Seriously...the US should at least send a B team to Algarve. Although, as we all know, the contract with the USWNT players union makes calling up a B team difficult. Most of the potential future USWNT teamers don't have any significant experience traveling and playing overseas. It would be a good learning experience. Even if they were youth team regulars, they probably only played overseas a few times. In fact not playing games overseas probably harms the potential of the current USWNT players as well. The team looked jetlagged against Sweden. They're experienced enough that shouldn't be an issue and obviously they've played overseas a few times in the past year, but still....I wonder.
Which is odd because apparently they had been in Japan for at least 1.5 weeks acclimating to the weather. My initial thoughts were food poisoning, a long drinking bender or some combination of the two.
It's amazing how we can all watch the same thing and see it so differently. I don't think this team is too "nice." I don't even think they are nice at all (except to each other). I do agree that the age is a problem, no matter what their fitness levels. Rapinoe just can't do a lot of things a top team needs its wingers to do. I also agree that having 3 players whose minutes are limited is a problem. I wouldn't have said team speed was a problem, but quickness in the midfield isn't great. The simple offensive philosophy that has worked for so long looked increasingly stale in the friendlies, and now looks anachronistic. Not being able to dominate possession in the midfield seems like an achilles heel against top teams. But mostly, the whole discussion seems moot because we have a bunch of players who have contracts with USSF. How can that NOT get in the way of player selection, and otherwise undermine the coach (or restrict his options)?
It's always something. I cant remember the exact reason but I think people also complaint when we went to the Algarve regularly. Btw, check the competition at the Algarve, it has not been that good since we quit. Definitely not as good as the She believes cup.
I think most "complaints" about the US going to the Algrave was about the fact that it was not covered, at that time, much on US TV. That is not the case now I believe. Also, from the people I worked with there was a good deal of misunderstanding about the way it was structured. The multiple tiers that did not play each other much was not well understood at all. It was confusing for many, particularly that there were no knockout rounds, and that a team from group "C" could never play for the championship even if that team won every game they played. Now I do not really think that the "confusion" would matter because soccer people can understand it and TV commentators actually explain it better. I believe the real reason for having the "She Believes cup" instead of going to the Algrave is money. We make money by hosting our own tournament but we make a good deal less by traveling to the Algrave. What we really need to get more and better matches is to get CONCACAF women's teams to be better and, if at all possible, get a tournament like the Euros by combining CONCACAF and CONMEBOL for one women's tournament a year. I do not mean actually combine the two into one for the single tournament. That ournament could actually be run at the same time as the Euros and thereby hit a FIFA window so overseas players must be released. The two federations would benefit by greater exposure and better competition. The tournaments could be separated when the women's teams have gained enough quality to have two decent tournaments involving just their federations. But none of that will happen because it simply would mean that the "powers" in each group would have to give up a bit of their power and no upholstered parasite ever gives up power once they have it.
U23 doesnt have their own tournament. U17 and u20 have their own youth world cups. U23 is the only level wasting away doing nothing. Why cant we send them to algarve.
And if we lose at the algarve with our u23 team it will not affect our almighty fifa world rank. Its perfect. Send them.
no, not up his rear at all. Without knowing what he’s like behind closed doors under pressure, it’s hard to tell what he’s like. To me, he seems like a players coach - exactly what these ladies like… So they can run the show.
Excuse me, but maybe you should have tracked back: it was incorrectly stated that the Swedes don't celebrate like ugly Americans. Did I say at any time that I thought celebrations by our team are in good taste? Nope. It was observed that the celebrations by both the players and fans after the England-Denmark were pretty ugly. But life has a way of taking care of these things since Italy won the Euros over England. The quality of celebrations by the USWNT may catch up to them this time as well.
IMO this has nothing do do with confidence. You don't see Man City, who should be full of confidence, celebrating like that if they beat a Sunday League team. The behaviour of many England fans were despicable, but when did the England players have "ugly" celebrations? If I am not mistaken they have been commended by the press for being the nicest England squad for a long time.
hahah I correctly stated there are cultural differences between the US and Sweden, where boasting is frowned on, bragging is frowned on. This isn’t my concept, it’s been well documented and written about. I never said Swedes don’t celebrate, but pointed out an over-the-top celebration is less likely. I never said one type of celebration was better either. I love how US women celebrate. I also like how the ice cold Swedes celebrate, but I’m also Swedish-American.
Why can’t the Olympics be a U23 competition? It is for the men, it should be for the women as well. I’ve proffered this suggestion long ago, perhaps I even mentioned it somewhere in this forum, and it was not popular. It seems that most are against it. The idea should be revisited. It would be an added layer of incentive for the youngsters, in all countries, and help development.
It isn't for the men either. The qualification is U23, I think, but the actuall Olympic tournamnet is something else. Neither U23 nor any other normal form, pretty much an unique custom built variation. The reason that the Men do not have full senior MNT is that FIFA thinks it would decrease the weight of the MWC. The same will happen on the womens side when FIFA think that WWC is enough of a moneymaker that securying it's dominance is more important than growing WoSo, but not before that. Full WNT draws better than U23.
Disagree, neither should be U23. It’s ridiculous FIFA is so powerful they handcuff Olympic rules. There are zero other sports with age restrictions like this. And lots of other sports’ leagues are in season in the summer.
I find it ironic that the excuse used when they fired Sermanni is that he "lost the Algarve Cup". We always lost the Algarve Cup - until the player strike and modern CBA format of 2001/2002 that basically enshrined the "chosen" group of players. Prior to that we used tournaments like the Algarve Cup and the (China) Four Nations Tournament the same way every other team uses them - as a place to trial new players and tactics. Then we started sending our first choice players and playing them. I still remember April Heinrichs taking 4 scrubs to China for the 4NT and getting them a grand total of 7 minutes combined in 3 games and claiming how great it was for their development to "be on the bench" in that atmosphere. Like, what the actual fresh hell?
Our USSF would be the first ones against it. Remember, the USSF pays the salaries of our NT players, so they’ll need at least two prestigious titles(rather than wait every 4 years) to keep interests going. Might be outdated figure but last time I’ve read the budget for the USWNT is around $18 million. So constant touring is essential to making that money back. This is partly why they established the She Believes Cup)a big money maker for them, it average game draws 20-30K crowds for them. Before that, if it was not an WC/Olympic year, crowds would diminish to as low as under 5K(so probably take a loss in gate receipt vs stadium rental) not sure how our U23 squad would do; while we have an hefty 39K playing college soccer, their active seasons only last 2-3 months & then some summer stock in those lower divisions that last a full 6 weeks Meantime a lot of the top youth in Europe start playing pro around 17-18 years old In their respective countries top/1st division leagues & play a 9 months full season
Currently squads for the men's tournament are required to be composed of players under 23 years of age, with three permitted exceptions
Which makes the men's tournament virtually meaningless as it is not U23 nor is it full national teams so it really counts for nothing. I wish FIFA would simply not be so greedy and make both men's and women's full national teams and make the Olympics a FIFA "window" so the greedy club teams will be required to release players. FIFA greed plus club greed equals meaningless tournaments. Of course an Olympic gold is not meaningless for the participants but it is as far as international football is concerned. It is fun, mostly, to watch but it would be so much more if world rankings were also impacted because that would mean that teams would be much more likely to send their best.
In the fully pro era of the Olympic Games it shows the balance of power between FIFA and the IOC. The IOC gets a sprinkling of established stars to sell tickets and TV rights (Football is the big driver internationally) and FIFA protects the primacy of its World Cup. At the time the pros were added for the men and the Olympic Games added the Women's Football Tournament in 1996, there had only been one Women's World Cup (they still hadn't ret-conned the 1991 tournament into a "World Cup" at that point). And nobody really expected any interest in the women's tournament, so differentiating between U23s and full national teams wasn't a threat to FIFA, and FIFA could just let the IOC have full squads.