According to an article on ASN, Ellis says that she is giving herself about 6 months to experiment and then start determining a system and players: I'm expecting/hoping to see a rotation of newbies and veterans for the next few camps. (The article also includes some quotes from Ellis, Long, and Sauerbrunn on the 3-5-2.)
I would hope that she finds a system and then populates it with the best players to make that work as opposed to past practice of picking a group of players and key holing them into a system
Pardon Interesting quotes from Ellis about a centerback being the QB of the team. I thought that was what killed us vs. Sweden. Johnston was playing the QB role - really badly. Her passing was very poor. And, Sweden was just baiting us into that. They were shutting down our CMs and Sauerbrunn - leaving Johnston wide open to dribble into the midfield and give it away.
I don't think it's all one way or the other. Rather, it's a process of looking at the potential players and the potential systems and figuring out what the best meld is of players and systems. It's not something that always is obvious, one way or the other. It takes experiments, some "no" results, some "maybe" results, and hopefully an ultimate "yes" result, that may keep evolving over time.
kernel_thai, since it's coming down once again to US vs Germany for world domination of the woso world, what you think of Jones new look? She's got them playing a lot speedier than Neid. Here they totally destroy the Dutch in the first half, Jones shows mercy and takes out all her goal scorers in the 2nd half. the thing what gets me about the US despite they're impressive wins is that it takes them the 2nd half to do it, and that's against teams from small countries like Netherlands & Switzerland that don't have any quality subs to spare, so exhaustion on the part of the regulars usually kicks in
Sorry to interject, but the funny thing is that the USA wears down even great teams, like Germany, in the 2nd half.
I think that was more a tactical (or strategic) chess match more than anything else. I thought we were discussing wearing down teams from small countries (with fewer quality subs) versus really great teams that are stacked?
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood your post. My understanding of your original statement was that the USA's impressive wins were against weaker opponents (who didn't have quality subs), and that those wins were only happened in the 2nd half after the USA wore them down. My counter to that statement was that the USA beats even excellent teams in the 2nd half (i.e., that they are a slow start group, for whatever reason). My apologies, if that's not what you initially meant.
I agree but take the current system she is playing with. U have to have a lot of speed to pull it off. The fewer players u commit to guarding the same size space, the faster they have to be. If I were experimenting with a three back the first CB I would have looked at was Menges.
I think the first step a new coach does is clean out people that were there because the coach liked them more than they were the top quality options. I think ur going to see that from Jones. The biggest problem the Germans have is the Bundesliga is like Rollerball. How many times in the last cycle was Neid able to put the 18 healthy players she really wanted together on the pitch?
my original post was mean't on the new Germany(new coach Stef Jones) vs the new US(all the new players Ellis brought in. In the past the US had it's way against Germany cause their coach, Neid, would gamble by playing a short passing possession game and bringing her fb's way up. But that would prove disaster the moment a high pressure, faster counter attacking squad like the US got a turnover. But at least Neid could say she had the last laugh by winning the Olympic games. Now Ellis has countered by finally bringing on way better performing players like Williams, Ohai, Dahlkemper. Still, Jones has switched the old German style to a much swifter attacking team while still keeping one eye on defense. Both clubs looked good in their last couple of squads, it's just Germany takes control tight away whereas the US only seems to do that in the 2nd half. So right now I would say Germany is better
I look at Sweden as 1) a one off, PK win by a bunkering team and 2) Ellis's stubbornness in going at Sweden full force, leaving the back exposed. Maybe she panicked a little since we didn't have a target to lob balls in to. 3) we had a pretty fair amount of turnover pre-Olympics. The new players may have been better, but the chemistry was significantly reduced. Players like Dunn, Pugh, Long, Press had were not enmeshed into the team. (I know Press has been in the squad for a while, but what was her role in the WC? - Germany, otoh, is a machine, in that they've all played together forever. They could make passes into their teammates runs with blindfolds on). I'm not saying Germany's not ahead of us right now. Hey, they just won the Olympics. Ultimately, I feel like we as USWNT fans have a sense that it is now a birthright of the WNT to be the best team in the world - and if they're not, something is wrong. On the other hand, the snapshot from the Sweden match is not really indicative of where the team is going.
Nice conversation going on. I'm going to digress a second. I don't know where else to stick this but if it wasn't mentioned, attendance was a very nice 23,400. Also, on Equalizer, a reader named Som Termanni posted the TV ratings for US matches this year. Please carry on
Well, until the two teams play each other, everything is conjecture. Although, historically I would say that Germany always seemed to get off to a fast start, whereas the USA always seemed to a slow start in their matches.
I think it's nigh on impossible (for me) to say "right now" who is better. Funny how only one year can change the outlook for some observers. But I'm not going to read too much into things in terms of the future, even the next stages of this Quad. Time will tell whether Germany's struggles against the US have been more of a coaching/tactical issue or a German mental issue completely separate from Neid. Germany are the Olympic champions but obviously didn't have to face their biggest historical nemesis. The US were coming off a World Cup victory and no World Cup champion has been able to back up the next year and win Olympic Gold. I used to engage in speculating how the US will fare against teams based on the eyeball test but it has always proved to be a fool's errand so I've learned my lesson. The results (and quality of play) so often countered expectation. Matches against overmatched opponents can be flattering to the eye and likewise frustrations against said lower opponents can often prove deceptively heartening to future opposition. And it goes much further than just playing down or playing up the level of your adversary. The complexion, formation, and look of the US team in a couple years is a fun speculative activity but is really reading tea leaves at this point. It won't really be until next summer we start to get a more meaningful glimpse of how things are really shaping up.
Heck, we didn't really have a meaningful glimpse of how things were shaping up in 2015 until half way through the World Cup.
I immensely dislike the idea that "chemistry" on attack is a requirement to success. There should be a system that any good/great player should be able to learn & inject themselves into instantly, regardless of who else is on the field. Know the system and do your job & it shouldn't matter if you've never played with half the people on the team.
I really disagree with this. System or not, people have their own idiosyncrasies. You learn to minimize the weaknesses, capitalize on the strengths. Get your timing down. Learn to trust each other in the system - so you make that run knowing your teammate is going to make the pass. Or, make the pass knowing your teammate is going to make the run. Or, improvise your own variations on the system. Just my opinion.
Chemistry is ridiculously important. I agree with RalleeMonkey here completely. Teams that ignore this (or other areas of psycho-social elements) are the ones that lose while leaving people scratching their heads as to how and why.
I agree, however, I though it important to add that the reason chemistry matters. I believe it's because teams cannot take timeouts or breaks during a half; therefore, the coaches cannot help their players figure things out on the field (except if you have John Herdman's lungs ). Therefore, teams which are made up of players who know how to work together (to solve issues), typically play more cohesive football. And a good team beats good individual talent most times. Ellis harps about this all the time, and I cannot disagree.
After reading this, I like this kid even more: http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/201...her-own-words-first-camp-first-cap-first-goal