I thought Buehler got involved in the attack a lot more than Krieger did. Now thats not saying she looked great at LB, but I think she's improved from the China games and will continue to improve. Obviously I do not agree with putting her at LB, but if we are forced to, she won't do too bad of a job if she continues to improve. Also, did anyone else cringe whenever LePeilbet would pass on the ground over distance? She got picked off at least once last night and that will kill us if she does it against teams like Brazil or Germany.
I didn't think that Buehler got more involved in attacking than krieger. But the right side i think is stronger. If krieger dumps to HAO she usually dispersed to Boxx or Cheney instead of giving back to Krieger who continued her run. On the left side there was just Lindsey as abby played a bit more centrally last night. and passing to lloyd is a waste of time. so kicking it back to buehler for the cross is an easier option. edit: how the hell did rampone get player of the match?
they're experiencing what some euro teams experience on the men's side in the world cup. it's murder on the body after you've played a whole season of pro ball. their chemistry is fine. but the women are learning that especially in a big country like the u.s.a. flying to and fro and playing for most of the year will take a serious toll on your body. when you have to play qualifiers after that you just look laborious, joyless, and slooooooowwwww. all the other teams look quickfooted and fresh. so they seem more joyful. plus, the uswnt has never been a creative bunch. their forte has always been athleticism and fitness. and now they don't even have that.
This. All of it. Krieger was at least more use going forward than Mitts (half of the time Rampone was making Mitts' runs for her), but I am also uncomfortable with her defending. I wasn't actually terribly impressed with Nogueira this year, but I've reached the point where I am willing to consider any least bad options.
Yes, and I've had that feeling going back at least to the China friendlies. Part of the problem is that any pass out of the back has to cross the Great Plains to make it to the midfield. There's just too much space between the lines. I think that goes back to a lack of speed in our back line. Our defenders are petrified that someone will get in behind them, because they won't catch up. So they're just not pushing up enough.
Don't discount the fact that it is the central mids' responsibility to make themselves available (ie check back to the defender) for "easy" outlet passes from the defenders. Yes, the backline isn't holding quite as high but that's an ok strategy given the collective lack of speed back there. But inherent in the job description of a central mid is to cover that space offensively & defensively. For whatever reason, LePeilbet's habit of one or two extra poor passes out of the back per game has exploded into making every pass an adventure. She has not fared well next to Rampone this tourny. I don't know what their deal is working (or not working) together.
I love Nogueira, but I really don't think center midfield is the place for her right now. She has the tools to be extremely successful, but whether she can put it all together is a whole different story. I'd like to see her get more time up top, and maybe eventually, if she matures, get moved to that position once she has some more international experience.
Step 1 of 3 has been completed. It was the ugliest three nothing win I have seen a long time. Let's start with the US goalkeeping. NEEDS LOTS OF WORK. Barnhardt look scared and shaky whenever any pressure was put on her. She spilled more than a stewardess in a turbulent air pocket. Once Barney did manage to collect the ball, her distribution was slow, laborius and did not re-ignite the attack. I don't think Barney is the answer. So little was done right, I have no confidence in her after seeing that game. She flat out scares me to be brutally honest. It was a good thing that Tica translates into English--Cannot shoot. Our defense was meh. As for the Krieger-luv out there. I didn't feel it. I agree with the Donald that she overcooked and undercooked numerous crossing attempts. When distance wasn't failing her chosen line for the cross did. It was good to see her go forward, but we need more out of those forays. The ONE THING that was encouraging, was that the US scored all three goals in the run of play and not off of boot balls to Abby. Yes, Lindsay made a diagonal cross to Abby, but that was controlled and the left footed volley was sublime. Cheney got lucky because of her dynamism on the play. Abby's second goal beat five or six players after she collected the ball. They both played great. A-Rod played like she was channeling her experience with the Boston Breakers of 2009. Blecch. I think a home-and-home aggregate will suit the US well. I was VERY surprised to see the head-to-head records between the US and Italy. Despite the fact that Italy has won a third the matches with the US, I just don't think the Italians will be able to do that twice in a row. Breathe in, Breathe out. Think happy thoughts. The USWNT can do it.
You make a fair point. But our central mids lack the stamina, to say nothing of the speed, to get into the attack after dropping that far back, which is why I think they are loath to do it.
Well, that game didn't completely suck. Abby had two very nice finishes, particularly the first goal. I'm going to have to watch the 2nd half again to see what ARod brought on the right side. My memories of her all involve her playing higher as a forward -- eg that bad miss on a good ball from Cheney honey, in that situation aiming for the far right corner using the inside of your left foot isn't the best idea when you're prone to over rotate your body/hips. If ARod was supposed to play up top in a formation shift to a 4-3-3, well, clearly Pia was watching a different midfield. With this combination of central midfielders, I think a 3 player midfield accentuates their collective weaknesses. Lloyd doesn't have the motor nor defensive desire to cover the ground in a 3 player midfield. Averbuch could potentially play at the international level as a holding mid but I don't think she's got the speed to deal w/ multiple quick players running at her from outside when the midfield is outnumbered from the start. But hey, what do I know. After all, I think Buehler is an adequate, if tad slow, center back while Pia sees her as a left back that should regularly maraud forward into attack. And check out this post game quotation from Pia: Clearly, we were watching different games b/c I didn't see a whole lot of great, focused for 90 minutes defending. sigh. I know that I'm going to sound like a broken record (again) but what's the deal w/ subbing out HAO at the half? She was the only one with decent speed in the midfield. AndyMead had a point in the Mexico game thread about her looking tired & that a mid was going to come off for the forward sub. It isn't the move I would have made but he's made a good enough case for that idea. But last night? Really? What is it going to take for Lloyd to get yanked? I know we all like Morgan and many folks think Cheney is too similar to Abby for them to play next to each other. But I've got to say, I think they have good chemistry and partner well. This game was not the first time we've seen them together and it has worked (for me, at least). They were connecting on more passes/flicks/etc than I've seen Abby & ARod connect on. And who in the world picks the ussoccer player of the match? They make some, um, interesting picks.
Boxx and Lloyd in the central midfield is a disaster waiting to happen against Brazil and Germany. Both are too slow and predictable in how they play. The speed of the elite teams will destroy our central midfield (and our defense right now). Beuhler is not a left back. Can you imagine the likes of her trying to mark Marta on the flank? What really worries me is the reliance on older players down the middle of the field. This poses a huge risk at the world cup since so many games are played in such a short time. France and Italy both had "old" rosters at the men's world cup and looked what happened. We need youthful legs out there - in the heavy lifting positions like centerback and center midfield.
The very thing U.S. fans seem to want to see more of is the very thing that has killed and stagnated U.S. player development for nearly 10 years, ideas of speed/athleticism vs pace of play. In the highest levels of football the pace of the game is not dictated by the speed of individual players, but is instead dictated by the speed of ball movement. U.S. fans need to look beyond traits of athletic speed in order to see the real faults of current player selection, as this current U.S. side is no slower than previous U.S. teams. Being quick and athletic is an older women's soccer ace card feature, that could obtain success with little else needed to back it up. Other nations now have the technique and tactical awareness to cope better with the athletic disadvantages they may face when playing a side like USA. For instance, with all the size and strength advantage a Wambach brings to the game, take a look at the superior technical ability she displayed to score the half chances USA created last night. That was the real difference between USA and Costa Rica, USA having one of the worlds technically superiour goal scorers on the field. I have said before that Sundhage wants the wingers to become the points of creativity in the current U.S. 4-4-2 system. But last night Sundhage seemed to give up on ideas of creative U.S. wide play, choosing to start Lindsay on the left and then later removing HAO for A-Rod. For the first time Sundhage seemed to lose faith in her own desires for the future style of USWNT play. The dynamic nature of top women's football has players that can beat their opponents in one vs one battles. This ability of removing players from the game leads to greater oppenings of space for goal scoring opportunities, but is hard to pull off without genuine high levels of skill and tactical understanding. USA in trying to become more dynamic will continue to look bad if the current players don't or cant embrace the nature of this tactical progression in the women's game. Highly dynamic patterns of play tend to happen from out wide, and was the reason Sudhage pushed for a 4-4-2 U.S system. Now though the Mexico game has put U.S. struggles in making this system work in to wider public consciousness, thus accelerating U.S. needs to either go back to older tactics or possibly die moving forward on the same path. I think Sundahage will do the latter and bring back older tactics, like a dedicated holding mid, and look to change her ideas in wide points of attack. Without playing long ball football the distance between the defence, midfield, and attack were WAY to big again. The current U.S. midfield can't seem to cover the defence or support the attack at the same time, the flanks were wasted, open play goal scoring is Wambach or nothing, with the defence giving up chances like never before. All these problems arise as each department continues working off different pages of the play book, creating an obvious lack of joy or desire to their play. USA can still be a danger to anybody in the women's game, but I think most fans are bored of the USA being predictably boring. Seeing other nations now producing entertaining styles of play involving high levels of skill has only helped awaken U.S. fans in wanting to question why the worlds #1 team can't do the same. Since 94 USA has helped push pro global standards in women's football forward in fantastic ways, but it now may be time for other nations to help push aspects of the U.S. game forward positively.
A) You are very wrong about this USWNT team being no slower than previous USWNTs. Especially along the backline. And while Lloyd may not be that much slower than some other USWNT central mids, her poor work rate and decision making make her slower. B) This version of the USWNT clearly isn't relying upon athleticism to push them past less athletic but more technical/tactically astute teams. If they were picking primarily on speed/athleticism, then at least 1/3 of the roster would be different.
If players have good tactical awareness speed no longer becomes a such a huge issue. As a center back, positioning has a lot to do with how good you look. The main reason pace becomes an issue with the USWNT is because it's bailed them out of bad positional play in the past. Slow decision making during in game action lead to mistakes that were solved by running them down. I mean a physically inferior Mexican defence made from early 20 year old's contained a large Wambach, speedy A-Rod and HAO, and supposedly skilful Rapinoe. All this done with good tactical awareness, versus the need for the characteristics of dominating speed or strength. Even the Costa Rica game highlights this point. Costa Rica at one point play a simple through ball getting a clear one vs one with Barnhart so clear cut you would think USA were playing one center back. The ball movement of USA is slow. When moving with the ball, USA is as quick as they have always been. Difference is now without the long ball, poor defensive positioning can get picked apart better by weaker sides. Simply moving with ball fast gets shut down when U.S. players can't dribble past multiple opponents like a Brazil, and when defending speed only helps you if you can't read the game well.
Speed of play is a combination of skill, tactical awareness and physical quickness. It's not just "ball movement." Without all three attributes a player rarely makes an impact at the international level. The reason our CMs can't cover defensively and open up quickly to receive the ball from the defenders is that they are too slow to do so. When they have the ball they are not quick enough in their decision making and in moving their feet to get balls wide or to a striker's feet before being challenged by an opponent. I concur that the US tactics suck and the technical skills of players is eroding. They have for a number of years and if you have been reading big soccer long enough you will notice a lot of the fans here are disturbed at the lack of tactical and technical development happening in the college and youth ranks. What upsets me most about Pia and the federation is their lack of focus on these development channels.
Please, no. Fullbacks have to be good defenders FIRST, especially since we're not exactly rock-solid at CB. By "good defenders", I mean players that are not only good defending in 1v1 situations but are good tactical defenders as well. Transplanted attackers rarely are, and they never get there quickly.
The women's game has moved on past simple athletic speed. The days of the quick player only scoring goals has gone, and the same is happening for different positions too. The men's game is more speed of thought than being fleet of foot, and that's how the women's game has been progressing. The best players in center mid and center back don't have to be that quick, as long as they can read the game and then possess the technique to deal with the ball. If a CM needs speed to cover the pitch, they are simply no good at the top level. The idea of pure speed being the difference maker is an illusion. Just take a look at the U.S. U-20 side and you see this in full effect. Besides the African teams USA were as athletic as any thing there, with speed all over the pitch. The U-20's looked not to dissimilar to the seniors in that when pushed into using qualities beyond athletic speed, play broke down. Averbuch may be USA's technically best CM, but she gets called out on her speed by U.S. fans while patrolling the wings Take a look at some of the best CM and CB players in the game, and you see athletic speed is not a major factor to their games.
We've discussed the shortfalls of the USWNT on the pitch, but there is another issue I want to mention, and it was on full display last night. The sports media do not cover the USWNT in any serious or deep way. For analysis, we have to rely on subjective insiders with close ties to the team. I searched for articles on the Mexico game and found mostly very general AP pieces. Sports writers simply do not know the team. I did find an ESPN sports writer who clearly knew the USWNT and the Italian team. Her piece is posted on ESPN's website. This is unfortunate. The USWNT escapes the scrutiny and criticism that are healthy for any national team. The USMNT is written about and examined by the national soccer press. The USWNT's press is always laudatory and based on the team's history and not on the team's current form and quality. This makes for a very insular environment where stagnation and regression are the byproducts.
Did no one else see Cheney not running onto good balls? She makes looping runs when she should be going to goal like a train running downhill. What is she afraid of?
Completely agree. It extends to the broadcast booth. Foudy needs to be replaced, and there needs to be a rule about not referring to USWNT players by their first names or nicknames. The announcers need to speak critically (as in analytically, whether positive or negative) and even-handedly, not as fans.