SheBelieves 2020

This is NOT a tournament. It is simply a series of six total friendlies that have no real meaning beyond that. Even FIFA designates the games as friendlies as they are allowing them six subs instead of the three that are what happens in tournaments.

The purpose is for the coaches to find out more about the players that might be on the roster for the Olympics. There is no real importance beyond that.

This is like the old kid's riddle:
Q: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
A: Four, calling a tail a leg does not make it one.

Calling this a tournament does not make it one.

Edit: I originally misstated the total number of games. I have now corrected it.

 

Indeed it’s friendlies but as you said. Players are going to be fighting hard to get their spots.

 

True. But the coaches will not, necessarily, be putting their best lineups on the field. They may try players out in positions that are not their optimum spots and they may play player together that are not familiar with each other.

The players will play hard, particularly those with their spots unsure, but they may not be given their best chances to excel because the coach might be looking for something else.

 

Also, if I was the coach(which I am a long ways off as even a capable amateur coach), I would like to try and beat the USWNT. I mean experiment with the other teams in the tournament for sure, and then when it comes time to face the USWNT, don't just waste that opportunity, chances are if you get far enough in the Olympics, you're going to run into the US, wouldn't you want your players confident that they CAN beat the US? I mean at least tie, even a tie is better than the 50th loss.

The truth is, England can accomplish this and have in the past. I say put out their best 11 and see what they've got, if they lose, they can watch the video and fix a bunch of issues before the Olympics.

 

I was simply trying, in my clumsy fashion, to point out that the "trophies" and other honors that might come from this series of matches are constructions designed to make money for US soccer while the matches themselves serve exactly the same function as any other friendly.

However that does not mean that any given team might not really want to win any given match. These are all high caliber athletes and mostly type A personalities. I have found from my coaching and interaction with coaches and players way above my level that those type of players will try to win at virtually all times. In practices I have seen some of the hardest hits and most aggressive play that teams I dealt with ever produced. The players wanted to excel at all times no matter who the opposition was. Once in a U!12 girls practice I was trying to work on them playing against bigger and stronger opponents so I was playing in scrambles around the goal. I was playing an attacker. One of the defenders and the goalie sandwiched me and knocked me silly. I was unable to stand for a few seconds so, in order to hide that they had hurt me, I sat down and called a huddle to discuss what we were working on and what was needed to defend bigger players. I "think" I hid that I was hurt from the team. I know it would work with boys but, with the girls I was not so sure. BTW: That team then went on to beat a U12 boys team in a scrimmage the next week even though the boys were mostly bigger and stronger. After that match several of the boy's parents came to me and complained the my girls were too rough. Not dirty mind you but rough. I was a proud coach that day.

In any match I expect players at this level to put out 100% and even to show off a bit to impress a coach. I remember a match back in the lead up to the '99 World Cup where the US was up by 8 or 9 goals. The players we having fun but were also still trying to insure their spots. Mia Hamm had a wide open shot from the edge of the 18 and she shanked it well wide. She got a distressed look on her face that seemed to say she thought she hurt her chances for the team. (If there was one player that was an absolute lock it was her.) She then played even harder and scored one from the corner of the 18 10 minutes later.

My point is that these types of players will always try their hardest but the coaches might place them in a position where they will have trouble succeeding. The matches have little meaning to the teams as a whole but to each and every player they have great meaning.

Gosh I made that long. Sorry.

 

Nice to see Grace Fisk make the roster. I hope she gets to play in some matches too.

 

I suspect that all the "bubble" players for every team will get decent minutes unless they eliminate themselves in practice but it is too late to cut them from the roster. I would not be surprised if some "bubble" players get more time than some "locks." There are players that, baring injury, almost could not play so badly that they get cut. Ertz is one example of that on the US team.

Coaches will want to see if these "weaker" players might have some attribute that make them more valuable than others. I think on all these teams there are about 9 or 10 players competing for the last 3 or 4 spots. Remember once 10 starting field players are selected there are only 6 places left. Versatility could be VERY important for those spots and since they are playing on 2 day turnarounds all the bench players may need to be able to start.

The Olympics are actually the toughest tournament to choose a team for. One mistake by a coach in selection can kill the chances of even great teams. These are top coaches coaching top teams and the will want to do everything they can to make the best choices they can so they will use these, and all other remaining friendlies, to make the best choices they can while also being sure their team has as fine an edge as possible.

Assembling a team for the Olympics is similar to the Japanese art of making a Katana. It takes care and timing and effort and skill and just a little luck for everything to come out right. The trick is to minimize the need for the luck part.

 

But if you manage to assemble a winning team, your opponent, at the end of the game, will say: "That really was a Hattori Hanzo sword".

 

I probably should have used "Samurai Sword" rather than "Katana" as there are, probably, many people here that would not recognize that word or know what I meant. But reference to "Hattori Hanzo" probably just zoomed past an even larger number. But, since I did study Japanese history I know who it is you are referring to. After all he was rather important in uniting feudal japan a few years ago.

 

Well, even those who didn't study feudal Japan should probably get the Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill reference.

 

I had forgotten that there was any such reference in "Kill Bill." I have seen the movie, both parts, but I really did not like it much like much of Tarantino's work. I find most of his movies excessively disjointed. I did like "Pulp Fiction" even though it was quite disjointed like much of his other movies. In order for me to remember details of a movie I need to enjoy it a bit more than I did "Kill Bill."

But I also believe there was a reverence in the TV miniseries "Shogun." But I do not remember for sure.

In any case the reference was a bit obscure for many people BUT I enjoyed it quite a bit.

 

Just to put my liking of your post in context: I quite like Tarantino's style instead, but I appreciated that you enjoyed my reference.

 

Well I’m my opinion England have played terribly after the World Cup. This is their chance to turn that around..... but I don’t see it happening.

 

Maybe they can recover and be motivated to defend their title and get their REVENGE against the yanks who mocked their tea time.

 

Lucy Bronze out, calf injury.

 

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

I’m sure Bronze feels the same way.

 

Sooooooo WWC roster + Casey + Andi + Lynn - ATG - Allie - Morgan.
Not messing with the backline at all.

 

Why mess with perfection? No better players have yet shown up and that backline has shown to be the best in the world and they have not yet even come close to their "sell by" date. In this case I 100% agree with the choices. You don't fix what ain't broke.

 

i'm glad you're finally coming around to my way of thinking.

 

You think I am becoming blind to the shortcomings of the team or players? No. But I do not see any combo of players that the US could field at the back that would be an improvement. So, for now, the US backline is perfect. However I do think that US teams, men, women, and all the younger age groups, spend too much time passing around the back. In the case of the senior WNT having attacking minded players at the back, particularly Dunn, makes that problem moot.

Of course I reserve the right to be critical when I deem it correct.