These two things explain why I think Lynn Williams could work. If we play Macario, Rapinoe, & a third forward who isn't putting pressure on the opposing back like, they might be able to move up enough that they aren't stuck in their own 1/3. We need to have one of the forwards able to break in behind, if just for the threat, while also not clogging up space for Lavelle when the defense does sit back.
My interest in having Williams on the Olympic team is purely defensive. Anything she brings offensively is pure bonus. Her ability to track back at pace is required by our slow defense.
The disparity in ratings between the US and Portugal isn't terribly deceptive. With a 500-600 point advantage, the US had roughly a (.96) to (.97) expected win probability. We can go even further with the FIFA rating system and say the expected result was a 3 or 4 goal victory. With the number of chances they created, it could easily have been that. That they didn't have the overwhelming number of chances to make a 3 or 4 goal victory inevitable is a modest sign that all was not well for the US I would love to see an xG (expected goals) analysis of the match but I couldn't find one on a quick search. It's a little odd that there isn't enough interest in the US that there aren't a bunch of xG charts out there. Portugal's rating has risen from about 1560 in Aug 2016 to its current 1669, about a 100 point rise over the last 5 years. They could well still be improving but the 1669 rating is reasonable. In Euro qualifying, they did great against Scotland (which was rated around 1800), beating Scotland twice. Scotland, the highest rated team in its group, had a disastrous qualification run, losing not only twice to Portugal but to Finland (which hovered around 1660 at the time). Portugal lost once and tied once with Finland and then did the same in a playoff with Russia (another team around 1700). So in a very rough sense, Portugal's rating of 1669 seems about right with its recent results in Euro qualifying. I agree on Horan. When Ertz was hurt, I said Horan was Vlatko's main backup plan, but of course now there has to be a backup plan for the backup plan. And of course filling in admirably for Portugal isn't the same as doing the same except a Sweden, Netherlands, Canada or Brazil
I'm not worried (yet) about the perceived U.S. inability to score goals. We had 26 shots with 10 on goal and 15 corners against Portugal. Normally, that number of shots and SOG would yield more goals -- but the soccer gods occasionally decree that unclose games will be close. So, I see the measly 1-0 score as a statistical anomaly, not a trend or a problem. I don't like those tricky corners the U.S. is trying. That's on Vlatko. To hell with trickiness when you've got height and header superiority for corners. I was intrigued by Heather O'Reilly's analysis. Let the Portuguese advance beyond the mid-line, give them a little space, lure them into coming out of their block, spread their players out, and then count-attack against a field that is less dense with defenders.
Portugal failed to qualify for next year’s, 16 team Euro Championship. They made it four years ago, however Europe’s gotten more balanced since then; a very weak perceived Slovakia just beat #2 South American, Chile, just a few days ago. The Olympics is not always about the best teams participating(Euros only allowed 3 teams even though 7 out of 8 of them made it to the World Cup quarter finals). Several of the Olympic bound teams went down to crashing defeat in friendlies over the last couple of days; Netherlands, Australia, Chile, Canada with an tie with weaker Rep of Czech(and we’re complaining about an win! lol) btw…..I believe the Portuguese were missing their most experienced player, an central mid named Neto(she usually would of had short hair, whereas the rest of her crew could of been on an hair growth commercial!) I’m pretty much on the Lynn Williams bandwagon too
I was as well. I see what she means though. We looked like kids scrambling for the best seat at a general admission Osmonds concert in the opponents end.
Last six games: one goal vs. Canada, two vs. Brazil, six vs. Argentina, one vs. Sweden, two vs. France, one vs. Portugal. 13 goals in six games. Only one goal in three of the six games. In what world is that a "statistical anomaly"? I view it as a "trend" and a "problem."
But you are only considering one side of the equation. One goal conceded in six games is also a "trend." And 5-0-1 is not particularly problematic as records go... it'll get you to the final way more often than not. I suppose the sky may actually be falling-- but it sure seems to be taking its own sweet time about hitting the ground. We've won consecutive World Cups primarily with defense; is something wrong with that?
You're not taking into consideration strength of the opponent. Portugal is not like Canada, Brazil, Sweden, or France, all of whom have ratings above 1950. Portugal (rating 1669) is more like Argentina (rating 1652) Yes, Neto (Claudia Neto, I believe) is Portugal's star player and she wasn't there. What Lynn Williams bandwagon?!! The only Lynn Williams bandwagon I know is the one that wants to railroad her out of town. It keeps trying to run over me leaving me flattened like a 'Toon
I didn't see any need to address the team's excellent defensive record. That's quite obvious. As for the team being 5-0-1 in those six games, I don't view that as anything to be excited about. The opposition hasn't been impressive. If we were talking about a 20-game season ahead for the U.S. Women's National Team, then your view would be right on the mark. But what we're talking about is a high-pressure tournament with a very compressed schedule where an 18-player roster will face some good teams. Just ONE loss in an elimination game and it's over for the U.S. Consequently, just ONE opponent getting a terrific early goal--or a fluke early goal--could be a disaster. Can't you imagine our very strong team losing 2-1, or 1-0, or losing in a low-scoring shootout? I sure as hell can.
She can be (or have been) their star player, but, from Italy, I can tell you that, after her brilliant pair of seasons in Wolfsburg, Claudia Neto had a mediocre and quite disappointing season 2020-2021 with Fiorentina. She's not on her best form, or even, at 33, she's possibly in the declining phase of her career, so, despite the importance of the "name", I am not sure Portugal was missing much without her on the pitch.
Of course I can-- I've seen it happen. But now you're just making unfair arguments with existence. You pays your money and you takes your chances. The game cant be won unless it is played, and if it is played it could be lost. Even San Marino gets a result once in a while, and even Wayne Gretzky got shutout a few times. It has to be possible to lose or the winning becomes meaningless. Great dynasties address their problems before they become weaknesses it is true; but there's no reason to think that isn't being done. Williams is being given lots of opportunity, Pugh is suddenly red hot in league play, Macario is working her way in, Smith is developing-- there's plenty of change bubbling under the surface. In a cycle we may be a team that wins 4-2, 5-3, as the defense ages. It is a pendulum not a plynth...
This is my last comment in this exchange. I've made "unfair" arguments? That the low scoring of the U.S. Women's National Team over the most recent six games is a serious concern? That even with our very strong defense we could easily lose an elimination game 2-1, 1-0, or in a low-scoring shootout because of the U.S. team's difficulty in scoring goals? Sorry, but I don't see how that concern is "unfair." I will hope that I'm proven wrong this summer.
My memory is that several, maybe all of these are about people who are in effect arguing that gravity shouldn't apply to them, or humidity, or mortality, or some other feature of the natural or conceptual universe. An unfair argument with existence is an argument not with a practice or tactic or strategy, but with the actual context one is in...
I would agree that the 2021 Olympic team is not as good as the 2019 World Cup Team which is the best team ever. The reason it's not as good is that we could (and probably will if Ertz and Heath are fit) field the same lineup in Japan as we did in France. There are no new stars on the US team in 2021 and the only big star standing in the wings is Macario -- who might not even make the team. Some of the aging stars -- Lloyd, Rapinoe, Morgan, Heath, Sauerbrunn, O'Hara -- are not going to be as good as they were in France. And the schedule is tougher. Barring injury, all six of those I mentioned will probably go to Tokyo because there is no proven alternative to them. Can Sam Mewis, Rose Lavelle, and Lindsey Horan take up the slack? Or Macario? Dunn? Or possibly even Lynn Williams?
Macario should make it, she’s multiple functional, about the only dribble drive-slasher we got in case, God forbid, Lavelle gets injured. Another choice to consider is Purce, since could either play FB, outside mid/winger. And definitely would go with the speed that Lynn Williams delivers. But obviously one or all three are in jeopardy if Tobin Heath returns. One thing the over-the-hill-gang have on their side is they consistently play together(it’s like earth shattering news if there is ever more 1-2 lineup changes from game to game). So they do have that build in chemistry much like an year round club team. btw……why have we become an country that’s not happy unless we slaughter the opponent? I enjoy more a game when we beat them by one goal than a complete route
Ya see, this is why SC enjoys lifetime Christmas Card List privileges. Sir, the correct term is “experienced” stars. Ahhhhhhh, the answer is YES, YES, YES, YES, YES annnnnnnnd YES.
What’s with those short corners Pinoe? Who are we to blame? Vlatko? Just put the darn ball in the box and have our girls head that in the back of the net. So many wasted opportunities on set pieces.
Wait, Horan, Mewis, and Lavelle aren't stars? Look, I share the concerns about ageing players. Some are getting long in the tooth. But for me, the best part of our team is the midfield. Meaning Ertz, Sam Mewis, Horan, and LaVelle. If we have those four, I like our chances.
None of those players currently on the USWNT are "long in the tooth" at all. They keep their teeth worn down by thoroughly masticating opponents on a fairly regular basis. That regular wear and tear on their teeth prevents any excessive growth that might happen otherwise. Opponents should be happy that they at least spit them out when they are done. BTW: I do not really believe that those players are members of the rodent family where their teeth always grow but rather I believe they are polyphyodont like sharks, kangaroos and elephants. They sometimes go through a full set of freshly sharpened teeth in just one half.