All of the USWNT WC winners have looked vulnerable at some point. '91: Final only: Norway had much the better of it during the end of the first half. We scored first, Norway equalized, Akets scores 2 min from time. '99: Trailed twice in the QF vs Germany and the Final was even, and then Lilly clears off the line. 2015: Final was a walk in the park but the rest was a bit of a struggle. Still would go with '99: ---------------Scurry------------- ---Fawcett--Overbeck--Sobrero--Chastain ---------Foudy---Akers---Lilly------- Parlow/MacMillan--Milbrett--Hamm No weaknesses. 11 HOFers. Better on D. Better GK. Everyone could score from the run of play save Overbeck/Sobrero. Lot of versatility. Could go 442/451/433. With multiple players who could play multiple roles. Sobrero the only one not in the HOF. 7 of those players won in '91 & '99, six as starters both times (Chastain the exception). This time, only 4 real starters on both (Sauerbrunn, Ertz, Rapinoe, Morgan). But I love the current team. And the competition is tougher now.
England England England... why did you let US score within the first 15 minutes again? That's always going to end bad. Also, ya'll crazy if you think the USWNT will "reaLLLLLLY" be tested in the next match. How many teams do they have to defeat before they are the number one team this cycle?
Oh, there is no way this tournament is over. As others have pointed out, Sweden knocket out the USA in the last Olympics. And the Dutch are the reigning European champions. A region that includes both France and England, I believe. And in 2011 I thought the USA had it when Japan beat Germany. Nope.
Good match. I thought it was an even match. England scored to tie but called back because of VAR and a niggle. Pfiss. Then had a chance to tie again and Hougton, who is stalwart, futzed the PK. I feel for her--such a good player and she will always remember that miss. Did the U.S. have a SOG in the second? I said that England needed, above all, to defend in the first 20 minutes and they did not defend well. Gave the U.S. players way too much space with the ball and just did not mark tightly enough. Lavelle was excellent in the first half--she's a real talent. Bright, Parris and Stokes weren't good enough for me for England. But a good effort by both teams, some entertaining football.
I think the 99s seem that way due to their relative dominance in that era. If you swapped the current squad out for that one, I think they’d be 3rd or 4th favorites going into the tourney. It’s just the nature of the changes in the game, which was in its infancy then. Conditioning is better now. Team speed is better. Speed of thinking. Tactics. Technical ability. It just doesn’t seem that way on some level because all of the teams they’re facing have made as big (or bigger) strides. Look at Norway. A country of their size today couldn’t be as consistently great as they were in that era.
i did not think Stokes had a good game, and neither did Bright. Defending was way to loose in the first half. Even so, this was an even game. Tough luck on the offsides VAR call and the PK.
Thank you to all who kept me up to date during my flight. I landed in time to see the last 30 minutes (right after the disallowed goal) in the airport. The USWNT has now only lost once in over 23 years of my seeing or following a game live in whole or in part.
53,512! This place has been rocking all night. #ENGUSA🏴🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/mWjCMsINxy— FIFA Women's World Cup (@FIFAWWC) July 2, 2019
Here in the PNW, our local power utility graced us with a "planned outage" right at the end of halftime, scheduled to last "about 3 hours" I relocated to my local gym, and arrived just in time to see replays of Bright's 2nd yellow, at 88'. I missed Naeher's PK save. Unplanned power cycles do bad things to SSD hard disks ... England's idea of passing up the middle to split our high CBs was very good, and they came that close from beating us with it, even against a high line designed to stop it. Sauerbrunn/Dahlkemper were brave to step up and put White offside, and it worked this one time. I missed most of 2H, so I dunno what happened with Bronze/Daly/Parris on the right, or Mead/Walsh on the left. As for White's offside, I thought she was off by more than Onguene vs. England plus Dunn vs. France We're in the Hawkeye/VAR era where millimeter-precision is possible, and all of these calls are being held to the same standard. It's objective and consistent, slavishly enforcing the letter of the Laws, regardless of our puny opinions. Considering that Cameroon match, credit to England for demonstrating the proper way to react: just get on with it. I'm not thrilled by USA's way of killing off stoppage time, but they did it pretty effectively.
It's a really difficult call to make considering that the opposition has been so varied and unequal over time. But from the beginning, we (the US) had the advantage of Title IX + numbers + wealth. The three of those allowed the development of the women's game back when there were many countries in today's tournament which had laws banning women from playing organized football. And despite what many might think, coaching women is different than coaching men, so that development we had from the 1970s (and even before) is still being felt, even if it is being lessened. All of that is to say that there is great difficulty in identifying which team is better. Was it 1991, being the first team ever? Was it 1999, having to deal with the pressure of not only repeating 1991, but also to fulfill expectations of the fans? Was it 2015, when we made the finals and dominated the previous winner? Is 2019 the best, beating teams which have not just improved over time (Sweden), but appeared and improved over time (Spain, England). Each has it's questions such as 1999 when they had to come back v. Germany and win in PKs v. China. This year, there are struggles against even Spain. But for me, the best team was 2015. They gave up 1 goal all tournament before the final, that being in the first match. Sure they struggled to score until the final, but it should say much that the US scored 10 goals in the knock out stage, half of those in the final, yet gave up only 2, both of them to the defending champions. I reminisce about the 1999 team as something beautiful, a team of women who made the country understand that it was a serious sport for women, not just AYSO or high school or even college. But that was not the best team, to me. As for your last point...well, it does not matter if you though few or many, the best will rise regardless. There is a reason why we are so good at basketball - because we have so many who play that the best rise to the top. Same for women's soccer - the best will rise to the top. But I do agree that there needs to be better development along the way. There also needs to be a bigger and better pro league. Yes, I know, economics/market forces, and all that. But it is important to show young girls that they can make a good career out of playing professionally, which should spur improved development.
Others noted the parallel To their credit, most England fans accepted the photographic evidence quickly, and didn't derail the #ENGUSA thread with it. Sample 1...VAR offside call England vs CameroonSample 2... Var offside call England vs USAObservation: What goes around comes around Conclusion:Karma is a boomerang #ENGUSA pic.twitter.com/TK0AY9kSOv— Church-boi (@Faladynamite) July 2, 2019 This was cute, until I clicked on Piers Morgan's feed and read some of his vitriol. He's ... not fun, not funny, and quite mean-spirited. In the build up to #ENGUSA ⚽️🏴🇺🇸 professional windbag Piers Morgan came out with this stunningly blatent piece of hipocracy 🤭-sigh-⚽️ Putting this aside though, this should be a great match and it'll be on live in The Old Punchbowl, Booterstown , Dublin 👍🍻 pic.twitter.com/rhwwxeUOgF— SeaviewPunchbowl (@SPunchbowl) July 2, 2019
The LOTG took a nap tonight. That’s clear DOGSO = red card. US riding their luck, although still unlikely England would have equalized 11v 10 for only 12 minutes or so,and then still would have had to score again in ET.
The U.S. didn't dominate this game. They were better in the first 20 minutes, the next 25 of the first half was pretty even, and England, IMO, was better in the second half. The U.S. has been solid, done what it had to do, but hasn't dominated any of their last three opponents. The difference in tonight's match was quite obviously Hougton's missed PK.
While I think that VAR seems to do some bad stuff on handling calls, this game demonstrated why it's totally necessary for (non-handball) penalty and offside calls. The US PK foul was really hard to see, even on some of the replays. But from the best angle it's clear that the contact on White's backswing completely disrupts her shot. And while it may seem nitpicky to throw out a goal for an attacker being 10 inches offside, think about it from the perspective of a defender - one who might have to spend the rest of their career being wrongly accused of an error that cost a World Cup game. If the consequences of a call can be felt for a lifetime, we can afford to take a few extra minutes to make sure it's right. The unfortunate reality of soccer is that game-deciding plays often require referee judgments that are basically impossible to make with the naked eye. VAR is an imperfect solution, but it's better than the alternative.
Coaching women is most certainly different than coaching men, so having experienced female coaches is definitely a massive upgrade...our colllective opinion of Ellis aside. Good point on the aspirational side too. This is why I care far less about appearance fees and WC comp for the USWNT than simply having a league where all women can make at least a starting teachers salary. We need to keep players who are capable of playing at the league level in the league. Not filling out grad school applications. The revolving door of people who are good enough to continue playing quitting due to money hurts the game. When comparing teams, there is one thing that trumps the other evidence: film. It’s natural to see a big progression in the earlier stages of a sport’s professionalization. What we’ve seen in 20 years is probably equivalent to the last 45-50 in the men’s game. I wouldn’t argue one way or the other this team vs 2015, but the film tells me there is a big gap between those two and 99. The 99ers aren’t the best US team, but they might be the greatest. Re: basketball and sports talent pools generally. I think there are diminishing returns to market size. Going from 20,000 to 1,000,000 people of playing age of either gender is a massive jump. 1 million to 50 million not as much. American sports recognize and reward physical outliers, and because those people are rare, that imposes the scarcity issue where pop size does matter. Basketball (height and length) is a great example. We have about 35,000 true 6-6+ 20 something males to find basketball players for 3-4 positions on the floor. A country like Spain has only a tenth of the 20 something men, but the relative scarcity of 6-6+ men is even less. Shorter average height, distribution curves and all that. They only have maybe 700. Not players. Just people walking down the street. That is a small ass group of people from which to find people of the requisite athletic ability before even talking about technical quality to compete in basketball. And yet by plugging their players into a Euro-style soccer development system, I’d say they did a great job of closing most of the gap from 1992. So we kind of fall in love with the idea that numbers make everything better. Because they do when the sport requires extreme outliers (height, strength, true world class speed, etc.). That’s not soccer.
what?! this is soccer. good teams get tested by lesser ones all the time. every day. number one team this cycle has nothing to do with it once the whistle blows.
It’s really hard to assess dominance when one team is playing with a goal advantage though. Especially when the most questionable part of that team is the back line. After finally being able to see the entire match, I thought the US were clearly better. But the gap is closing.
Weeeeellllll...it was a SAVED penalty and no more marginal an offsides call than the two England benefited from in the game against Cameroon. No one was robbed today.