I had more fun watching the WIldcats last night, without the NT members being truly challenged by high quality players (Ryan needs to give a look at Lohman) good that they played but they may as well have played the WIldcats, it would have been better competition BTW, the U-21 team is playing the Wildcats Wednesday at 3 PM and I can't make it
I know that the Ukraine was totally overmatched but you must admit part of that had to do with most of the team only getting there the day before the game started. Seven of them were there on Saturday for a training session, but how much do you train the day before a game, and what can you do with seven people except small sided drills?
Which means that neither the Ukraine nor the US took this game even remotely seriously. If they were serious then they would have planed so that a ONE day delay (which is all it was) would have made little difference. Even with the extra day of practice the Ukraine could have mounted no more resistance than they did. The team was hideously unskilled and unprofessional. Few of the Ukrainian players could even make a mid level college program and that actually prevented the US from showing well early to some extent. US players were expecting a decent level of skill and moving to positions to cover that play rather than moving to cover skills and decisions that a 12 year old club player might make. Although it IS necessary for the US to schedule international matches and it is very possible that teams like the Ukraine might be all that are willing to come here at this time the level of play was so low that NOTHING can be gained by playing teams at this level. For training it would be better to play U14-15 boy’s club teams or W-league teams but neither type of game would get on TV so the exposure would be minimal. The Ukraine made good practice cones but as far as practicing against true opposition the game was meaningless. In the run up to the ’90 World Cup it was said that the most competitive games for training were in inter-squad practice where the competition for positions produce many VERY intense games. This could be the case again. Even though teams world wide have improved tremendously the money going into the programs is still too low to allow extensive travel or for the US to afford to pay to bring teams here to play. The only teams of quality I would expect to see the US play for some time are Canada and Mexico with the quality of each being questionable, at best. over time. What this means is that the US must build in the old way for the next WC as we cannot depend on the competition to help us much. Ryan has, apparently, realized this as he is getting more and more players in the pool and is turning them loose to make their own decisions and their own mistakes this should produce an even larger pool of players and that will make for an even more competitive climate in camp.
Qustion........... Did US Players settle the (strike, walkout, labor dispute) and is that why they are playing?
No the contract has not been settled yet.. my last update was 2 weeks ago and they were discussingi it... waiting on the MEn's to be settled first.
i don't know about you but i think the game wasn't that good, i didn't see any system and was a little slow too, only Chaluphny who had decent game. I didn't see any full speed like Mia Hamm did try to get the ball on front left or right and crosses it on a beautiful motion and seconds later Abby answers there with the good header on the ball in a good fashion and strong and than the fans follows it with cheer histericaly....
The problem with playing teams like Ukraine is that there's virtually no pressure. The U.S. never shifted into a one-touch gear. If you always wait until you get the ball before you decide what you want to do with it, you're going to lose to the better teams. This game was more or less a publicity "we're still here" marketing necessity. Tactically and personnel-wise, the team would've been better playing a select U-17, U-19 boys team that would put them under constant pressure and make the think faster and play smarter.
Does anyone know what happened to the Ukraine over the last few years? They used to be a half-decent side, but got pasted by the Czechs and Scots in Euro qualifying and even lost to Portugal (another team that has fallen way off) in Kiev. Heck they lost to Scotland 8-1, and Scotland is nowhere near the side the US is. Has their funding been slashed? With the Ukraine men about to qualify for the World Cup for the first time ever, probably no one is worried about the women at this point
Hmm, I never really knew the Ukraine women's team was really good. The only team I know that's from East Europe that's good is the Russians and the Polish. But I could be mistaken.
They don't have anyone named Andreia Schevchenka? I totally agree that playing U-17 boys would be most helpful but that would obviously never happen. Maybe scrimmaging against the top sides in women's college soccer? Playing on campuses would be a good way to ensure a semi-decent turnout (obviously, that didn't happen on Sunday but maybe the attendance would've been higher if they were playing the U of P).
Why would it "obviously never happen?" It happens all the time. They just don't sell tickets or announce it. Over the years the USWNT has played numerous boys select and college teams in practices and scrimmages. They just haven't done anything as high profile as the US womens basketball team taking on mens teams or the Colorado Silver Bullets baseball team.
Sorry for not being clearer, I meant that a friendly against a boys team would never be televised or played in a major venue.
Clearly many here have forgotten that the USWNT has played many boy;s teams in the past BUT they were overmatched at U17 and played fairly even at U16. The size and speed difference is just too much at 17. Most of the "games" against boys have been "controled" scrimages in that each team has specific restrictions and/or goals for parts of the game. They have even played U19s and U20s (When under Dicicco) in unbalanced small sided games to improve speed of play. These games are good for development but they have little or no appeal for most fans.
The game was pretty much like the bullies on the playground. It is always better to play against someone better than you if you want to get any better. At this rate, each game will be a cake walk. I am for playing the U16 boys provided they don't tackle too hard or at all. It is a waste of time to play these type of games. The attendance was a pure indicator of that. Most if not all players did well and why wouldn't they but I have to point out that Ryan's experiment of putting Tina Frimpong as a defender is going to be a work in progress. She is fast but was out of position quite a bit and seemed to be confussed the entire time. Her ball controll is not up to par as even a college player. As a forward, she can make mistakes but as a defender, you cannot afford it. Seems like quite a nice girl and everyone loves her but I wouldn't have her there against a good team.
It wasn't a "waste of time" for the fans that were there. A crowd of 3,500 is still a good sized number. How many college sports, besides the major ones, can boast of that number? It didn't help that the game wasn't announced earlier and people could have made plans. I would have gone to either of these games, but by the time that they were announced I already had other plans for both of them. Soccer, in general, and women's soccer, specifically, are going to be a hard sell in the US. But there is a niche market out there that enjoys it and are willing to support it. The WUSA tried to get too big too soon and that was one of the reasons it failed.
Write-up from CyberSoccerNews.... http://www.cybersoccernews.com/uswomen/050710us-ukraine.shtml Linda Tarpley.........
I saw that. Is their ever a story written about women's soccer that doesn't have some error or mistatement of fact. USA Today ran a story about Abby last week and spoke of how she would be playing in the match on Sunday when anyone who knows crap about the team knew weeks ago that she wouldn't be playing. Is this all sports reporting and I only notice because I follow soccer closely?
Ukraine can't be any worse then what CONCACAF has to offer (except for Canada, Costa Rica and Mexico). Or are they?
Probably even better than Costa Rica, but they used to be a good deal better - a darkhorse candidate to qualify for a WC or Euro finals. Now they're even getting pasted by Scotland and losing to the Czechs and Portugal. What happened?
Yes, indeed. Before the World Cup 1999, Ukraine was the opponent of Germany in the play-offs for a World Cup spot. I remember that very well, because this was the first Germany match I saw live on the pitch. Before EC 2001, Ukraine was again in the playoffs, only denied by England. To be fair: they also put up a good fight in their home game against Germany in that last EC qualifying round, but that was the exception to the rule, for both teams. To illustrate the difference: the Czechs were in 2001 not even yet in the "real" qualifying groups for EC 2001...they just achieved promotion there in that year. Ukraine has definitely fallen behind...I can't say why. Maybe other nations were just putting more effort into their programs?
We are not talking about a college sport, this is the highest level of soccer in the country... 3500 is meager compared with: Charge average atendance for 2003 -Well over 7000 a game. first half of the season was layed in Downpours, still got almost twice as many per game Philly FCT - Over 15000, Less than one month in Chilly November Philly WWC - over 25000, one and a half month prep time Hartford CT - 15,093