I will confess that I have considered Mitts the Anna Kournikova of soccer. I went to the Houston game and couldn't believe they started her instead of Sobrero but I must admit she had a decent game and played well in Philadelphia. So, I guess we'll see how she progresses.
Which game are you talking about? If it's Founders Cup 2002, I don't remember Abby or Mia getting any shots from "pointblank" range.
Finding the fan foothold Soccer: With three of its biggest stars about to retire, the U.S. women's team scrambles for attention in the tough sports marketplace.
From that article: "We've cast such a large shadow for so many years that the younger players haven't gotten the recognition they deserve," Foudy said. "So it's about time. They'll step up, and people will love them." Some of the good they have done for the women's game has been diminished by their selfishness of not stepping aside to let the next group of athletes blend into this team. They certainly leave a hole to be filled without the marque players (minus boxx and wambaugh) to create the fan enthusiam. It could have been so much better if they just realized that by stepping aside they could have preserved the game to the US fan base.
The above may be the least sensible thing said in this thread (a high bar indeed). The better analogy would be the NBA after Erving and Bird retired (or after MJ). It turns out the media has an insatiable need for "stars" and people WILL step up. The selfishness here is SocFed not maintaining a platform for these women to use to get a hold on the public consciousness - and on not running a program that is certain to find the "new stars." If Mia & Co. had stepped aside and the WNT had LOST, where exactly would the WNT be better off?
Whatever 6th man! They just led the team to a 2nd gold medal. How exactly has that diminished the women's game?
I really wasn't referring to Mia but the USNWT would actually be better off if they all had stepped down because the new team would have been way beyond where they are today. I can hear the 91er's now. "I have done so much for the USWNT that I will stay around so long to prevent my replacement from gaining expericence and when I leave it will just fall apart so you can see how much we meant to the team." In regards to winning the Olympic Gold. Congratulations but that could have been accomplished with a younger team. Take a look at who contributed.
True. However, they were allowed to stay because the USSF declined to hire a coach willing to make the tough choices. In the player's defence, they have off and on tried to get the current coach replaced knowing full well that a new coach would likely end the careers of many of the same players. I can't blame a player for continuing to play when allowed to do so. It all goes back to the USSF and their unwillingness - for whatever reason(s) - to treat the WNT as a purely competitive enterprise.
I understand what you say, and I agree with much of it. But you'll never convince me that it is the player's problem. It's a management problem. It should never be encumbant upon the players to decline a callup to the national team. The call should just stop coming. Agreed. In fact we're a bit lucky that Germany was suffering a bit from the same thing we are. They were unable to recover from Meinert and Wiegmann's retirements - there were no replacements ready to drive their engine. Even then we barely got past them.
Andy, this does not make sense. The Founders tried to get April fired knowing that would be the end of their careers, while at the same time they refused to retire on their own?? If they wanted to step aside they could have done so. These are adults. Ms. Chastain still won't retire. Do you blame Dr. Bob for that? It is convenient to blame the USSF for this mess, but I blame the Founders too. They got an awful lot of credit, and now with our program in ruins they deserve some of the blame too. After the strike, the Steinbrecher incident, and endless fawning media coverage of the Founders, the soft option for the USSF was to give them what they wanted and not do battle with them in the court of public opinion, where the USSF was sure to lose. So they got what they wanted and look at the mess we are in. Just my opinions.
Sure. It all makes perfect sense. Players play. That's their job. They can understand that the long-term competitive needs of the team require some of them to be cut, but it's not their job to make the cuts. How many (mainly) men die in the United States because they refuse to go to the doctor on a semi-regular basis? Easily diagnosed and treatable diseases become life-threatening and costing illnesses or cancers because it's easier to ignore what needs to be done. The 91-96 Golden generation of players was magical precisely because of their competitiveness and ability. We revel in their history because of the fact that they did everything -on the field- in their ability to win. Understanding that something needs to change - or I should really have that growth on my shoulder looked at - and making the change are two seperate things. The responsibility for turning over the roster of the WNT after Sydney 2000 was a management issue.
No. You pretty much just blame the Founders. For just about everything. We get it. What we don't get, is why you persist on trying to participate in discussions in the WNT and WUSA forums. You've shown absolutely no interest in the success or future of women's sports. In fact, you choose to blame the WNT and Title IX for the fact that this year's record haul of Olympic gold medals by American men wasn't more, and you want to blame the Founders and Title IX for the precipitous decline of the Men's National Team - despite the fact that we finished a surprisingly good 8th in Korea/Japan and haven't lost a match in nearly a year.
Our national team is doing very well. I never blamed their decline on anyone. They are not declining. There is another thread about Title IX if you want to debate that. The Supreme Court heard a Title IX case today so there is more fuel for the fire. I support all US teams, includuing the USWNT and youth teams. I am critical of some of the Founders. I think the insistence of some of them to be in charge ruined the WUSA and has hurt the USWNT. The Cult of Personality has been so great the priority has been to get 20 more caps rather than to give playing opportunities to the next generation. Remember what one of the German players said before the semifinal in the WWC? I hate to say it but I think she was right. Do you really think Dr. Bob is part of a plot to keep an incompetent coach in charge to ruin the USWNT? Just my opinions.
What freakin mess? We just won a gold medal! Lost very few games this year! Have developed some young players to lead on and off the field. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone sees this as a "mess".
Talk about Backasswards. The two most useless players on the Oly squad were Wags and Pukes - so which '91er should've "stepped aside?" Mia - who was the offensive engine much of the time? Lilly, who scored a key goal? Foudy, who organized the midfield even when they play short because Wagner is wandering around out there? or Fawcett who was still the heart of the defense? Chastain, who came off the bench to deliver a strong performance? The players want Ape replaced because she's got NO plan to develop the team or even stand up to SocFed when they're clearly not doing what's necessary to win. Blaming players for not stepping aside would be hilarious if it wasn't for people at SocFed saying it - I mean who's walking around saying "yeah, Milbrett was real classy retiring like that." The only real question is why SocFed wouldn't want them playing next year when development of the squad should be key.
No way! They need to be gone and have no further influence on this next bunch of athletes. Or we could just keep them and develop a Senior League like in golf. MLS (Menopause League Standouts)
Two major problems. The use of pejorative terms (eg. "Pukes") really make it difficult to take a post seriously. If you can't say Hucles, then don't bother. Second, the "younger team" needed to be started in November 2000, not November 2003. That's what we're talking about. If most of the 91-96ers had been retired after Sydney 2000, there replacements would've 1) been found and 2) been given the experience necessary to likely get the job done last fall and this summer.
The job did get done this summer with contributions from youngsters and veterans alike. You can argue that the youngsters got the job done but if you look at the three big goals - Wambach, O'Reily, & Tarpley, they were all assisted by a vet. I am mystified by all the negative posts about the sorry shape of womens soccer all due to the selfish veterans. We've had a banner year. Won every tournament we've played. Had very few loses. I will grant you that the last couple FCT performances have not been stellar but they are what they are. Exhibition matches celebrating the gold and the end of some long careers played without practice. We have three years to develop younger replacements for the vets before the next big event. If Lil and Chastain want to stick around and help that happen - great. They can still contribute. IMHO Lil is still playing at a very high level. No one makes end line runs and battles for the ball like Lil & Hamm. She has one of the most complete games period. Granted Brandi had a couple of bad touches in the Denmark game (see earlier comment about no practice) and hasn't been healthy but she is still a heck of a defender and can provide leadership and organization on the back line especially absent Fawcett. She also a great ambassador/spokesman for the game, can continue to help others develop leadership and she puts butts in the seats.
I think the point Andy is trying to make is that if the veterans had retired after the 2000 Olympics there would have been new and younger players there with the experience to make those same passes to Wambach, O'Reilly and Tarpley. He's not saying they were detrimental to the team winning the Olympics this year. What he's saying is somebody else could have done the job if they were given the time and experience. Having said that, I'm glad Hamm stuck around this year. A twenty assist year isn't too shabby. Chastain is good for leadership, but that's about it. She's slow and her touch on the ball isn't what it should be for the international level.
1. The USWNT had a great year in 2004 and a pretty good one in 2003 - agreed. 2. The lesson of the last USA-Denmark game was not about the what USWNT did or didn't do. Denmark didn't need an under-prepared USWNT to look so impressive. They did that all by themselves. From what I saw, Denmark is at least a match for the USWNT (or anyone else), prepared or not. Add one more to the list of teams who can win it all on a given day. And the list will grow longer by 2007. And the teams will be better than the 2004 Oly Gold Medalist. 3. Lilly, Chastain and Parlow are past their primes and will be 3 yrs. older and slower in 2007 - not a pretty thought. They might play some role in the USWNT rebuilding process but every minute invested in any one of them is a minute not invested in a player who will start in 2007. 4. I expect the winning team in 2007 to be faster and better than any the USA has ever produced. Despite their success in 2003/2004, the USWNT is at a major turning point - time to keep up with the changing women's game or be left behind. And 2007 is not as far off as it seems.
Not advocating that they stick around until 07. I would argue that they have a lot to invest in other players. Would also agree that the 07 team will be faster & better. A league would help.
Quibble away . . . (I was hoping Ape wouldn't pick "Hucles" - than I wouldn't have to bother) This really indicates, to me anyway, a serious lack of understanding about sports. When you've got a championship team - you go with those people - THEN you worry about re-loading. Frankly, with moderately competant coaching it's entirely possible the US would've swept both Olys (Scurry was fit by the knockout round) and both WWC's (the one time almost everyone would agree it made sense to keep Parlow in the match). The US rode a group of exceptional players to victories in two Olys and a WWC (these are pretty clearly the crown jewels of women's international soccer). Including in 2003. We've got a perfectly good two-year window to get ready for WWC '07 (assuming FIFA doesn't lose interest in the whole thing) - the issue that counts is that SocFed is clearly NOT doing what it needs to do to put the team in a position to win AGAIN. Blaming Mia & Co. for this is like blaming Jiffy Lube for ruining your car after you tried driving 20,000 miles between oil changes. It's also a great distraction to demanding that SocFed do its job and allow the WNT a chance to continue as the pre-eminent team in international women's soccer.