I think she did very well, especially considering two huge losses in that of Wambach and the Norway game. She addressed the team's frenetic play and kept them optimistic. The mental issues have been redressed so far. Now is the point where her ability to (wo)man manage the team will be shown, especially if any of these knockout games go into OT. So far, I would give her an A
I thought she would bring in a new style. Look for different players. Now we got Arod chasing long balls instead of Abby. Still playing the same slow defenders. Midfield is still not controling the game.
she has NOT addressed the team's frenetic play. at least i see no evidence of it. i still see mental errors all the time. experienced players hoofing the ball around rather than thinking the game thru, slowing it down and controlling tempo. i wouldn't. so far she's barely passing. but it's too early to rate her. let's wait until the tournament is finished (for them).
I would ask you to take a look at the New Zealand game again. This team is NOT playing the same direct long ball style. I think they've learned to play a lot better as a team. Boxx and Lloyd especially played well last game. They held the ball more, dribbled with it, waited for team mates to make runs, overall they played more composed in the center of the field. You don't see them constantly laying it off to the wing players who in turn lob it upfield. They've established themselves more in the game.
As big of a supporter as I am of Boxx...I was really not impressed with her play. She has struggled along with Lloyd the whole event. I did not see anything contrary to that against NZ. And don't get to comfortable...New Zealand is no powerhouse. While Pia appears to be a good motivator and says the right things as far as trying to change the style of play, I have not seen the changes.
Although we all have been quick to brush off the 4-0 win against New Zealand as a forgone conclusion and dismiss NZ as a patsy, keep in mind that they scored 2 goals against Japan (we only scored one) and they only allowed 1 goal against Norway (we allowed 2). And while we're at it, keep in mind we were the only team in our group to beat Japan. If anyone was expecting us to breeze through this tourney with 8-0 results against everybody but Germany and Brazil, they were sadly mistaken.
Very poor management. We should not have to go into overtime against Canada. SHe needs to dump all the halfbacks and some of the forwards (Kai, Hucles) and rebuild. Will she do it?
totally disagree. the improvements we have made have been huge. So much more play through midfield. Watching canada reminds me of where we were no less then a year ago. I am so glad we do not play like that anymore. This team will continue to get better. Its a lot to ask for such a change in tactical play in such a short period of time.
Now? I'll give her a B, she's had to work around injuries and managed to regoup side after Norway. I don't quite get waiting so long on the subs today, but we won. Much of her grade will be decided against Japan, a win and I say A no matter what, a loss and get into C territory (depends on if we rebound or not in bronze match). Things went against her before (injuries), but results and structure of tournament (Braisl v. Germany in other semi? thank you!) favor her, so hard to say, I still think need more time before deciding her fate.
Kia is too inconsistat, and possibly brain dead. For example - she come in late, has fresh legs AND is the fastest player on the field. So how many breaks did she stop being offsides? with her speed, she does not have to cut it close. However I did think she should have come ion much earlier. This game needed a second speed forward to stretch the defense but Pia reacted too late Hucles - scored a tap in and failed to get three 1v1 chances on net. That's not a forward we need. She did do well trapping and passing back though. We need more
I will wait until the ball stops rolling for us to rate her performace; but I will quote one opinion (that has more weight): SI.com: How much does Wambach's injury influence your decision on coach Pia Sundhage after this tournament since she's on a one-year contract? Gulati: Look, we'll assess the whole thing. We don't make decisions only based on results at a particular tournament. Does it count a lot? Of course. But even last year's decision regarding the women's program wasn't based strictly on one loss against Brazil or even on one decision. I think Pia's done a great job from everything we've seen. So we are very pleased with the way things have gone to this point, including how the team has played, including the feedback we've had from the team. So all of that's a big plus. So if we end up not achieving the goal that everyone wants, does that mean we make a certain decision and not continue [with Sundhage]? No. Does it mean if we lose a close game in the final game and say O.K., but if Abby had been there we would have won, so therefore ... ? It's not the way life works. So I think it's safe to say that Dan [Flynn, the USSF general secretary] and I understand how important Abby is and was to this team. I often say this about coaches. If the ball from Charlie Davies goes in, we advance. I guess Peter should have said to Charlie, "If you get a chance in the 90th minute on a header, try to get it just below the bar..." My point: All of those things matter. Now the game last here here [against Brazil] was 4-0. So it wasn't much of a game. We understand Abby's importance to this team. And an evaluation of this team and the performance of this team wouldn't neglect that. That's the easiest way to say it. The men's [senior] team is different when Landon's on the field and not on the field, and Landon's scoring rate is nothing like Abby's. There aren't many players in the world, men or women, that have the scoring rate she does in international soccer. So to think that doesn't impact the performance of the team, and therefore the evaluation, would be silly. link:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/olympics/2008/writers/grant_wahl/08/15/soccer.qanda/1.html this interview was done hours before the Canada game
I have only been following soccer as an avid fan for about a year and a half. I am still not up on all the different philosophies of the game but as a sports fan do have an opinion. MY $0.02= I give her an A. In a time where coaches loose their jobs for not winning she is winning. Is it as dominate as we feel it should be? Maybe not. (I know...NORWAY) Well the have bounced back and have put themselves in position to keep playing. You did not hear Pia say "Well it is going to be tough without Abby and we may struggle....." The team just went on playing. Do we all agree with her strategy or her subs or this or that? NO! But that is why we are fans and we still support them with our own opinions. Should she keep her job? If she wants it she keeps it IMHO. And maybe she will make changes after the Olympics. Maybe she thought there was not enough time to make wholesale changes between Dec. and Aug. Maybe alot of things. I think she takes the WNT into the next World Cup and evalute after that. They still may bring home the gold then all this is forgotten. I am waving the flag no matter what. Sorry to drag on but you ask.
I saw those same exact things but most here seem to have selective vision for certain players' skill sets ... or lack thereof. Pia hasn't really had time to turn over personnel much and as a result has mids that are gassed and show it, forwards that don't do their job (score), a disorganized back line (better with Kate back on) and no ready replacements developed yet, Heath has been mentioned as weak but Cheney looked like a High School player in a top college match too. I rate Pia a solid C, two full grades above Ryan. ;>) Make the final and we can talk extra credit for a possible B. BTW I weighted today very light as the conditions were awful, I think the filters on the cameras keep you from seeing what they are trying to play in.
EXACTLY! She has had to undo Ryan's work and apply her on philosophy to the team in a matter of a few months, whereas Ryan had years to develop his. After the first game, we could have buckled against Japan, but we didn't. They are a VERY skilled team; you just can't expect to dominate EVERY team now. She kept the team calm and held an optimistic view to lift the team's spirit. Under Ryan, we suffered bizarre coaching. He had no faith in his substitutes, leaving some very good players on the bench while keeping gassed players on the pitch. And don't get me started on the Solo-Scurry controversy... I liked how the team has looked in the past two games. The Japan game will be the big test. If you don't see a big improvement from the Canada game, you Pia doubters might have a case. But I hope and expect the team will do very well come Monday.
pia should keep her job. she needs to be given more time with the team. but it is simply not true that the team is playing well. and that against the second and third rate teams of the world. they won't have to play a top team until they reach the final - if they do. and i expect them to, because they have had the luck of getting the easiest path to the finals of all the top teams in the tournament!! it's too early to rate her. now if they win the final - that's the only top team they'll play - give her an A, and give her a raise!!!
I gave her a B because I think she's doing what she can, with what she has right now. I might drop my grade down if after the Olympics and that first camp in January we don't see some new faces, which might be the only way Pia can really turn this team around. These players now, except for A-Rod, Tobin, Cheney, any maybe Buehler, have had years under Ryan's game strategy and we've seen evidence where, when they get in trouble, or under pressure, they revert directly back to it. What's the saying... you can't teach an old dog new tricks? Maybe given the time, which Pia will have after the Olympics, all the players could successfully convert to Pia's new scheme of things, but the next couple of years should be spent getting a new look at some people, especially with the new league coming back. Now is the perfect time to revamp this team, if need be. By the time the WWC rolls around again, this team needs to reinvent itself in order to keep up with the rest of the world.
A lot of this was helped by the opponent. My problem with this duo is that they play like this against Canada and New Zealand and then crumble against Norway, Germany, Brazil.
correct. people keep forgetting that we haven't played any top teams. the level of our competition so far has me saying "wait" with regard to grading pia. we will play 1, uno, une, one top team in this tournament. and that's only if we make the final. which, of course, i hope we would.
I'm more than willing to give her the benefit of the doubt-- so far, I like her. I agree with luvdagame we have not played the big teams, but some of the dream teams have shown up. I thought part of the reason we lost to Norway in group was that they played quite well. Similarly, Japan has played strong-- so strong in fact that they saved our tails in group! On the other hand, the big teams have not been so big. I am shocked by Brazil's attack -- even stronger than I thought it would be; but its defense is much weaker than it should be, and is (frankly IMO) subpar for a world-class team. I'm on record as saying I think Germany rocks, but the little I've seen has not looked so crisp, and of course, I don't think USA is playing at all well either. That is the players, not the coach. Whatever the outcome, I'm not sure the final outcome of this Olympics will be so much about US coaching-- it looks like it may come down to player execution and heart in the big games. From a coaching perspective, we are down four potential starters to health issues, and while Pia brought folks in, we didn't have time to reinvent the player pool. That is a a big impact for any team or coach to absorb. I know that some on this forum think motherhood was the best thing that could have happened to Kristine Lilly's game, but I disagree. She was still very fit, and I think Ryan was misplaying her up top to augment the Abby-offense. Sundhage's efforts to reshape this team have been hampered (IMO) by the loss of Lilly as a seasoned presence and a playmaking midfielder. If we have Lilly in the midfield, Wambach healthy up top, and Kai, Arod, Cheney to choose from as other strikers, I think team USA is a force! As it is, Sundhage is meeting ends with limited means. Some of our players are not looking any too sharp IMO, but Sundhage has got to work with what she has. I say, A- . Maybe a little too much about elegance for its own sake, but going in the right direction. Give her more time.
You are just goofing on us with the "too much elegance" thing, right? Just about the last thing I think about with this team is elegance.
since when do we not blame the coach when the team isn't playing well? we didn't give ryan a break when his players didn't play well. we have to be consistent. when the team isn't playing well, you have to look at the coach. i'd still keep pia on. i want to see what she can do with more time with this team. four? some people posted that lilly was past her prime last time around. she'd be 37 at the start of this olympics osbourne was not a regular starter. cat was the odd man out of the defense. she had actually been consistently left out of the team by pia. she was being given some starting minutes when she finished her fitness routine. but there was no indication that she was going to be a starter. we're 1 starter short. but whoo!! what a starter. that's one of the reasons why i say give pia more time. and as i've posted above, the level of the teams we have played makes me say "wait" to rate her. i don't think there's an A in beating teams like norway, japan, new zealand and canada. but if she wins gold (beats brazil/germany not only would i give her an A, i'd give her a raise!!!
Defense has always been an issue for them even in the last work cup - disorganized and dicey in spots. They just happened to play the match of their lives against us.