Here's a further breakdown (Home/Neutral/Away) of those games versus teams ranked 16-25... 57-6-0 @ Home (0.952) 17-3-0 @ Neutral (0.925) 2-0-1 @ Away (0.667)
Alrighty then, @Kevin625 brings the data So in 63 matches, the US had homefield advantage; in only 3 matches the opposing team had homefield advantage, and the other 20 matches were on neutral ground. US had the homefield advantage, then, in a net total of 60 matches (63 home - 3 away) out of 86, or 69.8% of the time; meaning, on average, the US had a homefield advantage worth 69.8 rating points (FIFA calculates the homefield advantage as 100 points). Rounding it to 70 points, what we're saying is it reduces the average rating of the opponents by 70. That makes our very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate (for the US performance rating against opponents ranked from 16 to 25): 1775 (rough estimate of opponents ranked #16 to #25) - 70 (pro-rated or average homefield advantage) + 465 (rating difference based on .936 winning percentage) _____ = 2170 That seems solidly in the range of the US rating over the last decade or so. In other words, as high as that winning percentage may seem against a range of opponents with reasonably good ratings, it's about what the US rating would predict especially if you factor in the homefield advantage.
1. The domestic schedule requires an opponent that is willing to come play here; ATM that is not so easy-- teams in the top 25 are pretty much developed countries, and those are not likely to want to come to a nation with an unusually high vaccine resistance, especially to play a very good team at the beginning of a very short WC cycle. Most teams at this point are going to want to look at prospects, and we are contractually bound to play something like an A team. Why would Denmark want to come here and risk illness to get a jet lagged whipping when they can host Finland and Italy and visit the Netherlands and Belgium for better, safer results... 2. If you want to generate more and better opponents, you have to give lesser ones a chance to develop, which means playing them and paying them. The first time we played Argentina they were like a Jr High team. small and slow and not consistently skilled across their roster; now they're pretty good and getting better.
Yes, the play to pay issue is always a big one. But I think it goes back to coaching and American mindset. When it comes to the men, speed of play is always our downfall. We’ve always lacked the ability to think fast and play fast. We can look like world beaters against 3rd world countries, but when it comes to anyone else, we don’t compare. And our players who can play and think fast, are either foreign born or play overseas. People want to say we’ve “arrived” because we won a Gold Cup and have beaten Mexico twice. But the reality is, Mexico still outplays us, we are just lucky enough to get the result.
The US is unique in that its limited supply of quality coaches (many of them imported) is spread across the men's & the women's game (compounded by geography making it harder to share resources).
Every team in COMNEBOL now has to have a women’s domestic league attached to men’s teams in the first division if they want to compete in the Libertadores and copa America. COMNEBOL even subsidizes some of the salaries of each team, much like the USSF does here.
You do know that the USSF has 3,000 “A” licenses coaches split about evenly between Youth and pro licenses? yeah, I was shocked to read that, too. that puts the “A” license coach to player ratio at 5,000:1 It costs $8,500 to go through the USSF license courses to get an “A” license, which is the highest in the World. it costs $600 in Germany for the equivalent instruction. Germany has half the registered players the USA does and twice the “A” license coaches.
That has more to do with Argentina having a professional domestic league for the last couple years which AFA guarantees 8 players per team about $600 USD a month. Each year the numbers will increase. That’s higher than some NWSL salaries were when the league started and some players were getting the league minimum of $6K a year. That may not sound like much, but it’s a little above the Average income in Buenos Aires of $550 USD ( the provinces are lower) especially when you consider the state of Argentina’s economy and 13.1% unemployment rate during the pandemic.
Then I would expect to see many young, upcoming players, in this game? There is no need to roll out the aging "stars" like Rapinoe (please retire), and the rest of her kneeling minions. Good time to clean up the sinking image of the USWNT. Of course, nobody would pay to see that. Now that Lloyd has retired... soooooo we beat up on a low ranked team and all the little girls will scream
This gets really tedious... Long as you've been around, you surely should know that these are celebration games and the promoter is contractually entitled to something like an "A" team. As it happens, there will be some young'uns involved because an unusual number of regulars are injured, but the real retooling will come after these few games. Also, Lloyd will be rostered for these next few-- her international retirement comes after them, and her club retirement after this season. If you are going to be a fan, pay attention to why things happen, not just to what happens and how you feel about it, maybe?
There is really just one young newcomer though: Sophie Smith. Andi Sullivan and Mallory Pugh were also rostered, but they are basically known quantities for the national team at this point. Macario is obviously young and "new," but she is also one of the players who USSoccer is contractually obligated to call up for these games. Davidson is young, but not "new."
Ive been a fan longer than you have and know fully well what this tour is all about. Its the $$$$ tour and Farwell for Lloyd and hopefully others. My point is we are too old and need a massive youth movement. Hopefully this coach has the guts to do it. So far he hasnt shown that and seems to be letting the team run him. I want to see the USWNT back as a force and OUT of politics. Dont see it on the Men's team
Not just Lloyd I expect more to be gone as well. So this is probably the last games we get to see them before they retire completely or from USWNT and still play in club.
I can't understand why Casey Murphy Bella Bixby and Trinity Rodman are not on the roster some of these old players need to go.
Because this "tour" is a victory tour not a development tour. All players that were on the Olympic roster are the first choices for the roster. "Development," if Vlatko Andonovski actually wants to find and develop players, that will begin after the next three matches or so. That will be late this year or early next year. Yes there is a shortened window for finding and developing before WWC qualifying but qualifying is about as assured as anything can be. Only Canada is any real threat to the US and that "threat" is quite low. The US will qualify but the whole process can be used for development and finding players. There is plenty of time. But as bad as Andonovski is as a national team coach I am not really sure even ten years would be enough. The US would be fine under a good coach but this one does worry me somewhat.
few names missing if this is in fact a Cha-ching tour. Interesting to see Pugh in there, Thought they had given up on her. Also glad to see Rapinoe missing. I think she infects the others with her crazy ideas.
Injuries hurt Pugh badly and she wasn’t the same since. We will see how she performs in the rest of NWSL season.
Thanks, Smallchief. Same old right-wing drivel from that guy. Over the course of her great career, Megan Rapinoe's "crazy ideas"--and outstanding play and leadership--helped inspire the U.S. Women's National Team to a hell of a lot of victories and some important championships. But the haters, Trump cult members, misogynists, and homophobes--often one and the same--will rant on and on. GO MEGAN!!! P.S. I am guessing that Rapinoe will soon announce her retirement. The haters will celebrate--and then find another target for their multiple bigotries.
Give me a break with your bigoted, political and self-righteous BS. I'm an independent and get so sick of the left labeling everyone as a misogynist, homophobe, racist, etc, because they don't like an individual that happens to be female, gay, a person of color, etc. I personally don't care for Rapinoe. I don't hate her, but just not a big fan of hers. She was a great player for the USWNT for many years, but I also think she's one of the most selfish players both on and off the field and she seems to be always looking for attention for herself, first and foremost. Labeling any USWNT fan that dislikes Rapinoe as a misogynist, Trump cult member and/or homophone is just complete ignorance. Just because someone doesn't like Rapinoe as an individual, doesn't make them a misogynist or homophobe.