Some players are slow burner and reach the top level later than other players. I would hope the US staff is looking at her if they want a left-footed left back to be Dunn's back up.
I think the Swedes properly disturbed the US passing scheme that was supposed to go from the CB to the DM ( Horan). It is the classic central passing triangle from the back. The other midfielders did not adjust (Mewis, Lavelle), as, if your primary passing hub (Horan) is blocked you go via a secondary hub and that would be Lavelle or Mewis. Coaches and players should have made the in-game adjustment.
We put 3 MFs vs Sweden's 5. I actually felt bad for Horan in particular as she was trying so hard to do Ertz's job which is not her forte. We have 3 attacking midfielders being pulled far and wide creating so much disarray. If anything it was the offense that was nonexistent because all 3 was running all over the place trying to help stop Sweden's attack towards the goal. Ertz should have started behind Horan, Mewis, and Lavelle as the holding DM.
No. In general the only meaning most, the vast majority, of friendlies serve is to keep national teams familiar with each other and/or to test out personnel or systems. Results in friendlies are what is meaningless. The friendlies do serve purposes but winning/losing is not really what matters much. BTW: I have no idea why you chose to present my post as meaning that USA friendlies have meaning. I NEVER said that and I never even implied that it might be the case. I guess you have chosen to make things up.
Not at all. I asked a question and you answered it. The pay structure of the WNT makes real experimentation almost impossible. USA friendlies are very meaningful economically. Fans want to see their favorites play here. They dont want experimentation until the USA lose. At that point, its too late.
Yeah, they marked Horan out of the game when she was in the DM role. Asllani had Horan in her pocket all game long. Earlier someone mentioned that we were playing a style to keep possession and only passing back, but it's because that's all Sweden allowed. They allowed the side-to-side passing and backwards passing (that's how the US had 52% possession), but cut off the passing lanes and pressed hard on the forward passes, cutting service from Dahlkemper and Horan and others. We should have solved it, but we didn't. In contrast to what Sweden were doing, the US didn't press as a team when trying to dispossess Sweden, and there wasn't support off-the-ball in the attack either, as we've already said.
There were several good observations here that I reped. 1) 1st and foremost, the Swedes played great. They had a great game plan , how to attack, how to pressure us high, how to defend , and they executed great. Except maybe they should have scored more. ;( 2) Our coach and players deserve equal blame. a) Vlatko did not change tactics until the half. After the half, on defense, we dropped 1 midfielder deep to help Dunn, and 1 more dropped to cover for the other midfielder. On offense, when our backs had the ball, we played thru the middle more and was successful in getting pass midfield. b) Our players should have known to change tactics themselves in the 1st half. They should have given Dunn more help, and more help should have been given to the helper. Our players were lethargic, they did not seem to play 100%, like they were saving themselves. We lost a lot of 50-50 ball. We kicked the ball aimlessly a lot, even in the 2nd half.
I rewatched all Swedes' corners and noticed we did not have anyone guarding the back post. That may have to change. Our back 4 also dont work together well either. There was not enough help among themselves. It may been because we have never been pressured this much.
Vlatko Andonovski successfully experimented a lot in friendlies. He had the US practice slow, plodding and unimaginative soccer in the second halves of several games. It was like he was scared to have the US run scores on the poor defenseless teams that the US happened to be playing. He allowed the US to win friendlies but he taught them how to play to lose and he was very successful at that. In friendlies and all other matches the USWNT needs to be ruthless and score as much as possible. Playing slowdown and pretending you are trying to protect a lead against teams that have no real chance of scoring is simply teaching soccer stupidity and Vlatko has been VERY successful at teaching that. I wonder just what it means that "the players like him?" Does that mean that the players felt they needed to learn to lose before it actually happened in match play. Congratulations, Vlatko Andonovski your goal of turning a great team into a average one seems to be well on its way to fulfillment. But I still could be wrong about this team and they could turn it around. The next match is against a very weak team. I hope they run a score of 5/6 to 0/1. But it is unlikely as Viatko seems to dislike winning or at least running scores. I do wonder if we have any really strong personalities like Brandi Chastain or any of several others from '99 that will get in the coach's face as needed and point out, firmly, when he is doing stupid stuff. Every coach needs such a player or three as, sometimes, coaches get such tunnel vision toward a perceived goal that they forget that, at all levels, the true goal is to win matches.
That is becoming a common setup in soccer. It happened a lot in the Euros and the Copa America and I am seeing in a lot in both the men's and women's opening round of these Olympics. I understand the reasoning (to keep players free to mark and defend or help with the counter) but I think it is a mistake. Most teams need players on both the near and far posts for free kicks, like corners, where nobody can be offside on the initial kick so a "trap" is impossible.
Is the true goal to win matches or win the big matches? Is it just to win matches or to win matches with style?
All of the above! To remain dominate we need to beat the poor teams badly and the strong teams as decisive as possible. We need to never let poor teams even think the have a chance. It is not "good sportsmanship" but it is the way to stay on top and even gain skills and abilities. Soccer teams are a lot like armies and need to be guided by their leaders to win and to win totally and to win with style. At the top, as the US should be at all times, everything other that total victory without mercy is not acceptable. I detest the very idea on winning or losing with grace and compassion. I never taught dirty play but I did tell my players to ignore the other team when the fall or get hurt. Do not stop playing just because you knock someone down. Keep playing and you can visit them later in the hospital. The fact is that the US is becoming too "nice" and that leads to losses. “Soccer isn’t very social. Plus, if you don’t like someone on the other team, you can do something about it.” – Mia Hamm
yeah, no more of that goodwill ambassador/goody two shoes stuff, it reeked from too much Shirley Temple anyways nickname him Skaredy Kat? this is why I think posters started calling him Vlad cuz they secretly wished he was Putin? here I might/kinda disagree, after all, his/their record is 22 wins, 1 tie, 1 loss PS sorry, just trying to put some comedy in our current tragic situation
While winning has been good and there are even a few, very few, quality teams that have been played in that period it is simply that, at least lately, that the team was pulled back and made to play like scared little girls in second halves to avoid bruising the feelings of the poor kids we were playing against. He wanted the US to prove that they could prevent bad teams from scoring and also not score in second halves, except by accident. I just think Vlatko Andonovski is not a coach that the US needs. However he may well be exactly what the USSF deserves. On a different note: I find it very hard to believe unpaid executives are good for companies or organizations. They have to get money somewhere and few people will take a position of responsibility without getting compensated some way. Not every USSF executive is corrupt in some way but all those, even those I personally know and, mostly, like. Are not above being influenced by external forces. Yes the coaches are paid and paid pretty well but those that choose the coaches are not and so subject to influences that do not necessarily reflect the needs of US soccer. I believe we have bad coaches on both the men's and women's sides and getting those poor choices, and the many stupid choices in the past on the men's side particularly, is directly attributable to the people making the choices having interests in the choices that are not in the best interest of soccer in the US. It seems that many choices made by US soccer are made to enhance the power of those making the choice. It is not money that corrupts it is power. (Which is often the direct result of the quest for money.)
If we exclud Sweden, and they will not be a problem before the Final anyway they are at 21 win, 0 tie, 0 loss, 75 goals scored and only 1 goal conceded. So winning the rest of the Group matches and all the rest should be easy. Well at least until they have to face Sweden again. The Numbers against Sweden is slightly worse:1 win, 1 tie, 1 loss, 4 goals scored and 6 goals conceded.
According to Swedish media it is just that Glas and Jakobsson is working very well together and plays into each others strengths (promising for Bayern München that have Glas and recently signed Jakobsson). But maybe Gerhardsson had Dunn's flank targeted but just do not wan't everyone to know how deep his plans are. It do not think that it is likely he did, but it sure is possible.
I am currently watching a replay of Germany vs Brazil on the men's side. I will put the remainder in a spoiler section to avoid mentioning the result openly. Brazil vs Gremany (Move your mouse to reveal the content) Brazil vs Gremany (open) Brazil vs Gremany (close) Brazil is humiliating Germany currently in my playback at 3-0 and it is at the half. The thing that struck me was how much of the commentary is exactly what we heard in the US women's match. Germany must tighten up the midfield. They are allowing Brazil too much space. Germany needs to tighten up their defense as Brazil is allowed too much space. And it goes on just like in our match.. The point I am trying to make is that bad soccer is bad soccer and many of the causes of one team playing poorly are exactly the same for other teams playing poorly. It is simply soccer 101 and any coach should know how to avoid it most of the time or (when it does sneak in) know how to fix it. Clearly Vlatko Andonovski did not know how to fix the problem. The only excuse for that would be if the players simply cannot execute and, with the team he started with and those on the bench, that seems to overstretch credibility quite a bit. More Brazil vs Germany (Move your mouse to reveal the content) More Brazil vs Germany (open) More Brazil vs Germany (close) The second half is playing now and it does not seem Germany has fixed anything. I guess our ladies coach is wearing the same kind of blinders (rose colored glasses?) as Germany's men's Olympic coach. But they (Germany) did pull 1 back @57:00 or so and Brazil has missed a PK. I know no one really cares so I will desist mentioning men's soccer here, for now.
This is literally why Ertz is considered the best DM in the world, because she can do both. Her ability to read the game, position herself, break up the opposing team's attack and transition to offense with smart, tactful passing is world class. The WNT was completely different without her. Howell is very good, which is why she's been called up and trains with the NT, YNT, etc. You don't have to agree, but most do.
Have you ever seen the Swedish team play better, cleaner, more purposeful soccer? It was really fun to watch. It was really one of the better performances from any team I've seen in years. The finally score really could have been 5-2.