OK, decision time: 1. Naeher 2. Sauerbrunn 3. Dahlkemper 4. Dunn 5. O'Hara 6. Horan 7. Sam Mewis 8. Lavelle 9. Morgan 10. Press 11. Rapinoe ---------------------- 12. Franch 13. Davidson 14. Sonnett --------------- 15. Ertz 16. Lloyd 17. K. Mewis 18. Heath ------------ 19. Purce 20. Macario 21. Williams 22. Campbell --------------
How risky is it to take Heath when Rapinoe has just shown she can barely be counted on to play every other game, even against weaker opponents? Very risky. It's wrong to think of the roster in terms of 5 forwards; for the most part we're talking about 3 players for 2 wide forward positions So let's say Vlatko selects Press, Rapinoe, Heath. If Heath turns out to not really be match fit or match sharp and can't contribute a lot of minutes AND we now know Rapinoe can't supply a ton of minutes either, that leaves Press, who can't be on both sides at once and who also may not be able to play every minute of every pressure-packed game in the knockout rounds. If Heath isn't a combat effective unit for a game and it's a game Rapinoe isn't combat effective for either, then even if Press plays, if she gets gassed, we may have ZERO of our projected outside forwards for significant minutes in a match where our Olympics is on the line. To make it worse, we also now know we may have to conserve Lavelle's minutes. If Lavelle isn't available for that moment in the game and Horan is sitting in Ertz's spot, where are we going to get the creative firepower at the crucial moments of a crucial game? Taking Heath is an extremely big risk. Taking Ertz is a big risk. We're really setting ourselves up for a repeat of the 2016 nightmare at the Olympics
Is there anyone who thinks the coaching staff is not considering all of these permutations and combinations?
If you select Heath & she cannot go or is not recovered enough where she can contribute, then simply replace her with Purce, Williams, or Macario. Lavelle & Dunn can also play some WF.
They're thinking of it, sure. But they're also thinking, unfortunately, of what the safe political choice is. They're thinking they won't get fired for taking Heath if they lose. But they think they will get fired if they don't take Heath and they lose. Same with Ertz. Same with Rapinoe, Morgan, Lloyd. And I'm not saying none of these players should go. I'm just saying this is where the US team becomes this clique, this in-club that protects itself. With the aid of fans, journalists, and commentators. With a short Olympics roster and calendar, the presumption should be that a player who hasn't played in six months isn't going unless they've been extremely critical to the success of the team and irreplaceable.(What's the stat-geek terminology? Wins over replacement?) Instead, we do the opposite. We make the presumption that the star player will make a heroic recovery and lead the team to victory, so if they don't go and the team doesn't win, the coach was a rotten scumbag to not put them on the roster. The burden should be on the coach who takes a player who hasn't played in 6 months. We put the burden on the coach who doesn't take her. The "permutations and combinations" can be simplified a great deal by adopting one good simple premise: Tobin Heath shouldn't be going simply because she hasn't been playing in 6 months. We should then ask the same about Julie Ertz. It may be different with her because she's had a unique impact on the team playing the #6. Or we may reach the same conclusion — it's too big a risk. What do you mean, "simply replace her"? Replace her with an alternate? As someone pointed out on Equalizer, you can only replace a player for a new injury, not a preexisting condition.
You know, your post is positively choked with presumptions you are making that I don't think are true, and in many cases you are claiming as "proven" things that there's no proof of at all. Nobody has to start play in the Olympics tomorrow, and my presumption is that the guy in the room generally is vastly better equipped at evaluating-- and presuming, for that matter-- than those of us in the peanut gallery. Not necessarily smarter, perhaps, but more experienced and with better access to far more information. He's there and we're here, The national team, for those of us in the audience, is a terrific and rewarding spectacle, well worth watching, and the next act is coming right up. Why not watch and enjoy and stop presuming there's something awful about to emerge from every duffle bag? It is very likely to be fine, and even if things go wrong, it has been such a pleasure to watch so many things go so right over the years that the balance sheet for an individual fan's experience will still be staggeringly in the black. Pop a top and some popcorn, open a can of Inner Jackdoggy, relax and watch the show. Whatever happens it'll be worth it. Its sports, not nuclear war.
Eh. I'm arguing with cliveworshipper in another thread (Silly me) but he brought up something which really makes my point here. He talks about how Paul Riley, when he was in Portland, gave in to perceived pressures to start Alex Morgan instead of Jessica McDonald. Tell that to all the TV commentators. Here at BigSoccer, Equalizer, Twitter, there's lot of fans crossing their fingers that Heath is going and they're going to be really disappointed when she doesn't. And they're going to blame whoever her replacement is (and we all know who they're ready to blame) when the US doesn't win gold. It's a smart thing to explain to as many people as possible why the presumption should be that Heath isn't going. Vlatko should be doing it and he's not.
Getting my prediction in before the announcement (which I'd expect in the next week or so): Prediction on Vlatko's 18: Goalkeepers: 1. Naeher 2. Franch Defenders: 3. Sauerbrunn 4. Dahlkemper 5. O'Hara 6. Dunn 7. Sonnett (although I personally prefer Purce for the versatility of filling out an aging frontline, I think Sonnett has the edge) 8. Davidson Midfielders: 9. Sam Mewis 10. Lavelle 11. Horan 12. Ertz (if healthy), or Macario if not healthy (not for same position obviously, but I think they'd shift Horan back and bring another offensive midfielder instead of Sullivan; I can also make an argument that if Ertz is not ready to go that they may choose Purce since either Sonnett or Davidson could sub in at the #6 position if they want to use Horan higher in a game, but we haven't seen that.) 13. Kristie Mewis Forwards: 14. Morgan 15. Press 16. Rapinoe 17. Lloyd 18. Heath (if healthy), Williams if not healthy (toss-up here for me if he chooses Smith or Williams. A month ago, I'd have said Williams for sure, but now I'm not sure. In any case, all indications are that Heath is going to be chosen) Alternates (based on assumptions that above 1st choices are healthy): 19. Purce 20. Macario 21. Williams/Smith 22. Campbell
I do remember Pinoe getting an ACL in November of 2015. It should take 9 months to recover from that injury(so stay away at least from physical contact for at least 9 months, correct? Yet walla, there she was playing on the team in Rio in August of 2016. What am I missing? btw…..just read that there’s 17 full time contract players on the USWNT. So my pick would all 17(whoever they might be) & everybody else duke it out for the last remaining spot!
Also for Lyon she is playing center forward, which seems like her natural position. For some strange reason Vlatko is playing her in the midfield.
I'm not sure if I've seen the FIFA deadline, but the US almost always announces earlier than the deadline anyway. This year USSF has said that they'll announce the USWNT roster before the final two send-off games. With players having to report to camp prior to that July 1 game, I expect an announcement by June 28, at the very latest, and probably on the 24th or 25th. At this point Vlatko has seen everything he needs to see, with the exception of possibly seeing some fitness/medical updates on Heath and Ertz. Once the coaching staff have made the decision and contacted the players, they'll announce it.
with only 18 roster spots that puts a huge premium on durability and flexibility. I agree with the poster who urged caution about Heath and Ertz, particularly if Lavelle is not able to go all the time. But to your point about contracts, it would be a shame if those contracts determined who gets to represent the country at the Olympics.
I've heard others describe her role as a false 9. It's a different system. I also have little idea on whether she can shoot the ball.
Lyon highlights if you have an athletic subscription - https://theathletic.com/2556616/2021/04/30/catarina-macario-lyon-highlights/ College goals - https://theathletic.com/2556616/2021/04/30/catarina-macario-lyon-highlights/
In my tenure on this particular electronic space, I’ve learned that agreeing with lil means you eventually are proven to be right 99.73% of the time. Perhaps another way to look at the Final U.S. Olympic Roster would be: We may have Becky frickin Sauerbrunn and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Abby frickin Dahlkemper and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Kelley frickin O'Hara and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Crystal frickin Dunn and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have frickin T and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Emily frickin Sonnet and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Midge frickin Purce and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Sam frickin Mewis and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Rose frickin Lavelle and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Lindsey frickin Horan and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Julie frickin Ertz and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Kristie frickin Mewis and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Andi frickin Sullivan and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Lighting frickin Williams and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have frickin ATG and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Christen frickin Press and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Megan frickin Rapinoe and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Tobin frickin Heath and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Carli frickin Lloyd and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Sophia frickin Smith and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Catarina frickin Macario and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Alyssa frickin Naeher and other Teams definitely won’t. We may have Adrianna frickin Franch and other Teams won’t. We may have Jane frickin Campbell and other Teams won’t. …..all members in good standing of the Universal Institute of Badasserie. Be careful what you wish for TJ........and inner jackdoggy is only available in Kegs!
I just found that out; I've ordered up a truckload, with extra taps... I'm a child of the sixties-- I should be able to handle it-- and if I can't, what a way to go!
Kolabear said: "HE'S SUBJECT TO POLITICAL PRESSURES THAT WE AREN'T" Surely, if you really try, really hard, you will/can see that there are at least three huge presumptions in that statement alone: 1. That the fed is so organized that those pressures have affected something in the past; I'm sorry but the firing of Sermanni is not proof, and not even necessarily strong evidence that his is true. 2. That the very substantial changing of the guard in the positions which could exert such pressures has produced no real change in the propensity to exert such pressures on him. And 3. That he took this job without considering the possibility and dealing with it in advance. I can't imagine anyone with his experience not at some point in the interview process bringing up the persistent perception that such pressures exist and saying in effect "Don't play that game. If you want to hire someone who will bow to that sort of pressure, don't waste all of our time by hiring me and then firing me for not bowing. It'll come up at some point because humans are human, but I'll tell you right now I'm going to do what I think my job is, not what somebody else does." Whether it actually happens in any great measure or not, it is an obvious precaution to take to set some groundrules against it; and he need not fear being fired as his phone would be ringing off the hook the next morning. Ellis' position was a bit different, as she was an insider already, one of those positioned to apply such pressure-- but Vlatko came to this as a free agent and one in demand at that.
I have no inside information, but nor am I as dismissive of the political pressures argument as you are. I would not be surprised if the USWNT (staff and star players) see a strong alignment of interests between their interests and the goal of creating a financially sustainable (read: healthy) domestic women’s league. Given that, it wouldn’t be crazy to infer that that alignment of interests implies preserving a star system to keeps fans interested. Without endorsing any of the judgments or insinuations on this thread about whether Lloyd and Morgan deserve their spots on the front line, it is certainly true that fans come to see them. They sell tickets and bring viewers. Ditto all the established names from the World Cup. I was at the Nigeria game. The ovation when Lloyd left was one of the biggest big, but was exceeded by Morgan’s entrance. Half the girls were wearing Morgan jerseys. I saw two little girls holding up “Heath to Tokyo” signs, hand made. That is one possible type of political pressure, apart from the financial incentives associated with contractual obligations to play veteran players.
Not sure why you are so reluctant to admit that politics and financial pressures keep certain veteran players in their spots. Kate Markgraf was installed this cycle to oversee the interests of the federation and has a final say in roster decisions and can veto Vlatko. There were other coaches, including a couple of high profile college coaches, who were turned off of the position because the NT head coach does not have free reign to change the team to suit his or her liking. Coaching this team has always been a game of politics, and if the vets don't like you they will try to oust you. Even just looking at the finances, USSoccer sponsors have dumped a lot of money into specific players on this team.