Parc des Princes (PSG's home pitch next to Roland Garros where some matches have been played) has 47,929 capacity; Stade de France (National Stadium in St. Denis between Paris proper and CDG) has 81,338; Stade de Lyon has 57,900. All other things being equal (they may not be) Stade de France may have been a better choice.
Rose Lavelle is an amazing talent, but she needs to take her game to the next level. If she can make that one final pass (instead of taking a shot from a tough angle), she can become a world class player. After the beautiful nutmeg early in the match, she had both Morgan and Horan open for a fairly easy tap in, but more times than not she chooses to take the shot herself. This could be very effective against teams like Thailand and Chile, but top level goal keepers will close her shot angle.
well your not going to get any discusions from Americans on who's going to have the better 'school of soccer', instead it's the endless & endless & endless, Pinoe vs Press debate. There's two reasons for this; 2) Americans love individualism, so hence, talking about two individuals ............but, most important; 1) Americans love talking/posting about Americans, thats why the Pinoe/Press debate works so well! but here's how soome the world is starting look at our college system, got this off my Australian soccer facebook club The sad truth about the eternal dominance of U.S. women's soccer here's an English article from the world renowned Guardian If English women’s football is to catch the USA’s, schools will be key | Women's football | The Guardian
The only losing scenario is the Dutch goalkeeper might pull a Hope Solo vs Brazil (2008). This game has all the ingredients for that. Plus the weather.
What's the preferred US line up of you guys (women?...anywhere...in this thread..) to face the Orange ladies? This is the Orange line up I expect:
I expect Ellis to have something in mind for this match up, and I have no idea what--so it wouldn't surprise me to see most anything. Another start for Kreiger, Dunn in MF, a start for McDonald; I guess I'd be a little surprised by a start for Long or Sonnett, but not very-- I think players on the lower end of the depth chart have been prepped for specific opponents and I think they are good enough that if you give them specific and appropriate tasks to practice they can do as well as the mainstays...
The first of these articles is written by an American (Lange). The US hasn't had "eternal dominance." More like consistent greatness. They've won 3 World Cups out of 7 up to this point. They've never not reached a semifinal of a WC. But they have never been unbeatable in any of them. Even in 2015, the final excepted, it was a hard slog. For nearly the last two decades we've constantly heard from some quarters about other teams poised to pass the US. Hasn't happened. I think it's more realistic to see it as teams that can reach competitive parity with the US. A handful of teams have done this already. They just haven't been able to maintain it or do it consistently over a long period. Germany managed it for nigh on a decade (albeit with a poor head to head). But before we start talking about teams passing the USWNT they should at least achieve long term consistency first. Given a few of the advantages the US has talk of teams passing the US is always a combination of wishful thinking and premature overreactions to short term developments/youth results. We heard these arguments just two years ago right after Rio. Every time the US doesn't win some act as if it's a portent of the future or it augurs a changing of the guard. If they don't win on Sunday we'll hear it again. But if they do win many of the reactions go to the opposite extreme. They haven't even won yet and people are talking about it as if there's some unbreakable hegemony. About how it's not good for world development of soccer. This isn't basketball. The US can be (and has been) beaten. But maybe in the future people can resist trumpeting the inevitable decline of the USWNT and declaring that they are on the verge of falling behind the international game because somebody beats them in a major tournament. Isn't it enough that increasingly more teams can reach a level where they can be competitive with the US? Instead of overreaching and talking about the USWNT falling behind, the discussion should center around teams reaching a level where they can beat the US. It's completely different. The more teams that reach that level the harder it will be for the US to win the major tournaments (WC and Olympics). Not because they have been passed. But because more teams are at or near the same level (ie for whom the US is beatable). The more of these teams there are the less likely the US is to beat all of them. Even better if the teams can maintain that level over a long period. I had to laugh at the Guardian article. So often, even amongst US fans, especially amongst US fans, the college system is derided as a weakness. That we have won in spite of it not because of it. I think on balance the college game has positives and negatives. I do not think that the US way of doing things will work in traditional soccer countries. It's a completely different set up and culture. Not only in terms of soccer but sport in general. The club system is the way to go in traditional soccer countries. It's the best way even though the women cannot even begin to approach what the men can earn. It's still more realistic than to contemplate overhauling an ingrained sporting infrastructure.
While I sort of agree here I also think there is a problem with the basic idea of forwards passing when there there is even a remotely good shot available. People keep wanting more scoring and they really berate a forward that passes instead of shooting much of the time. The fact is that a forward's primary job is to score goals "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY." Could a forward in the described situation maybe pass and create a chance on goal? Maybe. But an extra pass always increases the risk of a turnover and that is worse than having a go with a low percentage shot. I REALLY like the fact that Lavelle has the guts and the willingness to shoot at every even remotely open chance. That will produce more goals in the long run than looking for a pass and then deciding too shoot. Remember that a shot has several chances to produce a goal. The shot, the rebound (See the US Gold Cup Semi) and a mistake by the keeper or defender. A pass has the same chances BUT it also adds a chance to screw something up. So I want Lavelle to keep shooting often and hard because I think that means more goals for the US. BTW: Even though Lavelle usually lines up in the midfield she plays very much like a withdrawn forward. She is almost always thinks attack first and that is another point in her favor.
I'd like to see Pugh come on at least by the mid way point of the 2nd half. Many players have looked really sapped in the 2nd half. Her hunger, acceleration, and persistence could make a difference when attrition sets in on the pitch.
Although I know it wont happen this brings up the idea of going with a REAL speed lineup. Pugh on the right, Press on the left and McDonald in the middle. Add a midfield of Horan, Lavelle and Mewis and we get quite a bit faster than our "normal" starters. I am not at all sure that the Dutch can match up against that. Remember "Speed Kills." It is not going to happen, too risky. But it seems to be an interesting idea, I think.
I agree with you. Especially since Lavelle has a great outside shot. She has a deceptively powerful shot given her size. But the ball has a lot of spin and movement which makes it difficult for the keeper. This goal is a great example. Shot selection does matter though. Like basketball. And like that sport who's doing the shooting and from where matters. A poor shot from a bad angle is low pct. Apart from one of Rapinoe's Olimpicos or Alex's seeing-eye far post left footers those usually don't end well. Shots from poor angles also seem to be corralled better by keepers (ie no rebounds or corners conceded) since the shooter often sacrifices power for placement. But I agree it's better for them to have the mentality of being decisive and aggressive than be tentative and swivel headed.
It is in the Netherlands. Hell, that school system is impossible over here as we have no scholarships etc. Education is within reach for everybody with brains matching the education wanted. Sports in the Netherlands is very much a club culture, a means of social connections. I'm not familiar with how things work in the UK, but the Guardian article at least is of no use for the Dutch. We simply embed the girls/women soccer into the succesfull system we already have, the system the Germans, French and Belgian used as a model for the overhaul of their youth system.
If the USWNT was a one trick pony they would not be in the final. They have not steamrolled their knock out round opponents, the last two of which are certainly quality (ranked #3 and #4). If the Netherlands are to win they will have to counter various aspects of what the USWNT does. If the Dutch coach tactically approaches the match as if the USWNT is a "one trick pony" they will lose.
Yep, Dahlkemper is good at central defense but Ertz is quite a bit better on the defensive side and almost as good at the pass out of the back.
It was a question, not a remark. I simply donot know the US women enough, actually not at all apart from this WC matches. I know the US men team better. I assumed by being a dominant force the need for adjustments arenot that pressing. From comments I read in both the matches against France and England Ellis used the all hands on deck approach MO to get an early goal. Of course those countries werenot going to lay down easily, but did Ellis really make tweaks in her team's MO?
So you believe that the Dutch just have to hold out in the early part of the match without conceding? This in your mind is the key to beating the USWNT?
It's essential not to concede in the first 15 minutes. Otherwise the USA can gear back to slower mode to recoupe the energy spent in those 15 minutes and have the Dutch chase the equalizer. That would be bad for two reasons. First we have had a day less rest, matches in scorging heat of the day, extra time, so the energy level is a way behind that of the USA. Not great if you have to chase the equalizer. Second it would be bad as we then have to push up the pitch, leaving the back line under the threat of the in speed superior USA strikers. So it's necessary to let the USA spend the energy without conceiding a goal, so we come on a more even level in energy left. My opinion is that this is the way to be able to play the rest of the game with a chance to win. Still a big job to do.
I think we have shown a little more variety. Against France for example in addition to pushing the pace early in both half’s we had some effective tactics We attacked very wide and stretched the French back line. Rapinoe was almost standing on the touch line for large stretches. Defensively it looked like we used a compact 4-1-4-1 with Ertz shielding our CBs. We were narrow and forced France wide - they failed to capitalize. We ceded more and more possession after going up the second goal as we shifted into a 4-5-1. I think it was like 47 percent USA at that point and dropped to 40 by end of game. Shots were almost even 10-10 while we had like an 8-1 shots on goal advantage. Overall Ellis has scouted and planned much better for each opponent than I remember us doing in 15. Now that’s could be just my memory.