The frustrating thing about this: there is actually a "by the book" tried & true method to defeating packed in defenses like Sweden. I don't necessarily think England played in a packed defense but the same method would have worked imo. Speed on the flanks, over lap, get to the end-line. The US' best chances came from the odd times when Pugh or another wingers managed to penetrate wide & get to the endline. I remember one play where Pugh sizzle a ball across the face of goal but Morgan had pulled her run up short anticipating a check back. Not a wrong decision by either player, but you can tell they never seem to be on the same page with that sort of thing. That's a training ground thing, & it's obvious Ellis doesn't put much value on it. I can't help but get the sense she doesn't know the "by the book" approach so she puts a bunch technical, creative players everywhere on the pitch & hope they figure it out among themselves.
My listening memory clearly needs improvement. So it seems I need to take the time to review tape! Where in the world did I get 'there are a lot of bodies in there'?
Oh, I think the WC run was way more substantial than this. This was a glorified friendly featuring two experimental squads, 3 years from a meaningful match. I mean, I can see how the English would be thinking (and you could see it in their reaction) "We beat America! We're somebody!" And, good for them. But, it doesn't have any more significance than their MNT beating Germany in the run up to the Euro's. Their (the English ladies') performance in the WC was much more significant than this.
The difference between the win v. Germany and the loss to England: Germany, we score on a slop, failure-to-clear, goal England, they score on a slop, failure-to-clear, goal
Well, possibly they were poor if the goal was winning the match. But, possibly they were not poor if the goal was testing players at different positions, in different combinations.
My overriding impression of the 1st two matches is that if you're going to take a defender out in order to have an attacking midfielder, Carli is not that attacking midfielder. She's never been a great passer (some would say she's sub-par for a midfielder), and she has a (well-earned) shoot first mentality. If we're going to play 3 in the back, Carli has to be in the forward rotation. In the tone of voice of Hagrid (is that his name) to Harry. She's a forward now. On top of that, if you are going to have 3 high central attackers, one of them has to be a gifted passer. In that top triangle, we've played Williams, Press, Morgan, Pugh, and Lloyd. None of them are going to make the unlocking pass. (LaValle was moved in amongst a mass of subs, in her 1st cap, for a short time. Not fair to judge her on that. Not fair! Someone in that three has to be an adept passer. To me, there are a couple of options. 1) if Carli is going to continue to play AM, then move Pugh to the wing and play Dunne as a forward. Dunne is the best passer of that bunch. Probably by a lot. 2) Move Carli to forward and play a natural AM. Try Lavalle. I'm sure there will be outcries, but I'd try Tobin. I'm sure some will react with "why change her position, now that she's proven such a great OM?" My response is that her position has already been changed. A 442 OM is quite different from a 352 winger. Some would call her position now "wing back." Why take our most creative attacking midfielder in ..... ever? (you would have to go back to before Julie Foudy replaced Akers as the attack-minded CM. I mean, playing Tobin as the outside mid in a 352 would be like playing Lilly or Milbrett, in their prime in that position) and saddle her with significant defensive responsibility? But, I digress. Other than, that. Mewis continues to impress. I liked her before the cup. Like her better now. To me, she and Brian are the starting CM's. I would think about moving Sauerbrunn to the middle of the defense and playing Krieger and the new girls as the outside defenders - whatever that position is called.
My stars...why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Although, speaking for myself, I'd rather win on PKs after a 0-0 draw then be sent packing from a big tournament after a 4-3 loss. It's not about goals. It's about winning. But...only when it actually matters. If you can "deduce" a performance just by how many goals are scored then why bother watching the matches? If you've followed women's soccer for any amount of time, you should know quite well that the teams that excel the most in friendlies in the years leading up to the two major tournaments often are not necessarily the ones that walk away with the trophy. It wasn't until 2015 that the so called Algarve Cup curse was broken. You know which coach has highest winning pct in US women's soccer history? Greg Ryan. Only lost once. I only render verdicts on this team based on two tournaments. The World Cup and the Olympic Games. Right now it is about the players. The players. It is only about the team...if you are talking about the team that will take the field two years from now. This is not the team that will play in France. And you know that. Hey, good stuff. You know what I like about this paragraph? You're looking at different components of the match and breaking them down. Fixated on the bad stuff, but that's OK, they did lose after all. But I think it's important to be able to take away negatives from wins and positives from losses. Last year I wasn't that buoyant after the SBC victories. I mean theoretically it's good that they might take away confidence after battling for wins against top teams. But several faults were exposed that just were not as conspicuous vs the Concacaf sides. I suppose you could celebrate some fabulous finishes in that tournament too. Delivering when it counted. Only that wasn't when it counted was it? You know why I'm more optimistic right now after, you know, we just lost? A lot of it has to do with the time frame and current priorities. What is the purpose of these matches? I agree with Dan Lauletta, who on the eve of this tournament said that the USWNT "will be fine win or lose" and they he couldn't "get behind the final result of this tournament carrying much weight." I find it interesting that you want to caution and advise others to keep things in perspective. Everyone? Really? In this thread? How about anyone? Because a poster put up a gif? You keep tilting at windmills. I have praised her for a promising debut. Better than expected. One of the better players in this match. You've gone off on her like she's a diva that doesn't make the simple pass. I thought she showed poise and usually made the right decisions. We may disagree on what we saw from her out there. But the style vs substance rumpus is misapplied in this match thread. There are no smug foreigners in here belittling US players or past USWNT success for lacking aesthetic qualities, not being technical, or not "progressing" the women's game. You're right they don't all have to be technical wizards to score goals and win matches. Funny. So you do really want them to be technical after all? Short precise passes? The Nadeshiko's forte. The thing is...tactically, that is exactly the style of play that England is set up to stifle. During the world cup Japan had a difficult time playing their style against the English and they had to adjust, mix it up, go direct at times. That's why I previously addressed the pitfalls of analyzing performances in a vacuum. Often in order to best learn from your own performance and tactics you need to consider the quality of opponent and their tactics. It's true that it's not just about finding the right players. It's about playing them in the most suitable spots to best help the team (and in some cases not to detract from it). But there is time. And there are some options. Sometimes the best way to figure out how to get more goals is to extract useful minerals from weaker compounds to forge a stronger alloy. That is not "fool's gold."
Offense - Yeah but it would be a different problem if they lost 4-3. That they r 1-1 in SBC with 1 goal scored and one goal given up. Lavelle - Ellis called her performance exceptional (hey, development is working take three). If Lavelle is exceptional I expect she will be starting at CAM against France. Do I want them to be technical? Only to the point where it fits in a team structure. You know what the mistake I made was...I watched Germany v France. For 90 minutes I watched how easily both teams moved the ball up and down the pitch against the others quality defense with short quick passes and coordinated movement. It wasn't about the europeans being more technical, tho most were...it was about being better coach and more disciplined. Just for fun here is the US line-ups based on preferred position vs Germany ........F.........F OM.....CAM.....F ......CAM......CAM OB........CAM.......CB vs England ........F.........CAM CAM......CAM........F ........CAM.......F OB........CB........CB
It's a little odd to criticize the US for only scoring 1 goal in two games and then compliment France and Germany for their better coached and more disciplined play in a game in which there were no goals scored.
Offense - I think what our offense needs is player(s) who can play with their back to goal, are strong enough to keep possession, and either make the key pass or turn & shoot. We play so often against packed defenses that our runs and through balls are crowded out. Morgan, Williams and Lloyd would do well to add these skills to their games. We also need a little more guile in shooting. No one fakes the shot, and dinks to their other foot to lose the defender anymore. Not only the defenders, but the entire stadium knows when someone is taking a shot. Hence, many of our shots on goal are blocked. We also need to switch fields a lot more and remember that possession must have a purpose. The Goal - Like many friendlies, the numerous substitutes disrupted the rhythm of the game. On their goal, players were not sharp enough on their defensive responsibilities. This may have also been the reason for England's successful pressure resulting in multiple corners at the end of the game. The subs were fresh and should have been able to cover successfully, but more practice on corners and other defensive situations is needed so that each player knows their job forward and backward. That said, the team has not played in many months and hopefully this will improve. The Tournament - I view SBC as having the same purpose as the Algarve Cup. It's a chance to try different things in friendlies. But, the games are against the best teams in the world. As such, it is an excellent venue to test new players to see how they do against the top competition. Results are not the sole goal. I think this tournament is a rare chance to play repeated games against world class teams; the amount of knowledge to be gained from this is invaluable. The Coach - I am cautiously impressed by the direction Ellis has taken since the Olympics. She truly is trying new strategies and players. I was anti-Ellis previously, but it recently occurred to me that she may have some actual coaching ability. She still has some blind spots, but with the right coaching staff to help avoid tunnel vision, USWNT could progress. The Players - I thought everyone played well. Mewis stood out. Horan has not found her niche yet, but she will be a valuable part of the team. Glad to see Lavelle finally made it and think she has a place on the team. I didn't see the panic others saw in Johnston, but will rewatch with that in mind.
Tom and Jurgen think otherwise . We now have a coach and and a technical director who have both failed in a World Cup. This last one is the first international tournament ever where the USA didn't medal.
it's really frustrating when people try to compare USSF decisions that affect the men with those that affect the women... as if USSF actually treats them the same.
I think we often use the words "skill" and "technical" the wrong way in our soccer culture. This article makes a great point! https://t.co/bYcn7pA8dA— Yael Averbuch West (@Yael_Averbuch) March 7, 2017 Was Averbuch reading this thread?
Good article. http://www.theawayendfooty.com/the-home-front/2016/3/1/skill-is-decision-making-not-scissors I quoted the most interesting portion.
Problem is Ellis has completely sold out the defense in an effort to get more offense. Long now a CB, Sauerbrunn out of position, going to a 3back. If u do all that and lose 4-3 u call it a trade off. If u do all that and can't score at all it's down right foolish.