Shame both quarterfinals on Saturday morning were so one-sided. I would like to have seen England do the impossible and rise to the USA's level before our very eyes, but obviously the difference in class really began to tell in the second half after a super display by the 3 Lionesses in the first 45. I was trying to turn on a couple of friends of mine to the WWC and told them to watch England v USA and they would be hooked, but it never lived up to the hype. USA got the job done, a bad spell of a handful of minutes cost England the game, Kelly Smith was AWOL, and that's all she wrote. A'hole Ladies Fan wrote: Sorry to upset your already defensive ego but I wasn't addressing this comment to you, but to the group of WWC fans on this board in general. I wasn't seeking your approbation (look it up in the dictionary). It seems you really do care what people say about your posts, and it was not looking good for you early doors – but it's encouraging to see you've matured somewhat based on your most recent posts. Maybe it's you that's learning from us, quite the opposite of what you supposed initially, eh? You seem to be easily amazed. If you can comprehend what you read, which is in question, I addressed this clearly is my previous post. I support the England women’s team because they represent England, and because I enjoy watching women’s football. If they are “lady Gunners” (by the way that term sounds really antiquated, which means “out of date” in language you can understand--we are living in the 21st Century) that's of secondary importance. We were watching England, remember? Again, if you had the mental capacity to grasp my previous post, you would clearly see that I support the England women’s team despite the current affiliation of most of them to their current club. Many of them, by the way, were with different clubs up until recently, for example, the demise of the likes of Birmingham and Charlton saw players from those teams move over, otherwise we would have seen a wider and more interesting range of clubs represented. If you read my post, which may be hard for you, I already said that Spurs have a long way to go to get a decent women’s team. So you simply repeated my point as if you were imparting some kind of revelation. However Spurs now seem committed to moving forward, but their road has been fraught with internal politics and disagreement, and only now are they beginning the long climb to what hopefully will be future prosperity. “Trying” being the operative word here. Some of your posts are too rambling and damaging to Shakespeare's fair tongue to wade through all the way, but in what way have you educated people how “soccer” works? English people predominantly call it football by the way, little hint when you are pretending to be English The phrases and words you use (soccer, you people, doing squat, give a s***) reveal you to be a male American wanna-be gooner trying to be confrontational by pretending to be a semi-literate poster from the UK with a hostile attitude to the USA team. When you realized that you had failed, you finally decided to lighten up, which is what we were telling you to do in the first place, and have swallowed your misplaced pride and congratulated the USA. The American part of me accepts your congratulations, but I expect more after our next victory. An abject groveling apology will suffice Anyway, back to the game. The good news out of this for England is that there was a major TV audience who witnessed a part-time England get their arsenals handed to them by the USA. This will spur England on to the next level: namely a credible commitment by the FA to make the England Women a truly professional program capable of properly challenging the United States, Germany, Norway, and the other nations who have already taken the women’s game seriously. Bring it on. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not very versatile, I guess. I guess just throw her in for 10 secs at the end of important games only, and maybe she'll do something. She still generally has poor touch, and just runs around not doing much. But yeah, 1st class, I guess. Anyway can score. Pando scored for LA when they needed that cup win, after a whole season of doing nothing. Naldo might've even had a goal. Pavon has had a couple. Atiba Harris had a couple last season. But all of these players suck. Is it wrong to expect better quality from the "best team in the world"?
As I remember, that goal was a simple tap-in that anyone with a workable foot could've finished. Says nothing special about her.
I agree. Phil Esposito was a very high scorer but he needed to be fed the puck. Wasnt very skilled. USWNT, for the most part, needs some minor tweeks in their touches and passes.
I guess you're not aware that there's more to soccer than kicking the ball. You know, California has approximately 90,000 soccer academies. Why don't you take a weekend and learn a bit?
And theres more to soccer than running around with your head cut off too. In a short flick that aired prior to the WWC, Leslie Osborne even made fun of HO over her 'style' Look at the Brazil team, they all have the technical skill that I think the original poster meant (not to put words in his mouth).
I only wish I was joking. With the MILLIONS of girls playing soccer in the US, why do you think you never see these types of players show up at the national level?
... I know I can't be the only one tired of people making that same excuse for US soccer. How often is "flair" effective in a high level game? A valid argument could be made that US coaching prefers functional players to flashy players, but any smart coach would do the same. US players have the technical skill that I believe some are referring to as flair. This tournament and the coaching haven't made that as evident as it probably should be. The US has played as a good functional team this tournament. It isn't always the most attractive style of soccer, but it works. Just because the women are not playing in a free-flowing and open system does not mean they lack skill or ability and are being discouraged in development from building those skills.
I've been a part of that system and I've worked with those girls. Believe me, individual skill on the ball is not encouraged, and in many cases discouraged in our national system. I am not saying that our players are not skillful. They most certainly are. However, we stifle creativity of players by demanding that girls pass the ball at young ages, by discouraging younger players to "take on", by discouraging girls to actually compete with one another for fear of hurting feelings, etc. It's the culture we've created. Compound this with the current US methodology of teaching tactics based on what German men did in the 1970s, and you begin to understand why we create the types of players we do. Who rely on speed and athleticism, rather than ability to possess and break teams down tactically. I invite anyone to review the following documents: 1. http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_151526.html This document highlights perceived strengths and weaknesses post WWC03. In the column "things to improve on", you'll note that the first 5 were things the US used to have as a trademark during the 1990s. A time with smaller, faster, and more techincally skilled players could still progress through the ODP system. You'll notice that points 8 and 9 were things that allowed us to win WWC99. At that point we still sought players who brought those traits. Contrast that with what we've seen from our current team, and you'll find that these things are sorely lacking. 2. http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_151543.html This document was written after the 2004 Olympics, and highlights what was perceived as weaknesses in how we are coaching our youth players. If you observe, it spells out exactly what I am saying in my comments here. And it has manifested itself in what we see on the field from the US team in WWC07. This comment is especially on point: "The United States has been known for having legendary 1v1 artists, such as Carin Gabarra and Mia Hamm. We have developed slashing 1v1 dribblers in our country. Dribbling for possession is a component of dribbling that we have not developed at the same rate. Dribbling with change of direction and creativity in order to keep the ball and allow more numbers to get forward is the next step for us." 3. http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Best_Practices.pdf This new document has been produced to try to change the mentality of coaches in the US. It is the beginning of the USSF trying to depart from the ways of old, and embrace modern methods of training. You'll see that the US is trying to adopt a mentality closer to how the Brazillians train rather than what we HAVE been doing. Without spelling things out, the USSF is trying to tell those in the youth pipeline to stop cutting players out who show some of these traits we need, but have not utilized in the past. It is a welcome change. I found this excerpt from Appendix C to be especially noteworthy: "USA FUTURE SUCCESS In order to achieve continued success in the international arena, the United States needs to focus on developing skillful, “soccer savvy” players. These two areas are falling behind in comparison with the other top soccer nations." As to the root question of how often flair is effective in high level matches, I'd suggest you ask Pele, Maradonna, Ronaldo, Zico, Ronaldinho, Cryuff, Okocha, Weah, Zidane, etc. There is nothing to say that players with flair have to be technically poor. On the contrary, a skillfull player who can be creative and take on numbers and be effective, is what sells tickets, and what separates good teams from great ones.
I can't speak to players who came up through other NCAA Div I teams, but even a passing interest in Anson Dorrance's coaching philosophy will tell you that this is complete b.s., at least for any USWNT players who came from there (of which there are a disproportionate number, including HAO). Ever hear the phrase "competitive cauldron"? If not, Google it (+soccer). And given that he is the winningest coach of women's soccer in history -- by some ridiculously improbable factor -- I suspect the competitive cauldron philosophy is not limited to the UNC program. It may be true that at the rec level the general attitude is to be sensitive to hurt feelings or what have you, but by the time these young women reach the level of ODP competition / have the potential to play in any serious college program / might even be *considered* for the Nats... I don't think any of them are holding back for fear of hurting someone's feelings -- if they are, they aren't going to make the team.
I had a short conversation with coach Dorrance in 1996. In 2002, I adopted UNC's training methods and had marvelous success with them. In 2003 I spent some time talking with Ashu Saxena (google him) and started adapting the competitive cauldron idea to younger teams in out club with similar success. Also in 2003 I worked with UNC's Fitness guru (also the USWNT fitnes guru at the time) Dr. Kirkendall. And we adopted that as well. But there is a disconnect. UNC's training methodolgy runs afoul of the official USSF training methodology. And if you are trying to move through the USSF coaching heirachy, you cannot utilize the methodology of UNC. I decided to part ways with the USSF methods and I was pleased with my results. ODP coaches do not have this luxury, so players coming through that system are not trained that way. You might also note that Coach Dorrance tends to work with the NSCAA rather than the USSF when it comes to coaching clinics. If you've spent much time reading Anson's materials, you'll find that many of the women who come to his program LACK the competitive nature you speak of which is why he stresses it so much. It was the impetus for the competitive cauldron. His usual example is of Carin Gabara coming to UNC and not winning a single 1v1 game in her freshman year. By her senior year she did not LOSE a single 1v1 game. There are very, very few places in this country where girls truly learn to compete this hard. Which is why you get so many of the US's Natl team players coming from perhaps a dozen or two clubs. If you really think that most top level college players truly learn to compete hard, I invite you to look at UNC's results over the past 10 years. Even as their talent pool dwindles with more schools making a serious commitment to women's soccer, UNC continues to dominate on the field. All this come back to a couple of major points. 1. The US has only recently begun to understand that they cannot simply run over or run past teams as it has in the past. Those days are gone. 2. The US is seemingly making an effort to change the way our youth national teams, and youth select teams are coached to address our shortcomnigs. 3. We are still some 3-8 years away from seeing the fruits of this change in methodolgy. In the meantime, I will contiue to root for the US teams, and I will still contiue to support my adopted team... Brazil. Jogo Bonito.
I thought that England looked more skilled at short passing and dribbling (and general footskills) than the USA but the USA looked more skilled on the attack, finished better, had a more skilled defense and a better keeper. Since the game only measures which team is better at scoring goals and not getting scored on, the USA's skills were more relevant and they came out on top.
You guys are saying that American style promotes passing over personal ball control, which I agree with. Passing makes for a faster-paced game. So why do you think it is that American style is criticized for being so slow-paced?
Passing, in and of itself, is not necessarily the route to faster soccer. Just as dribbling doesn't have to produce a slower game. Go out to an American soccer field where a team is training. Doesn't matter if it's recreational, select, or even at most colleges. Note how the ball moves. How many touches do the players take to clean up the ball. How much 1-touch passing is done, and what is it's quality? Passing accurately with minimum touches is what brings up the speed of play. But most coaches spend little time on it. Watch the match tomorrow as the US women play. Pay attention to how little 1-touch play is in evidence. Watch Brazil play thursday. Note the difference. Nigeria plays better 1 touch soccer than we do now. I realize that my last few posts will anger some, and probably make it sound like I am down on US soccer. Really I am not. I have hope that we are seriously looking to improve how we train our players so that we can have continued success, and play more skillfully at the top levels. It's clear we can no longer succeed just by running past everyone. WC03 proved that.
I like this picture: http://www.fifa.com/womenworldcup/matches/round=248548/match=56338/photolist.html#603244
Solo and Lopez are obviously in the wrong as they are both dangerously trying to play a ball that the English player is confidently going for. It seems like there is always a photographer to take this picture at every women's match.
There are some fun pictures in that gallery and so I don't fill this thread with pictures http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful522097001_20943_full-lnd.jpg http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful522097003_20938_full-lnd.jpg http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful522097008_20932_full-prt.jpg http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful222097002_20916_full-prt.jpg could be something http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful522097010_20972_full-prt.jpg http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful522097006_20924_full-lnd.jpg http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful522097007_20920_full-prt.jpg http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful522097005_20919_full-lnd.jpg http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful222097006_20918_full-lnd.jpg http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful522097004_20907_full-prt.jpg http://www.fifa.com/mm/photo/tournament/competition/ful222097003_20905_full-prt.jpg
I just can't get over the expression on Lopez's face. It's like she's cutting up an onion in an outhouse, then gets engulfed in a katamari stickyball.
These need captions (aghaahhagahhgahg!!!) http://www.isiphotos.com/viewphoto....orient=&sort=&sortorder=&numperpage=&imagepos= (haos face is CLASSIC) Come to Mama!! http://www.isiphotos.com/viewphoto....orient=&sort=&sortorder=&numperpage=&imagepos= Take That! http://www.isiphotos.com/viewphoto....orient=&sort=&sortorder=&numperpage=&imagepos=