I do not know what Number007 meant but I take it to mean we don't have an Abby Wambach or a Michelle Akers (particularly early in her creer) or any one that would literally bite into the ball with their teeth and dive into the goal in order to score. In other words we have "shooters" not "finishers." To move outside the USWNT look at tapes of Christeen Synclair or Birgit Prinz and notice how much they scored off way less than optimal feeds or how often they created a quick shot out of nothing. A finisher is more function over form than anybody currently playing for the USWNT. BTW: Marta is an example of a player that is both a shooter and a finisher and she is probably the best total offensive player ever in women's soccer. I hope she does pull out something special at the next WWC. She is one player that really deserves to go out with a bang. But, she may not play in the WWC but I almost bet she gets at least 15-20 minutes in a couple of Brazil's group matches. The knockout matches are another think but, if tied late in extra time if Brazil has a sub left, it would not surprise me for her to come in and score the winner or be the first PK taker. I know she has, but I do not remember the exact instance, missed PK(s). But I would have more confidence in her than in just about anyone else in the world male or female.
Ok catching up late. 1. The elephant in the room is the officiating. Yes I get difficult on the road and different styles of officials - blah, blah blah. It all assumes the referee is actually vaguely following the laws of the game which was not the case in this match. Grabbing a player with both hands and controlling their movement is not legal period, and it happened all game. The US battled pretty well and it was “even” mostly, but that isn’t the point. You had several US players - especially the Thompsons who were wholly neutralized as smaller speed players. I will give GT props though - and I have been very hard on her in the past - for hanging in there. Classic example of “even” officiating massively helping one team. 2 . Halftime subs helped a lot - per above. There just wasn’t any way the Thompsons were going to be effective in this game. Not their fault. Really should have gotten at least one more goal in the second half. 3. I will never like Sonnet at CB. She is ok for versatility on an Olympics roster, but not good enough as a pure CB. The second goal wasn’t all her; but she did nothing good there, and was a mess in general. 4. Rodman and Lily had tough games too.
I mean playing in the USA is too lucrative for both parties compared to playing abroad. Pure finisher...Elite positioning and off-ball movement. Clinical in front of goal, requiring minimum touches to get shots on frame. Multiple types of finish from power to chips, inside and outside of foot, and headers. High conversion rates and able to turn half-chances into goals. A player you benefit from feeding in and around the box. I have never rated Wilson as a finisher. She is more of a high-volume shooter who tends to prefer creating her own shots off the dribble as opposed to one/ two touches finishing moves. At youth level, Fishel showed potential to be one, but has faded a little. Russo? Shaw? Prime Miedema?
Yeah I mean clearly Emma wanted to expose the team to adversity, which is very good, but like you say, this was way over the top. In her post game presser, she kinda alluded to it, at one point she got a bit of a snide look, and said something to the effect that it really was a different sport out there. The other aspect is that Brazil really needs to know that what they did to Rodman near the end there will not be tolerated. There was clear intent to inflict damage to her IMO. That can't happen again and the team leaders need to make sure of it. I think you will see more physical players out there for the next game. Maybe Sears, Shaw, and Patterson. Moultrie if she is fit. Rose isn't big but she can handle herself in these types of situations. I might be hesitant to start Mal. I've watched her play twice with Chicago and she isn't fully back yet. I'd be worried that she would be a target. Maybe put her in at the end of the game based on how things are going.
I have often believed that when team protect players they get the substitution pattern backwards. If you are unsure about a player's ability to play a full match or if there is a player you want to protect subbing her or him in the second half is a mistake in that, if the match is on the line or if the player is truly targeted they will be under more, much more, danger late in any even remotely close match. If we want to protect Mal we should start her and if the match deteriorates or if she is put in danger or if she tires or gets near her "minutes" sub her right away. It is the same number of subs that would be made anyway and the player that is trying to be protected is in much less danger early in the match than late. Also if the player can go longer and it is needed that she/he go longer then she/he can play whatever part of the match is correct. Making late subs to get injured players playing time is simply exposing them to extra danger if they are not as ready as thought. Limiting player's minutes by subbing them late does not really benefit the team or the player.
Well, again, that goes back to how expensive it is to host the US. It's not that we don't want to play abroad, but the finances are that very few are willing to support their female side. Who is that in the US pool? I can't think of anybody. And the type of finisher I think you are hinting at is rare in the current game at the level we expect. I agree Shaw would be that. Pajor also. But I've been thinking for a good 10 minutes and can't come up with anybody else. Yet, that's one of the things I've been arguing as a value - even good officials have bad days. I do think she called it fairly, though I also think she let too much go, and didn't use her cards enough. Saying that, the team needs to learn how to overcome that type of adversity. In a WC, there is no do-over. It is figure out the issue quickly, or go home. And in this, the team would have gone home. I've seen A Thompson play a physical match. In that regard, she has improved and her strength is very much improved over the past 12 to 18 months. And while Cooper was a good and necessary sub, I think A Thompson suffered more due to the poor passing of the team.
I think Patterson and Cooper both earned starts. Lavelle is on minutes restrictions, so she might not start, and certainly won't go the whole match. Don't know about Moultrie, if she's on minutes restrictions, but I doubt she'll go 90 either way. That said, give her the start, she can play the physical game. Swanson did start in the last Chicago match, so I expect her to start here. Like Moultrie and Lavelle, she won't go 90 minutes, but she's fit enough to be called up and stay with the team, so she's fit enough to play and start.
Shaw and Sonnet pre-match presser Nothing dynamic, basically the same as prior. Questions were also rather generic.
A 2-1 game on the road? Could that be just a little bit of an overeaction? Nah. They'd have won the other two games in the group, advanced as 2nd place, and beaten everybody in front of them the rest of the way. You'd probably disagree, but I have studied at the feet of Jackdoggy, and reached enlightenment the easy way.
Miedema in her prime was the best finisher in the game---smart, extremely clinical, clever in the box, can score with her head or either foot, better than Shaw or Russo. Plays more 10 than 9 now. Wilson is not a classic in the box finisher; she prefers to shoot/score off the dribble--and is very dangerous if she is 1v1 with a defender and/or has a little room.
The best finished inside the box for the USWNT currently is Tordin. Her more known asset is her reception ability, but her finishing espeically the ability to find the landing spot of cross is very impressive as well.
not sure what’s happened with Macario; she’s been spotted lately hanging around an San Diego beach house, but not practicing with the local Wave club. She’s been having recurring heel issues, but she’s had an very lackluster season even when she fit—0 goals/1 assist in WSL league games, got to score an brace though vs an amateur Austrian club in early Champions League action two years in an row Girma’s gotten hurt towards Chelsea late season Lavelle looks great when she’s on the field, but continues to suffer from recurring injuries so nope, the starting lineup vs Brazil is about as good as it’s going to get unless Hayes brings some new blood into the roster
I am looking at the opponent here, which is Brasil. They would not be playing Brasil in a group match. That's what I'm talking about about quickly figuring it out. Otherwise, yeah, I agree.
what do you mean by support female side? Who should fund international soccer and from what pool of money?
Many federations have the money to spend to host on the male side, but don't want to pay on the female side.
Where does the money come from? If your point is the money in the men’s and women’s game should be the same, then that starts elsewhere. FIFA, UEFA and the club owners why resources are not equal. The soccer landscape in the USA for women is atypical and largely funded at grassroots by parents and College dreams. No other country I can think of has that and as such lack the base to develop any real interest off
On the goals for Brazil. The first one is a rare mistake from Fox. She just whiffed/could not reach that well driven cross. Right over her head for a free header. The 2nd one was a collaborative effort. Bad turnover from Hutton started it. Yohannes didn't break it up or take the foul. Sonnett seemed like she had a shot to break the play up in the box but couldn't quite clear it. I thought Davidson was gonna save our bacon but the pass got thru. Add to that McGlynn's being fortunate that didn't rebound into her own net. THAT would have been a world class howler. And Brazil also had a real good chance they sent over the bar. That was just the first 20 minutes or so. I'd have to collect my thoughts more on the latter part of the first half. We were a bit rattled after the 2nd goal for a bit. But in the first part, I did not think there was much egregiously bad passing. Hutton's led to the goal. Rodman had one she failed to collect that was prerty poor that just ran out of bounds.
Not what I'm saying. Not what I have ever said. I shouldn't have to say this, as I almost never talk about the men's side of the game in these threads, and this is relative to the women's game. In WoSo, the US is expensive to host. That is for a number of reasons, but the fundamental aspect is that our team is expensive. And it is the federations who pay. I don't know how different federations divvy up money, but women (I would suspect even with the USSF) have a lower allocation than the men. In the US the disparity is likely lower, but still likely present (I'm talking specifically about the allocations to host). And, as an example, @blissett has mentioned how little funding the Japanese women's team gets despite being one of the best in the world. From what blissett has said, I would suspect that Japan would not be able to (or willing to) host the US if we wanted to play there. And they are likely not unusual, and it would mean that we would have to foot the bill (to some greater or lesser amount) for most visits abroad. Yet, we make a lot of money domestically, so it is easy to foot the bill for any team visiting.
I looked at that as Fox being caught out of position. I think it was her only mistake all match. That was my impression as well, but just looked at the replay of that and I now see it a bit different. Looking at Yohannes' movement, she takes a step back just as Hutton is setting to pass, and Hutton put it where Yohannes looks like she is heading. But Yohannes doesn't take that step back, and is looking to be more attack minded. Thus, the pass looks poor, though I think it is more a miscommunication between two (young) players. The bad part is that Yohannes didn't track back immediately. That gave Brasil the space to start a quick counter. As for the goal, I think it was a bit fortunate. I didn't notice this the first couple of times watching, but Dudinha's pass actually looks like it is behind the attacker a bit, but deflects off Davidson right into the path of the attacker. I still think McGlynn should have saved it. Saying that, Brasil took advantage of a mistake and deflection and did what should be done and scored. Dudinha? At about the 6min mark? To me, she didn't have the type of match she has been having all year long. Considering she is only 20, I'm guessing she was also new to this type of match and didn't play to her expected standards. Other than the single assist, I think she was ineffective. One of the things we (all of us) have been talking about is how physical Brasil was, and how poorly we played. But look at Rodman on that first goal. She met the task, twice.
That was my original point. The economics favour the USA hosting every game - for BOTH teams. Your point about other federations finding more money for women was where I asked my question. If the return they get favours the men, why would we expect different behaviour? Money is the driving force, and it is the same motivation for the USA women.
I don't agree with the use of "favors." It presents a positive where I see a negative. And in the US, we do gain by hosting, but the other team does not lose (fees are covered).
Language barrier. Favors, to me. means it is the better option for both teams financially. The other team does "lose" - Building domestic interest by removing the option of fans going to home games, travel, potential ad revenue etc. Let alone the odds of winning the game shifting dramatically.