Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by luvdagame, Apr 9, 2019.
Actually, I did make a list for the GK's, but didn't bother posting it.
Depends what you call "a look".
41 players seeing any minutes over 3 years doesn't sound like a lot to me, and that number is inflated by 4 of those players retired from international play (including Leroux with pregnancies), which you absolutely can't count as players "getting a look".
So that takes the number of players seeing any minutes down to 37.
Out of those 37 players going for 20 roster spots...
• Only 30 of them only played more than 60 minutes (barely more than a half)
• Only 26 of them played more than 200 minutes (barely 2 games)
• 18 of the 20 that made the WC roster played a minimum of 1,274 minutes
During our 22-game "experimenting phase" in 2016/17, did we really need to see 971 minutes of Carli Lloyd in that time-frame to know what we're getting from an aging player for 2019? She played 14 of the 16 games immediately following OG16 (and took the other 2 games off to get married). She's played 43 of the 49 games, missing 2 games to get married and left off the roster for 2 more games due to injury. She has played 43 of the 45 games she dressed for since 2016 OG.
Don't you think it would have been a good idea to use any of those minutes/games to look at anyone else? It's not like we don't know what we're getting with Lloyd. Why did we have to see so many minutes of her during the "experimental phase" when we're supposed to be looking at new players according to Jill Ellis herself?
Since the aging Lloyd is nearing the end of her career, wouldn't it have been better to give Lloyd a break and took more of a look at her later in the cycle to see if she still has it? There was absolutely nothing to learn from giving Lloyd 1000+ minutes at the start of the cycle.
I could go on and on, but it would be pointless since you are already somehow convinced that Ellis has taken a good look at players, when, in contrary, the truth is plain to see (with or without the data above).
Hinkle last dressed for a game on 3/9/16 (SBC). Her last minutes played were during OGQ (vs Puerto Rico) on 2/15/16.
PLAYERS DRESSED BUT NOT CAPPED
There's 3 players that dressed, but were never CAPPED since OG16...
• Brianna Pinto
• Abby Smith
• Margaret Purce
Jane Campbell in this list is a good example of the way the players are picked very young and all those not picked are ignored. JC was groomed through all the YNTs and was anointed the next great GK, even Solo's replacement (before the events of 2016 ended Solo a bit earlier than expected). She was called in and given a cap and a start just according to the "plan". This was before she even started in NWSL I believe. Imagine, an entire league of GKs, many American, and Ellis calls in and starts one that isn't even starting for her team.
It was only the horror show that was Campbell in those games (including defending a corner from in her own net) that they called Franch (the best NWSL keeper) out of desperation.
Bingo. And that's just Lloyd. I don't have any problem with her being on the France roster per se, but in the end she almost had to be because we have no clue who else might be. These are the same things I've been saying for 20 years, it's just that the names have changed from Kristine Lilly to Abby Wambach to Carli Lloyd to Megan Rapinoe and so on.
Lloyd wasn't going anywhere, and it would only take a few looks in the run up to the WWC to see if she can still handle the level of play. But that's not how the WNT operates and the only head coach in team history* to really try it differently got summarily axed.
*I don't really include Anson Dorrance as the landscape was completely different, and to be honest even DiCicco should probably get a pass, but since the launch of the WUSA, there has been a large cohort of professional players available that aren't on USSF contracts.
That is the rub though? The players are on contracts and are getting paid. To pay for those contracts, USSF has them play many Friendlies. How much the contracts can be turned over is anyone's guess. Whether any coach could survive a big purge has historically been no.
But failing in 2016 and embarking on a search for new talent and then basically bringing the 2016 squad to the 2019 WC is amazing.
And the potential losses on most of those friendlies are on the local promoters/hosts. Most of those hosting agreements include certain guarantees of a minimum number of "federation players" for marketing reasons - it's a lot easier to sell tickets to "come see Alex Morgan" than it is to "come see Ashley Hatch".
I fully understand the stars getting more games than they would in a system fully focused on winning the WWC and OG, but right now there is no balance. Paying the bills and feeding the marketing beast is where we're at.
In all this Equal Pay social media nonsense, I'm guessing the WNTPA doesn't really want what the MNT has. They want the best of both worlds. They want their guaranteed salaries and benefits as well as appearance fees and win bonuses.
If the "federation player" salaries went away completely, and the WNT paid players the same way - and in the same amounts the MNT players get paid, we'd see some change, but because the club income for women's soccer players isn't anything like men's club soccer, I don't see it happening.
And USSF, which is on the hook to pay the federation players, has a big incentive to play mostly them. For a year they paid Lynn Williams on a federation contract, but then also had to pay other players like Jessica McDonald who actually got called in. I think part of the reason why we keep seeing college players getting caps is that they're cheap. They get some team gear, and they get a per diem and travel expenses, but as amateurs, they don't get paid.
The financial incentives of the current CBA/state of the women's game are complicit in the lack of player development.
Having said all we have said, there is still no reason you need Morgan, and Lloyd, and Rapinoe, and Heath, and Horan, and Dunn, and Brunn every game. You also don't need to play them all 80-90' most run outs.
Even in the current contract and marketing environment, you could look at more players. You could also give more minutes to actual NWSL players over NCAA players. Why is Emily Fox getting minutes over Arin Wright?
You are persisting in claims that are not entirely true. Arithmetic is easy and the numbers are posted above-- do the arithmetic, willya?
You were saying?
She's played 28 of the last 29 games. The only game she didn't play in that stretch was vs Panama in WCQ when 7 of the 11 starters rested and we played our entire B team.
In those 28 games, she...
• started 26,
• played 45+ minutes in all of them,
• averaged exactly 80.00 minutes played
The reason your arithmetic is failing is because she had a lot of little cameos at the start of the cycle that are bringing down her average.
It's possible to play 80-90 minutes in a majority of the games and have a lower average if you have a bunch of 10-20 minute cameos at the end of a game as well.
"She???" You named 7 players-- hence my "not entirely" characterization.
And of course at this current stage of the cycle you will be playing your core a lot because you want them not just game fit, but Cup fit in a few...
If a player has a Jersey #, it means they were on the roster for the game.
Sauerbrunn played all but 2 of the games she dressed for. One of them was the Panama game 7/11 starters were rested. She missed 4 games at the start of 2018 with a foot injury.
42 CAPS, 39 starts, out of a possible 45 games she was available for (excludes 4 games she was injured). She played the full 90' in 34 of the 45 games.
Provide a counter-example then.
Current stage of the cycle, yes... but this trend started well over a year ago for most of these players... some at the start of the cycle.
By the way, it wasn't me that named 7 players.
Where you're making your mistake is that you're not looking at the data and just looking at the AVERAGE MINUTES of the top players, when the comment was about PLAYING 80+ MINUTES in a majority of them. When players come in for a cameo and only get 10-15 minutes, it's going to kill their average if they play 80+ minutes for a majority of their games.
80+90+90+80+90+10+20 = 460 minutes in 7 games = 66 min/game
That player still played 80+ minutes in a majority of the games (7/9), even though their average is waaaay lower.
Medians can be very important if you know when to use them.
With 6 subs in friendlies, a lot of the players that have high minutes played are playing 70-75 mintues and getting subbed in many of these games as well, which also lowers their AVERAGE... that still doesn't change the fact that they're playing a majority of the minutes in most games and the players that are supposed to be "getting a look" are getting a few minutes in garbage time.
Take a look at many of these players near the bottom of the list, they have single digit CAPs and very low AVG MIN/GAME... because they're just getting garbage time for the most part.
MINUTES PER GAME (Red is > 45 min played)
Merritt Mathias - 14
Ashley Hatch - 11, 14
Tegan McGrady - 33
Haley Hanson - 51
Danielle Colaprico - 15, 45
Megan Oyster - 37, 23
Kealia Ohai - 45, 45, 10
Hailie Mace - 90, 17, 33 (her 90 min was vs Panama... LOL!)
Savannah McCaskill - 45, 20, 11, 45, 19, 21
Emily Fox - 52, 75, 62
Sofia Huerta - 76, 45, 16, 17, 90, 28, 40
McCall Zerboni - 18, 22, 4, 45, 45, 28, 90, 45
THAT'S EVERY MINUTE FOR 12 OF THE 17 PLAYERS THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE ROSTER!!!!!
Btw, one of the other 5 players is ARod, which we've seen plenty of her over the years, so I don't think she counts as a player "getting a look", but here's her minutes just for completeness... 30, 15, 11.
Where can I find one of the hosting agreements that includes a guarantee of a minimum number of federation players? I'd like to read the exact language on that.
Agreed... most people already struggle with MEAN though.
The fact is that second guessing Ellis is, probably, a mistake. She has coached the US for quite a while and she has had a GREAT record while facing quite a bit of trials and tribulations. Until she fails we have little to complain about and it does not matter if she "lucked" into her record or got it by brilliance the fact is that she has amassed a great record.
We can question her roster choices BUT her roster choices have resulted in a lot of winning.
I have made, in the past, the stupid mistake of thinking that my choices might be better but it is very hard to believe that any different lineups would result in a better record.
I think all the statistics of playing time, callups and roster choices mean less than nothing and prove nothing except that there are people that are very good at choosing and using numbers to support meaningless conclusions.
At this point the only meaningful statistic is win/loss in matches that have real meaning and, on that, Ellis has excelled.
Until proven otherwise I will trust that the roster going to France is a good one and has the balance and brilliance to excel in France.
I have questions and concerns about this lineup but I cannot come up with a better one from the pool of players we have.
At this point I intend to sit back and enjoy.
BTW: The results in every match we have played since the last WWC are really meaningless except as they pertain to the evaluation of players and chemistry. Even the joke of the WWC qualifying is meaningless as all we had to do was beat a few CONCACAF women's teams and they are so weak that a good U16 team would have a better than even chance against all but Canada.
Every four years we play a meaningful tournament and everything else is just to find players for the next one. Jill Ellis seems to have done just fine and only the results in the WWC matter.
I do not really consider the Olympics as meaningful but others might disagree. It just has entry and other tournament rules that, for me, greatly decrease any value it might have. However the Olympics do have a little more value than junk like "The She Believes cup" and other similar make believe tournaments.
GREAT record? I think she won a WC which makes great record defensible. However, a strong case could be made that she her record is right around PAR. No more
I dont like doing this because it can descend into pure opinion. Lets just say i feel there are quite a few players who are pretty close who have vastly different USSF trajectories
Emily Fox vs Hallie Mace vs Paige Monaghan vs Midge Purce
Imani Dorsey vs Mal Pugh vs Ashley Sanchez
there are many other examples. Im not advocating one over the other. Im just saying that there is not much difference in my eyes.
HUH? What trials and tribulations?
The only thing she's faced since WC15 of any importance is OG16. Her roster choices, tactics and game management were single-handedly the #1 culprit in the first time the USWNT ever missed a semi-finals in WC/OG.
She failed miserably in OG16.
The USWNT always has a great record, because they're loaded with talent, we play 90% of our games at home, and play lots of tomato cans in friendlies and CONCACAF qualifying. You're giving Ellis waaaaaay too much credit for their "great" record...
Once again, look at the USWNT history. Winning a lot is nothing new... it's more of the same. However, her roster choice failure in OG16 directly led to us losing. Everyone in the world correctly questioned her roster choice at OG16 and now it's deja vu all over again, for multiple players. Based on her history, she absolutely should be questioned about her roster choices.
It's not like there's only 1 possible lineup that will end with positive results.
The conclusion is that Ellis didn't take a very good look at many players (something she continuously claimed she was going to do for 1.5 years) and set her roster very early.
Now that we have a couple injuries (something that is always going to happen), Ellis is desperately scrambling for backups and bringing in players that haven't played with the team in 1-2 years.
Wait, nothing counts (not even OG), but now win/loss in friendlies, many of which are at home against tomato cans now have real meaning?
The only two things that count are WC and OG. Ellis lucked into WC15 and was directly responsible for the OG16 debacle.
She already proved otherwise at OG16.
While I do agree that WC is far, far more pretigious, OG is still a meaningful tournament.
Winning 4-0 against Belgium in the last Friendly, when the roster had to be set in her head, Ellis subbed IN Alex Morgan. After playing 81' against Australia a few days before.
Coming off injury, Horan plays 64' against Australia and then another 60' versus Belgium. For what purpose?
Whatever Strawman you want to try and erect, we all know the top players have been played far more than necessary.
Not saying that your overall point doesn't have merit, but in the Belgium match...30 minutes from her hometown - - - ATG was getting CAP'd or the fans would have burned that new Stadium to the ground. But you can say that about every match.
Jeez Andy-- you can't use a calculator yourself?
This was the claim I objected to:
You also don't need to play them all 80-90' most run outs.
The players this claim was made about, and their average minutes per outing were:
Heath, Dunn-- 70
So one of them is over 80 as a regular thing. A couple of others probably hit it some. But this claim seems to me to slop well beyond reasonable hyperbole into something objectionable, given that it would be easy to frame the same basic complaint in accurate terms.
What it really comes down to again, is people don't believe a player has "had a look" unless we have seen them in a game, and that is just silly. If a player is in camp and cannot beat Kreiger in a sprint, or can just beat her in a sprint but is yards behind in whatever shuttle is favored these days, there's no reason Ellis/the staff needs to see her in a game-- she's not as good. Stopwatches are honest, and merciless...
The good coach can sort most cases just by what happens on the practice fields. It may be frustrating for those of us who want Kling back, and if I were coaching I'd want Short for situations where I need to shut somebody on the other team down; but it sure looks to me like Ellis knows what she's about...