I don't know if Canada will be able to defend the US for 90 minutes. I'm not sold on Moscato and with Sesselman playing next to her, that leaves the middle a very problematic area for the Canadian defense. That said, Tancredi always seems to score against the US and she is the leading goal-scorer in the tournament..
American invasion!!! Baby Horse in on the first picture and in front of her this dude that I keep seen a lot recently... Second picture: 1) HAO 2) ??? Lloyd maybe? 3) Cheney 4) Baby Horse
I could see this game going a lot of different directions, anywhere from a 4-0 US win to a 2-1 or 3-1 Canadian win. Canada's play is even more wildly inconsistent than the US. I was looking back at some old highlights and noticed a tendency by the USWNT defense that Canada was able to exploit earlier this year. The Melissa Tancredi goal against the US in June and Rachel Yankey's goal against the US in early 2011 were eerily similar to me. In both cases, the opposition (Canada/England) moved the ball quickly up the field finding space behind the US midfield. In both cases, the opposing team's best player (Christine Sinclair/Kelly Smith) ran straight at the US's central defense. In both cases, the US right back (Heather Mitts/Ali Krieger) got sucked too far into the middle, apparently not trusting their central defense's ability to stop the opposition. In both cases, the ball was passed outside for a shot and eventual goal (Melissa Tancredi/Rachel Yankey). I think if this is one of those games where Lloyd and Cheney get a little lazy or over-extended, get caught upfield, Canada could find space between our defense and midfield and they can exploit that. But then again, I'm a glass half-empty type of guy (actually a glass broken type of guy), so I have a tendency to be negative.
Are you talking major tournaments or friendlies? The core players are their for stats and those nice paychecks in friendlies, so any score is possible when they play an underdog. That's why the "so called" reserves can't get a cap. France vs Japan is the REAL game of the day. Lets see what attendance looks like at both games.
Does it ever bother you to be serially, constantly wrong? The US played 11 friendlies between CONCACAF qualifying and the Olys, including Algarve. During that time Pia started everyone on the roster at least once AND Cox, Engen, and Klingenberg who traveled with the team, and played either in official or closed door matches - so the roster evolved to the point that Cox isn't playing and O'Hara is not only on the squad but starting within ONE year. Since the last Olympics, half of the players who played in the gold medal game are no longer on the roster - and all but 3 have had seriously altered roles. That's pretty good evolution for the gold medal winners. And it's the federation that mandates (and profits from) playing most of the starters in friendlies, since promising the big names will show up increases the value of the game which they sell to outside groups (like FC Dallas) on a contract basis (you pay USSF a set fee, promote the match and keep the ticket money - these contracts mandate how many starters will appear, and the USWNT plays only friendlies that the fed has sold).
Please Big Soccer 'Gods', bring back neg rep, read the threads at this area and you will easily see why we need it.
Hey Mr. "A's in English I, II, and III": The correct usage is "... core players are THERE for stats..."
Interesting article about long ball tactics. http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/soccer/u-s-womens-soccer-team-digs-the-long-ball.html
It's been fascinating to see the US experiment with a possession oriented 4-5-1 offense after the WWC and then completely abandon that for a more direct 4-4-2 with Morgan and Wambach leading the charge up front - and to much better results. I think the lesson learned is, the ultimate goal is winning. Some teams are built for possession, mainly out of necessity. Some teams are built for direct play. It'll be an interesting contrast between the two semifinals (one possession, one direct), with a clash of styles in both the Gold Medal and Bronze Medal matches.
...except that even with the long ball game against NZ, the USA has won the possession battle so far, even against France(53%-47%), which hangs its hat on that style.
Live by the long ball. Die by the long ball. If we are down 1 in the 80th minute, we'll be looking for something like another miracle ball (Rapinoe to Wambach in WWC), cuz midfield play won't be able to generate a quality attack. Pia knows it, and our team has yet to learn it.
conversely, live by the high back four, die by high back four. if teams like France and NZ don't respect the speed, that's where you hit them. Canada will drop back a bit, so Pia wants to be able play in front of them. perfectly understandable.
Canada is a very dangerous opponent. Sure the US should be favored and sure the US could blow open the game - the Canadian defense is injury-riddled and a bit of a weak spot at this level of the sport. But it's ridiculous to think they don't have a puncher's chance and a good one at that. They have responded terrifically to their new coach, John Herdman, who did well to make New Zealand a competitive team. They've shown the ability to build an attack from the back in this tournament and they started to do that in CONCACAF qualifying. Christine Sinclair is one of the top 5 players in the world. Melissa Tancredi is on a hot streak and she's simply meshing well with Sinclair, the result of many years playing on and off with her. Sophie Schmidt and Desiree Scott are world class players who can play on almost any national team in the world. They have good goalkeepers in Karina LeBlanc and Erin McLeod (personally, I think, at their best, LeBlanc is the better of the two but perhaps Herdman thinks McLeod is in better form) Diana Matheson is playing very well this tournament and has given them that extra attacking element out of the midfield. They're a legitimate top 8 team in the world who had a miserable World Cup last year but has a much better coach this year. If I keep thinking about this I'm going to get extremely nervous. *I like Cville KC's comments above about the weaknesses in the US that Canada is perfectly capable of exploiting. The Sinclair/Tancredi combination is simply up there in terms of being one of the best in the world right now. The question is can a 3rd or 4th player from Canada be an offensive difference-maker against a team like the US: Matheson, Schmidt (who comes from a somewhat deeper position in the midfield), and the 3rd forward, whether it's Filigno or Kaylyn Kyle or someone else.
I hope Canada enjoyed that victory against a hapless GB side. Tomorrow is their day of reckong. Abby and Alex are going to go hulk smash on that back line. If the Canadians try to bunker in and double team our stud forwards then our midfielders will just send crosses into the box and take potshots from every angle all day. They will also have to deal with an in form LeRoux who they made the mistake of calling a Judas and a traitor,an inspired (by Chastain and other's comments) backline and Hope Solo . Going to be a long day for them. I do not fear them at all. It will be death from above and death from below.
Well if we expect the US to go "hulk smash" on Canada, we certainly could've expected that to happen against New Zealand, too, right? But that game stayed 1-0 until around the 80th minute. Canada played great against Sweden. I didn't see the first half but I heard they had the better of play even when they fell behind 2-0. Canada played well against Japan, too, didn't they? Morgan and Wambach will get their chances against that backline, you're right about that. But all it takes is 2 or 3 squandered chances for a team like Canada to hang around. Sinclair and Tancredi have shown they only need that one opportunity to bring their team back.
A goalkeeper is the only player on the field allowed to put themself in a position of danger. She may not remember how to get home, but I bet she can still kick your ass.
Right, she's kinda is a dry spell and we're not scoring. 1 goal v. NZ until late goal, 1 goal v. Colombia until 2 goals late , 1 goal v. PRK. These teams are not the elite of the world. Maybe we're playing to the level of the opposition, doing just enough to win. Kinda giving me the yips.
True. But can the U.S. play possession consisitently? Sometimes they look very good for short stretches. Then the giveaways come in bunches. Pick your poison, I guess.