What happened to the 1-2s?

Discussion in 'USA Women: News and Analysis' started by jd6885, Sep 2, 2007.

  1. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Is it just me, or is this team missing a key element the '99 winners had, namely 1-2 passes. In the past few games, it seems like it's been all direct play and not enough creative chances like 1-2 passes to get by markers or ...faking to one side of the field and then passing in a cheeky through ball right down the middle.

    Maybe it's because they've been playing 4-2-4? But you'd think with 4 forwards, it'd be harder to get space in the final third so 1-2s would be the way to go, but instead we just dump the ball to the forwards' feet and they attempt to get by their marker 1 v 1.

    I'm afraid that in the world cup, this won't cut it. We might have to rely on set pieces again. I can't see how these direct, non-creative games we've been playing will get through the defenses of North Korea and Sweden. They're just too organized all over the field.

    Coach Ryan, can we please work on the creative aspects of the game? We've been playing some ugly soccer, even against weak teams like New Zealand and Finland.
     
  2. hasselhoff

    hasselhoff Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    The USA scored three goals in each of its last two matches against Sweden, including in this year's Algarve. I'd take that any day.

    I think most of the accusations that the US is playing 'ugly' soccer are overwrought. It's a messy game. Most goals aren't that pretty. And it wasn't until this summer that the US started scoring so many set-piece goals. If you look at last year's results, almost every single goal was out of the run of play.

    Marta can score all the pretty goals in the tournament as far as I'm concerned as long as the US ends up on top.
     
  3. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But you have to say, against more difficult teams, direct balls won't do. We may eek out 1 or 2 goals and defend like bulldogs all over the field, but what happens when we are down a woman... It'll be like the Athens olympic final all over again. Not that we were a woman down in that game, mind you--what I mean to say is, more creative teams will be able to manipulate the pressing midfielders in such a way that it leaves gaping holes on the wings. The USA was VERY lucky to eek out a win in Athens. They could have easily been down 3 goals, were it not for the unlucky post shots. Being a 1-dimensional team will not win a world cup. I think we saw that in 2003. I don't see the magic that was there in '99.

    We were lucky the past two years with the results. This year's four nations tourney in China, for instance, were 0-0, 1-1, 2-0 games against a shaky German side, an up-and-coming England side, and a rather lacklustre China side. How will this team face up against a full squad Norway team or Brazil team? Both are equally as athletic as the US, but both are considerably more creative in the midfield and final third.

    All I've seen from this USA side so far is pressing, pressing, pressing, and hard tackling. Most goals were ugly scrimmages 8 yards in front of goal.

    The only other positive I see from this team besides their iron clad will to win every ball is the long shot. Overall, this has been one of the better sides in the world with good, hard shots from outside the box.

    on a side note referring to the US's physical play... I'm also worried we'll get that @sshat swedish ref (Palmqvist, I believe) to ref a crucial match. She doesn't give the US anything ANYTHING, she especially doesn't like the US's physical play.
     
  4. mathisfan13

    mathisfan13 New Member

    Sep 29, 2003
    Ohio
    1. The US team that played in this year's Four Nations Tournament didn't include Wambach or Lilly or Rampone or Boxx. And since then, we've seen Carli Lloyd really step up her game, Lindsay Tarpley contribute more, and Boxx regain her starting position. I think using those results to base how the team will do in the World Cup is a bit like using pre-season results to determine how a team will do in the playoffs: the pre-season was prep, but when it comes down to it, the team is probably going to be different in the playoffs.

    2. I don't remember seeing much creativity out of Norway earlier this summer. Sure, they play a different style than they used to and Gulbrandsen is a great player...but I would hesitate to include them in a discussion about creativity.

    3. Who cares if the US presses and tackles hard and plays ugly soccer? In the end, all that matters is that Kristine Lilly hoists the World Cup in 26 days. It's like...how fans of the Brazilian men's team are never happy how their side plays. Some US women's fans could watch a team of 11 Mia Hamm's and still say the magic of 1999 isn't there. This is a different team, playing under a different coach in a different time in the evolution of women's soccer. Maybe all-out attacking won the World Cup in '91 and '99, but maybe it's defensive positioning and a will to win that determines the winner this time around.

    I will agree with everything about Athens though...better finishing from the Brazilians and that match would've been decided in regulation.
     
  5. hasselhoff

    hasselhoff Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    mathisfan refuted most of your post pretty well, so I'll only add that:

    1. It's absurd to claim that a team that hasn't lost a game in the last 2.5 years is merely lucky.

    2. Norway is more creative than the USA? I can't believe anyone who's ever seen both teams play could make that claim. Even if true, you might remember that the US beat them less than two months ago, and has beaten them 7 or 8 times in a row. Was that luck, too?

    3. I think many fans have rose-colored memories of the past. We remember the beautiful goals, the awesome dunks, the clutch hits and forget the ugly moments where players slog it out. I was at the '99 quarter against Germany, and I don't recall any of the USA goals being works of art. I do recall that the USA won.
     
  6. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ok ok maybe I'm over reacting :D

    I'm just obsessing over the world cup we've got to win it! Olympic gold is nice and all but we all know the world cup is all that matters. 2 years undefeated? That means nothing coming into this world cup.
     
  7. CAFAN

    CAFAN Member

    May 30, 2003
    The notion that direct play won't work against the 'better defenses' is a myth. In fact, after the 2003 WWC, the FIFA Technical Committee took note of the 'direct' styles of the semi finalists (some might argue with that assessment) and commented on their match statistics showing a high number of goals scored on 2 (3?) or less passes. Of course long balls are low percentage proposition, but so is everything else - soccer is a low scoring game. If anything, the long ball myth is likely perpetuated because failed long ball attacks are more obvious than passing plays that peter out before amounting to anything.

    It's natural that USA fans will worry about the play of the USA being too 'this' or too 'that'. No matter how good the USA team is or how long its been since a loss, 'stuff happens' and there is no guaranty of gold. :)
     
  8. hasselhoff

    hasselhoff Member

    Mar 22, 2005
    I completely agree. And no matter how good any one team is, anything can happen in a single match.
     
  9. Bookthekeeper

    Bookthekeeper Member

    Jul 15, 2007
    DFW
    Im still standing by the US beating the shit out of themselves this game. Yeah NK is every bit deserving of their place on the FIFA charts but the US just didnt play up to the standard youd expect from a 2 time champ.
     
  10. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think we showed today that Direct play doesn't work against good defenses. We need the support of the midfielders in the attack. Dumping the ball to the forwards didn't work against N. Korea. They shut down the forwards well, and completely dominated the midfield. See what happens when the midfield isn't doing its job?
     
  11. mathisfan13

    mathisfan13 New Member

    Sep 29, 2003
    Ohio
    Honestly, this was a very young US team. No matter what the stats say about the US being the oldest team in the tournament, they still had 5-6 players making their World Cup debut. Most of us have no clue what it's like to play in a stadium half a world away from home with thousands of Chinese and North Korean fans screaming in a World Cup match.

    Yeah, maybe they weren't perfect, but I have a feeling this is a starting point for the US, not an ending point.

    And with all due respect to the players on this World Cup team, the teams who won the World Cup in 91 and 99 were different...
     
  12. Bookthekeeper

    Bookthekeeper Member

    Jul 15, 2007
    DFW

    Of course and I agree with your post but theres a certain amount of team experience you expect to carry over. I knew going into this match that an Asain team in an Asian WC will be tough for anyone. I knew NK wasnt going to be a walk in the park. NK taking it to the US is no surprise to me. How the US played in response to that was however. The US let them have the midfield and coupled with the consistently poor clearing and decision making lead to further dominant NK possession. You just come to expect better fundamental play from a team considered the best.
     
  13. mathisfan13

    mathisfan13 New Member

    Sep 29, 2003
    Ohio
    Agreed. But I think nerves played a big part. Yes, Shannon Boxx didn't play her best, but Chalupny and Lloyd have never been in an environment like that. If that match were played here, with fans cheering for the US, I think it would've helped the players maintain their composure.

    Having composure in the midfield in two straight World Cups on home soil is one thing. Staying composed after being shaken up by a goalkeeper mistake and getting the game taken to you in a World Cup game in China is something completely else.

    I don't disagree that the US didn't play to their highest capacity...I just don't think we should be so hasty to chalk it up to the players simply not being as good as their '99 counterparts. I don't think that's what you're saying, but some other people in the post-game thread seemed to be saying that.
     
  14. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is one of the few times I hate being right. Look at my posts (#1 and #3). They were right on the money. USA fans, get used to the disappointment if this is the style of play we're going in tournament with. Stupid long balls or crosses to Abby's head won't do, especially if there's only 1 or 2 other people in the box with her. If there were 5 in the box...ok. But for cripes sake, try something more creative on THE FREAKING GROUND. Short passes, chips over the top, dribbling, ANYTHING but the STUPID direct crosses to Abby's head (ok maybe once in a while when there's enough people in the box with her).
     
  15. mercersoccer

    mercersoccer New Member

    Aug 27, 2007
    The points you have made are exactly correct. The midfield play from Chalupny and Lloyd wasn't bad against NK, rather the US never used these two players, who make the team go. Boxx was sad. Every touch was an adventure, and anything she was able to settle was a big ball back over the midfield into the teeth of the NK defender. Most of the balls that Chalupny and Lloyd handled were scraps bouncing back off the NK defenders or after challenges in the midfield. Lloyd actually started both rushes leading to the goals out of the midfield, once winning a header on a bad long ball (Abby's goal) and then winning a 50-50 ball and flicking it wide to start the sequence leading to O'Reilly's goal.

    The US back line and Boxx need to recognize that balls have to be played into the feet of Lloyd and Chalupny if we are going to be successful.

    Lloyd is a dynamic talent that makes everyone around her better. She has great vision and distributes the ball very well, and has the ability to run at defenders with the ball on her foot, which we haven't seen in the US midfield in a long time. Lloyd also has the hardest shot on the team, which makes the defense step up and opens 25 and in for the attackers. The attack is so strong when the game is played through the midfield, which is the way they handled everyone at Algarve. Lloyd's game has opened things up for Abby and Lilly and the others, as Abby has said again and again. Chalupny is great paired with Lloyd, and is solid and steady.

    Boxx as the holding/defending mid needs to pick her game up and force the play through the midfield. If she can't clean up her game, Osborne needs to get significant time. Really, the team is way better with Osborne behind Lloyd and Chalupny. There's chemistry with those 3, and Boxx doesn't work as well with them.
     
  16. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So hasselhoff and mathisfan, do you still stand by your thoughts before the world cup?
     
  17. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Tacoma
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I must have glazed over this point somehow.

    What I meant was that the Norwegians are adept at finding the open player and stretching and manipulating the defense. They're creative in the way that they are very, very good with the final pass. They don't always play it to the obvious player, instead, they can spray the ball to the side onto an on-rushing midfielder and not just the obvious forward (Abby)
     

Share This Page