Almost...

I think the point here being not that these players should have been on the WWC team this year, but rather, these players had equivalent talent to some of the old guard when they were at a young age. And that the development opportunities of residency camps, and NT appearances were not available to these players because the '91ers were more talented because they had been developed. And rather than begin to expand the talent pool to allow for more depth, the 91ers continued to monopolize the development opportunities throughout the 90's.

The reason the gap exists is two fold, one there was no WUSA (charcosan points out how well this has worked for Boxx, Wambach, etc) and two that the players now between the ages of 26 and 30 were competing with the 91ers who had had such better development chances.

So the question I think is if, lets say Boxx, had gotten the opportunities pre-WUSA to go to the camps that say, Fair, and TR and Mac went to, would she have only had two cap when WWC '03 began?

That to me makes Clemens et al "Almosts"

d

 

The stars seemed to be aligned for misfortune for the USA...

The type striker who can threaten to get behind defenses:

1) Millbrett...was in generally poor form...

2) O'Reilly...broken leg...

3) who else was there...didn't wusa produce any type players like this..wambach isn't....

on the whole the loss of macmillian created a HUGE void offensively...

mia isn't the player of several years ago duirng the run of play...

henrichs went with a power game..parlow and wambach...and it almost succeeded, except aghainst the germans....

the huge problem is getting the next generation out their on the pitch...

reddick proved her worth...

wagner was a disappointment..perhaps due to the style of play??

 

I think Susan Bush was on the "star" track and would've followed the Wagner path if not for injuries. I wouldn't rule out a comeback for her.

Of course, in 1998, it looked like Robin Confer was going to be part of the team for years to come.

One thing I'll throw out for consideration: In 1999, the WNT played 29 games. In 2001, they played 10. Yet in 2001, MORE players earned caps. (I'm skipping 2000 because that was the year of the contract dispute, so a lot of players earned the only caps of their careers.) The one player who played all 10 games in 2001 -- Jena Kluegel.

And it makes sense that the pool grew as the WUSA started, giving more players an opportunity to stay active in top-level competition. You can't go back and fault DiCicco and Dorrance for failing to keep 23-year-old fringe players in top-level soccer. (Also, high-level youth soccer has taken off -- FIFA held its first U-19 world championship in 2002.)

Another point I'll offer: You can look at MLS and European-based U.S. players and come up with perhaps 70-80 players who deserve a look (or have had a recent look) on the men's team. I didn't see that in the WUSA player pool. The Wambach-Hamm combination for the Freedom was light years ahead of any combination not involving Prinz or Meinert.

I'll offer a suggestion: Do we need a U.S. "A" team? Perhaps we could take a second-tier team and have them play some of the lesser lights of the women's game, and some of them would work their way into the top level.

Now all we need is a sponsor ...

 

Here's an interesting question -- if Heinrichs hadn't gone with the power forward lineup with Wambach and Parlow, maybe she would've found room for Wagner to play more, and maybe that would've made a difference against Germany.

Or maybe they don't get past Sweden and Norway, both of whom were battered senseless (figuratively speaking) by Wambach.

This team looked great for four games, especially when you consider in hindsight that Sweden was a pretty good team.

Ideally, of course, your team could adjust to a different type of game -- maybe go with the redwoods against Sweden and the dancers against Germany. But that's awfully difficult.

 

Re: You get it!

NFL: 30 teams. Women's national team: 1 team.

Reasons why the men's and women's pools are different:

1. Fewer professional players in the women's game. That was especially true before the WUSA. As I said a couple of posts ago, you can't hold DiCicco and Dorrance responsible for trying to keep 23-year-olds in the game if they failed to beat out Mia Hamm for a job.

2. Greater disparity of talent among women's professional players. (Add 1+2 and you get fewer players worthy of national team.)

3. The U.S. women's team has players who are easily among the best ever at their positions, and some are at or near their primes. Not the least bit true for the men. That's not a factor of other women not getting an opportunity. Hamm, Lilly and Fawcett weren't exactly outclassed in the WUSA, where more than 100 U.S.-eligible players got a chance to show what they had. Milbrett was (THIS season, anyway), and it cost her dearly.

4. All the players brought up so far in this conversation are players who were knocked off the national team for valid reasons ranging from injuries to flat-out not performing. Hey, I like Mandy Clemens as much as the next guy, but if she's only starting eight games for the CyberRays, what makes you think she's worth bringing back to the national team?

The bottom line is this: No U.S. coach can bring 100 players to every camp and start a different lineup every game. Before the WUSA started, the U.S. only had the resources to keep a handful of players in the game -- sad but true. When the WUSA started, the national team started to play fewer games. Players HAD to demonstrate their national-team worthiness in the WUSA, college play or youth national team play. There's no point in bringing in players who aren't performing well in the WUSA or are injured.

After the Olympics, the U.S. will start over out of necessity. Many players from the world champion U-19 team should be ready to make the leap. Hopefully, the WUSA or some successor will keep more players active. Then this'll be a moot point.

For another take on the situation, check this thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=1703331#post1703331

 

Re: Final comments.

If you want to go by number of graduates (or people who have finished their eligibility, since many football players will never be "graduates"), then the numbers are even worse. College football teams, IIRC, have 85 scholarships. Women's college soccer teams, last I heard, have 12.

The reason I brought up the NFL is that it's easier to be an "impact player" when the talent pool is spread over 32 teams (in my earlier post, I forgot two). If there were a U.S. national gridiron team, Byron Leftwich would have no impact because there'd be 10 QBs ahead of him.

No, but they had to play in enough to make it worth their while financially. In the late 90s, the U.S. essentially had 20 professional players. I don't know of a way to expand that pool without a professional league. I've floated the concept of a national "second team" -- what do you think?

Dude, that's uncalled for.

OK, here's the big-picture answer, going back to the early days of the team. The U.S. chose to bring along a small pool of players so that they could play enough games to be, in essence, professional. Under the circumstances of the day, that was the best option available.

The WUSA expanded the player pool, with some immediate results. Thori Bryan worked her way back into the player pool after being dropped years before. Several goalkeepers earned a look. Heinrichs called close to 80 players into at least one camp.

But on the other hand, if you didn't have enough talent to make the national team, you were quickly exposed in the WUSA.

So the players that didn't make the cut -- ALL of them, not just a case-by-case deal -- fell into one of the following categories:

(A) Didn't make the cut circa 1997 and drifted out of top-level soccer.

(B) Didn't make the cut circa 2002 because they didn't show enough in the WUSA to warrant consideration in the team's limited schedule of friendlies.

(C) Got hurt.

$$$$$$$

Hopefully not. With any luck, we'll have the WUSA or some sort of top-level league in which players can prove their worthiness (of course, if they're really, really good at youth level or in college, they can play their way in that way a la Wagner, Reddick and O'Reilly). Players will develop in the league and supplement their development with occasional calls to the national team, which will have more openings after the Olympics. (I'd like to think it has a few openings now -- at the very least, you'll see Mitts, O'Reilly, Tarpley and perhaps Kelly Wilson competing for jobs.)

The circumstances in 2003 just aren't the same as the circumstances in 1993. You're suggesting that the national team should've called up a bunch of ex-college players who weren't playing competitive games and giving them three or four games with the nats each year, and you're suggesting that the national team should've had camps with 100 people. If you'd like to wire a bunch of money back to the year 1993 so that the U.S. could have a top-tier league and burgeoning camps with 100 people, great.

Do you see the problem now?

 

Re: Re: Re: Final comments.

I don't think philosophy or "vision" is the issue. Going forward from 2004 onward, I think you and I would agree that the player pool should be opened up. But looking backward, I just don't think you're being realistic.

"The big picture" also includes some understanding of the circumstances of the past. There was no professional league, and the talent pool had not yet been swelled by 20-year-olds who had grown up wanting to be Mia Hamm. (Remember -- the USA's 1991 victory was known only to a handful of soccer geeks, as was the 1995 loss.)

If you can point to something that should have done differently under the circumstances of the day, I'd be glad to hear it.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Final comments.

I have the notification thing set up, and I've hit a lull in my day.

You're almost right -- I don't think they WERE practical at the time. But they should be practical going forward.

The bottom line is that pre-2001, the player pool was limited by circumstances that the coaches could not control. These days, it should be different.

 

Re: Re: You get it!

We just seem to reserve this tactic for the WWC, not the qualifying matches and friendlies. A quarter of the USA's WWC could be named under this umbrella. I don't think bringing in a 100 players into camp is possible due to finances and logistics, but Heinrichs does need to expand her field of vision for talent. She may have to look at pre-college players more than she has.

 

Excellent discussion - keep it up - so much more interesting than all the immature women's sports bashing and crap I often read on these boards. We need more "serious talk about the women's game" like this!

 

Just a few notes on a couple of players. Whalen was converted to a full back while plying at UConn. I believe it was her senior year when it happened. For some reason I swear she retired from international play sometime in 2001 or 2002. I couldn't find it anywhere but it's sticking in the back of my mind.

As for Jen Grubb, I was escorting the US team in '97 while they were in DC to play the Italian women's team. That evening I was driving the bus that took the team to watch DCU v Colorado, while waiting for all of the players, Lorrie Fair and April Heinrichs where in the van with me and started talking to each other. Grubb's name came up and Heinrichs said that Grubb could be counted on to make one costly mistake every game and kind of left it at that. I took as that's the reason she wasn't getting too many call-ups. IIRC she said basically the same thing this season during a gametime interview of a Freedom game.

 

Re: Re: Look at the numbers.

Yes in comparison to the men's program the women's team hasn't been around as long but they have only played 128 less games which is amazing considering there are decades in difference in terms of how long the teams have been around. Until 1996, the men's teams and the women's team had the same feeder system, college soccer so I would say it's apples to oranges, maybe cranapples to golden delicious.

I'm not so sure that if the men's team prepared for 98 like they did for 94 there would be more guys near or above the 200 cap level. I think that in general there has been more experimentation on the men's side than the women's, mainly because there are more men that play the game than women in this country. While the men's pool may be deeper, is it that much deeper that is has less than 50% the number of women players over 100 caps?

I think that some of the old guard was ridden a little too long and that on the women's side because there is a shallower pool than the men, that all the coaches have resisted bring in too many players because of this perception. Look at Arena, he gave caps to guys who really didn't deserve them like Ritchie Williams and Paul Bravo of all people. You don't see that kind of experimentation going on on the women's side. You can say they deserved it because of the MLS play, well since the women's team was dependent for so long on the college game it could have been treated as "league play".

 

Re: Re: Re: Look at the numbers.

I see your point, but the college game still ends at age 22 or 23. That's one major limitation on the player pool already, one that would've kept players like Wambach and Boxx off this year's team unless they somehow stayed in top playing condition another way.

I could also argue that capping players like Williams and Bravo is an exercise in futility. In any case, if you compare to the women's game, bear in mind that every time they capped a player along those lines, they would have taken away a game from a player who really needed a top-level game (and the money). Pre-WUSA, this was the only way to play at the top level. So if you're playing 30 national games, but each person only gets 10 caps, that's not a lot of experience and probably not enough money to remain an active professional.

Of course, Williams is another can of worms. What was he doing there, anyway?

 

Re: Names, please.

Kelly Walbert (later Cagle). Only one cap.

 

I have that in my mind, too. IIRC, it was during the tour after Sydney. I think there were some issues that April couldn't pick new players for the tour and that some, like Whalen, wanted a rest for injuries or something, and the only way out of the tour was retirement from the national team. As I get up in years, my memory isn't what it used to be, so take this story with a grain of salt.

great thread!

d

 

Re: Names, please.

Several of them played on the '91 champions and for various reasons retired from play. Many of those reasons were financial; it was not clear in '91 that one could make a long-term commitment to playing women's soccer professionally and remain solvent.

Start with Shannon (Higgins) Cirovski. She was as good as any of the "91ers." Carin (Jennings) Gabarra did play until 1996. Heinrichs herself was only 28 in '91 and retired because of knee problems. Linda Hamilton, the other starter on the '91 champs, from what I understand (none of her former teammates seemed to have heard from her when I interviewed them in '99 for my book) left to earn a living elsewhere.

Chastain had to work her way back in '95 and she was aided by a player strike.

Akers took two stretches of time off between '91 and '99 and nobody emerged remotely capable of playing like her.

Also, note that Akers, Fawcett and Hamm have played more than one position and have excelled no matter where they played.

Neither Milbrett nor MacMillan, the two most prominent new field players in '95, ever truly matched the '91ers for consistency of excellence, though at times they've come close.

Let's face reality. The Splendid Seven (the current "91ers" plus Akers and Overbeck) were simply one of the most incredible group of players ever assembled.

Isn't it possible that they simply beat out everyone who tried to challenge them?

Look at some of the wannabes.

Whalen is everyone's first choice. But players have to take advantage of their opportunities. Now, granted, being put on the field to sub for the greatest player in the sport's history in the most important game in your sport's history is not the easiest way to enter a game, but the fact remains that Whalen played spastically most of overtime against China; it was Fawcett who settled that team down to help avert disaster. Whalen knew she played poorly and I think psychologically she never recovered.

Roberts has had numerous chances to make it in midfield. Has she ever outplayed Lilly, Hamm or Foudy?

The one sore point is Keller. She had genuine abilities. But, given Milbrett's play from '99 to '02, would Keller consistently have displaced Milbrett? That is a great unknown.

Wambach has been so exciting because she is the first player to show an ability to match the Splendid Seven for stellar on-field play. Wagner has been so disappointing because in the big games in this Cup she played like a deer caught in the headlights. Reddick was so impressive because she stepped in for one of the '91ers and, frankly, outplayed her (when Scurry waylaid Ljungberg in the first half against Sweden, on whose side had Ljungberg penetrated?). Boxx has provided the first consistent play at defensive mid since Akers retired. Wambach and Boxx were able to develop in the WUSA. Reddick, frankly, is a Heinrichs protege -- and how many people on these boards have given Heinrichs credit?

 

Re: Re: Names, please.

Found her: http://www.strikersonline.com/Pages/Travel/Teams.htm ... scroll to U-18 Orange girls.

And just think -- back in the mid '90s, there were actually fewer of these jobs available (though I doubt that's her full income).

Unless my memory has completely failed, Hamilton was actually coaching the Old Dominion women's team circa 1995.

 

Re: Thanks, but.....

Who else was even just as good in that period, other than MacMillan -- a constant fixture on the team?