thanks for updating us poor folk that can't afford whatever the heck FS1 is trying to be and have used up all possible emails for free trials(you can blame the UCLA Pac-12 channel for that)
The match that'll determine who we face in the semifinal is currently underway. 26 minutes in, and Sinclair scores to put Canada up 1-0.
Currently halftime, and now Canada is up 2-0. (Zadorsky scored right before halftime) No surprise, but it's currently looking like we'll face Mexico.
Yes. Mexico defends pretty well but their attack is rather impotent. They will need at least three to finish first and I think that is very unlikely.
Unfortunately guys, if Mexico can't pull a rabbit out of a hat, they aren't going to the Olympics at this point...there's no way they'll get past us on Friday if they can't even score against Canada.
Yep. And unless something really goes wrong we will easily beat Mexico and Canada will annihilate Costa Rica.
Canada will beat Costa Rica unless resting their A players actually works in their favor and they make it more of a game against Canada. I just don't see how any of these smaller teams can out muscle these Canadian players. USWNT against Mexico, always a classic match up for Angelenos, unfortunately I can't afford the 40 dollar ticket or the 25 dollar parking pass but I have attended a lot of their games and it's always a nice atmosphere however many end up attending on Friday. Unfortunately if Mexico is tired and uninspired, unable to score against Canada, I can't see them going past us unless we sh** the bed. Vlako has his first must win and most important match since ever this Friday so if he screws this one up, I'm pretty sure Markgraf or US Soccer will fire him.
Given the players that are on the squad I think even I could coach the US to a victory over our weak southern sisters. Mexico just is not very good and we are and that is a recipe for a big win by the US.
I'm confident we're fine unless miraculously.........................I start in Goal. And even then, I might only have to touch the ball 3 times like Alyssa the other night.
Perhaps, in the coaches view she was not good enough. I think, in this case, she was primarily included as an emergency sub in case of multiple injuries and so she could see what a USWNT tournament experience was like. I expect she will not go to the Olympics unless something really unusual were to happen. There are players that were not on this roster that I think are more likely to be on the Olympic Roster than she is even though she is a possibility. Remember there are only 16 spots for field players and that is a tiny roster and the coach still has a LOT of work to do to get his 16. Some players fill more than one spot like Ertz or Dunn where others can come in and they can move around to make the formation work. I do not know enough about Sullivan to know if she fits multiple spots but, if she does, she could be included so as to have multiple positions covered in case of injury or illness. In fact if she does cover many spots that could be why she did not get in as we had no injuries to speak of and the coach wanted to keep her available; just in case.
Doesn't have to be a reason why not does there? With only three subs, sometimes the opportunity/need never comes up.
After I typed my earlier reply it occurred to me that there was another, I think bigger, question, Why did not Franch get at least a half since we played so many really horrible teams it seemed that she should have gotten at least one half if for nothing else than to stand around on the field and watch her teammates score goals. After all, except for about 2 maybe 3 saves, that is exactly what the other keepers did,
Or more specifically, what might it imply that Andi Sullivan played not a single minute in the semifinal v Mexico nor in the final v Canada? What an odd reply. There's always a reason, even when the question seems trivial (to you). Here it's a good question.
I assume Sullivan didn't play in the semis/final because Vltako thinks there are better and more experienced players ahead of her in the midfield.
So, I went back to look at the substitutions in the semifinal and final. Must-win semifinal v Mexico: Two early goals from Lavelle and Mewis, 2-0 at HT. This is a must-win game, so we're still not feeling 100% safe. 67' Mewis scores again, 3-0, feeling pretty safe at this point. 68' Enter Press, exit Heath 68' Enter Williams, exit Rapinoe 73' Goal Press, now 4-0 76' Enter Horan, exit Lavelle Heavyweight final v Canada: 0-0 at HT, still anyone's match, and yes, a match we really want to win 60' Goal Williams 1-0 62' Enter Rapinoe, exit McDonald 63' Enter Mewis, exit Lavelle 71' Goal Horan 2-0 81' Enter O'Hara, exit Press 87' Goal Rapinoe 3-0 - finis! I would suggest (initially) that Sullivan could have easily and safely taken Horan's 15' up 4-0 v Mexico, with Horan about to play 90' v Canada two days later; and/or O'Hara's 10' v Canada, up just 2-0 but not-at-all nervous, O'Hara having just played the full 90' v Mexico. In the group matches: Sullivan DNP v Costa Rica (6-0) Sullivan played 90' v Panama (8-0) Sullivan DNP v Haiti (4-0)
You suggest that there's always a reason why not; yet you neglect to provide a reason WHY. Why would he want to play Sullivan if it is the others he actually wants in the game? It isn't as though there's a week of World Cup left and he needs to conserve people's energy. ATM in fact, isn't he more likely to want to find out who can be abused a little and still win 50-50s, and who is a reasonable option to play out of position if there is an injury?
No one says the coach's choices were unreasonable. The question is why did he make those particular choices, when other, reasonable choices were available. Up 4-0 @ 75' v Mexico, any {female} poster on this board would have sufficed, as we could have held on for the last 15' playing 10 v 11. There is no reason to assume that any player subbed off the bench at that point would have been harmful. Horan was a reasonable choice as a substitute, but choosing Sullivan would also have been reasonable. Up 2-0 v Canada with just under 10' on the clock, Sullivan for Press seems more reasonable to me than O'Hara for Press. O'Hara just got her 90' v Mexico. She doesn't need those 10'. Your question is, "Why would he want to play Sullivan if it is the others he actually wants in the game?" My answer is, "Because those 10' are more usefully given to Sullivan than O'Hara." O'Hara certainly doesn't need those few minutes to show 'who can be abused a little and still win 50-50s, and who is a reasonable option to play out of position if there is an injury.' So put Sullivan to the test. I could go on, but this is BigSoccer, where opinions are commonly set firmly in stone. I will say that you are very accepting of the status quo, and I am less so. Your underlying position: that he's the coach, he makes the choices, his team won, so his choices were therefore correct - is unpersuasive (to me). He could have made alternate choices, and still won, and learned more. He could have made better choices. Just my opinion ...