I’d never advocate overlooking an opponent but I’m decreeing the 3 Matches in Houston an extension of the Victory Tour.
Maybe our best 1 on 1 defender-- but a black hole on offense. Sonnet's played really well the last few outings. So I disagree strongly. Rather have Sonnett.
The players can do the arithmetic just as well as the coaches. They know what the smaller roster means, and they can figure that that not being in the 21 is not professional extinction. And he's actually taking Pugh unrostered to keep working with her at this level of competition. I think there's apt to be more people upset here than among the left-behinds...
Well, we certainly disagree. Sure, the players can count and know there's a smaller roster. Do you really think that Pugh, Brian, and others aren't seriously upset? Do you think Pugh is thrilled that the coach is "still working with her"? So that maybe, maybe, if there's an injury or if someone plays badly, she can get the last roster spot. When the coach apparently sees Rapinoe, Lloyd, Heath, Press, Williams, McDonald, and probably Morgan all ahead of her for playing time?
I think they could all do the arithmetic and all knew they were somewhat on the bubble. So no. I don't think they are "seriously upset," and if they are. they should know better. I think he's done everything he can, more than most would, to make it clear to Pugh that she has a future with this team; and Brian has been through it before, quite recently. She's probably the worst case because she also has played very well the last few outings. It is probably more clearly a numbers game in her case than anyone else's. But 26 unto 20 won't go, Somebody gets left behind, and someone has to choose who.
Last comment on this. If they are "seriously upset," they should "know better." Wow! Is that what you'd tell those young women if you knew them?
Probably not; depends on the individual. It is never one size fits all. But as I say, they pretty much must have known this was coming/likely. It cannot be too surprising. And the question is kind of paternalistic isn't it? These are not high school juniors headed to a prom, they are professionals at or near the peak of their profession; tough enough to have won the most desired team trophy in all of women's sport. They aren't hothouse flowers needing our constant protection. In fact, they are kinda ruthless in a sort of pleasant way. Good on 'em.
Maybe publicly they will act like they are okay with the decision but privately, it does hurt. Don't assume they are robots.
I don't. I just assume that that particular kind of hurt comes with the territory. It did for me when I was still in playing football, hockey and lacrosse. And I think it is even worse for dancers or orchestra musicians. And they are all of them much tougher than I was, frankly-- and I just went back at it... For gosh sakes, these people have to practice with and against Carly Lloyd. That can really hurt.
I think there's an expectation that when you're at this level, you can lose your roster spot at any time. The players themselves have talked about the competition within the squad. It doesn't mean its not hard to lose the spot (Carli Lloyd has talked about how hard it is to lose a starting spot; Crystal Dunn has talked about being left off the 2015 roster), but it is normal and hopefully motivating. Moreover, I think most players at this level are aware of where they stand on the roster as far as starting player, practice player, etc. And if they're not self-aware enough for that, then the coach should be telling them (and the best coaches should be telling them what they need to do to make it back on the roster). It shouldn't be a surprise. I think that's what @taosjohn is saying.
You may already know this, and I think that you do, but Olympic roster sizes are limited to 20 whereas the World Cup roster size is 23. I couldn't tell by your response if you were stating that, for whatever reason, the USWNT is choosing to go with the small roster size instead of being mandated to do so. Personally I would like the women's Olympic competition to become how it is for the men. The men teams are composed of U-23 players, with up to three players who are at least 23. The men's competition also has 16 sides from 6 confederations vs the women's that has 12 sides from 6 confederations. Making it primarily a U-23 competition will do more to grow and develop the women's game, IMHO.
I may be just incompetent in my searching ability but I have been unable to find any information about where the matches will be televised. Does anyone know where the matches may be viewed?
Just 9 more days until the team takes their first step toward hopefully reclaiming the Olympic Champions title they fell well short of defending in 2016. Relieved to see that as of Friday evening @jackdoggy still hasn't slipped into a USWNT withdrawal coma, which is a real thing.
As of yesterday, still TBD. Olympic Qualifying is run by Concacaf and they own the TV rights. We are aware they are working on a broadcast deal for both Qualifying tournaments for the Women and the Men. Once determined, we will make sure to share with everyone!— U.S. Women's National Soccer Team (@USWNT) January 18, 2020
18. 20 is what concacaf allows for olympic qualifying. 2 additional players have to be cut. [they dont need 3 gks, so ashlyn may be one, and sonnett is a younger, better, faster rb/cb than is krieger, making ali the other.]
hadn’t heard of a possible olympic boycott. is pugh going against the senior players? she doesnt sound too enthusiastic. [...and no. herc is wrong. she didnt say that ellis had no tactics].
They're trying to create controversy where there is none. Pugh hasn't heard anything about a boycott, probably because the players haven't seriously talked about it. What else can she say then, but that she doesn't know anything about it? And a high press itself is a tactic. Herc's interpretation of Pugh's comments and Ellis's "lack of tactics" really doesn't reflect what you could actually see on the field as the team evolved under Ellis, and I think any reasonable observer can admit that, whether you like Ellis or not. I would interpret Pugh's comments to say that Vlatko probably is encouraging more of a pass-around style and/or slow buildup than high press. All of those are tactics.
Thank you for pointing that out. A few years ago I read something about qualifying and it was stated that 20 were on the roster through the finals. At the time I think I assumed the finals meant the Olympic finals when it really meant the finals of qualifying. I would still like to see the women's competition as it is for the men - primarily a U-23 competition. I don't understand why it isn't.
That ESPN interview and the announcer's comments are reprehensible. The announcers are trying to make a controversy where none exists. Pugh would be well advised to stay away from the media. Her vague and incoherent utterances will be distorted by journalistic hacks like these two ESPN yo-yos
The IOC *hates* competitions that aren't with the best athletes available. They want NHL, MLB & NBA players playing in their efforts to make the medal mean something. That's why they dropped baseball for a while. They couldn't get the top players on board. They have "settled" for U23 men only for soccer because they don't have the pull to make it a senior event. And USSF & USOC are happy to send our senior women and it has had a good impact on the women's game here.
The ESPN video posted above is outrageous, an excellent definition of "unprofessional." These two guys, utter scam artists, do not present a single FACT regarding any possible Olympic boycott even being discussed at present. There is no source, not even an unnamed source. Even if it's true that some players on the U.S. team discussed a possible boycott in 2016, that does not mean that anyone on the 2020 team has said a word about a boycott. Mallory Pugh, who's 21 years old, got caught in a sleazy trap. The coach and higher-ups should protest to ESPN and tell everyone on the team not to appear again with these two guys.