I agree with your assessment of the players but still, to have any of your players sent off for what was a questionable call, and then save the resulting PK and have that taken away from you, and be reduced to playing with 10 for 55mins. (more running for the above star players) and have to play an additional 30mins. plus a shootout because of all that still effected the team greatly. and we might not know the full effects till we play France, I'm really worried that too much was taken out of them -- and needlessly so since both goals weren't legitimate and we never should've had to play the extra minuets. And even if one thinks the penalty was legitimate, well, we legitimately saved it only for it to be taken away from us. at a maximum we should've had to play the rest of the game 10 players and should've won the thing in reg. time 2-0. the PK goal should've been saved the first time and the second goal was offsides. so even though it was ""just"" Buehler it still mattered greatly in the grande scheme of things. I guess the bright side is we'll now see Sauerbrunn and so many wanted that. oh and PS: to all the people clamoring on about how technically superior Brazil is, they only really have a couple of players that really are flashy, the rest are being judged on their kits because it's expected that they are "technically gifted Brazilians"
I don't think I've ever read him say something good about ANY coach. He likes to make himself sound as the genious. But some of his takes are interesting.
""Yes, fine game by LePeilbet. Switching Rampone to the left side really helped, and it was an easy, non-confrontational personnel change. Pia needed to do this a game earlier, but she got it right today. I was surprised to see Cheney come off, but obviously it worked in the end."" Props to Pia ... Pia mentioned that she went with a 3-4-2 after Buehler went off .. in order to keep the two forwards. backline (check), tactics/formation after going down a player (check), substitutions (check).
I honestly don't know what you watched. Rapinoe was awful. Her pass completion percentages were terrible as was her being displaced from the ball on repeated tackles. Look she made a perfect cross to Wombach, but otherwise she was ineffectual and actually her poor passes and inability to hold the ball lead to several counters from Brasil.
I guess you see what you want, but the fact remains she is the ONLY player who connected any passes into the box, and she did it 5 times. In addition to the score. I'll remind you about the cross to Lloyd that was headed off the pipe. And her cross will be in US soccer lore forever. Your post did remind me, though, of a famous speech, Citizenship in a Republic by Teddy Roosevelt. The famous part is often quoted, but I thInk what leads up to it is just as instructive in this case.
Thank you for saying that. Furthermore, with the whole world improving in the Women's game, we will see more teams make the US look worse. Much of what made the US look so awesome in the 90s was that the rest of the world wasn't very good.
If Christiane didn't try to do that stupid pass to whoever and just held it in the corner until they whacked her or knocked the ball out of bounds in the last few minutes/seconds, we Americans wouldn't be pounding our chest now. We would be talking about who the next coach is going to be. But. Big things are defined by split-second decisions. And Cristiane will remember that one for the rest of her life.
I teared up .. not a lot .. when I watched this video. Same type of sadness when we lost the Gold Pride. The GREATEST moment in my memory for US Soccer & there were not crowds of people celebrating like after Donovan's goal. I wish I could have flipped my iPhone camera on myself since there wasn't anyone else in the room while I was watching the game
I guess you're right and people could pin-point the fault of the goal to her. It's too bad because from a pro-Brazil standpoint, she had a great game other than that attempted pass.
Wow, do you believe that I am a cynic simply by noting that Rapinoe had a poor showing in the game. Let me tell you something, improvement is never gained without honest assessment of one's performance. Myself included. Do you think any player would ever improve if they were satisfied with their performance. Every game I've ever played or refereed, I've always felt there were areas I could have been better. I am not a cynic. I am a realist. The team as a whole had issues connecting between the defensive to the middle to the attacking third. Rapinoe who typically has done an excellent job of bridging that connection was off Sunday too. Just an honest observation. Particularly, given my expectations based on her prior performances.
You don't seem to be very good at accepting criticism. Let me tell you something. Criticicism is fine, but For criticism to mean anything, it has to be based in fact, and you have to encompass everything a player did. Otherwise, it does put you in the class with those who find fault with others in the pursuit of greatness that you have never strived for. Your critical assessment wasn't balanced and wasn't honest. I pointed out you didn't take into account the good things she did and only focussed on the negative. What you did wasn't balanced criticism. It was not a balancesd assessment. It was cynical as Roosevelt defined it. Until your backhanded complement on her other games, you said nothing positive at all, and STILL haven't said anything positive about the performance she had against Brasil. You even made a special point of dismissing a moment of greatness. That is the very definition of cynicism. It is exactly what Roosevelt was talking about. For criticism to mean anything at all but self aggrandizement, It should encompass the good things a player did as well as what she didn't do. And if you assert the negative things she did, it should at least **be **factual. You still aren't going to admit she made the only passes into the box, are you? You are going to ignore that because it doesn't fit your bile filled agenda. That's cynicism that is NOT being the realist you claim to be. You aren't going to admit that she also had other services into the box that weren't finished by others, but were nevertheless good plays by her, are you? To assert otherwise is cynicism or a lie. Answer about the LLoyd cross that got the post. Doesn't that make the Wambach cross NOT the only good play she made? Are you going to continue to ignore or deny that she did it? That's cynical. You aren't going to look at the stats that say she is the only player that connected with any crosses into the box, are you? No. Doesn't fit your cynical agenda. How about mentioning she stood up Marta, the best player in the world, and beat her in a 1v1 challenge in extra time **of regulation.? Was that part of her being awful all night? Nope. no cynicism there And speaking of " those challenges she lost" against Brasil? How about counting them up. SoccerUSA did. They came up with TWO. Two does not make all night even in the most critical balanced assessment. But the most cynical thing is to focus on some mistakes a player made in trying to help her team, mistakes that are normal when you go for disputable possessions or to try to dispossess the opponent, and to ignore that without her play to Wambach, there is no semifinal game with France. That what she did was a moment of greatness, that it trancends any errors she made because it won the game. Then you are going to ignore she made her PK with class, something only three Brasilians did, untimely costing them the game. Yeah, real constuctive criticism there.. What a crock. Twenty years from now, ESPN will be showing that play as a lead-up to some other World Cup game. What they will talk about in assessing her contribution is that it was one of the transcendent moments in sport. They aren't going to remember she lost two challenges. They will, remember that the USA beat a team with the greatest player in the world who DIDN'T perform well enough. So, yeah you are cynic. You fit then profile of those who sneer at other to fill some inadequacy of your own. You fit the profile of somebody who faces the world with a sneer. That puts you in the class Roosevelt identified , a most unhealthy being unworthy of respect. I think I was pretty fair with you in encompassing all the factors you didn't consider, so you should be happy with the criticism. It's more than you gave Rapinoe. Maybe you should stick to the referee forum. They seem to thrive on ignoring facts there.
the more I watch the fuller length highlight video of the last goal ... the more I'm convinced that there were valuable contributions from the players starting the attack have not gotten enough credit. Was it Kreiger to Lloyd to Rapinoe to Wambach?
I was not about to take your word without trying to find some actual statistical information about the US women's performance. I was not able to find any on line. I also had erased the game so I could not review the match and confirm or deny if she had five good crosses into the penalty area. Only two challenges lost? Please provide a link. As soon as I get a chance I will review and advise. Until then I stand by my remarks. She made a great cross to Wambach to tie the game. I reserve judgement on the rest of the game and you my friend are much more sensitive to criticism than me. Including your remark to go back to the referee forum.
okay I watched the match from the point that Rapinoe entered at the 54 minute mark. Stats Crosses into the Penalty Area 10 Crosses on target 4 Corners taken 9 Corners on target 4 Throw ins 4 Displaced, ball tackled away by Brasil 6 Tackled away 4 Passes attempted 15 Passes completed 7 Caution for kicking Brasilian player on dead ball. US free kick Did she make a difference absolutely. Did she hold the ball better in the extra two periods yes Did she play better in the extra periods yes That fact remains that in this particularly match she gave away the ball a lot. Particularly when the US needed to win and hold the ball. On review she was better than what I initially wrote. Her corners were generally very accurate. Still she made a number of poor passes from relatively short distances. She did not shield and hold the ball well considering she was displaced six times.
DiCicco mentioned that Rapinoe started out poorly but improved as the game progressed. I agree with DiCicco assessment. see the forest for the trees .. look it up if you don't know what it means
This is what I love about bigsoccer people stating the obvious and always reducing the discussion to the absolutely lowest common denominator. Duh I'm really stooopid and duh I don't know what dat forest from trees thing is. I posted it to make a point to Cliveworshiper regarding Rapinoe's performance in the match Particularly since he produced match stats to boolster his belief that Rapinoe had a fine match as opposed to being mediocre.
It all started way back in the corner w/ Rampone defending Christiane. Then Krieger picked up the ball and passed to Lloyd who then got the ball to Rapinoe.
You gotta understand that Cliveworshiper is a bg University of Portland fan. In fact a big Univ. of Portland homer. Rapinoe played at Portland and their fans still love her. It's all good.