I mostly agree but because she seems to rely on speed as a large part of her game she may not be able to go a full 90 at full effectiveness. However if she plays 65-75 and then is replaced by a slightly inferior, but fresh, player the team might be a lot better. I have seen her tire other players out to the point where I could be effective against them. OK, that is a exaggeration. As long as most national team level defenders or midfielders are alive I could not be effective against them. But even Lloyd or Rapinoe would take them apart after Press has exhausted hem for 60 or more minutes.
He can't really do a lot of experimentation since we only have a few months before the Olympics. He has to just take what they've been working on and doing well with and get it working during the Olympics. The hardest challenge for that tournament is going to be the short turnaround with the top World Cup teams as it's only 2 and half weeks long and you have to play something ridiculous like 6 games during that time, plus traveling time. Right now, he just has to see what these gals have left in the tank after two games and make predictable rotations. If Heath and Lynn Williams are totally fine after 3 games, then Pugh is going to end up being a reserve.
While I think you might be correct she has been missing the goal on a LOT of open shots for the last several years after being moved out of the central defense and into the defensive mid position. I am NOT saying the move caused the problem but, rather, that the move sets the time frame when the change seemed to happen.
It nearly was last time we faced Spain as I recall. Hopefully the goal the team conceded in that WWC Round of 16 match is still etched in their memories in the Folder "NEVER let this happen in a major tournament again!".
Speed at center forward is a positive attribute but it is not required at all. There was a pretty good center forward named Abby that did not really have much speed but she was pretty good anyway. Others that have lacked speed are Birgit Prinz, Christine Sinclair and many many others that turned out pretty good on the world scale.
This is all valid. I was thinking of keeping Press on the field for 90 minutes partly because in games that really matter substitutions will be limited and it may make sense to remove other starters (especially older ones) rather than Press.
Spain is too good to let them have the ball. It seemed like the last 20 minutes or so we picked up the pressure and of course we scored as a result.
Conservationism in a short time frame is not a negative for a high level coach. But a little experimentation with formations and/or personnel particularly in the last 15-20 minutes or so of friendly matches should be a part of even the most conservative coaches. You might stumble on something really great and you would still be working on the basic formation and personnel. I believe that is how it was discovered that Brandi Chastain worked well out of the back and that Michele Akers could extend her career and really help the WNT from the midfield. Even moving Ertz forward out of the defense was an experiment and that has worked quite well. Of course not every experiment works: Trying Pugh at center forward or central attacking mid was a bit less than successful. You can experiment to some extent in a short run up to a tournament. It even helps the team because there are times when due to injuries you might have to play players way out of their comfort zone and it is nice to see how the react. I once had a forward that had never been played in the defense at all for all of the eight years she played before she came to my team. Late in one game which we were winning easily I told her to go into the right defense. I wanted to give that defender a chance to get forward which she also had not done before. The forward almost started to cry because she said she could not play defense. I simply told her to give it her best and that should she be terrible at it I would not hold it against her. She went out and simply played some of the best defense I had seen at her age group for a long time and the defender that went forward scored twice. From that match I gained a LOT of flexibility should the unexpected happen and the unexpected did happen in the next two tournaments we played. I one we had illness to three defenders and then an injury and the "forward" was force to play defense for 3 1/2 matches and she was runner up MVP for the tournament. And in the next tournament we had the same thing happen to the forwards and the defender move forward and scored three goals in the tournament including the winner in stoppage time in the final. My point is you can and should experiment and that experimentation is needed just in case something happens at all levels and at any time.
In a broad sense, I agree with you. But, frankly, for me your examples are irrelevant for this team at this moment. Whatever the situation where you were coaching, it's hardly comparable to the very difficult position that Vlatko is in. The U.S. won the World Cup last year. Now they're the favorite to win the Olympic gold medal, but we know that won't be easy. And he's just begun working with these players, some of whom have won lots of honors and may not take so well to experiments. (Or to being told that they're going to sit on the bench for crucial games.)
Speed is more important in the midfield than it is a center forward. Horan should not be an outside forward or mid in the current 4-3-3 the US plays but she would be and is very effective up the middle. Also she is not slow unless you compare her with our speed players like Press or several others. I know the 4-3-3 is in vogue at this time but with the mids we can field a 3-4-3 with a flat 3 mids across the field and Ertz behind them night also be something to give a try to. If you need goals a 4-3-3 is not the best attacking formation to produce out of particularly with the kind of defense we can field.
This match illustrates again why the U.S. is so hard to beat. Spain bossed the first half--really one of the best halves of pure soccer I've seen from anybody (against a top opponent) in quite a while--and yet the U.S. kept Spain off the board (a lovely sequence leading to a header off the post being Spain's best chance). Spain, not surprisingly, couldn't sustain that level in the 2nd half--they had some nice spells and a couple of chances (one good one) but on the whole played more conservatively/tentatively and gave the ball away in their own half a few times, which they didn't hardly do in the first half. The U.S. pressured Spain more, had some decent chances from distance (Mewis's shot was impressive), though weren't great by any stretch, and in the end managed to win the game on a header by Ertz in the waning minutes. It was a good match. Garcia is a good young player up top for Spain--but she doesn't have a lot of pace, and pace/dynamism in their forwards is the one thing Spain seems to be missing. Spain had at least three promising counter-attacking opportunities in the second half but couldn't do anything with them because they just don't have anybody with Williams/Press-like speed. If Spain finds a couple of players like that, look out. As for the U.S. forward situation, IMO Press and Williams should be getting more minutes than Rapinoe and Heath. Does that mean you bring the old ladies in the second half? Maybe. With Press and Williams you get pace and dynamism, and with Rapinoe and Heath you get clever passing and clever play. Vlatko will have to figure it out.
Vlatko would be silly not to give minutes, maybe signficant minutes, to most of this group against a Japan team that got bossed by Spain and lost again today.
The additional tweet (that doesn't show above) to the above explanation by Vlatko of the US struggling to deal with when to press is that Press and Heath were better at identifying the triggers and their entry into the game allowed the team to step up higher to press. They came on in the 67th minute.
My examples were simple stories to point out that you can get unexpected benefits from experimentation. I think you are mistaken about any of the players resenting an experiment taking place during friendlies between now and the last couple of matches before the Olympics. I am quite sure they are professional enough to see that you cannot properly prepare for a tournament assuming that everything will go as expected. I am not advocating playing an experiment from the start of any matches friendly or otherwise (there is no otherwise between now and the Olympics anyway) but subbing a player or two for the last 15 or 20 minutes in an experimental fashion might discover something that could be useful with the limited subs in a tight tournament. We already know that Ertz can drop back into the defense if needed to allow an offensive sub in a defensive injury situation. We also know that Dunn can move forward to allow a defensive sub in an offensive injury situation. However it would always be good to find a few more that can move around if needed. In fact, except for the extra keeper, every projected sub should be able to, in a pinch, be able to play more than one spot and our probable starters should, as much as possible, also be able to move around in the formation if needed with little to no drop in play. You find things like that through experimenting. You are right it is too late for major experimenting but trying a few minor tweaks like Horan at center forward or switching to a 3-4-3 or even moving someone to a previously unplayed position late in friendlies just to see what happens is a good idea and cannot hurt anything.
I've never worked with professional athletes. But I've probably read 100 stories from journalists I respect about very talented athletes on professional teams who didn't meet the standard of "professional" that you are "sure" about here. I have great respect for the players on the U.S. squad. But, at this sensitive time when many players are fighting for roster spots and playing time, could some resent the kinds of experiments you're suggesting? I believe it's possible. I'm not saying it's "definite" or even "probable." But "possible"? In my view, it is.
Generally if a player is that sensitive they can often be more of a hindrance than a help. But that player can also be very valuable. Just because the U20 WNT brought him too mind think of Denis Rodman he was almost poisonous at times and he was sometimes the MVP for a long time on any team he played on. That is why coaches at the high levels get the big bucks. That is also why coaches at high levels are really more "managers" than "coaches." Any player that the coach cannot manage effectively so they play however the coach wants often causes more problems than their skill can overcome. I believe that much of the USWNT is type A personalities but they are also much more mature than many sports figures from other teams or other sports. That is I think they will be good with the limited experimentation I suggest particularly if the reasoning is explained to them. My experience with women and girls (I am much better with girls than women because I have never really understood women they are much too complex for me) is that if they understand the reasoning behind a decision they will give it an honest try even if they disagree. Of course if the disagree and the decision turns out to be wrong then you can expect a few strong "I told you so's" and "You should have known betters" effectively rubbing your nose in your mistake. They train men just like many people train a puppy and it works. Of course in dealing with women men often face a general form of the Einstein marriage paradox. "Women marry men hoping they will change. Men marry women hoping they will not. So, each is inevitably disappointed.." Albert Einstein I think the team has been with the new coach just about long enough to have him well trained, it does not take long for women at that level to gain complete control, and they are ready to listen and try most anything he suggests and he understands them well enough to know how far he can push any agenda he wants to try. Of course since these are strong self assured women I could be completely wrong. I know I have misjudged women before.
What do you want, anyway? Sonnet played great. And Spain didn't run at anybody at all, and that's the thing Short does best. I mean, I get that you want Short to be better; but there's really kind of a paucity of evidence that she is or that playing her more would help...
Did you watch Ertz or Press? They both were very very good if not great. Particularly Ertz was the rock of the whole squad even without scoring the game winner.
1. I think it is appropriate to note that Naeher played well; I've been know to be critical of her at times, and this game was seriously confidence inducing. 2. Spain is really good. Spain is the new France. They certainly knew they needed to make sure to not let Rose beat them. 3. I thought the officiating was unusually bad, and biased to boot. It'll roughen us up, but it is annoying to watch 4. Back line played well. The other guys are gonna have their moments, but they reacted pretty well even when they did. I didn't think Sonnet was a weakness at all. 5. All this talk of experimenting-- I just don't get why all this certainty that it hasn't been done? That's what practice is for. If you trot it out in a game, you should already know it will work. And your fans should know better than to assume that since they haven't seen it, you haven't either. 6. Sorry FOF, but I don't think mids need speed afoot particularly. What they need, at least on this team, is field awareness, and the ability to one touch passes accurately, and good in the air. Which is Horan... When she started getting minutes in midfield, that's when we started to be able to play through the midfield for the first time in years; and her example rubbed off on others, especially Mewis. 7. I didn't think Williams was particularly sharp. Fast yes, and that generates a lot of pressure in any sport; but a lot of slightly bad touches, lines, slight stumbles. I wonder if she might not be better at outside back, just as I wonder if Mc Donald might be better at centerback. But that's a matter for practice. 8.I thought Lloyd was really good; that for every chance she missed, she created one for somebody else-- that they missed. 9. The service on the goal could hardly have been better if you measured with a micrometer; and JJ's shift of gears on the run was a thing of delicate beauty. Which is apt to be the last time I use the word "delicate" in a sentence about her this year.