Firstly, Sachin, I would agree with a lot of your post from a year ago. I would have to say the problems in the loss, and the other victories were lack of penetrationn the final third of the field. You have to place blame with the coaching staff...sorry, but this pattern play was too predictable. The continued to play the wings, which is fine, but there was no variation in the crosses. No balls played across the box on the floor. I did not see any to the near post, either. I noticed two years ago, that Mia does not try enough to go at players into the box. Instead, she goes wide and plays the cross in many instances. You will be more dangerous if you take on the player and go to goal. Now has she been instructe to do this, or is it a lack of confidence? We just seem to lack players that would take someone on, to get into the box. Look at the late goals Germany scored, and in some of their other games. The short passing game and attacking in the last third of the field was very good, and they finished of the US with great even numbers attacking at the end. This may be part of the US play that suffers. I swear some of the players on the team, and I won't name names, but are almost lucky to complete a pass...OK, I am exagerating there, many passes from midfield players do not find their mark. Often they are not wieghted hard enought to get there, or when they do, the pass puts the person receiving the pass under more pressure. Maybe there is too much emphasis on direct play. People have said we had so many chances to score, and that finishing was a problem. I think the quantity of balls played were not of the quality to provide good enough chances to finish. It seems most people are missing this point. I don't think you can take enough importance out of the lack of scoring chances in the run of play. Someone mentioned this before, but why bring in Boxx and Bivens to only the last 2 friendlies? These players should have been brought in sooner. It was almost like Sampson bringing in Regis right before France 98. I bivens and Boxx should have been brought in much sooner. Even more so, players that were playing well in the WUSA should have been brought in camp and friendlies, and given the chance to beat out the players who were on the team, because, before the WUSA, if you were not good enough out of college, your chances were slim to make it onto the Womens' team. These players were playing for several years in the WUSA. If the current team is the best selection, then fair enough, but not many from the WUSA, not already on the team, were given a chance. Maybe the WUSA was not old enough. Well, have to get back to work, but I think others are on the right path as well. The WUSA has helped some international teams in some various aspects. The US was not quite as dominant as some thought, and the results of past WWC and Olympics bear that out. The finals were not dominations when the US played, althoug the number of teams capable of beating the US were/are few. I will add...we might not be debating this, had we scored, or someone marked the play better to prevent the first goal....well, I think with any loss, it will provide good introspection by the next coach, and maybe the current one. This should make for change, adaptation, and a progression of the game.
When I saw the US vs Mexico in the last warm-up game, I had some concerns with this team. I told my wife that I wouldn't be surprised on them losing the WC. Lack of midfield play and failure to convert chances was evident in that game. However, since I hadn't seen many USWNT games, I thought may be the game was an anomaly... I think the 1999 WC masked some of the problems with the USWNT. In 1999, we just beat Germany (3-2) and tied China (at home) in the finals. What if China had won in penalty kicks? Already there were hints of teams catching up... Also, I have to agree with Sachin and other's assessment of this team being similiar to the men's 1998 WC team. A reliance on senior players, not enough new player development earlier enough, and a poor strategy (4-3-3) didn't help this team. Also, some poor player selection (injuried and out of form) created a shallow bench which was required with a challenging pool and a lot of travel. In the end, they lost in the semi-finals in a close game in which they didn't play their best. It happens. Hopefully, April or her successor will learn from the mistakes to put the USWNT in better position for the Olympics and next WC. One possible benefit of the WUSA folding could be more time for the team to play together...
I have enjoyed reading much of the analysis here and decided that since I was at the game and am trying better my analysis, I would post my two cents to see what you all think. I agree with much of jumbo1's critique. My thoughts go like this: In the attacking 3rd: The two or three up top, depending on if you think it was a 4-4-2 or a 4-4-3, were too far apart. There was no rhythm width/between them. If part of the game plan was to utilize Wambaugh's ability in the air why did the US not have 2nd runners filling in the lanes behind her for the flick? Did they not see that that point of attack was producing relatively little? As for their adoration of the flanks, I have no porblem with that style of attack, but recognize that the keeper was very quick off her line to all those balls at the 6 yard box. If the US skill is where I think it is, those crosses should have been pulled back to the 12 so that the keeper had to patrol her line offering a better chance for US head's to prevail. Next, I think the US fell in love with our flank play so much that we forgot that an angled run with the ball from the flank and taking on the defender 1v1 (the German's were not that quick to offer cover by a 2nd defender) can pose many problems for the defense and options for the attackers. The one time a US player used that was Millie and she nearly sneaked it by on the near post. The Middle 3rd: I agree that the Germans had more of the possession and had many more/much better combo's that created havoc for our mids in the second half. In the 1st half it seemed that the US controlled the middle but that they did not utilize the quick combo's that would have allowed for more penetrating runs and slotted balls into opened lanes. In the 1st half we were attacking pretty relentlessly down the flanks that the middle was not really an issue. The defenders were bypassing the middle to go directly to the forwards heads' and feet. It seemed like the German's were more technically sound and understood the tactical advantage of possessing in the middle 3rd. In the warm ups the US spent a little time on possession in a small space, but then went to a short-short-long drill which was bascially the tactic that the US employed the entire game. Wagner offered a little glimmer of hope when she was inserted, but she seemed awed by the venue. She hurried her passes a little, but the thought process was there. Unfortunately, the other US players were not accustomed, it appeared to me, to reading some of Wagner's creativity. She played a style at Santa Clara that used her creative genius and the USWNT did not. The back 3rd: I thought that they did a very good job of organizing and keeping a shape that did not allow the German's to pose much threat. They handled both of their very good strikers until the 90th minute. There was very good communication and the passing of players off to one another in their flat back four system. Obviously, the counter attacks that the German's used in the extra time against only 3 and sometimes only 2 defenders were effective, but you can't fault the US for pushing more numbers forward. The goal came off a midfield turnover that led to the now etched in my brain perfect near post header. Why did she get the inside position. That is the main crux of the problem for me witht the USWNT. I can't really put my finger on it but it seemed the German's had more desire and drive. I take for example two balls to the far post that got through the German defense. Where were the US runners? At that level, on that stage, in the circumstance of trailing 1-0, those balls should be at least touched. The keeper and #10 for Germany were the two players in my mind that turned the outcome of the game in the favor of the Germans. My two cents. Thanks for listening. Out.
My thoughts on this game. The attack was not diversified enough. Predictable play they needed more then that. US had the players to win this game. Notice Germany scored a good goal on a near post header. Did we try a near post attack? I don't remember any. That wombat is very good at redirecting the ball with her head. Wait with a defender she can be stopped. Moving to the near post beating the defender into that space so she can see the ball. I do not think they could have stopped her. You don't even have to out jump the opponent on a near post header moving to the near post. Just have to beat the defender to the ball. We had no inside combination game. If we did we would have been hard to stop because we had a good crossing game. DiCicco was working on that when Parlow came to the team. When DiCicco left that expansion of our game left with him. I thought our new players played great in this WC. I thought Milbrett did not play great in this wc. I thought Wagner was disappointing. A lot of bad passes from her before the last game. She may have field vision, but her skills to get the ball there were not that good. I thought taking out Parlow made us a weaker team. Also weaker on crosses and corners. Unless she was hurt she should have stayed in another 20 minutes, and not taken out like a machine. I thought we paniced after we fell behind. Especially around the 70th minute when we took out one of the 4 backs. Big mistake you play four backs because you don't wan't to be beat on a counter attack. Germany had a counter so we play with 3 backs? Not good, if our attacking game is good we don't have to panic. At any time we can put 4 or 5 passes together and draw level. They score on a counter you have a problem. Keep the game close you have a chance to win the game.
To answer the original question "What went wrong?", here are two perspectives. First, from German forward Birgit Prinz: Next is from Ian Sawyers, ex-WUSA coach & Mr. Foudy himself:
That was a fantastic analysis. I should have the tape soon, but I expect that the tape will vindicate him, from what I've read of the match.
Soccer is a game of both tactics and technique. Most (read virtually all) top coaches look at the technical ability of their players and their strengths and weaknesses and then come up with a tactical scheme to best attack the tactical and technical weaknesses of their opponents. This is easy when you are greatly superior or even in virtually every area as the US is against most teams that they play on a regular basis. It is also easy when your team only has one strength or when you must hide a major weakness. The problems come to the fore when there are multiple strengths ands the weaknesses are relative ones not always obvious. EX: Speed, size, and strength are a US strength against most teams but one, or more, becomes a weakness against some teams. The choice of basic style, when not dictated by personnel, is set at game time and is almost impossible to change during the run of play BUT it can be changed at half time. In the last two games a change of style was needed. The power game was not effective against either Norway or Germany and the US never went to the possession game. Against Norway the US got away with a poor attack due to Norway’s even poorer one but against Germany the US fell behind and never really looked in danger of pulling back even, much less winning. After seeing the attacking problems against Norway a half way decent coach would have abandoned the power game and gone to a possession style. While Wagner was not effective in the power game she would, most probably, be effective in a more possession oriented offense. Against Germany the lineup should have been: (apologies for any spelling errors) Scurry Pearce - Fawcett - Reddick - Sobbero Boxx Bivens --- Lilly Wagner (starting and with possession instructions she would be fine) Hamm --- Wambach (or Parlow) With the Wamback/Parlow change happening early in the second half unless the player to be subbed is continuing to be effective. The other problem was the mistaken idea that Hamm needed rest. What she needed was at least a half to keep her grove going. It is clear that the "rest" caused her level of play to drop dramatically and she has been ineffective since. The question of the advisability of that kind of rest for her should have been abandoned after, as was alluded to in the broadcast, she was rested at the last WWC and was not as effective coming back. In the last WWC that "mistake" was not a killer, in this one it was. Maybe because Mia in a little older an does not recover from "rest" trauma as well as she used to. Bottom line is that April fell in love with a new style, for her, and failed to adjust when up against teams that could, obviously, handle that style. Even after the US failed to produce in the first half the style was not adjusted and personnel were inserted without any attempt to fix what was not working. With a team as diversely skilled as the US there is NO excuse for missing the needed changes. I do not know that the US would have won with a style change but the poor showing against Norway should have been a wake up call to April and she should have made some style changes. This loss goes to two causes: 1. Germany was well ready to counter the US’s new direct play. 2. April has no vision as a coach and is only able to win, consistently, against teams that we are much better than. A loss against the superior coaching of Canada is a real possibility. The main problem was, and is, April’s dismal job performance and, if she continues, we can expect a further slide into the heights of mediocrity.
I disagree. The USA was hardly a change of direction, give and go team under DiCicco. The only players who consistently did do that were Akers (who no longer plays) and Fawcett (who now handles central D because Overbeck retired). And did Milbrett under DiCicco ever change direction or run a give and go? Consider this. The biggest source of USA offensive runs in '99 (particularly the final), other than Akers generating plays, was off Fawcett runs. Fawcett has done admirably filling Overbeck's position. Pearce has been a steady defender. But, in fairness, perhaps the biggest gap on the field between '99 and '03, as I now realize with hindsight, is the lack of Fawcett's runs. Time to look at Boxx and/Reddick at central D, if Slaton is healthy to play left back. This frees Fawcett to play right back, where she can be the women's game's equivalent of Cafu (and free space for midfielders, who as a result should be more effective).
it might have something to do with : a). her age b).Doesn't have enough courage to leave Rookies in the back alone c) Follows coach's instruction d) B.Prinz too dangerous to be out of her sight e) Too lazy to do that (very unlikely).
No. It has everything to do with her playing center defense. If she were able to play on the right, she'd be at liberty to run. Her age is not an issue. She still has wheels.
I've offered to write one with her and the others I call the Splendid Seven (those on the '91 team who started in the '99 final). Let's see if they say yes.