USA / Olympics tactics & lineups

With the exception of Krueger (and Sauerbrunn against Canada specifically)they seem to have fielded players by going alphabetically through the roster

 

Franch
O’Hara, Brunn, Davidson, Dunn
S. Mewis, Eartz, Horan
Press, Lloyd, Rapinoe

 

I think this article which examines theories on USWNT's performance is really interesting and well worth a read (whether or not one agrees):

https://www.espn.com/soccer/womens-...f-roster-agerotationtacticsno-crowds-and-more

 

I read this the other day, and the “not enough losses” stuck out. I usually watch all US tournament games, but don’t always fully watch all the friendlies. That said, padding our win/loss stats with victories in friendlies does give even a semi-hard core fan a false sense of dominance. I now realize a 44 game unbeaten streak in friendlies by a national team really means nothing if you’re not bringing it come big tourney time. And hopefully that will be the lesson going forward with the players who will be participating in the next WC.

 

One of the things that the article made me think more about was rotation (and I agree with oteres that it's connected to a whole lot of other factors like age, heat, # of games in a short period, marketing, etc.). Perhaps the "problem" was not rotation per se, but not establishing the most effective "lines?" I'm using ice hockey terminology here, but what I mean is identifying units or clusters of players that have obvious chemistry. Chemistry beyond choosing players based on skillset. I could see triangles of players who, whether through experience or instinct, play well with each other. This seems different than the way the coach used rotation in this tournament.

Thinking about players in clusters might also help with integrating newer players. In Macario's case, for example, is integration speeded up by having her play as part of a cluster of players who complement each other or share the same ideas about where a ball goes next? I would really be interested in seeing a Macario/Lavelle/Ertz center triangle, for example. And not just for 30 minutes, but deployed for multiple games in prep for the big tourney.

 

I guarantee that the clusters sub approach is from his time playing/coaching indoor. That method didn’t really turn me off, like it does some, as in practice sessions you typically play alongside different player combinations.

 

I still cannot understand why, when looking at why the US did not win the gold, commenters fail to put as the most likely reason that it is nearly impossible to win a World Cup and then the Gold in the following Olympics. Its never having been done should at least give a clue and be worthy of significant discussion.

As part of this, when a team wins a World Cup, it no doubt is extremely difficult to make significant lineup changes going into the Olympics. For one thing, it would involve displacing players who were on a World Cup winning roster. For another, if the Olympics is seen as really important, there is not enough time to bring in and give enough game time to a significantly different roster. So the gravitational pull towards keeping the same roster is very strong, even if changes really are merited. This is not a problem just for the US. It appears to be a problem for every nation that has won a World Cup.

I think this should be the starting point for any discussion about how the US did. And maybe someone could look at all the World Cup winners and where they placed in the following Olympics. That might provide some interesting information in evaluating how the US women did in this Olympics.

 

That wouldn't take very long. I can probably do it off the top of my head. (ok, I had to look up a couple)

1995 WWC: Norway wins; places 3rd in 1996 Olympics
1999 WWC: USA wins; places 2nd in 2000 Olympics
2003 WWC: Germany wins; places 3rd in 2004 Olympics
2007 WWC: Germany wins; places 3rd in 2008 Olympics
2011 WWC: Japan wins; places 2nd in 2012 Olympics
2015 WWC: USA wins; places 5th in 2016 Olympics
2019 WWC: USA wins; places 3rd in 2021 Olympics

So, basically, the US's 2016 Olympics placement was the outlier. While the reigning WWC champions have never gone on to win the Olympics, they've medaled every time except in 2016.

 

I think what's most concerning to me looking back at this tournament is the defense, not the offense. The team conceded 10 goals; that's double the amount of goals we conceded in all of the friendlies post-2019 WWC until the beginning of the Olympics. The only clean sheet was the 0-0 draw with Australia! Previously, the most the USWNT had conceded in a major tournament was 7 (in 2007 and 2011).

Part of it, of course, I think is just the nature of the offense with the outside defenders flying up to get involved in the offense and then sometimes getting caught out. Another aspect of it, of course, is giving away the ball, unforced, in our own third or even the middle third with not enough players to cover. And the seam between Dahlkemper and O'Hara was definitely one that I saw exploited, and I think partly why Dahlkemper sat out the last 2 games. Only tangentially related, I'm not sure I like the zone defending on a corner, but I can't remember how many goals conceded were off corners, so I don't know if that's really relevant.

 

So the US, by finishing 3rd this year, finished at the average and median of where World Cup winners have finished. In other words, subject to the caveat that the data set is small, they finished exactly where one reasonably should have expected.

 

I read this article yesterday and think it very lazily dismisses the age of the team as a factor (5/10) by citing that they've been the oldest team in the past.

"First, being the oldest team in a tournament hasn't hurt the USWNT before. The USWNT had the oldest squads at both the 2015 World Cup and the 2019 World Cup, and they won both. It's lazy to say that a team isn't good just because it's old."

Yes, they were the oldest team every year. The huge difference is that most of their oldest players were on the bench and not starters in 2015 (Rampone 40, Boxx 38, Wambach 35, Chalupny 31, HAO 30) and 2019 (Lloyd 37, Krieger 35, Long 32, McDonald 31, Press 30).

The average age of their rosters (field players only) was...
• 2015 WC = 29y 3m
• 2019 WC = 28y 8m
• 2021 OG = 30y 1m

However, the average age of their regular starters was...
• 2015 WC = 27y 7m *
• 2019 WC = 28y 0m
• 2021 OG = 31y 3m (avg of starters, since they rotated every game)

So, even though they were the oldest team at all 3 tournaments, the average age of the players on the field was 3 - 3.5 years older in OG21 than in WC15 and WC19.

That's a massive difference in ages of players that were actually on the field that was ignored or overlooked !!!!!

* In 2015, I used their starting lineup from the Semifinals and Finals (after benching Wambach).

 

I gave this post a thumbs up, but I think I'm equally concerned with both.

Against the better teams (excluding NZ), we got shut out 3 times out of our first 4 games (2 goals in 390 minutes) and Lynn Williams, who was our last string forward was the one that had the goal and assist.

Yeah, we scored 4 goals against AUS in the Bronze medal match with some quality finishes, but it was also against a very poor defense.

Our forwards showed very little movement off the ball all tournament, looked very old and sluggish, and were very poor at tracking back to defend. Let's not forget 9 goals called back for offsides and most of those offsides calls weren't even close (they were offsides by several yards on a lot of them).

 

After looking at the minutes for the players, for whatever reason, I don't think he had any plans on really playing Macario in this tournament. I think he was committed to just using the veterans. The six minutes in the New Zealand game was probably for the purpose of having her qualify for a medal. She clearly has talent from what I saw of her and I think he has big plans for her, and wouldn't be at all surprised to see her up top as a false 9 where she is badly needed. Her versatility and skill set makes her a perfect candidate for that position. From that position for Lyon, she scores and orchestrates a lot of their other scoring. She has two great players she works really well with at Lyon in Majri and Cascarino. Both are on France's NT, and are very technical and tactical player types.

 

So I'm not a great soccer/football analysis person because I haven't played the game myself and Im not an expert in all formation types and positions and who should be where and why. I guess I need to play my FIFA 20 to familiarize myself more with those kind of technical aspects. Anyway, here are my observations and people can chime in and offer reasons why or why not these observations make sense.

Rapinoe-Lloyd-Press seemed to hold a lot of chemistry and have some success. I also liked the Heath-Lloyd-Williams as well. I would have been curious about a Press-Lloyd-Williams line during the tournament to see what that might have done if we hadn't already seen it(I forget). I guess the pattern I see is both Heath and Rapinoe are the "creative" players so it made more sense to rotate one for the other in this tournament instead of having them both on at the same time. Williams and Press are the quicker players and Lloyd and Morgan are the death by dagger strikers though Lloyd seems to float back and forth a little more.

As far as I know, Alex Morgan was supposed to be the A-team CF and due to us not really connecting through our midfield, didn't really get linked up to many good looks this tournament. I also noticed Lloyd, while slower and older, was very carefully picking her times when to push and gesturing other players to do the same and when to let the foot off the gas at times. It was very fascinating to just pay attention to her the whole time she was on the field because she would go play back sometimes as a 10? and just feed pretty decent balls to the faster players making runs(whether they were successful or not).

Moving forward, quite literally, the front line can be replaced by more creative younger players and quick strikers. We have a good backlog of them in the NWSL and some still playing in the collegiate level. I have no doubt that as long as we have at least 2 years to get them in camps and playing international friendlies with top 5 teams, we can replace an aging front line up with a very dangerous new one.

I guess regarding the Olympics, it's always going to be scheduled the year after the Women's World Cup, its a shame we never started our Women's World Cup years to be 2 years before the Summer Olympic schedules and done an even year schedule ex.(1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, etc.), I know that's when the Mens World Cups are usually scheduled but maybe it would have been interesting to do a "Men's and Women's World Cup" and combine the two tournaments, actually that might be too crazy since that would mean like way too many matches to keep track of. Meh, well it was an idea for 2 seconds.

I also wonder why Vlatko didn't try a formation where somehow both Lloyd and Morgan are on the field at the same time where Lloyd could have perhaps connected with Morgan and Morgan just naturally putting the ball in the back of the net.

 

Whether you are correct is the million dollar question. I have doubts, you have none. I guess we will see.

 

Why would they bring up age when the top 3 finishers in the olympics were the oldest teams in the entire tournament! I think people should stop blaming age as the reason why they lost and start looking at the coaching. Canada and sweden coaches did their homework and made changes from the friendlies earlier this year. Vlatko didnt make changes he insisted on his preplanned tactics even when a blind man can sense that it was not working. He was unable or unwilling to make changes based on the game and insisted again on his preplanned tactics. He was happy to play for a 0-0 tie against australia in group stage. He constantly changed the front line when the real problem for the entire tournament was the midfield. Canada won not because they were the team that player the best football (that would be sweden) they won because their coach made the necessary adjustments throughout the tournament. Another thing against vlatko he was trying to think too far ahead instead of taking it one game at a time. A more experienced international coach would always say "we are taking it one game at a time" thats what Ellis said during tournaments. He forgot at these tournaments you only have one game and youre out this isnt league play buddy you dont get a 2nd game. He is not a national team calliber coach and the olympics just proved that.