Why get so belligerent when someone's just trying to keep the facts straight? It doesn't necessarily undermine what is now clearly your main point -- about the women hos have been put in charge of most of the youthy team program (Heinrich, Ellis, French) - and now the full national team. That's fair game especially in the wake of a disappointing early exit. A lot of people will agree with you - as witness some people repping your comment. But to take such a nasty tone over something where you have the facts wrong is plain horse manure and I hope people repping your comments isn't read as an endorsement of that.
The hysterical thing is the grass field is the reason they wont be using that venue for Canada 2015...hows that for stupid?
This was just the warm-up act. The April/Jill philosophy will be on display again in Canada in 2015. Expect the same results, i.e., out before the semifinals.
The official reason they are not using it is because of the 2015 Pan American games being held in Toronto.
If the Wambach distraction is strong, then they could go out before the Semifinal. The team needs to play for the team and the country, not just for Wambach. It could backfire on them if they get too emotional about wanting to win Abby a WWC title. That could cause the team to tense up late in games when there is some adversity (tied or down a goal). They better not assume they can rely on an Abby header (Brazil game style) this time around.
Once again, the US women will Jill-off on the Pan American games, just like they always do. They will either not field a team at all, or will send a bunch of Tier-6 players there (players we've never heard of).
I don't really see the point of sending the A team to the PanAms. Herdman's already said that Canada isn't, and they'll likely be using U-23 players. I actually think that'd be a great idea to have the US U-23s play in the tournament as well.
Absolutely, the U-23 team would be perfect. But knowing the US, they'll send no team at all. The best case scenario we'll get will be a team full of players such as Molly Pukeford and Donna Dixon. You've never heard of them? Exactly.
The biggest proponent of that style at the full team level was Greg Ryan. I think we'd agree that its not a male/female coach issue; its a good coach/bad coach issue. Disappointing tournament, but I enjoyed watching some players who may make an impact on the full team in the future. I know that I now am a fan of Lavelle and would love to see more of her.
It's a post on a forum. They all can be read in many ways. They can be belligerent or it can be read as calm and just stating a point. I was disagreeing with an opinion not degrading anyone. So, if you read it that way, then read this as an apology. I just don't see the correlation of Reyna's curriculum and this U20 team. We've all seen the USSF doctrine about training, development and formations, that since has not been followed as Klinsmann has altered the Men's side, nothing specific has been done on the Women's side from U15-Full Team and Reyna is now with NYCFC. I believe it's an opinion, not a fact, that the 4-3-3 by this U20 group has anything to do with a USSF mandate.
I'm sure those North Korean players are living off multi million dollar contracts & high end villas! PS what college is Horan exactly playing for???
Ive seen that. Ar they saying they wanted to help another city in Canada because Toronto will be getting a bump from Pan Am or r they saying it would be too much wear and tear on the field to play both events there? I consider it disinformation either way.
The North Korean play in a semi pro league starting at a young age much as they do in the rest of the world. That's why they r technically better than a bunch of college players. If u dont think the difference is striking, u only have to look at Horan and how much better she was than the other American players. The biggest problem with the NCAA system as the feeder for U programs is these players spend all their time playing against players who r worse than they r. If they were in a pro environment theyd be playing against players who were older, more technical and physically superior. That would force them to develop and improve. U see it every year when a new college class enters a pro league and most college players struggle to catch up.
They said Toronto did not submit a bid to be a WWC venue because it was busy with the Pan Am stuff. It wasn't specifically about BMO field.
And it wasnrt specifically about having to tear up the grass at BMO which they didnt have to do for U20 or Pan Am. Ask them this...if FIFA had required the same surface in all venues for the U20 as they do for the real thing, would Toronto have replaced the grass to be hosting U20 matches?
I'm not sure fifa required anything. As I read the bid evaluation reports online for the men's Cups, each FA submits a bid and they are compared and evaluated.
FIFA made them replace the grass field in Muncton with a turf field so that all the WC 2015 surfaces would be the same.
But Canada never bid Grass fields. Nor was it required. It is reasonable that they require uniform fields, but fifa is actually neutral on the type. There is a document from FIFA for a World Cup stadium requirements that does outline the is pros and cons of grass v. Turf. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tou..._recommendations_and_requirements_en_8211.pdf Read section 4.3 (grass) and section 4.4 (Turf). What I read seems to say they type of fields should be evaluated individually to provide the best fields possible, and there is such a thing as a bad grass field. Maybe you see something else. If you do, please show in the document where that is or that they require grass.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/moncton-stadium-installs-new-1-5m-turf-field-1.2650460 FIFA apparently payed the $1.5 million to put the turf in Muncton earlier this year. Muncton payed an additional $500K to have a new grass field installed outside the stadium as they hold many major track & field meets. So they spent $2 million not to play on the grass field that was already there.
A disappointing tournament result from the U20. A couple of bright spots but overall this "who cares if we win youth tournaments as long as we're following the technical report plan & building" thing sucks. Those posters who are criticizing coaches due to gender or sexuality need to step back. Doing so just shows your ignorance. There are terrible male coaches in the women's game and terrible straight coaches in the women's game. There are great female coaches in the women's game. Neither gender nor sexuality are reasons that AH, JE, or MF use a particular system/tactic/coaching style or approach to development. And neither gender nor sexuality are reasons I believe AH & JE should not be in charge of the USWNT.
I'm sure the apologists will have excuses - let's give all the girls a pat on the back and a participation medal - but when you cut through the bull there is no other conclusion than that this team massively underperformed. I think the team lacked an identity and had nothing to fall back upon when it struggled. There was adequate athelticism on this team, but probably not as much historically by design as Ellis/French team looked to be more technical in the midfield. As a result, we did not seem nearly as adept at pressing the ball and imposing our will on the other team. Meanwhile, we were not nearly technical enough to play that style with better teams that are more technically oriented. I see very little, if anything, positive coming out of this result and would give the staff an F for their abysmal failure to find and play to the available talent pool's strengths.
good to hear from you again kool aide. miss your opinions when you're not around. yes, this u20 performance was a bummer. could have been better. i was not a big fan of the squad coach french picked, but i don't know that that has anything to do with her gender or sexuality.
Thanks for the welcome, luvdagame. Too much of the conversation around here stopped being interesting, useful, or even anything other than Abby hateraid that it seemed pointless to read too much. Maybe that's settled down some by now?
This mirrors a conversation I've been having off-line with a friend who follows the women's youth national teams closely. My friend asked: assuming that sufficient athleticism can win an international women's event, did this age group just lack such players or did the staff choose poorly? To me, it's clear that the players chosen could not win playing a style that relied on athleticism. Yet, this doesn't answer the question if such players existed to be chosen. The reality is that I don't know if such players existed. My guess is that they do exist, but that's just a guess.