed. At last year's SBC the lone goal was scored from Dunn, a rocket from the corner of the box with three defenders between her and goal. Not going to be a high pct way to obtain goals, but hey it was a great strike from a tricky angle. The US's loan goal in a 1-0 win against the English (should have been a draw) in the lead up to the 2015 WC was a header from Alex. The US's loan goal in a 2-1 loss to England two months before the 2011 World Cup was a very long range low rocket from 25 yards out by Rapinoe that had to be struck perfectly, again, with three defenders in front of goal. The US had a gazillion shots that match, not very many of them high pct, and you can guess what the complaints were...no finishing. And the England squad of 2011 is not a patch on this group, the great Kelly Smith notwithstanding.

    But yes I know, they at least scored in those other matches. Only once. But they scored. But please bear in mind the occasion and timing. Those other matches against England were in the lead up to major tournaments, two world cups and an Olympic Games, when most of the roster and the starting pecking order was essentially set. They generated tons of chances in those encounters, more than in this match, but why was their conversion rate so terrible?

    Finishing is an issue for most teams. It's isn't just the French. Some people acted like Germany was an offensive juggernaut after lopsided matches against Thailand and Ivory Coast. Then what happened? All the coach can do to address finishing is change the line-up and cycle in new players, which I'm all for, however often that usually doesn't instantly solve this problem either. Players are up and down. Coaches generally are not goal whisperers. Even though Pia probably liked to think so (only for Lloyd when's she playing for the other team it seems). It's a between the ears thing.

    What you'll find is that underdogs tend to convert their fewer chances more often. Most likely because they play with less pressure with lower expectations. It only took one chance for the Swiss men against Spain in WC group play back at the 2010 to defeat the vaunted Spanish. A few weeks later the world was singing the praises of Spain, as not only champions of the world, but one of the best ever, even though over the course of the tournament, their finishing sucked. But hey they got the defensive break down and unmarked header they needed in the end. Finishing is an issue that is always a concern. It's never not an issue. Even when the players seem to go through stretches when they finish well. It's a skill that can come and go in a flash. It's like putting in golf. You can set the world on fire only to have it desert you when it matters most. Likewise a team can go through a prolonged funk only to rise up and find something in the moment. The important thing is to keep a positive outlook that the goals will eventually come as long as you keep generating opportunities, preferably good ones. Opportunities being the operative word. Because that is an area that is more than just a confidence issue. That's where the coach has a responsibility to develop players and a plan to make sure those opportunities come.

    So go ahead and worry and chafe over the finishing if you wish. But at this juncture of the journey I would much rather break down the individual players and tactical approach rather than fret over the pride wounding scoreboard. At the moment any one of these three teams is capable of beating the other on a given day. What if the roles were reversed? Would any of the other teams be able to stay as competitive with the other three, if they were in the same exploratory stage of prep as we are? I have some doubts.
     
  13. RevsRule

    RevsRule Member+

    NE Revs, LAFC
    Jun 9, 1999
    N. Eastern, Mass
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #63 RevsRule, Mar 5, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2017
    My summary is simply this. Two games, one goal Not good enough

    Saw a few bright lights and a few burned out ones. I think Lloyd is done. She showed little in two games except that she is too slow to run with our team anymore. England basically bunkered then counter attacked. They always had big numbers back on defense. Until Ellis comes up with a solution for beating packed in defenses, were going to see a lot of that. I just dont think she even sees it. We lost to Sweden last time we faced them and nothing has changed from out end since then. New faces but still no plan except cross it in and pray
     
    RalleeMonkey and Mojo Jambo repped this.
  14. Dundalk24

    Dundalk24 Member

    Jul 20, 2007
    PA/OH
    What was the most eye opening thing for me about Lavelle was that she fared well against the physical play. And England are certainly a physical team. This was one of my concerns. During this match, often US players would be bustled or bumped off the ball and the team lost possession. Pugh, among others, was simply bumped off the ball at times. Lavelle on the other hand held up better than most in this regard. You expect bigger players like Lloyd and Mewis to weather that pressure but Rose did well and she never seemed to panic. It was a better debut than I was expecting.
     
    BlitzSpiele, jnielsen and babranski repped this.
  15. Dundalk24

    Dundalk24 Member

    Jul 20, 2007
    PA/OH
    I decided to watch the match again just to see what in Sam's hell kernalthai was on about. So I was mindfully watching for this alleged Diva like behavior from Lavelle. Didn't see it.

    Who is advocating a style over substance approach here? Please point this out? Is there a new rule? You cannot take away anything positive from a friendly if the team doesn't score? People can break down individual components of a match and player performances regardless of outcome. Especially in the context of this tournament. You can criticize the finishing or the myriad of factors why they didn't score, but it shouldn't preclude us from looking at positive things, that in the future, demonstrate genuine possibilities to address those very things you are criticizing. It's about the pieces that will make up the whole. I'm looking at the pieces. You're looking at a half baked whole and bewailing that it doesn't match up to mother's roast. In order to find the right recipe you have to consider the ingredients.
     
    CoachJon repped this.
  16. Semblance17

    Semblance17 Member+

    United States
    Apr 27, 2013
    Lighthouse Point, FL
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And I thought my posts were long.

     
  17. MiLLeNNiuM

    MiLLeNNiuM Member+

    Aug 28, 2016
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Match is available on YouTube.
    I haven't watched it yet, but I hope to by tomorrow.
    I'll post my comments then.



     
  18. CoachJon

    CoachJon Member+

    Feb 1, 2006
    Rochester, NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  19. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    Lavelle's problem is she is not an outside player. Not only do I think she did well but she did exceptionally well for being out of position. If we play five in mid, I want to see Mewis, Brian, Heath, Pugh and have Lavelle as a 10.
     
    RalleeMonkey and Dundalk24 repped this.
  20. Smallchief

    Smallchief Member+

    Oct 27, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    Best players for the US: Mewis and Lavalle. The future 6 and 10? I'm not sure which one of them plays which position.

    Allie Long is good wherever she plays. She's too versatile to be left off the team -- although it's a long time to WC= 2019.

    Morgan and Lloyd: Nada.
     
  21. Dundalk24

    Dundalk24 Member

    Jul 20, 2007
    PA/OH
    Well apologies for my keyboard hemorrhage. My opinion is of no greater value than anyone else's here but at least you know my initial remarks weren't flippant musings.

    tl;dr version:
    • Look at the calendar. Also, consider the quality of the opponents and their tactics.
    • Worrying about finishing is like worrying about the weather. It's changeable. It comes and goes. I'll wait until we're much closer to crunch time to get a forecast.
    • You can cycle in other options and you can change tactics to improve shot quality, but in the end, bad weather is always lurking in this sport. No team is immune.
    • No new issues or problems that we didn't already know about were exposed in this match (aside from JJ but it's one match). But this tournament is showing that some midfield options may be evolving.
    • Putting the pieces together in 2 1/2 years means evaluating them. You can't solve the entire puzzle all at once.
    • Besides the fans that bought tickets and attended the matches not many will remember who won the SBC.

    As another aside, this is not a defense of Ellis. Every coach in the history of ever does stuff I dislike. It seems with every coach there's usually something they keep doing which consistently doesn't work but they keep doing anyway. I'm sure I'll be on Jill's case about plenty between now and France 2019. We certainly don't share the same view of Ohai and some of the subs in this match made little sense to me. But I'm glad she's showing that she's willing to take on younger players and try some unorthodox things. Even if in the interim the purpose of some of those things escapes me.
     
  22. kernel_thai

    kernel_thai Member+

    Oct 24, 2012
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Well Dunn did out perform Lavelle but I don't remember praising Dunn either. It's a simple game...score goals. U can deduce how well the team did by how many goals they scored. The offense ranged from awful to non existent. Lloyd only seems effective if u don't defend her. Morgan gave them a good 30 minutes followed by an invisible 30 minutes. On the right Dunn and Pugh both made some speedy runs up the flank but were very hit and miss connecting passes. On the left Krieger and Lavelle were chasing after English players as much as they defended. Mewis and Horan were more inclined to launch long range shots than try and pass the ball tho Mewis nearly got an assist by banging an ill conceived shot off the back of Lloyds head. Three days before England lost to France because the French can make a cross into the box including one on a set piece. Who were taking the US corner kicks to try and exploit this apparent weakness...Mewis and Lavelle. I can only assume they drew the short straws.

    As to Lavelle's first cap I think she did well if u keep it in perspective. Instead everyone wants to laud her as the shining example that the US does produce technical players. Yes she used a slick move to get herself out of a trap on the sideline, but if the US players knew how to basically work the ball up the field with short precise passes she never would have been trapped to begin with. She isn't a flank player and the lack of a goal scoring threat on the left flank allowed the English to pack the box on her side. Add the fact that Pugh won't shoot from the right side and we made it very easy to take r best attackers out of the match. Only Dunn seemed willing to take players on in the offensive end and that stopped in the 62nd minute when she went to the bench.
     
    CoachJon repped this.
  23. kernel_thai

    kernel_thai Member+

    Oct 24, 2012
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    I think Sullivan might have something to say about the future #6. Long will get her chance to show her newly honed CB skills against France. Hopeful she gets more support than Johnston did who spent the entire match putting out fires.
     
    jnielsen repped this.
  24. kernel_thai

    kernel_thai Member+

    Oct 24, 2012
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    The "make-shift lineup" that Press and Wiiliams got stuck with was

    .....................Press....Williams
    Heath...............Lavelle.................Pugh
    ...............Long...................Brian

    Unless ur saying it was Lavelle's fault, if u swap out Lloyd for Lavelle u have the starting midfield the US used in the Olympics. People need to stop making excuses. The US had two shots on goal. The rest were either long efforts or half chances. The only decent strike I remember was Lavelles. The current US offense consists of hoping real hard they can turn the other team over and get shots before they r back in defensive shape. That's how they scored against Germany. Part of the reason other than the coach is the team is constructed from players being forced to play out of position. U can add Lavelle to that list.
     
    RalleeMonkey repped this.
  25. babranski

    babranski Member+

    Dec 15, 2012
    Raleigh, NC
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't really see any contrast in what I said & what you or her said. Less bodies = more space, more bodies = muck? I can't say that Lavelle would have disappeared into said muck if she had more than 10 minutes or so to go about it, but Mewis showed me tonight how not to disappear in the muck. She was rather effective after the first 10 or 15 minutes.

    All that being said, she did say "there's a lot of space out wide" & she did so with a laugh.

     
    CoachJon repped this.

Share This Page