Because VAR, even if already in place, is pretty expensive and this is an unimportant "tournament" that has no value except player evaluation. There is nothing to be gained by VAR at this kind of "tournament." VAR should only be used when there is something of real importance on the line.
Is VAR being used at the Olympics? That's the only reason why it might make sense to adopt it, so that conditions are similar. Re: the team setup and depth @hotjam2 is right--given that we only have 16 field players at the Olys, the US depth advantage is not as significant. I wonder if we should adopt something like the Man City men almost strikerless system, with Horan as a false 9. It is strange that we have perhaps our biggest ? up front. But whatever one's position is on how many vets should be selected, Morgan, Lloyd, and Pinoe are all way off 2019 form, and there is not a clear path for them to get back there (is Pinoe even playing club soccer anymore?) We are much weaker without Lavelle and Sam Mewis in the middle, in any case. But asking them, especially Rose, to play every minute of a compressed tournament is a big ask Some of our challenges really make we wish we had another outside back Dunn's level so we could push her forward. But that ship has obviously sailed. I really like Macario but asking her to be a starter in some of her first matches as a professional against top teams might be a bit much. Canada isn't the only team that can mix it up physically with us: certainly Australia and team GB will have that, and Sweden too. I will be interested to see if Pia's Brazil wants to do this, but fitness levels will obviously be a problem. Of course, it could have been 3-0, but if Canada had gotten the deserved PK, it could also have been 2-0 to Canada.
I'm uncertain as to why folks were amazed at the play of the US Women last night. I looked at the starting line up and knew it was going to be a problem attacking Canada. Horan in the middle with Macario? Horan isn't a starter as is, you start Sam (when healthy) and Rose. I understand trying to fit and give playing time to Macario, and she may be the future, but not now and not against top notch teams. Macario looked like a rookie out there, wasn't that creative. Then you add in slow Rapinoe, who hasn't played in a year and got gassed during the game. Carly had a bad game, had chances but wasn't at her best. Then L. Williams, what do you do with her? Great as her speed is, Chapman played a heck of a game and shut her down. So, slow Horan, Macario is still thinking too much out there to play particularly fast, Rapinoe is slow, Carly is ok, plays speedy wouldn't consider her a burner and Lynn who is fast. You can't possibly look at that starting group and think this team was going to easily beat Canada. USA started, slow, slow, slow, speedy and fast. On top of that, I still see L Williams as the 5th best forward on the team, behind Tobin (when she gets back), Alex, Rapinoe, Press. Probably a toss up between her and Lloyd at this point. Would you really start her in front of Press and Alex at the 9? No. In front of Rapinoe? I don't know, that's the one spot I'm beginning to question. Rapinoe's set pieces were not as good as Press's last night. Not sure why, could have been chemistry between her and Williams/Lloyd? Certainly, Tobin is a tougher match up for Defenses, her dribbling skills out match William's speed as long as Tobin returns to form. So Williams will continue to sit behind Tobin (soon). Sits behind Rapinoe and probably Press at the 11. Also, think Lynn sits behind Alex, Press, Lloyd at the 9 at this point. We all saw the difference in the team when Alex, Press, Rose and K. Mewis entered with Williams. The dynamic changed to speedy, fast, fast, speedy and fast. I do not see Victor starting that line up again anytime soon against quality opponents.
The Canadian GK if you look at time index 8:30 Youtube, I think thats when she hurt it but try not to show it. She definitely didn't look comfortable when you look at her face after that kick prior to showing her injured.
People tend to forget that winning is a second or third priority for this kind of tournament behind player evaluation and formation/tactics evaluation and familiarization. It is not that the players and coaches are not trying to win but it is more that the "winning" is in the level of effort and trying to work within whatever "system" is implemented and that "system" may not really be "best" against the team we are playing. The coaches are, probably, evaluating players ability to follow instructions and trying to find more versatile players like Dunn and Ertz and some others that can play different "styles" and different positions. The more of those kinds of players we have the less of an impact the reduced roster will have. It is entirely possible that a player that appears to us to be weak or makes poor choices are following instructions. Personally, until it is shown otherwise, I believe the new coach is really doing things correctly and, once the process is complete, we will have an even stronger team than we had before. I would say that there have been a few things discovered and we, as fans, will have to wait, maybe all the way to the Olympics to find out what the coaches believe is the "best" people and the best style/formation/starters for important matches. Except for a few players failing to hit goal or finish in other ways we, as fans, really cannot judge what has been accomplished by these training matches. My real question is: "Why are we continuing to play the same goalkeeper so much?" We need a prepared and reliable backup and, while these games are meaningless, starting and/or playing some other keepers could help, a LOT more than practice situations. One of the hardest things about playing 'keeper for a top team is to not lose concentration during the long periods of inactivity and, currently, we do not have, and have not had for years, keepers that are really ready to step in for an extended period. The starting keeper is not gaining anything more from these games the backups need to get experience in games with the US where the US dominates most of the possession. With a good team goalkeeping can be defined by, "Long periods of boredom interspersed with moments of total panic." The backups need to be ready for that.
In all honesty, there are only a few international events where winning is the only primary goal for both men and women. World Cup events World Cup qualifying Olympics Olympic qualifying Any other event, including the men's Gold Cup, is a development opportunity. Yes, it's nice to win. However, events like the Nations League, SheBelieves, Gold Cup, etc. are opportunities to get the teams peaking for these major events.
This side of the pond it is 5 for (and only 4 on the men's side): World Cup finals World Cup qualifying Olympics UEFA Euro finals UEFA Euro qualifying
I have watched the first match in SBC between US and Canada. A few things came into mind. I think only a few players in the US team were aware of where their team mates were on the field at any moment of time except those who were next to them. Hence there were very little one touch penetrating passing. Those dribbling movements up the field like what Sauerbrunn was fond of doing and then reversed and passed back to her team mate should be discouraged as it serves nothing except giving your opponents time to organize their defense. Other times dribbling was done because the player was not aware of where all her team mates were on the field and needed time by dribbling to find out. This slows down the game to give the opponents the time to get into position to defend. Many a time, a one touch shot at goal was not on target and wasted. Shouldn't the players practice one touch shooting at goal more often?. US relies heavily on players getting to the end line and then centers. But it does it so often that the opposing teams know how to position their defenders to stop the opportunities to shoot for goal. There should be more variations so that the other team does not know what kind of attack they can expect next. Mind you, there were a number of good passes to create attacking opportunities when Mewis was in and a marvelous first touch shoot from Rose that brought US the only goal. I hope the team will continue to improve and do better in the next game. Excuse me if I have said too much.
In my view, your comments above (I didn't quote all of it) were valuable and you certainly didn't say too much. Thank you.
Whatever criticisms we have, the tactics and the players the coach employed created several good chances. Sometimes they dont go in. USA can walk away knowing that on day, they did not play their best, they created more than enough to beat a game Canadian team. Very few teams bring the same level of intensity as Canada did to friendlies vs the USA. Will be interesting to see if they can replicate that vs Brazil and Argentina.
This is a good point and one that seems like a relic of the Abby years rather than an approach that best fits our current personnel. @Number007, you are right that we got the win (albeit against an understaffed Canada) and there is something to be said about getting results when things aren't clicking. If we look poor against Brazil, too, then I'll worry. Also, I hope we can have a different keeper against Brazil. It really doesn't do much to get a debut against Argentina--we could put Rose Lavelle in goal and she probably wouldn't have to make a save.
We beat Canada 1-0 with a huge assist to the center official though. That was a blatant hand ball on the US defender in the box that likely would have put us down 1-0 midway through the second half.
That wasn't really a "blatant" hand ball; callable, sure, her hand was wandering out-- but she wasn't playing the ball, it just hit her. It wasn't surprising that a ref would miss it from a distance; more just the kind of thing that happens in almost every game. And there was one the other way earlier on a free kick, where one of the people in the Canadian wall actually played the ball directly with her hand in order to protect her face, and that was not called either-- and was also a thing that happens fairly often... If anything, I thought the officiating a bit kind to Canada; not enough to whine about, but enough to notice.
just rose starting in the middle, (some have intimated this), instead of macario would have changed this entire game. we may have been up 1 or 2 goals by minute 30. but the purpose of this game was to try macario at using her creative skill to connect the mids with the forwards. vlatko now has his answer. she's not ready. in addition, it's also true that sam mewis starting in the middle instead of horan would have doubly changed this game. sam's our best mid. her presence from the start could very likely have been responsible for yet another goal by halftime. but again, the purpose of this game was to try horan with ertz against a fast, (horan has a problem with pace), physical team. vlatko has his answer. she's ok. not great. just ok.
Happens to USA = the ball just hit her, happens almost every game Happens to Japan = PK in extra-time and out of the WWC, no-one else comments or complains.
I'm more positive than most about Lynn Williams. She was practically the whole US offense during the first half against Canada. She put in about 4 good crosses that led to shots, and made a couple of good shots on goal . Yeah, she tends to sky her shots. So does Press. William's virtue is her speed which enables her to get open a lot. I'd have her on my Olympic roster. I might even have her as a starter at right forward if Heath doesn't look good coming back from injury. Williams is a real asset because she can run the other team to death and create chances. Plus among that aged and aging group of forwards, Lloyd, Rapinoe, Heath, Press, and Morgan, one or more of them is bound to be injured. What do you do with Lavelle, your most spectacular player, but, oh, so fragile? I think she's a supersub behind Mewis, Horan, and Ertz in the midfield. Macario hasn't shown me yet that she deserves a spot on the Olympic team. K. Mewis has looked better to me as a fifth midfielder on the Olympic team. Purce looks good to me at right back, although Chapman for Canada had a spectacular match on defense taking the ball away from her and others. I've never been all that enthused with Kelly O'Hara at that spot -- and she's hurt a lot also. Oh the handball question, I wouldn't call them unless they are flagrant. Write that into the rulebook.
could ask why the Belgium women aren't doing any better as they got clobbered yesterday by the Dutch, 6-1(Belgium men currently ranked #1 by FIFA) unless of course, Belgium men are a bunch of sexists too! my op had an bit of sarcasm to it cuz having the Premier League didn't make England become the world's best men's NT. On the other hand, they’ve(WSL) made several of the leagues that they poached players from, way weaker. They got a way too long season considering 2 different Cup tournaments plus a 3rd if their team makes into the CL. The injuries have been horror; Arsenal usually averaged 5 players out for the week. Everybody thinks throwing money in is the solution, probably is, but the woso participation rate among the bigger countries around the world is what’s hurting them more than anything; France only got 200K females playing each year at any level. Five times that to compare it to the US population would give them a million/yet we got an estimated 2.5 mill participated in an given year. Only the much smaller Scandinavian countries might have better participation rates than we do It’s an individual country rather than across the pond that decides how important those spring tourney’s are; US fires coach Senarmi after dismal showing at the Algarve Cup Canada doesn’t renew the contract of Moeller after similar showing at last year’s French tournament 2018 Germany fires Jones after placing last at the 2018 She Believes Cup England doesn’t renew Neville’s contract after his poor showing at last year’s SBC We didn’t see these kind of changes happen after the recent World Cup’s(or at least to the major teams involved)
You are right. Not only the hand ball which was shown clearly in slow motion replay, there was a bad pass to the goal keeper that let the Canadian team enjoyed an one on one with US goal keeper that the Canadian forward unexpectedly wasted. It was to me a certain goal for Canada.
While that is often the case she also fails in another way that a LOT of soccer players, male and female, fail when shooting. That is the shooter fails to correctly follow through by landing on their shooting foot. If a player correctly follows through even shots with a poorly placed plant foot will stay down much of the time. Following through with the shooting foot up in the air usually results in a lofted ball and a loss of potential power. It is all about practice: Practice does NOT make perfect but practice makes permanent. It is perfect practice that makes perfect. Also as I have said before “Good players practice until they get it right. But great players practice until they never get it wrong.” Mostly athletes do not practice correctly. It is summed up nicely by this quote from Pelé “You must respect people and work hard to be in shape. And I used to train very hard. When the others players went to the beach after training, I was there kicking the ball.” There have been throughout soccer history a LOT of soccer players that were almost great but they failed too much in execution. Press was that way, all speed and no finish, but she has, apparently, worked hard and now most of her shots actually hit the goal. Williams is, right now, almost all speed and athletic ability while her technique is lacking a LOT when under any pressure at all and, sometimes, even when not. She is where Press was just a few years ago. She needs to practice perfect technique to get to where she is perfect at slow speed and then continue to gradually increase the speed until she finds correct technique nearly impossible to not execute at any speed so she does not have to think about it. Williams is not the only player in the US sphere that this applies to.