I think possession is becoming a pretty empty statistic (ask Chelsea fans). Some teams’ styles lend themselves to possession and others don’t. It’s not nothing, but I wonder how well it really tracks with wins and losses.
Yep. We're just a bunch of interplanetary litterbugs. (Unless you think that all was on a back lot in Hollywood.)
the US team older than most, so it's not going to be running on all cylnders for the full game. Thus it hangs back these days after taking the lead. Ellis got this team pacing itself really well as it's not getting tired.
Especially when you compare it to shots on goal. The US lost the possession battle against France and England, but had more shots on goal. If 65% to 35% possession game also translated to 24 vs. 4 shots on goal, then you have a problem.
Tale of two halves. US played well in the first half and was aggressive. Both US goals were excellent and well deserved. In the second half, they gave England too much space. I agreed with both calls (offside and penalty) and didn't need a replay to tell me (although both were close and I can understand the debate). The US midfield looked slow in the second half and was fortunate that England lost their composure towards the end. I kind of get why the US is more conservative in the second half as both France and England looked more dynamic in the midfield, but I think that they have been somewhat lucky. MOTM was the US GK. Going to be real interesting if they play Sweden again.
This is a thing that I occasionally harp on. Title IX changed the world. How many teams in the WC have a player or players that played soccer at a U.S. college.
It's not so much luck, but having success early. The US has taken the lead within the first 12 minutes of every match, which has translated to them taking less chances the rest of the game.
Don't kid yourself, we would if we had the technical ability. The history of the World is the history of "colonization" writ large. I don't suppose you object to the colonization of your town with cell towers? Or the colonization of your television screen with soccer matches? Or the colonization of anesthesia in surgery? Or the colonization of those bees in the local pasture? But John Cabot can now be vilified because he wanted to sail a ship where no one had previously been. It's a funny ole retrospective world when the revisionist history books are written by folks who couldn't hold a codpiece to a 16th century candle-stick maker.
I agree with this 100%. Even the English women on the 5Live post game show last night were calling it "the slightest of touches."
I generally don't like going so heavily defensive at the end. Especially, so early. I was super surprised with it for the France match. And impressed that they worked it so smoothly. However, France did not have a single shot on goal until we went 5 in the back. I think you could argue that it didn't work against France. England looked much more dangerous after we bunkered. And, I think our next opponent now has plenty of tape on it. No one will be caught off guard when we do it. My guess is that if this happens in the final, when we go 5 in the back, he opponent will have the attitude of "Yes! Let's do this!" It's my understanding that both Sweden and Netherlands are good in the air. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a target player ready to go, for when we bunker, and they start playing for knockdowns. I was happy w/ it after France
I think the luck part is that O'Hara would have been called for a handball in the group stage and England missed a PK and another goal by 6 inches. Maybe try and get up 2-0 or 3-1 before you collapse into a shell. It has worked. But that doesn't mean it is the right or best strategy. But Ellis has always been very lucky. Sometimes it is better to be lucky. Ellis was better than Neville or Dacre; who both got things wrong.
Coupla things: 1. Almost every game-with-a-clock ever played will come to a point somewhere where more goals/points are not needed as much as keeping the clock running is. Not true in draws, or games without a clock, like baseball, but otherwise, you are going to see it sooner or later. 2. In knockout games, the winners are going to have to play again up till the final-- any tactic that conserves energy a bit is sensible-- so it can be sensible to decide you have enough goals a little earlier than you would in a friendly or group game. (And yes England will have to play again too, but in circumstances that make it sensible to go with youth and yannigans rather than the front line talent now worn down...)
What is amazing is that the USA has now played four games against European teams and not one of them bunkered. It could be that Sweden, playing like they did in 2016, might be the hardest test for this team. Because, nobody can play them straight up. I don't know if Netherlands would do it. The only reason France and England were in the game at the end is that we do put a brake on. But it is probable that no team could keep up the frenetic pressing we do at the beginning of games or after we are tied. But I would wait till up by 2 before bunkering.
After the 2016 game against Sweden, someone asked why Sauerbrunn didn't commit a professional foul to break up the counter that led to the Sweden goal. The answer was that the USWNT held themselves up to a higher standard and didn't play that way. Well, it seems like someone has learned their lesson. We have seen the "role models for girls everywhere": 1. Fake injury to waste time 2. Celebrate wildly a double digit goal against a team of amateurs 3. Dive to get calls 4. Commit professional fouls to stop counters I'm not criticizing them! I'm applauding them. It is this stuff that has taken the team to another level. It is this stuff that France and England couldn't compete with.
I think the problem is that all 10 field players are condensed into a very small footprint near midfield, with our backs playing a high line. The better strategy would be to keep a couple of forwards high for long outlet passes. At that point you don't have to be that accurate.
I think Spain and Japan are perfect examples of this. They have a lot of possession, but most of it isn't in the final third... and when it is, they can't finish. France had 60% possession vs USA. They had 20 shots, but only 5 SOG. USA only had 10 shots, but 8 SOG. Some of those stats look nice, but none of them tell the true story. Even Shots and SOG don't tell you about the quality of shots taken, chances created, etc. A weak 30-yard shot that ends up being a slow roller to the GK is a SOG and a rifled shot off the post from inside the goal box isn't.
A scrub. Someone down the depth chart. I believe it came to baseball from the cattle industry, where a yannigan was a sort of equipment bag on trail drives and rodeo grounds. We've mostly forgotten that the earliest baseball parks, even in eastern cities, were often rodeo grounds-- pitchers warm up in "the bullpen" today because that was the convenient part of a rodeo ground to give over to the purpose in 1870. Similarly I imagine they inherited yannigan bags from the previous incarnation, and used them to hold bats, balls rosin bags, chewing tobacco, etc. And I'm sure we all remember that the equipment bags get hauled by rookies and scrubs... hence the name of the bag and the generic for the lesser players become one...