your 23 for france

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by luvdagame, Apr 9, 2019.

  1. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Ellis is a really good coach. But there's a reason why most successful teams and coaches don't go through more than one World Cup cycle and maintain the same success. Embedded coaches tend to get more conservative. An old roster with a couple "blast from the past" old-timer picks is safer than taking the untested. Bruce Arena wasn't a worse coach in Germany than he was in South Korea, just more risk averse. Ellis did win a World Cup, and I don't consider it luck or "the players", she was part and parcel of what happened. But I'm not sure she's willing to roll the dice.
     
    jnielsen repped this.
  2. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Brian played 17 minutes in the Red Stars' first game, 27 in their second, and 61 in their third (which she started). That looks like she was getting close to match fit before the WNT players left their NWSL teams, roughly 6 weeks before the World Cup begins. The WNT has three matches to play before heading to France.

    Given that, I don't think it's possible to know that "Brian is not match fit." She may be match fit now or she may be by the time the World Cup begins, or neither may be the case.
     
    jnielsen, RalleeMonkey and Knight1Rider repped this.
  3. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Oh, I think it is. Experience shows that players with similar minutes, coming off of an injury, yet included in a World Cup or Olympic (women's) squad, just don't get there.

    But what's done is done. Hopefully the U.S. does well and avoids fatigue and cards and doesn't need to go too deep into the bench.
     
  4. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    For this team, the tournament starts in the quarters, in Paris, against France.

    Davidson could back up Dunn if O'Hara is hurt. But I don't think you bring Krieger to start TD out of position against France.
     
    jnielsen repped this.
  5. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    That she thought to call Brian in so she could get hurt so that she could call in Zerboni? Why not just call Zerboni?
     
    kolabear repped this.
  6. Kevin625

    Kevin625 Member

    Jan 4, 2016
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    OMFG, NO! As I said before, you don't understand Variance or statistics at all.

    Variance has nothing to do with their statistic being good/bad/high/low, rather the accuracy (margin of error) of it.

    Have you ever seen a statistic with a Variance/Standard Deviation/Margin of Error listed? It's always ± X (plus OR minus).

    The smaller the sample size, the greater the variance will be (higher or lower). The statistics for both players have a small sample size, so the margin of error (accuracy) of the statistic is going to be very high.
     
  7. Kevin625

    Kevin625 Member

    Jan 4, 2016
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    LOL... did you just start watching this team in the past 2 years?

    Do you realize Jill Ellis also said she wouldn't take Rapinoe to the Rio Olympics unless she was match fit?
     
  8. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    No, that she wanted Brian over Zerboni, but only if she could prove she was not excessively fragile. It is a thing coaches have been known to do. It might not be an either or situation until and unless Brian does get hurt again...
     
  9. Knight1Rider

    Knight1Rider Member

    Arsenal
    United States
    Oct 5, 2018
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes I do realize that, but I believe Ellis has learned from that to some extent. In 2016, Rapinoe was a key player, and it hurt the team for her to not be able to play much. In 2016, Brian was a key player as well, but in current circumstances she is a backup #8 or #6, so she isn't as important to the team (at least on paper) as Rapinoe was in 2016. Her selection is definitely risky, but it is less risky than Rapinoe's was. Ultimately she has bigger upside than Zerboni, as she is world class when injury-free and adds an element to the team that no one else seems to have. And since she appears right now to be only a depth piece (we never know how things will work out (2015)), I'd say she is worth the risk, especially considering how.impactful she was in the last World Cup.
     
    Number007 repped this.
  10. lil_one

    lil_one Member+

    Nov 26, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Because O'Hara has played more minutes than Brian recently. And while Brian is a backup player, O'Hara is really the only true outside back we have, so I think we're hopeful. But we could have the discussion about Krieger, who I think was likely the one chosen as that "last player" who will be the "glue" and provide veteran experience from the bench.
     
  11. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    Maybe. Brian can still get hurt in the first game of the World Cup. I doubt they will push her that much. Plus, the starters will get most of the minutes if Ellis goes by her usual SOP.

    The possibility of being "stuck" with Brian if she doesn't get hurt is too big a possibility. We have to assume that Ellis prefers Brian over Zerboni and prefers Long over Zerboni, and prefers to take 7 forwards over coverage for Dunn or Ertz.
     
    Kevin625 repped this.
  12. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Well, the only true outside back we're taking to France, and that's if you ignore the fact that she's a converted striker, but then most USWNT seem to have started out as strikers or forwards (ahem, Crystal Dunn), but I digress. Given that Casey Short and the player who shall not be named lest the trolls arrive weren't selected, this is a potential problem of Ellis's own choosing.

    I've spent the last four years defending Ellis's performance in Canada, but she really seems to have capitulated on this roster selection. Of course, in the end, it might not matter. This squad can win it all. It can also lose on penalties in the round of 16. I guess we'll find out soon enough. History is written after the fact. If the USWNT wins it all, our concerns about healthy players will be considered quaint and uninformed, and Ellis winning a second World Cup will be forever considered one of the all-time greats. If it goes upside down, Canada becomes a fluke. Meanwhile the reality is likely somewhere in-between.

    In 2002, Portugal and Korea playing to a boring tie would've seen them both go through and the U.S., dropping 3 goals in the first five minutes to Poland would've choked away a great opportunity after upsetting Portugal. Conversely, in 2006 had the U.S. beaten Ghana in the third game, the "failure" of Germany wouldn't have been. The reality being that in both World Cups, the U.S. held it's own fate. It choked both times. Once it was saved by the result in the other game. History remembers the two World Cups very differently. Was Bruce Arena the genius of 2002 or the past his prime too long in the job coach of 2006? This is why I try to avoid absolutes. And the WNT is the Brazil of women's soccer. We can win no matter who we take, but we've also reached the point in the women's game that there could come a 7-0 beat down like Germany put on Brazil in 2014.
     
    jnielsen, Namdynamo, Gilmoy and 4 others repped this.
  13. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    2003 - 20 player roster. With 18 field players we took three injured players/players not fit - Hucles, Slaton, MacMillan. Then Brandi Chastain broke her foot in the opening game against Sweden.

    Kylie Bivens was thrown under the bus after the debacle against Germany, but it was all predictable. We had an old roster and six games in 3 weeks with cross country travel chewed up the team. Eventually the two green players Boxx and Bivens were thrown in the deep end with almost no international experience because we continued to play Kristine Lilly 88 minutes a game every game because you don't get to 354 caps if you're trying to develop players.

    And Boxx and Bivens only were added late because even Heinrichs finally realized she couldn't get the whole band back together because Lorrie Fair was trash by that time of her career, and with the decision to take three walking wounded players - leaving the team with 15 healthy field players (before Chastain's broken foot) pretty much forced her hand.

    At least Ellis gets an extra pair of players, but the team potentially has an extra game over 2003.

    I've long said that if you get to 10 caps with the WNT, your odds of getting to 100 have to be something like 90%. It's ridiculous. It also shows how little the USWNT program values player development and instead how much it is beholden to marketing and promotion interest.

    After Tokyo next year, the USWNT won't play a truly meaningful game for nearly 2 1/2 years (until CONCACAF WWCQ). I'm guessing Alex Morgan and Crystal Dunn and Malorie Pugh will play in 95% of those friendlies. Same as it ever was.

    Instead of us discussing 15-20 players that could've gone instead of Long, Krieger, and Brian, we've got a list of at best 5, and only a couple of those (Short and Hinkle) are real head scratchers. There are something like 300 NCAA D1 Women's Soccer teams pumping out a steady supply of players. The 2019 NWSL season is the tenth year in the last eleven that there has been a fully professional women's soccer league in the United States. Nobody else on the planet has anywhere near the breadth and depth of talent available as we do. Other countries send their stars to our colleges for a reason. The fact is 50-60 players should be getting caps and callups in the two fallow years. We should have a huge pool of options. Instead we take players like O'Hara and Brian that have just returned to the field - leaving out how excruciatingly old this roster is, and what a grind 7 games in three weeks is at the World Cup level.

    But then again, this is where we are. The same place we end up every 4 years since 1995.
     
    UxSxAxfooty, jnielsen, Namdynamo and 6 others repped this.
  14. blissett

    blissett Member+

    Aug 20, 2011
    Italy
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    It was 7-1, although it's a mere detail and it doesn't take anything away from your reasoning. ;)
     
    MiLLeNNiuM and AndyMead repped this.
  15. Number007

    Number007 Member+

    Santos FC
    Brazil
    Aug 29, 2018
    I agree with a lot of this, but not all.

    1. Other countries have reached critical mass. Having more good players does not mean the US has a greater chance of developing more great ones. Now that some countries have a pro path, its game over in terms of - Nobody else on the planet has anywhere near the breadth and depth of talent available as we do.

    2. Our system is not designed to produce elite soccer players. They have limited value in the USA. The "value" is as female role models and monetizers of nationalism in a sport where we dont experience glory on the mens side. In that regard image is more important IF you can take winning for granted. For years, the USA could.

    3. Our players become pros far too late to compete with kids who are doing it at 12.

    4. Other countries send players here BECAUSE its more than just soccer. Most of them are not coming here for soccer. They are coming here for the rest of it
     
    jnielsen, Gilmoy and Kevin625 repped this.
  16. Knight1Rider

    Knight1Rider Member

    Arsenal
    United States
    Oct 5, 2018
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The USWNT's job is not to develop talent, it's to take already developed talent and win. Development of players is the U-20's or U-17's job. That's the system you should be blaming. The fact that Jill Ellis took Krieger and Brian over say Sullivan and Fox, is because Sullivan and Fox aren't good enough, and out of those players, Brian and Krieger give you a better chance to win. It's not Jill Ellis's responsibility to implement young players into rosters and games to develop them. Ertz WAS ready, Brian WAS ready, Pugh WAS ready, etc. The other young players are not.
     
  17. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    While I agree it's not a development program, I don't think this program does a good job of either scouting talent or implementing it properly. I have to believe there are fit players out there that would have contributed more than injured ones that continue to make rosters. There really isn't any reason to play Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, and Becky Sauerbrunn for 90 minutes every single friendly.
     
  18. Number007

    Number007 Member+

    Santos FC
    Brazil
    Aug 29, 2018

    "There really isn't any reason to play Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, and Becky Sauerbrunn for 90 minutes every single friendly."

    2. Our system is not designed to produce elite soccer players. They have limited value in the USA. The "value" is as female role models and monetizers of nationalism in a sport where we dont experience glory on the mens side. In that regard image is more important IF you can take winning for granted. For years, the USA could.

    there is, and its got nothing to do with roster construction or developing players
     
  19. Number007

    Number007 Member+

    Santos FC
    Brazil
    Aug 29, 2018
    If Sullivan and Fox are the best products of the system, what does that have to do with the USSF ? Nothing. They are developed at private Clubs and maybe College. i saw maybe, because I dont think UNC is about development. They are about winning. the YNTs are not about development either.
     
  20. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    #195 hocbz, May 7, 2019
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
    Right. Spot on. Which is why they have to crash out of a couple more tournaments early and slip a few spots in the rankings for any meaningful change to take place. People won't care as much about these "stars" if they aren't winning anymore. The youth results should be alarming as well.

    I'm not convinced this is actually the current best 23 player selection. Rapinoe certainly wasn't that in 2016. Someone like Ohai or Huerta probably would have added more. I find it hard to believe there isn't a better relief RB than Sonnett (another youth legacy player who shouldn't be on the roster) or Krieger. Allie Long imo is on the roster because of nepotism. Aly Wagner all but said that - she's there for the locker room/Alex Morgan's happiness, not talent.
     
  21. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Actually it is. Players aren't instantly first team national teams. The WNT job is to identify potential international level players and get them up to speed. If Bivens and Boxx had 20-30 caps before WWC2003, not to mention numerous other WUSA Best XI players who never got a chance, the results might've been different. We wouldn't have been reduced to picking between past their prime old-timers, national teams coming off of injury (MacMillan was half a year out from a blown out knee and should never have been on that team) and completely inexperienced.

    So, sure, if you want to over-parse my usage of "develop" to mean - "teach the fundamentals of the game", yeah. It's not the WNT job to "develop" players.

    But if you take the denotative meaning of the word - meaning a progression of talent and skill, then yes, it is most definitely the job of the WNT to develop WNT players. There are plenty of skilled players out there, but you can't just throw them in the deep end of the World Cup and expect them to survive. The Martas and Landon Donovans and Peles are special players for a reason. Most national team players aren't born, they're made. Instead of endless promotional tours moving WNT players from 150 to 200 or 200 to 250 or 80 to 100 caps because it helps sell tickets, we should be taking talented, in form, players from the NWSL and given them 10 games to sort themselves out. If they don't progress, keep moving. We know the "federation players" will be there when the time comes, but we need to challenge those players and develop options. Taylor Smith is a perfect example. She looked great for a couple of games, then not so great for a couple, then she disappeared, then she got hurt. But she shouldn't have suddenly disappeared. At this point, we'll probably never know if she'd have been a usable WNT team because the WNT doesn't appear interested in doing that part of its mission except when players voluntarily retire and literally break a leg (like Abby Wambach).

    The reason why we're complaining about O'Hara, Brian, Long, Krieger without offering up many other options than Zerboni or Short or "you know who" is because nobody really knows what else is out there because pretty much every WNT head coach since and including DiCicco with the exception of Sermanni has all but eschewed voluntary player development.

    The MNT has its annual January "camp cupcake" where the Europe based players are left out and many of the top MLS based players also given time off. Instead the net is opened up to get a look at the next tier of players. The MNT has relatively few friendlies compared to competitive games, yet it continually gives out caps to a far wider range of players. The WNT is bound by marketing and promotional tours to make sure a minimum number of stars play in pretty much every domestic friendly. Which is all the team plays for 2 1/2 years out of 4 years. After winning Olympic Gold we routinely see 10 game "victory tours" featuring players who should never have another cap, but are trotted out for marketing reasons. We continually waste game after game of development with players who have all but no international shelf life to make the fans happy instead of preparing for the next cycle.
     
    UxSxAxfooty, jnielsen, Namdynamo and 5 others repped this.
  22. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    Um... how about 61?
     
    cpthomas repped this.
  23. Knight1Rider

    Knight1Rider Member

    Arsenal
    United States
    Oct 5, 2018
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And how has that development system worked out for the men?
     
  24. hocbz

    hocbz Member

    Feb 15, 2016
    #199 hocbz, May 7, 2019
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
    Hard to say. Things are changing for the better on the men's side, IMO. It's going to take time but the competition is so much greater.

    Wagner made a great point about this roster being very similar to the OG roster. Brian/Long/Horan midfield didn't work. Lloyd/Morgan offense was fairly anemic. Sauerbrunn was easily torched by fast players. Yet most of them failed up to the world cup, and there wasn't a whole lot of rotation in the squad. Some of that was absolutely coaching (I can't stand Ellis) but I think there's a ton of player mismanagement as well. Players being thrown into the fire and getting consistent starts, then having a bad game and never heard from again. Players not played in positions where they can thrive, because they are politically taken by the veterans (why was Huerta not given an opportunity as an attacker, but instead as an OB, a position she never played before her call up?). Players consistently starting and getting play time without really deserving it (Pugh over the last year). Injured players not being given time to recover, but taking up roster spots. The lack of reward for great NWSL play (menges). The list goes on. I have no doubt it's related to the system of contracts and allocations that lock the roster into a certain core. I understand why it's still necessary in the American women's game, but things need to change soon imo.
     
    jnielsen repped this.
  25. Knight1Rider

    Knight1Rider Member

    Arsenal
    United States
    Oct 5, 2018
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Although Ellis's decisions are always interesting, this is how the USWNT has worked for years. Great players rise to the top, they play forever, they retire, then the next group of great players come, they play forever, then they retire... (Wambach, Rampone, Lloyd -> Heath, Rapinoe, Krieger, Morgan, Sauerbrunn, O'Hara, Press -> Brian, Horan, Ertz, Dunn, Dahlkemper, Mewis -> Lavelle, Pugh, Davidson, etc.) The suggestion that the women should follow the men's development plan is pretty silly considering the women have 3 WC trophies and the men have 0. The USMNT likely would've beaten Portugal and perhaps Belgium if they had taken Landon Donovan over Julian Green (and yes I know Julian Green scored in the Belgium game).

    Also, we all know the NWSL performance thing is unrealistic. Lynn Williams outperforms Alex Morgan year after year, and we all know Morgan is better, etc.
     

Share This Page