USWNT v Japan in April 2026, pre/pbp/post

I think Emma will play to win the third game and I like our chances.

 

Are you suggesting they have not so far?

 

I think winning will be the priority. I don't think that was the first priority today, which is fine, I actually agree with her process.

 

The second match, which ended in a loss, began with an off-center diamond that actually performed reasonably well in disrupting and limiting Japan’s buildup through midfield. From a tactical standpoint, the defensive structure and overall control were not bad. The goal conceded had much more to do with poor individual execution. It began with Sentnor losing possession behind the center circle, followed by Reale being beaten too easily by Hamano, and then PTJ letting the shot slip through her hands. In any case, it was a sequence of unfortunate events.
The main issue was the attack. Facing Japan without either speed or size in the front line makes the game very difficult. Sentnor can be an effective player in many situations, but facing a Japan side that sits deep is probably not one of them. The US currently lacks a true target player up front, which already makes breaking Japan down more difficult, but playing Sentnor for the full match was still a questionable decision.

Trying to break down a very disciplined Japanese side through passing alone was always going to be difficult. Organization and ball retention are important, but individual dribbling and line-breaking actions also matter. Moultrie was the only player who consistently tried to dribble through midfield. Even if her attempts were not always successful, that variation in style and rhythm was important. In addition, her movement inside helped with midfield duels and defensive disruption, and her corner delivery was very good. It was puzzling that she was substituted relatively early.

In the final stage of the game, the U.S. struggled to create any real openings once Japan dropped very deep, especially because no one on the field could play effectively with their back to goal. Starting Sophie and bringing her on after the 60th minute while trailing by one goal are two completely different tactical situations. As a starter, even if she was not at her best, she could still push the back line deeper and create space between the lines. That effect disappears once the opponent has the lead and can place almost the entire team behind the ball.

In hindsight, Joseph should probably have been brought on earlier, and one of Moultrie or Shaw should have stayed on the field to provide additional size. It was seemingly strange that, in the final minutes, the U.S. was still circulating the ball across the back while trailing by a goal. However, this was probably due to there being no real target up front for the defenders to play into.

 

I'm Nadeshiko fan, so I had my own team to watch closely, just want to say Olivia Moultrie's corners are pieces of art. The insane bend, speed and precision she sends those make them super dangerous and delight to watch. I've seen no better stuff in men's football honestly.

 

We have good depth in the midfield, but the defenders, GK, and attackers aren't as good as I was thinking.
PJT didn't look good yesterday and isn't good with her feet

 

And what about the first game?

 

Went to bed at my normal time last night. Guess I'm going to have to watch a replay on HBOMax tonight.

 

I find myself questioning Emma's Coach Norman Dale "nobody shoots until we've had 8 touches" mentality. Yes, emphasize possession. But, that rule seems like it would handcuff a team.

I haven't watched the match yet. Maybe the newer players are figuring out how to attack while abiding by that. And, the players that were subbed in are better attuned to it? I'll watch for that.

 

I agree.We are weak at center forward. Cat M. needs to get better fast. I think she's the answer to our problem. If this was a tournament , we would be tied with japan 2-2 and are two goals were from midfielders , not anybody on the forward line.
Another note ... almost turned the game off when Lily was subbed off. She's my favorite player and I don't know if Emma gives her enough credit? Lily rarely makes a mistake and find the open player usually. It's hard for her to stand out on b team lineup because she has nobody to pass to. I really hope she starts in game 3 and plays a lot of minutes cause I don't think she got much of a chance to shine on the b line. For me , she's the best midfielder that we have and certainly not Heaps, which Emma seems to favor. She was too slow over in the past negotiate with terrorists , and it's certainly not getting any faster.

 

First match, Japan looked jet lagged like from just stepping off the plane. But now with their B squad beating ours yesterday, they seemed settled in & brimming with more confidence. Should make for an exciting climax.

what would you want Emma to do for Friday’s game? Stick with her first match lineup or mix it a little with yesterday’s?

 

Well, I thought generally, things were OK. We controlled possession even before the goal. More so as Japan just sat deeper and deeper.

So, I do not think anyone was "terrible" or anything like that. And I think the offense was more of an issue than the D overall. Having said that...

1) PTJ was shaky.

And not just on the goal, where Reale did her no favors. This miscommunication with Sonnett, almost getting dispossessed in the box, bad punch, some tentative come/stay on line decisions. Made a good save on a break and conditions were tough, but Dickey just looks more confident & assured. Better with her feet, better decision making. She should be #1, and I think #2 should be open competition with Campbell & McGlynn.

2) G. Thompson should be ahead of Reale at LB.

This just isn't about getting beat on the goal. Which was bad. You cannot get beat inside or be playing 'Olay!' defense there.

But if we are gonna play asymmetrical and build with 3 defenders, then Thompson provides better balance with Fox as the obvious RB#1. With Patterson being the more advanced last night, I get Reale as the stay at home LB. But that was BAD defending/effort on that play. Being the better defender is supposed to be Reale's advantage over Thompson & Patterson, who are better going forward. If she cannot do that, what is the point? Patterson was not great, but had good moments, and switched into Fox's role late. I am not sure I wouldn't prefer her over Reale at LB as well. Plus, there is something to be said for having the most inexperienced defender further upfield. I think Wiesner benefits as well. The 'stay at home LB' role may be more up for grabs. Davidson can also play that role, btw.

3) Hutton was probably the best performing starter.

I thought Shaw was also pretty good. No one was great or horrible. The ref did not do us any favors letting Japan tackle anyone who turned them with only 1 yellow. But the final pass just was not quite there. Yohannes was pretty invisible in the first 45. Had a real good sequence to open the 2nd. But I feel much more confident in Heaps.

Top starters: Hutton, Shaw
Bottom starters: PTJ, Reale

4) It was sure nice to get Davidson back.

That 50 yard pass to Wilson was beautiful. Davidson, assuming she regains her form, is the easy starter next to Girma and gives us some height and ability to carry forward out of the back. And can also play stay at home LB.

5) Heaps was excellent, again.

The scoop pass to free Rodman down the right and the calm semi-backheel to Shaw were both real chances she created.

6) The lack of height up front is noticeable. It would be hard for me to name a 26 without Biyendolo on it. Or maybe Joseph if she levels up. Sacrifice one of Shaw/Moultrie/Sentnor or Sears/Cooper.

7) As good and improved as we are, the youngsters still have a ways to go. Hutton, Shaw, and the Thompson Twins are the furthest along, IMHO. Dickey as well. I deem all ready for Prime Time. Or real close.

Slotting in for a starter ot two is one thing. Having the whole XI is something else altogether.

But I think valuable info gained and lessons learned.

 

The only players from yesterday that I think can make a merit based claim to start are Hutton and maybe Shaw. But Heaps was excellent again and Coffey & Lavelle were both real good in the opener.

Maybe Shaw at CF? Or Moultrie wide? But I gotta think Emma will want to keep re-integrating Wilson & Rodman.

Davidson I'd say but I think she is on a minutes restriction.

Sonnett was not great, but I do trustcher more than Wesley.

 

If I am trying to win the game:

-----------------Dickey-------------
Fox---Girma---Davidson---G. Thompson
------------------Coffey------------
----------Lavelle-----Heaps---------
Rodman----Wilson-----A. Thompson

If Davidson can't start, Sonnett.
If Heaps needs rest, Hutton.

But that is the same formation as game 1, and I have a feeling Emma will switch things up. Double pivot with Hutton?

 

Personally, I’d like to see her treat it as a knockout game. Start the 11 players that she feels gives her the best chance to win within the context of player fitness and her game plan, and sub accordingly based on his the game plays out.

I’m not one that thinks you need to win every friendly game you play, or that winning is the only measure of success, but I’m also not in the camp that says that wins in friendlies are not important either. My feeling is that a win in the next game would carry more importance as far as confidence and momentum, than the she believes cup win. Watching Emma’s body language and listening to her post game presser, you get the feeling that she might also be coming from this perspective.

I think we are to the point now where she needs to start moving from the player development mode, and more into the fine tuning a team that can win a WC mode.

 

Biyendolo is basically a slightly more mature version of Sears. Questionable reception and hold up play, good speed, better finishing. Won't be a huge a update even she was in her prime years.

 

I was watching Sears and Sentnor in this game, to see how they did at this level. Sentnor was more or less a non-entity in the game, but missed one chance early where she held the ball too long looking for a shot in the outer portion of the box and missed the opportunity to pass to a better positioned teammate. I thought Sears, on the other hand, had some really errant passes, right to a Japan player. She looked over her head in that respect.

As a whole, I also thought the starting group was not ready for how well the individual Japan players defended. The Japan players defended with much quicker feet than our players were expecting, thus deflecting or simply intercepting a good number of passes.

On the other hand, what clearly was the US second team, and a very young one, lost 1-0. That's not so bad.

Game 3 will be fun.

 

I thought Shaw was mostly excellent.

She almost scored twice. The diving header that was just out of reach and the feed from Heaps that got deflected wide. She should have drawn two yellows with turns that resulted in jersey tugs or bear hugs from behind. Tracked back and defended really well centrally. One 60 yard gut buster really stood out.

Now, would I start her over Heaps or Lavelle centrally? No. Or Wilson or Macario up top? No. But other than Hutton, I think Shaw had the bestcnight of any of the starters. By some margin. Moultrie, Patterson, & Sams were decent, but hardly standouts in my view. Sonnett was poor,,by her standards, eapecially early. I was not impressed with Yohannes other than the one sequence, which was fantastic. Sears was OK but mostly quiet, did get behind once or twice. Sentnor pressed well but could not shake loose to shoot.

Just my $0.02. Though I did watchbthe first 15 min or so on a smaller TV and may have missed some stuff.

 

I will say I really liked Dunn on TV.