SHE BELIEVES (especially when playing against France) I believe that SHE will win. I believe that SHE will win. I believe that SHE will win. I believe that SHE will win.
There isn't a left back in the world that can keep up with Thomis. She's the fastest women's footballer in the world right now. She should go to Rio to compete in the sprinting, not soccer. Her speed is Olympic caliber, no joke.
The only thing she's missing is a few years experience to fine tune some aspects of her game. Barring injury, she will be unstoppable at the WWC 2019. It seems she is building some good chemistry with A. Morgan too. I think we have a lot of good ball distributors in the pipeline, who should be getting a call up soon. I wouldn't want to spend her talents in that position.
The shape, if you want look past the fact Ellis doesn't believe in shape, we are playing right now is: 1 center forward, 2 wingers, 1 attacking midfielder, 2 holding midfielders, 4 back. I'm a big believer that your starting position in an attack makes a huge difference, even if you go all in with the idea of interchange & fluidity. Some players play better when there starting position has them coming back for the ball from a position high up the pitch, while some players play better when they're starting position is much deeper and they receive the ball facing the goal. I think Carli Lloyd is the later. I know some people balk at the idea of playing Lloyd in a deep lying position, but I still think she plays better there at the 6 than she does at the 10. Brian, on the other hand, has historically played better with her back to goal. She composed in space, doesn't feel the need to turn upfield as quickly as possible, and won't force the issue if the play is not there. You want someone like that high up the pitch where the field becomes more congested, not 60 yards away receiving outlet passes from goalkeepers & center backs. I'd also like to see the triangle flip and have the US play with two AM's and only one holding. That way you can have Brian & Lloyd both in advanced positions, and their skill set's can compliment each other if their playing at the same depth. Finally, I don't understand why Lloyd & Brian have to be on the pitch on the same time all the time.
I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed this match. France is an excellent team and I expected them to press the USA's defense and create many scoring chances. When playing against higher caliber teams, you have to concede that they will make our team look bad from time to time. Especially since France was pressing a lot in the first half, which always gives the USA trouble. I would not have been disappointed with a 0-0 draw. Ultimately, France needed to put away their chances, which they seriously need to work on before the next WWC. France is known for their creativity, which I really enjoy watching, even if it's against my team. However, as the match wore on, they seemed to lose that creativity (most likely from lack of fitness). I really like what I saw from the USA in this match. They were stringing passes together and had a considerable amount of possession and for longer than I expected (that's why Ellis didn't make a sub until the 85' minute). Don't forget y'all that today's France makes every team in the world, even the mighty Germans, look bad in possession. France's only problem is finishing. Anyway, I love watching matches against top competition. Again, I believe that our poor play in certain instances of the match had more to do with the quality of the opponent rather than the shortcoming(s) of any of our starters.
Or having a lot of family and friends there. U have to figure they picked Nashville because it's close to Missouri.
Agree with most but not all of what you said. France was certainly able to break up any of the attacks we tried to put together, which reduced our possession especially in the first half, but our defense being in shambles multiple times in the 1st half was not all due to playing France. Yes, I expected France to get chances but not for our defense to be so disorganized (in moments) or to have several horrific turnovers. That being said, I think that when we consider who we were playing against, I think the team's play, as a whole, in this game was actually better than most of what we saw in Olympic qualifying. Nevertheless, if I was giving a report card, I'd mark it "room for improvement" instead of "satisfactory." And on the comments section of that report card: Areas of Needed Improvement: The defense needs to return to that defensive line that we saw in the WWC. (I expect them to in the next match; I really think that first half of this game was just a one-off, or at least I'm hoping so.) Of course, they haven't been tested much lately but they need to continue to work on communicating together. Against such a high-caliber opponent, we also don't need to be sending both OBs up. One has to stay back, and that takes communication. Second, I'd like to see improvement on free kicks and corner kicks. If Brian and Heath can't start doing better on them, then let's switch it up and try someone else; perhaps Horan can try some of them? (Honestly, I'm not sure here who should take them?) With both Rapinoe and Holiday out, we need someone to step up on those. Finally (and there's more, but let's keep it at three points), I'd like to see us improve in the final third. We were getting down there and building up attacks (you don't get 11 ck's in a match if you're not) but missing the final piece. That's not all on one player, and its a lot about decision making. However, I do think there's no harm in switching up the attack some and trying some different players up there. HAO? Or starting Dunn over Morgan? (I know, I know...I'm just sayin' trying it for one game not benching Morgan permanently) Or trying Press at the 10 position? There's lots of options on our bench, and we're not seeing them (and yes, we don't know what Ellis is seeing in practice but she's also not seeing what they can do in a game). I'm just hoping that its not the same front 6 against Germany.
Checked it out and Im shocked, but not surprised, that Ellis thought this was a good performance. Yes we had a good second half but OMG... France should have scored a pile. How is that a good game? I think it's more like Ellis is giving her formation and player selection an endorsement that not even the team is buying into 100%
Couple random thought before I do a re-watch 1. Thank the gods Lloyd isnt on a hot streak or she would have beaten Solo handily instead of hitting the post 2. Maybe they should give Pugh a shot at corners...she seems to have a very deft touch on the ball 3. Maybe instead of trying to play Horan into shape they should not play her until she is in shape (carrot/stick) 4. Germany started Benkarth (#2 keeper) against England and the world didnt end 5. While SBC hasnt produced textbook soccer they have managed to produce four extremely compelling matches.
I'd like to see the US play a few games against good teams without Lloyd. She looks confused about her role and noticeably a step or two slow for the teams slightly new playing style. Try Dunn or even Horan behind Morgan.
GIving you the benefit of the doubt that this wasn't intended as an underhanded insult to my soccer IQ (given your history, maybe I shouldn't?)... I'm not sure I understand how taking into account players starting positions during an attack make a game "simpler" to watch considering most people only seem to care where a player ends up in the attack. The distance a player has to travel, the angle, the energy she has to use up to get to where she needs to be at the moment she is when the attack comes her way . . . All that usually means I'm pausing and rewinding several times at critical moments during a match. I'm usually watching games on two screens, one that I keep live, and one that I used to rewind & go back to see how things developed. So maybe clarify why you thought it would be simple for me? Except of course if you did actually intend it as an insult... I'd rather you just not answer. I'm getting close to ignoring you like others suggest. There's just not enough opinions on WoSo from fans commenting on the game for me to want to silence one simply because they're being a pompous ass, but if you start one lining your insults like this I don't have much of a choice.
Back in Big D. What a Match, what a trip. Got to add 4 more board legends to the face-2-face list. Soooooooo that 1st half intense enough for everyone?!?!?!?! US Soccer should really consider dispensing blood pressure medication at the concession stands during the matches. An off-board friend asked me what I did to Le Sommer on the Tampa flight to make her whiff like that during the 11th minute. What I didn’t disclose previously is that for 2 hours and 13 minutes I telepathically sent negative vibes to her sub-conscious thru her seatback. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. I’ve read the thread and I concur – France (as great as they are) for whatever reason, doesn’t seem to get it done when the lights are brightest. However, I look at their front 6 and they scare the H out of me. Is it just the familiarity? Is it justified? I think so, I mean they’re great - we’re great. I really need to replay the Match a couple times to try to determine if mistakes on both sides were self induced or opponent induced. But in the end it was the Fantastic the Magnificent the Brilliant the Incredible the Amazing the Wonderful the Unbelievable the Marvelous……. Alexandra The Great Holy Moly – what a Great Pic, definitely my favorite for the next 48 hours until my newest favorite Pic comes out. Lil - I had to leave at the half (Eng/Ger) to catch a flight but the lower bowl went from packed to 1 out of 3 ish seats vacant. Although, not the absolute mass exodus that I would have expected.
For those of you complaining: the WNT lost to France 2-0 a year ago (and looked really bad doing so). Since then, they have beaten France 2-0 and 1-0. Improvement, no? I'm trying to get a handle on why some posters are so vehement in their criticism of Ellis, Lloyd, etc. less than a year after winning the WC. Is it because some think Dunn and Press should get more time? Would yesterday's match have been more like 3-0 or 4-0 with them in the starting line-up? If yes, what motivates Ellis to keep them on the bench? I am genuinely curious.
It's very interesting point. There r a large percentage of posters both here and at EQ that believe strongly that whoever is on the bench will do a better job than whoever is playing. Im not sure what the proof is because when Ellis does change players...ie KO for Krieger u have just as many people complain about Krieger not starting as u did about O'Hara not starting. It seems to be the grass is always greener next to the bench. Personally I dont think it's about personnel...it's about coaching. The amount of time these players r together is way above the curve for an NT and because of the CBA the team tends to have a very static roster. Ud think even in this period of turnover, the starting players r familiar with each others tendencies. Instead they look like it's a pickup game. And by coaching, I dont just throw this on Ellis. It's pretty obvious that most of these players lack basic team tactics. This may also fall a bit more on Ellis as she seems determined to play everyone at positions they have little experience at.
I hesitated replying this post but I do agree that this fanbase always thinks whoever is on the bench is better. As for the coach, some of it is questionable but if you have players failing at basic techniques, I'm not sure I want to lay all the blame on the coaches
Not really, though I confess I was trying to say as little as possible yet provoke a reaction that would give me some insight into how you actually watch a game. You gave me that, and I thank you for it; and I assure you I can tell the difference between you and Cannons even though you sort of react the same way to the games... Perhaps you know a specific thing that I do not-- does Ellis release a list of starters to the media and they arrange it in a formation, or does Ellis actually release something indicating a formation? Because if the latter, she clearly doesn't regard it as binding her even in the first minute? We have seen people listed in a d/hm slot in a configuration who went immediately to a withdrawn forward or even a lone forward location on kickoff. My take on her arrangements is that you have to watch what she has them doing, because you cannot count on their charted "where they are coming from" at all, and certainly not count on them to be playing in the same slot or with the same responsibilities in minute 30 that they were in minute 10 or will be in minute 70. In that sense it seems to me it is a matter of where they wind up in the attack and where they wind up in the defense, not where I think or would feel comfortable thinking they actually "belong." We see players criticized in this forum all the time for doing what it seems clear to me they are being asked to do, and substitutions criticized as though they must be for one purpose when it seems to me they are actually pretty obviously for another. The most simple-minded example would be the times Abby was subbed in late pretty obviously for her defense on set pieces, yet the sub was criticized by folks here because she is a forward so it must have been intended to produce goals, not prevent them... Incidentally most of the games I TIVO and watch after they have happened; and I run specific plays back and forth some until I feel that I understand what actually happened. Then I come on here and read what was said about that, and often feel a bit depressed by what people said at the time... I have difficulty knowing quite how to react to the claim that I am being pompous when it seems to me that I am reacting to pomposity-- I have been here, and I think mostly mildly so, through April, Ryan, Pia, Sermanni, and now Ellis, and watched exactly the same, often vicious, critiques about both players and coaches-- yet it is somehow beyond the bounds of propriety to rise to even a qualified defense of them? There is a good fellowship here that I am violating by suggesting that we not burn the witch and maybe not believe in witchcraft? All I'm really trying to do is nudge the board towards a little more thought and a little less emotionalism and contempt for the very team we are supposedly supporters of. If that is pompousness and asininity, then I plead nolo contendre. Ignore away.
You make a fair point about the WNT training together more than other countries. I had not really considered that. From my perspective, I see a team in transition from one that plays direct and relies on set pieces to one that possesses and builds from the back. I guess? I'm not sure that Dunn and Press would make a difference in helping this transition along. I am also skeptical about goals scored against poor competition. That being said, I hope they both start against Germany just so we can see if it makes a big difference. I don't think it will, but I've been wrong plenty of times.
Pugh is the only player on offense doing anything. Tobin is basically doing Meghan job. So her offense is suffering because she's always back helping her defend or playing her position so she can go forward. The center midfielders are basically so far back we can't create any offense.