Did anyone catch the postgame of that dreadful game yesterday? Mia Hamm was being interviewed by Rob Stone and he pointed out that the team had had only one day of practice. Mia said that everyone was "really busy." To me, it was an extraordinary exchange. I could see if the game was in the middle of the club season, but it wasn't. If these players are too busy to prepare for a game against Mexico on national TV, shouldn't we get players who are not so busy? As always, if you disagree with this, I would be interested to hear your thoughts, too.
They couldn't use different players because it was a post-wc two game set. The players from the WC had to play. However, with Kate Sobrero getting married this weekend, they probably were to busy to train for the final friendly before the off-season. I'm guessing most of the players were at the wedding in Carolina the day before the match.
I appreciate the polite post. It seems to me post WWC friendlies would be the perfect time to cap some new players, especially after the disappointment of the WWC and the poor play of the many older players on the team. Concerning the wedding, you normally don't practice too hard the day BEFORE a game, so canceling practice so some of the players can attend the wedding would not cause much trouble. That still gives you the entire week, Monday-Friday, to practice. That is a lot more than one day of practice. The way we have been playing, we need the practice!
Why would the USSF or the WNT want to spend a lot of money practicing to get ready for a friendly? The players already had a long season, played a couple of friendlies in training camp for the WWC, and played six games in four weeks in the World Cup. They needed some personal time off. I think they had a great year, and they were ready enough to beat Mexico 3-1.
Once again, thanks for the polite post. I don't think it would cost a lot of money to practice for a week instead of a day. I think national team players are paid something like $5000 if called into camp, plus a per diem for expenses. The big expense obtains whether you practice for 1 day or 8. I have followed soccer for a long time and I can't remember the USMNT having a camp less than 5 days no matter dow "meaningless" the friendly. Many people think we played too many old players at the WWC and the ones who did not make the cut have had plenty of time to rest. I don't think we had a great year. We looked sluggish going into the WWC, got hammered in the WWC, and barely beat a Mexican team we had beaten 63-1 on aggregate in 9 games. It doesn't surprise me that many of them played so poorly yesterday. They looked the same way in the WWC. Many people also think we need to rebuild with younger players and a friendly is the perfect time to do so.
I would have loves to see this game played with some more of the college kids. They would have played a little more hungry. However, it wasn't possible. The team had to play this game, and they treated it like they had to play it. As much as they don't like to lose any game, I don't think they have played the last two games with the urgency we have become used to. Its hard to watch when you get used to them playing at a certain level. Hopefully they will take the next couple of months to regain their heath, both physically and mentally and will come back the US team of old.
I thought Kate's wedding was on Fri., the game was on Sunday--I'm sure nobody was up for a practice Saturday (and Mac was at second wedding that day too.) I don't know when the team arrived in Dallas; if it was Monday, sure they could have practiced more then they did, but what would be the point? I don't think 3 practices instead of one would have made a bit of difference in this game; this team is not learning anything new with this coach. Now if the team for this friendly had a bunch of uncapped players extra practice would be in order. But this was a "tour" for the vets. Also, the college kids were busy too (ie. Portland and Santa Clara had a game yesterday. SC over UP 2-1 double overtime, darn.) The US still won; it wasn't pretty, the team looks tired--they aren't having fun anymore and it's sad.
Did you ever play high school sports and have your team lose a big match or play poorly? What were the practices after that like? What was the next outing like? We were ready to kill because the if we weren't, the coach would be in our face. The whole thing is about pride, or it should be. After the disaster in the WWC AND the disaster against Italy, the team should have been loaded for bear, to show they care and are proud to wear the uniform. Instead they have one "practice" and sleepwalk through another humiliating outing. I don't blame the USSF or April. Ms. Foudy seems to be calling the shots, deciding who gets on the team, who plays, who gets subbed for and so on. April has no authority and the team morale seems to be close to zero. Brandi Chastain was in "camp" this time and she has a broken foot. Why not cap a new player who could actually play? Just my opinions
What's your authority for this statement? You prefer polite replies (as I do) and I'm trying to be polite, but you really need to back this up with some solid references. Or withdraw it.
I believe the team actually arrived on Thursday. I thought I read that on either the Dallas Burn email list or from 3rd Degree.
Jo, I gave you the source, my opinions. But I think you know of a source close to the situation: Eric Wynalda: http://mlsnet.com/content/03/90min1010wynalda.html Eric says 4 players, not coaches, are running the show. Maybe it is 4, but it seems to me Ms. Foudy has the most influence. Can you explain to me-your opinions which are certainly based on a lot of knowledge-why Mia Hamm was benched in the North Korea game while April used one of three substitutions to put Ms. Foudy on the field? It made no sense from a strategic point of view. To return to the original topic, it seems to me that a poorly-conditioned USWNT just mailed this one in.
You say the only thing you have to back up this statement is your opinion. You quote Wynalda that 4 team members are running this team, not the coach. So you therefore make the leap of faith that Foudy is the one deciding who gets on the team, who plays, who gets subbed for, etc. Not good enough...no substantiation. In my opinion that puts you in the category with a lot of BS posters--full of opinions but no facts. I don't know Eric Wynalda (I don't follow the men's game, but I hope to become a Wizard fan now that I live in KC), but I am assuming he is an ex-WMT player who is now an analyst. He criticizes Foudy's play and that's all right with me because that is within his area of expertise. (On the other hand he praises Wagner who gets a lot of criticism from other equally-qualified analysts. He suggests Foudy should take herself out of the game so Wagner can play, but they haven't been playing the same position. If Foudy is out she will probably be replaced by Roberts or Bivins. So I wonder how closely he follows the women's game or if he's another one who just likes to hear himself talk. Whatever... he does not instill confidence in me.) Thus when he talks about 4 players running the team, I wonder how close he is to the women's team and if he knows what is going on. Since he doesn't seem to know a lot about the women's team, I have to assess his comments and I'm guessing he's just passing on rumors. I remember when April was first appointed coach. I recall a little story from Brandi about when she and AH was on the national team. When they would divide into teams for intrasquad practice, a player was never on the same side as April, she was always on "April's team." In other words, April was always the leader. I can't see her being unduly influenced by anyone. I would expect her to seek information from the vets as to their opinions, but I suspect she's her own boss. I don't know this; I'm just going with what seems most likely to me. I am a big fan of Julie Foudy, and I just get tired of all the cheap shots directed at her on these boards. So occasionally I feel the need to challenge some statements. ================ Regarding Brandi at the Mexico game, I too wonder why someone else wasn't brought in. Perhaps it's a contract situation.
The "WMT" ... "Women's Men's Team?" ... maybe Mia really has been "carrying the men's team" after all. Regardless of who's in charge, is Thomas's characterization correct? Did the US field an under-prepared, under-motivated team against Mexico? If so, then somebody else needs to be put in charge. Soccer in the US is on tenuous footing as a spectator sport, and it can't afford this kind of unprofessionalism.
Given that they won 3-1, the answer is obviously no. They were obviously adequately prepared and motivated to beat the team they were playing on that particular match.
score Actually, the score should have been 2-1: Wambach was all over the back of the defender, should have been called for a foul, and the goal disallowed. You can't justify the performance by the score on this one.
They won. Therefore they were adequately prepared. It's not like they were playing Germany in a rematch with something on the line. As for their being busy... maybe they're looking for jobs or figuring out some other way to keep a source of income for next year. Besides, maybe if we'd capped a bunch of players no one in Dallas had ever heard of, that might've ticked off more people than it would've had we won 8-0 with players that had no name recognition yet. Some people were likely there to see the old guard, not people they hadn't heard of.
Considering that there was nothing on the line, and that we were facing an under-strength Mexican team, it isn't too meaningful that we won. IMO, the relevant questions are: 1. Did the fans get to see the entertaining, high-quality soccer that they paid handsomely for? 2. Did the US team improve itself? The established WNT players are not hurting for cash. On the other hand, this kind of appearance could help to keep young ex-WUSA players in the game ... not to mention giving the WNT some much-needed depth. There is obviously a trade-off, but at this point it should also be a high priority to establish some new marketable names. Besides, isn't Mia the only old-timer who's a real draw?
Sorry about that. Careless of me. Guess I wasn't paying attention. Maybe I couldn't see through the smoke coming out of my ears.
Don't worry, Jo, I may lead the league in typos! By the way, I hope you enjoy Kansas City. You should visit the Negro League Baseball Museum, which is on teh same block as the new Jazz Museum and an art deco movie theater. Ther is also an excellent museum displaying a pre-Civil War river boat that was dug up. Don't you think we need to develop some new players? Don't you think many of the USWNT starters are too old and should be off the team?
Why these 20 played vs Mexico? The US Fed was under contract to field the same 20 players from the world cup squad in these two friendlies. Too busy to practice? They had a team mates wedding to attend on friday. Flannigan what would be your suggestion? Fly the team in for a week of training then let them fly to the wedding then fly them back for the game? Or not go to thier friends wedding at all? And your title of this thread seems to be taken from Mia's sarcastic little comment in th epost game interview. I was a sarcastic comment. Get over it. I fail to see why this is such a big deal to you? They won the damn game didn't they?
So because Wynalda says so it's fact? He offers up nothing as proof. Is it his oppinion or first hand observance? Does he travel with the team? Is he there in the locker room? Is he at team meetings? Is he on the field durring prctice? Or did he "hear it" from somebody who was there?
Do actually care about the Women's team beyond it being a source for your frustrations? From what I've read in other threads you don't care about them. Only when anything about them gives you the opportunity to be negative do you ever mention them. why do you bother?
I am very busy but since M9Fanatic has posted 3 times on this topic I'll try to respond. Of course I am a fan of the USWNT. Don't you recall my travel threads on Philadelphia, best place to have a Sam's Army section in Seattle, efforts to organize a Sam's Army section for the September 9, 2001 game in Chicago, and efforts to get a Sam's Army section for the WWC? If I didn't avidly support the USWNT I would not waste 2 seconds on this stuff. I commend Kevin and others for standing and showing their patriotic feelings at USWNT games. The "Eternals" have been given absolute immunity from criticism by the American media. Nothing they do or say ever draws any real criticism. People who criticize them even slightly are vilified. That is one of the reasons the USWNT is in the mess it is in. Sportwriters would normally be critical of such a team, and that operates as a check and balance on a sporting enterprise. Not here. Keep in mind you can be a White Sox fan and dislike Frank Thomas. It was a pretty dumb contract if they had to field the same team that got pasted in the WWC, including Ms. Chastain, who could not even play due to her broken foot. Who ever heard of calling a player into camp with a broken foot? This is another example of a small clique having too much power to the detriment of the team and the coach's authority. Which is what Wynalda says. Concerning the wedding, obviously all of this requires some planning. After the WWC, it was obvious the team needed more work. After the Italy game it was painfully obvious. So have a camp and release the players who want to fly out for the wedding. Weddings are important. That seems to be a reasonable accomodation, good for morale and so on. Don't just show up and go through the motions. You will never reverse the decline doing that. Just my opinions.
How often do you see a professional athlete turn in a miserable performance on national TV and then blame it on having to attend a friend's wedding? This is newsworthy, and I'm really wondering if anyone can offer a middle-ground perspective on this. Are the US women being held to a sufficient level of professionalism?