I’ve seen her capable of that bite, but she does indeed need more consistency there. Regarding her play on the ball, I’m still floored by her decision to shoot instead of pass to van de Donk after that great run vs Brazil. I’d be surprised if Pelova started, but it wouldn’t be surprising to see her get a non trivial amount of minutes on the pitch.
I haven't seen any of 2nd half or OT or PKs--but I was dearly hoping I wouldn't have to say that Martens will rue missing that PK at 81' for the Dutch--could obviously have been the game-winner. But, damn, I've had to. The pressure got to her. Big fan but that was a weak effort.
Honestly, I don’t really know how the Dutch didn’t win that in 90 minutes or 120 minutes. Second half and onwards, the US relied on offside chances; the Dutch actually created onside chances/openings. Those 75 minutes were some of the best football I’ve ever seen the Dutch play; this loss hurts more than the WWC final. I dreaded seeing Groenen (iffy first half, very good as a whole the rest of regulation and extra time in my opinion) maybe missing a penalty, but not sure how Nouwen ended up taking a PK before her and van de Donk.
I'm watching the 2nd half now and Dutch playing well. At 57' Van de Sanden makes a great run, races past Dahlkemper and in on the U.S. goal, Naeher comes out, and Shanice could have scored had she chipped at the moment she instead opted instead to slot the ball over the Miedema, who was marked. Opportunity missed! And it would have been a relatively easy chip for an experienced forward like Van de Sanden--the perfect distance--just get your foot under the freakin' ball. Ugggh: Everybody has to show guts when the moment is there--and Van de Sanden didn't, really. One could say it was a defensible decision with a defender closing on her and Miedema running in to her left--but the shot was there, the goal was there--and she didn't take it.
Wow: I have the same complaint about Beerensteyn: At 93' makes a nicely timed run after Roord blows down the face of the U.S. defense; Roord lays it off for her, she's darting into the box with the ball, Dunn closing from the left, but Beerensteyn has time enough to pause and blast one upper 90, over Naeher's left shoulder--or hit the ball hard on the ground across goal. She does neither, continues on with the ball, then tries to pull the ball back with Dunn all over her and the opportunity comes to nothing. You are a freakin' forward, you've got an opening near goal, shoot the freakin' ball.
Triple wow: Why did not Miedema not laser the ball into the upper 90 at the 100' mark. The opening was there--or certainly seemed to be. She passed up the shot--and then got no shot. Inexplicable: I can't imagine what she was thinking as there were three U.S. defenders in the box to her left and no Dutch. It was much the same shooting opportunity that Beerensteyn spurned a few minutes earlier. Good lord, the Dutch should have won this match in the second half and OT, when they were much the better team and controlled play. Team was shaky in the first 20 minutes of the game--too tentative, too much on the back foot. But I thought just about everybody played well in the 2nd half and OT. Van de Donk had a great game, IMO--was ALL over the field; Groenen was Groenen--tough, dependable, making the right decisions; Janssen was very composed throughout, Nouwen and Van der Gragt were good--read the game well; Wilms had a very nice match, all things considered--some nice defensive work, excellent cross to Miedema that might have won the game. Tough, tough loss.
Roord was being asked to be more of a DM in the absence of Spitse which I don't think is her normal position. I don't know what she plays at Arsenal.
In retrospect, van de Donk was spot on about the American team. There was a lot doubt in the eyes of the US players and I don't know if this comes from the new coach or that some of them are just too old to compete at this level other than being reliable penalty takers. It was dreadful listening to Arlo White and Julie Foudy on the US broadcast this morning as they continued to praise the US team even when it was apparent they were being outplayed. I was surprised at how well the Dutch defense held up.
Arlo White is a very good announcer, IMO--but I'm sure that NBC, which has the American broadcast rights to the Olympics, is paying him--and he absolutely went overboard in his praise of the Americans. Some of his effusive language after plays that were decent/good but hardly brilliant was embarrassing. The Dutch defense in the second half was pretty impressive, after a shaky stretch in the first half. The Netherlands simply are not good when they attempt to sit back. Very encouraged by the play of Nouwen and Wilms today--they should be proud. The forwards not named Miedema frustrate me--each of a different reason. Who are our rules experts? Someone asked on another board if the Dutch were really offside on the header goal by Martens, since Beerensteyn wasn't involved with the play. I don't know the technical details of offside--and I'm not sure the Qatari VAR officials knows them, either.
Saw a quote from Meidema in which she /suggested/ she should have taken the PK that Martens took. She admitted that she was "angry, frustrated and disappointed" by the outcome of the match, which isn't surprising. She admitted that Martens was the designated PK taker today, but clearly thinks she could have done better. Which brings up the question: Why /doesn't/ Miedema take penalty kicks? She and Janssen and Spitse have the strongest legs on the team (Van de Gragt and Nouwen are no slouches, to be sure)--and if there is one quality a PK taker should have, no, it's the ability to hit the ball with some power and conviction. Of course, that can be 70 percent physical and maybe 30 percent mental. In any case the answer has to be that Spitse has been taking almost all the team's spot kicks for years--and she's quite good at it. She has missed PKs, of course--but not very often. And obviously her success rate has kept her in the job. That doesn't explain why Martens, in Spitse's absence, got the job. It might be because she, surprisingly, told Spitse in the Japan WC match that she wanted to take that massive late-game PK. Spitse said OK, and Martens converted it to win the game. I guess the upshot is that while Martens is certainly good enough for the task, Miedema might have been better. Ain't hindsight great!? I feel for Martens: One could tell, just watching her on TV, how dejected she was after missing that shot.
I am not sure this will work, but here is a tweet with the inStat numbers for the game. The Netherlands had a huge number of turnovers in their own end of the field. The numbers, to me, look like the Netherlands did a little better on the offensive side but the US did a good deal better on the defensive side. If you click on the table in the tweet, it will connect you to a three-page set of inStat numbers.
Interesting comment from Miedema since she has said before she doesn't like taking PKs. (I believe Mia Hamm didn't like taking them either.) Janssen probably should have taken the PK given her track record with free kicks (and apparently PKs as well from some comments I've read), and she did finish emphatically past Naeher in the shootout. Miedema of course missed her take in the shootout, but that was quite an impressive save from Naeher in my opinion.
I'll preface by saying I'm not really a fan of inStat. I have had doubts about the accuracy of their stats when comparing them with FBref, and I just don't agree with their player ratings fairly often. So, inStat has the US and the Netherlands giving up a comparable number of shots and having comparable xGA factoring out the PK for the Dutch. Based on my eye test, the Dutch defense gave up more onside chances in the first 30 or so minutes, and the US defense gave up more onside chances in the last 60 or so minutes plus extra time. I'm just not buying that discrepancy in turnover rate. The Dutch definitely turned the ball over plenty, but it was only a serious issue in terms of giving up chances during the first half hour in my opinion. Regarding the US, I definitely saw at least Dahlkemper and Horan turn over the ball a number of times leading to potentially dangerous openings/chances. It just doesn't match my eye test, but I guess that's fine.
Should have? She just took one in the penalty shootout and probably wants to change her mind about being put on the spot about taking PKs. Whether Martens or Miedema you mess up, you probably want to retract that statement.
Go to the Referee forum. There is a Olympic Games thread and a post that explains why it was off sides
Fair point! The whole team was woeful at penalties. I haven't watched the PK shootout very closely--but either a couple of the Dutch were telegraphing where they were going with the shot or Naeher guessed right and went in the correct direction quite early, as she seemed to be nearly at the post before the ball got there on one or two of them. The best PK shooters hit the ball into the upper corners, where it is almost never saved. Martens can do that--but didn't.
In the US thread on the match a few posters have a snarky comment by asking what this Orange team is without Miedema. Strikes me as people who came back from the toilet to clean their wetted pants after the second half the USA barely survived.
That’s the thing I can’t wrap my head around - just how badly Martens missed her PK. A lot of fans are responding to Martens taking responsibility for the loss by saying it’s a team sport and that Martens/Miedema can’t always save the defense. I get that, but Martens got a 0.75+ xG chance to give the Dutch a very likely winner and missed. Kerr and Miedema missed their PKs this tournament as well, but they also scored twice before taking them. Martens didn’t have her best match yesterday, and unlike the defending on the US’ goals where multiple players could have done better, you can’t look elsewhere on the PK miss. Fans definitely shouldn’t abuse or attack Martens, but I don’t think it’s blasphemous to say the PK miss was a big reason or the big reason the Dutch didn’t win. Martens isn’t being too hard on herself in my opinion; I think her response in taking responsibility is fairly natural.
It's going to be weird seeing Wiegman coaching England. She will be under a lot of pressure to deliver for England with that country hosting the Euros. England is like The Netherlands in that they depend pretty heavily on one striker to score--Ellen White, who was very good in the World Cup and very good in these Olympics--a hattie yesterday. She's 32 and, assuming she stays fit, should be fine for the Euros and even the next World Cup. It will be interesting to see how Parsons assesses the Dutch squad. Can anyone see him making any/many changes? I can't--and in that sense I wonder if the KNVB made a mistake in not finding a Dutch coach to take over the team. This team doesn't need a lot of change--as a team would that has been struggling--like, say, Australia or Brazil. It's very good now. It's playing style is very good. This Dutch team might need a tiny bit of tweaking--but /continuity/ is what I'd be seeking if I were the KNVB. I think there was a shortage of Dutch candidates, and so now Parsons. The thing is, new coaches generally /want/ to change things up a bit; they want to put their mark on a squad as opposed to rolling out the same lineup, playing the same way, as under the previous coach. If I do that, the new coach might reason: Why did they need me? And that's my point: I'm not sure the Dutch needed Parsons. For starters, most of the current starting group is talented, has been very successful and is still in their primes. Beyond that, there isn't really enough quality depth to do much of anything. But what could he possibly change? Can anyone see him moving away from the 4-3-3? I can't. Why would you? Yes, definitely: I think she has wanted to take some PKs--we saw that in the Japan World Cup match, which she won with a PK. I will say that there should be no reason why she can't just put the ball in the upper corner--as she so calmly did in the Zambia match and which the best PK takers tend to do. Get the ball up. Of course you've got to keep your nerve--and that is true no matter where you want to put the ball. I'm curious: Are any Dutch fans a bit nervous about the Parsons hire? I am--not because he isn't a good coach, but because what this team needs, I think, is continuity and maybe a bit of fine-tuning, but certainly not significant change. I think the best way to ensure continuity would have been to hire another Dutch coach--but the KNVB apparently found itself in a bind because they couldn't find the right Dutch coach, or right female Dutch coach, and so turned to an outsider. New coaches tend to want to put their own mark on a team. The idea of just doing what the last coach did is, naturally, not that appealing. And that's the worry. It's not a big worry for me because one would have to be a fool to change this Dutch team too much--and I don't think Parsons is a fool. Almost all of the starters are not only talented buyt still in their primes, and, beyond that, I don't think there are any young players ready to compete for a starting job. Will he stick with the 4-3-3, which is almost gospel with Dutch soccer? I can't imagine that he wouldn't, given how effective wide play has been for this team. The only early decisions I see him noodling is where and when to play Roord and Beerensteyn. I assume Spitse will recover from her knee injury and return to the starting lineup--but it may depend on what type of knee injury she suffered. If it was a ligament tear, she will be out for a while and her readiness for the Euro championship a year or less from now is in serious jeopardy. If she out for an extended period, then Roord surely stays in the midfield and there's no decision to make for a while. And Beerensteyn: She suggested the other day, after her good performance against China, that she's ready to start. She'd be an upgrade from Van de Sanden at right forward, but do that and you lose the punch that Beerensteyn provides as a 2nd half sub now. Van de Sanden can provide some of the same punch off the bench, so it's really a matter of how the coach might want to play it. Van den Sanden was pretty decent in this tourney, I thought--but she's not an especially good shooter or scorer, and I think it would be nice to have a right forward who's not afraid to take a shot if it's there as opposed to deferring to Miedema 80 percent of the time, even it means getting a harsh look from the CF if you don't score. I want to see both Martens and whoever is on the right be a little more fearless and ruthless. Van de Sanden could have perhaps scored yesterday after that good run of hers--but she didn't shoot and instead slid the ball over the VM, who wasn't really open. That was annoying. Martens is super-talented, but she could use a bit more of the steel we see with Spitse, Miedema, others. In any case, it wouldn't surprise me to see Beerensteyn take over at right forward--and she's ready for the job. Other than that? The defense can be sloppy at times--players ball-watching in the box and not picking up an opponent--and needs some tightening--but I think the Dutch will get some of that tightening as Wilms and Nouwen get more experience, and if the team can keep Janssen at left fullback. If Van de Gragt can stay healthy--fingers crossed, this can be a good back four. The team needs to find another good young centerback. D. Kerkdijk, 25, has been on the NT roster a few times and has got 18 caps, but she wasn't on the Olympic squad and I sense the coaches have not been real high on her. Otherwise, I can see Pelova getting more playing time--but maybe not a lot yet--and we'll have to say what Parsons thinks of Folksmerta and Snoejis, but it's hard to seem them as more than reserves for now.
The KNVB has totally screwed up coaching decisions on the men's side ever since 2014 when van Gaal left after Brazil. It won't surprise me at all if they have made the wrong decision on the women's side. The basic problem is that most of the good Dutch trainers want to stay with their clubs on the men's side. Parsons was the trainer of our local women's team for a couple of years but I only saw a couple of those matches. The team is in pretty good shape age wise though van de Donk will be 30 soon. I wonder if Martens stays on the wing. I think she is not as explosive as she once was and maybe she shifts to the MF.
England also has an electric LW when she's in top form in Hemp. The difference between the English and the Dutch frontlines is that England can play a world-class RW as a starter in Kelly (or Kirby if she's not played as a CAM). (I think Great Britain seriously missed both Kirby and Kelly at these Olympics.) Not much opinion/worry regarding Parsons at this point. I wouldn't move away from the 4-3-3, but I've also been pretty biased towards it for almost as long as I've watched professional football. Even before Spitse's injury, I honestly favored playing a midfield of Janssen-Groenen-van de Donk/Roord. (Preferred Roord pre-Olympics, but van de Donk did have a better tournament. Roord played well though yesterday apart from that nerve wracking back pass on which the US almost capitalized.) Of course, that would mean Parsons would have to play someone else at LB. I rate Beerensteyn over van de Sanden, but I'm not sure why some fans think Wiegman has never started Beerensteyn in major matches. She started Beerensteyn vs both Sweden and the US in 2019, and Beerensteyn didn't perform particularly well in either match. Honestly, van de Sanden may have outperformed her in both matches coming off the bench. Beerensteyn did play well in her full 90 vs China, but with van de Sanden only playing the first half vs China, it was pretty clear who was going to start vs the US. It seems like some players just perform better off the bench, and both van de Sanden and Beerensteyn are often like that. I just think passing needs to be a lot tidier in defensive areas. In terms of actual defending, improvements can definitely be made, but I think the Dutch were a bit better in that sense.