Women’s World Cup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good 2nd half by US. They have superior speed and athleticism to most teams, and those are big assets in football, no matter what the naysayers will tell you. Id be a bit worried though about what we saw in the first half against a Dutch team that's decent but not in the class of an England, Germany or Spain.

My big take was that the US do not have (never have) "classic" CMs (like the Dutch #s 17 and 10, who were superb) who can check their shoulders, turn under pressure in the middle of the field and pass the ball accurately 360 degrees to keep possession. But there are many ways to play football. In the absence of such players, they need 2 solid CMs who are very disciplined when they don't have the ball (which is going to happen a lot for the US in this WC). The Ned goal happened because one of the midfielders (Demelo or Horan), flew up to win the ball, got thin air and left a Dutch midfielder with acres of space that she exploited to create danger, while Sullivan was stranded up the field running ahead of the ball, probably expecting her teammate to win the ball. This is quite a risky gamble for a #6 so early in the game. Lavalle made a huge difference, not because she is a classic CM, but because of her intelligent movement and good read of the game, and her ability to dribble. As they will not possess the ball like the Dutch or Spain, the US women have to optimize what is their strength, which is to play quick, 1 or 2 touches through the midfield (or even bypassing it) to release their wingers into space. I thought Smith and Rodman were excellent yesterday, and Alex M. had some great touches and vision to set the wingers up again and again n the 2nd half.

Sorry bruh, but it was Sullivan who made herself look like a cone and pressed at midfield with no cover instead of just containing, and after she got beat both center backs retreated when one should have stepped up and contained:
https://www.foxsports.com/watch/play-68a3df90800096c?cmpid=google-one-box

Sullivan is a liability on both sides of the ball. She doesn't step into space to be an easy outlet and part of a three-player combination when forwards are checking back to the ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dutch crushed in the first half. 3 to every 1 American on the ball. Winning 50-50. Making the us run with their dazzling possession. Always providing 3 different options to the player with the ball. Winning the ball back immediately after losing it (3 second rule). It was a Cruyff teaching exhibit.

They fell apart in the 2nd half, but the promise and superior soccer in the first half by the Dutch was inspiring.

Great observation. Dissapointed again in the US effort, Horan needed to be bodied to get into the game and show her prowess. I think this WC will be a wake-up call for womens soccer in the US. But the Dutch were who we thought they were. They have a defined style of play inspired by Ajax academy and Cruyff, every team from 12 youths to senior team, men and women play the same style and you can tell certain skills are emphasized (playing with two feet, opening up with the ball every time you receive it, switching points of attack, buidling from the back with technical CB;s). It's beautiful to watch and should be a template to motivate the powers that be in US soccer to have a style of play, move on from pay to play, so that this can actually happen. The Reyna's showed who has real power in US soccer, former players and their networks. This is how you build consistency and get results now that the playing field is even. Europe has caught up, some nations in South America and Asia are not too far behind, Brazil and Japan are already there.

That's a lot of conclusions to draw from one half of a match. Yes, the Dutch were a much better team than us in the first half. But not in the second half. Clearly, there were some adjustments made at half, the US had plenty of scoring chances in the second half, and the Dutch were not able to dominate like they did in the first half. Still, with all that first half domination and superior technical skills, the Dutch still only managed to get like 4 shots on goal and 1 corner kick. It's easy to cry the sky is falling after a bad outing or two but to question the entire US soccer program is a stretch. Remember when the mens US basketball team lost in the olympics a couple times and everyone said the world had caught up, we need to change our approach, yada, yada. Well, it turned out to be not nearly as catastrophic. Yes, other countries are more technical. Yes, soccer is part of their national culture and never will be in the US. It doesn't mean we can't continue to be competitive in international competitions and need to blow up the system. The sky is not falling.

Here is your thing though - we're not talking about the Dutch but the US team here. I agree that the Dutch lost it 2nd half but that's about them. They lack a lot of the aggressiveness and drive that has been hallmark of not just US team but if you look at Spain, Japan, other teams, they have it too. The Dutch are great technicians but lack that attacking spirit - it's a style of play for them. I think it's why it was a tie game. HOWEVER - the US did not just not play well - even in the 2nd half, you can see that technically, they really were not all that. They could not put the ball in against Dutch defense. So it's not like they came back to life in the second 1/2 you see, it's that the Dutch kinda fell apart a bit in the 2nd half, and the US looked BETTER than they did in the 1st half. It's not like the US improved technically that they could actually do anything more than they did. That my friend, is the big problem with US team in this WC.

It's never looking at your strengths but your weaknesses - the US weakness is truly in their technical abilities. The style of play is different. They could win all these years because it's impressive how quickly their style of play and how inspiring their drive. But let's face it, the other countries were not as invested in womens' soccer. Now that they are, they have always been leaders from a technical and development perspective. US soccer focuses on speed, athleticism and drive/aggressiveness - that will.

Her old club on the other hand promoted girls who weren't as technical as she was but who play more aggressively. Her private training coach told me her teammate she trained for was not as technical as DD but they are on a higher team because of their style of play. Now she's at a new club and placed higher but not because of how tech she is but because of her speed. Again, I think in both cases it was the wrong approach. I think she has a lot of talent but needs to be developed - US culture does not promote pure technical development, rather speed/drive/will to win. Of course they girls aren't totally clueless technically but just comparing with rest of the world's approach to soccer.

Look at mens soccer - US mens soccer cannot go against the world.

The bolded is US college soccer in a nutshell. And, also most of youth soccer across the US which is why you are in trouble if you are a boy with a late growth spurt. You will be iced out of every top team starting at age 11-12. And then when you emerge at 17/18 at 6 feet and muscular, you are an after thought and never were in an MLSnxt or US youth Natl team camp so your 'career' is over. Even in college recruiting, it's a real sh*tter. Since Holland really is a factory to develop and sell players, there is a completely different way of looking at players over the years. We are ditching players before they have even come close to their prime---no chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good 2nd half by US. They have superior speed and athleticism to most teams, and those are big assets in football, no matter what the naysayers will tell you. Id be a bit worried though about what we saw in the first half against a Dutch team that's decent but not in the class of an England, Germany or Spain.

My big take was that the US do not have (never have) "classic" CMs (like the Dutch #s 17 and 10, who were superb) who can check their shoulders, turn under pressure in the middle of the field and pass the ball accurately 360 degrees to keep possession. But there are many ways to play football. In the absence of such players, they need 2 solid CMs who are very disciplined when they don't have the ball (which is going to happen a lot for the US in this WC). The Ned goal happened because one of the midfielders (Demelo or Horan), flew up to win the ball, got thin air and left a Dutch midfielder with acres of space that she exploited to create danger, while Sullivan was stranded up the field running ahead of the ball, probably expecting her teammate to win the ball. This is quite a risky gamble for a #6 so early in the game. Lavalle made a huge difference, not because she is a classic CM, but because of her intelligent movement and good read of the game, and her ability to dribble. As they will not possess the ball like the Dutch or Spain, the US women have to optimize what is their strength, which is to play quick, 1 or 2 touches through the midfield (or even bypassing it) to release their wingers into space. I thought Smith and Rodman were excellent yesterday, and Alex M. had some great touches and vision to set the wingers up again and again n the 2nd half.

Sorry bruh, but it was Sullivan who made herself look like a cone and pressed at midfield with no cover instead of just containing, and after she got beat both center backs retreated when one should have stepped up and contained:
https://www.foxsports.com/watch/play-68a3df90800096c?cmpid=google-one-box

Sullivan is a liability on both sides of the ball. She doesn't step into space to be an easy outlet and part of a three-player combination when forwards are checking back to the ball.

My bad. Got confused between Sullivan and Horan. Sullivan made the wrong decision to press with no cover, but it's also strange that all 3 defenders who were sitting deep on that side of the field started backtracking instead of one of them stepping up to fill the space. One other small problem is that Horan and Sullivan were in a line next to each other in the middle of the field. It's a quibble really, but given that the Dutch attack was not a very fast one, the positioning in the midfield could have been better. I am with you that US needs a better #6, and I'd argue better play from #8 (Horan) as well, who is not tidy enough with the ball even though she is a physical presence with a lot of energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dutch crushed in the first half. 3 to every 1 American on the ball. Winning 50-50. Making the us run with their dazzling possession. Always providing 3 different options to the player with the ball. Winning the ball back immediately after losing it (3 second rule). It was a Cruyff teaching exhibit.

They fell apart in the 2nd half, but the promise and superior soccer in the first half by the Dutch was inspiring.

Great observation. Dissapointed again in the US effort, Horan needed to be bodied to get into the game and show her prowess. I think this WC will be a wake-up call for womens soccer in the US. But the Dutch were who we thought they were. They have a defined style of play inspired by Ajax academy and Cruyff, every team from 12 youths to senior team, men and women play the same style and you can tell certain skills are emphasized (playing with two feet, opening up with the ball every time you receive it, switching points of attack, buidling from the back with technical CB;s). It's beautiful to watch and should be a template to motivate the powers that be in US soccer to have a style of play, move on from pay to play, so that this can actually happen. The Reyna's showed who has real power in US soccer, former players and their networks. This is how you build consistency and get results now that the playing field is even. Europe has caught up, some nations in South America and Asia are not too far behind, Brazil and Japan are already there.

That's a lot of conclusions to draw from one half of a match. Yes, the Dutch were a much better team than us in the first half. But not in the second half. Clearly, there were some adjustments made at half, the US had plenty of scoring chances in the second half, and the Dutch were not able to dominate like they did in the first half. Still, with all that first half domination and superior technical skills, the Dutch still only managed to get like 4 shots on goal and 1 corner kick. It's easy to cry the sky is falling after a bad outing or two but to question the entire US soccer program is a stretch. Remember when the mens US basketball team lost in the olympics a couple times and everyone said the world had caught up, we need to change our approach, yada, yada. Well, it turned out to be not nearly as catastrophic. Yes, other countries are more technical. Yes, soccer is part of their national culture and never will be in the US. It doesn't mean we can't continue to be competitive in international competitions and need to blow up the system. The sky is not falling.

Here is your thing though - we're not talking about the Dutch but the US team here. I agree that the Dutch lost it 2nd half but that's about them. They lack a lot of the aggressiveness and drive that has been hallmark of not just US team but if you look at Spain, Japan, other teams, they have it too. The Dutch are great technicians but lack that attacking spirit - it's a style of play for them. I think it's why it was a tie game. HOWEVER - the US did not just not play well - even in the 2nd half, you can see that technically, they really were not all that. They could not put the ball in against Dutch defense. So it's not like they came back to life in the second 1/2 you see, it's that the Dutch kinda fell apart a bit in the 2nd half, and the US looked BETTER than they did in the 1st half. It's not like the US improved technically that they could actually do anything more than they did. That my friend, is the big problem with US team in this WC.

It's never looking at your strengths but your weaknesses - the US weakness is truly in their technical abilities. The style of play is different. They could win all these years because it's impressive how quickly their style of play and how inspiring their drive. But let's face it, the other countries were not as invested in womens' soccer. Now that they are, they have always been leaders from a technical and development perspective. US soccer focuses on speed, athleticism and drive/aggressiveness - that will.

Her old club on the other hand promoted girls who weren't as technical as she was but who play more aggressively. Her private training coach told me her teammate she trained for was not as technical as DD but they are on a higher team because of their style of play. Now she's at a new club and placed higher but not because of how tech she is but because of her speed. Again, I think in both cases it was the wrong approach. I think she has a lot of talent but needs to be developed - US culture does not promote pure technical development, rather speed/drive/will to win. Of course they girls aren't totally clueless technically but just comparing with rest of the world's approach to soccer.

Look at mens soccer - US mens soccer cannot go against the world.

The bolded is US college soccer in a nutshell. And, also most of youth soccer across the US which is why you are in trouble if you are a boy with a late growth spurt. You will be iced out of every top team starting at age 11-12. And then when you emerge at 17/18 at 6 feet and muscular, you are an after thought and never were in an MLSnxt or US youth Natl team camp so your 'career' is over. Even in college recruiting, it's a real sh*tter. Since Holland really is a factory to develop and sell players, there is a completely different way of looking at players over the years. We are ditching players before they have even come close to their prime---no chance.

Look at Rose Lavelle. She is the type of player who the ECNL/travel coaches do not know what to do with. I am surprised she made it through the club level. I have seen players with similar skill sets ignored by coaches and leave the game.

Technical players need other technical players who see the game the way they do. The players with vision, technical skills and high soccer IQ play a different type of game. It is not that linear chase the ball, turn and go game that is so prevalent in club and college soccer.

When you turn the ball over against a good technical team(including long ball to the other team) within 3 to 4 pass the ball is outside your box. Watch Barca’s women team play. They escape pressure with 3 pass and are off to the races.

[Anonymous]

Let’s say the US lost all their group stage games. It would be disappointing but nothing would change.

Club and college coaches are just focused on winning at their level. The club coaches and TDs would change nothing. Same goes for the college coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say the US lost all their group stage games. It would be disappointing but nothing would change.

Club and college coaches are just focused on winning at their level. The club coaches and TDs would change nothing. Same goes for the college coaches.

What if part of their success at that level is contingent up how well they prepare players for the next level? That may be a factor in attracting the best talent, which would allow them to win at that level.

Look at what happened with football culture and training in England after Guardiola arrived in the country. Now, they are training in positional play, pressing, technicality, playing out from the back all the way down the pyramid.

Physical and athletic superiority can only get you so far and for so long. Eventually the game catches up.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the non-troll views and discussion here. Thanks!

I’m so glad the soccer forum is anonymous again and hope we can keep it this way.

I don’t understand how Morgan can still be considered one of our best, and I’ve felt that way for a while. Just in the past week, she missed a PK and was offsides for her one “goal.” I like her so I feel like a jerk but the U needs different development of players.

PS: I’ll never get over not choosing Ashley Hatch for this team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aggressiveness, competitiveness, athleticism - these are all qualities that have helped the US and they are legit valuable assets to have. No matter how technical you are, you need some drive. The Dutch only had 3 shots on goal last night.

The problem is that you gotta balance the above with some actual technical abilities playing at this world cup level. I think we do tend to play a travel soccer style of game and the rest of the world is now catching up to the above traits we've had but they are technically stronger than the US so yeah, now they got more of a chance than ever to pass us by.

I was really shocked by how bad the US team. Even in their first match - I mean they played Vietnam and had 28 shots but only hit 3??!!! Come on! They should have creamed Vietnam. So yeah, against a team like the Dutch - good luck. A team more aggressive than the Dutch would have crushed them.

Rose Lavalle has always been my favorite US player of the past few years. I think there are likely others of her caliber but the team isn't using them, that's unfortunate as none of the older players including Horan, really need to be at another World Cup. I realize Horan got the goal last night but she messed up for Dutch to score. I don't think that the US will win it this year.

I agree with this assessment. Also why are they playing kickball at this level? There was so little plays from the back like what the Dutch were doing. Almost every time the goalie got the ball, it was booted. It’s like confirming that the team have no technical skills. I mean some of the stopping/trapping and passing of the the USMNT was pretty sloppy.

because they grew up playing kickball... old habits are hard to break!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dutch crushed in the first half. 3 to every 1 American on the ball. Winning 50-50. Making the us run with their dazzling possession. Always providing 3 different options to the player with the ball. Winning the ball back immediately after losing it (3 second rule). It was a Cruyff teaching exhibit.

They fell apart in the 2nd half, but the promise and superior soccer in the first half by the Dutch was inspiring.

Great observation. Dissapointed again in the US effort, Horan needed to be bodied to get into the game and show her prowess. I think this WC will be a wake-up call for womens soccer in the US. But the Dutch were who we thought they were. They have a defined style of play inspired by Ajax academy and Cruyff, every team from 12 youths to senior team, men and women play the same style and you can tell certain skills are emphasized (playing with two feet, opening up with the ball every time you receive it, switching points of attack, buidling from the back with technical CB;s). It's beautiful to watch and should be a template to motivate the powers that be in US soccer to have a style of play, move on from pay to play, so that this can actually happen. The Reyna's showed who has real power in US soccer, former players and their networks. This is how you build consistency and get results now that the playing field is even. Europe has caught up, some nations in South America and Asia are not too far behind, Brazil and Japan are already there.

That's a lot of conclusions to draw from one half of a match. Yes, the Dutch were a much better team than us in the first half. But not in the second half. Clearly, there were some adjustments made at half, the US had plenty of scoring chances in the second half, and the Dutch were not able to dominate like they did in the first half. Still, with all that first half domination and superior technical skills, the Dutch still only managed to get like 4 shots on goal and 1 corner kick. It's easy to cry the sky is falling after a bad outing or two but to question the entire US soccer program is a stretch. Remember when the mens US basketball team lost in the olympics a couple times and everyone said the world had caught up, we need to change our approach, yada, yada. Well, it turned out to be not nearly as catastrophic. Yes, other countries are more technical. Yes, soccer is part of their national culture and never will be in the US. It doesn't mean we can't continue to be competitive in international competitions and need to blow up the system. The sky is not falling.

Here is your thing though - we're not talking about the Dutch but the US team here. I agree that the Dutch lost it 2nd half but that's about them. They lack a lot of the aggressiveness and drive that has been hallmark of not just US team but if you look at Spain, Japan, other teams, they have it too. The Dutch are great technicians but lack that attacking spirit - it's a style of play for them. I think it's why it was a tie game. HOWEVER - the US did not just not play well - even in the 2nd half, you can see that technically, they really were not all that. They could not put the ball in against Dutch defense. So it's not like they came back to life in the second 1/2 you see, it's that the Dutch kinda fell apart a bit in the 2nd half, and the US looked BETTER than they did in the 1st half. It's not like the US improved technically that they could actually do anything more than they did. That my friend, is the big problem with US team in this WC.

It's never looking at your strengths but your weaknesses - the US weakness is truly in their technical abilities. The style of play is different. They could win all these years because it's impressive how quickly their style of play and how inspiring their drive. But let's face it, the other countries were not as invested in womens' soccer. Now that they are, they have always been leaders from a technical and development perspective. US soccer focuses on speed, athleticism and drive/aggressiveness - that will.

Her old club on the other hand promoted girls who weren't as technical as she was but who play more aggressively. Her private training coach told me her teammate she trained for was not as technical as DD but they are on a higher team because of their style of play. Now she's at a new club and placed higher but not because of how tech she is but because of her speed. Again, I think in both cases it was the wrong approach. I think she has a lot of talent but needs to be developed - US culture does not promote pure technical development, rather speed/drive/will to win. Of course they girls aren't totally clueless technically but just comparing with rest of the world's approach to soccer.

Look at mens soccer - US mens soccer cannot go against the world.

The bolded is US college soccer in a nutshell. And, also most of youth soccer across the US which is why you are in trouble if you are a boy with a late growth spurt. You will be iced out of every top team starting at age 11-12. And then when you emerge at 17/18 at 6 feet and muscular, you are an after thought and never were in an MLSnxt or US youth Natl team camp so your 'career' is over. Even in college recruiting, it's a real sh*tter. Since Holland really is a factory to develop and sell players, there is a completely different way of looking at players over the years. We are ditching players before they have even come close to their prime---no chance.

Look at Rose Lavelle. She is the type of player who the ECNL/travel coaches do not know what to do with. I am surprised she made it through the club level. I have seen players with similar skill sets ignored by coaches and leave the game.

Technical players need other technical players who see the game the way they do. The players with vision, technical skills and high soccer IQ play a different type of game. It is not that linear chase the ball, turn and go game that is so prevalent in club and college soccer.

When you turn the ball over against a good technical team(including long ball to the other team) within 3 to 4 pass the ball is outside your box. Watch Barca’s women team play. They escape pressure with 3 pass and are off to the races.

well put. a pp alluded to this too, but it's not just girls' soccer but little league baseball, pop warner football. youth coaches focused on winning or job security gravitate to the obvious easy choices. bigger faster stronger. preferably at the youngest age possible. pro scouts do the same, salivating over metrics, numbers describing kids as if they're a late model sports car or cutting edge technology. Really requires higher-level talent evaluation skills and a long-term, delayed gratification view of sport development, a more disciplined and holistic view of the training pipeline and long-term goals. but we are an instant gratification consumer culture which values results NOW. so kickball it is from u littles to USWNT

[Anonymous]

He should try Horgan at the 6, and put in Ashley Sanchez and Rosie (not the whole game) as the two attacking mids. Horgan is a lot like Ertz and they really need Errz at CB.

Sanchez and Rodman are besties at Spirit and connect for a lot of goals. Sanchez is a fantastic 10.

[Anonymous]

*Horan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the non-troll views and discussion here. Thanks!

I’m so glad the soccer forum is anonymous again and hope we can keep it this way.

I don’t understand how Morgan can still be considered one of our best, and I’ve felt that way for a while. Just in the past week, she missed a PK and was offsides for her one “goal.” I like her so I feel like a jerk but the U needs different development of players.

PS: I’ll never get over not choosing Ashley Hatch for this team.

Morgan isn't one of the best. She is the straight, pretty face of USA women's soccer though. Rapinoe is the LBGTQ face. They had to have those two for marketing purposes. Both are fully past their prime and have no business playing, much less starting on this team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the non-troll views and discussion here. Thanks!

I’m so glad the soccer forum is anonymous again and hope we can keep it this way.

I don’t understand how Morgan can still be considered one of our best, and I’ve felt that way for a while. Just in the past week, she missed a PK and was offsides for her one “goal.” I like her so I feel like a jerk but the U needs different development of players.

PS: I’ll never get over not choosing Ashley Hatch for this team.

Morgan isn't one of the best. She is the straight, pretty face of USA women's soccer though. Rapinoe is the LBGTQ face. They had to have those two for marketing purposes. Both are fully past their prime and have no business playing, much less starting on this team.

Good morning, Troll. Morgan's work as a target striker has been outstanding and she continues to play through constant physical abuse on the field just like last World Cup, and against NED she showed versatility when they switched her to the left for a bit to actually track back and help defend unlike Smith, who can still improve in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I appreciate the non-troll views and discussion here. Thanks!

I’m so glad the soccer forum is anonymous again and hope we can keep it this way.

I don’t understand how Morgan can still be considered one of our best, and I’ve felt that way for a while. Just in the past week, she missed a PK and was offsides for her one “goal.” I like her so I feel like a jerk but the U needs different development of players.

PS: I’ll never get over not choosing Ashley Hatch for this team.

Morgan isn't one of the best. She is the straight, pretty face of USA women's soccer though. Rapinoe is the LBGTQ face. They had to have those two for marketing purposes. Both are fully past their prime and have no business playing, much less starting on this team.

Good morning, Troll. Morgan's work as a target striker has been outstanding and she continues to play through constant physical abuse on the field just like last World Cup, and against NED she showed versatility when they switched her to the left for a bit to actually track back and help defend unlike Smith, who can still improve in that regard.

DP why are you calling this poster a troll? The poster is expressing his or her opinion and observations. If you want to keep this forum open being nasty is not the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dutch crushed in the first half. 3 to every 1 American on the ball. Winning 50-50. Making the us run with their dazzling possession. Always providing 3 different options to the player with the ball. Winning the ball back immediately after losing it (3 second rule). It was a Cruyff teaching exhibit.

They fell apart in the 2nd half, but the promise and superior soccer in the first half by the Dutch was inspiring.

Great observation. Dissapointed again in the US effort, Horan needed to be bodied to get into the game and show her prowess. I think this WC will be a wake-up call for womens soccer in the US. But the Dutch were who we thought they were. They have a defined style of play inspired by Ajax academy and Cruyff, every team from 12 youths to senior team, men and women play the same style and you can tell certain skills are emphasized (playing with two feet, opening up with the ball every time you receive it, switching points of attack, buidling from the back with technical CB;s). It's beautiful to watch and should be a template to motivate the powers that be in US soccer to have a style of play, move on from pay to play, so that this can actually happen. The Reyna's showed who has real power in US soccer, former players and their networks. This is how you build consistency and get results now that the playing field is even. Europe has caught up, some nations in South America and Asia are not too far behind, Brazil and Japan are already there.

That's a lot of conclusions to draw from one half of a match. Yes, the Dutch were a much better team than us in the first half. But not in the second half. Clearly, there were some adjustments made at half, the US had plenty of scoring chances in the second half, and the Dutch were not able to dominate like they did in the first half. Still, with all that first half domination and superior technical skills, the Dutch still only managed to get like 4 shots on goal and 1 corner kick. It's easy to cry the sky is falling after a bad outing or two but to question the entire US soccer program is a stretch. Remember when the mens US basketball team lost in the olympics a couple times and everyone said the world had caught up, we need to change our approach, yada, yada. Well, it turned out to be not nearly as catastrophic. Yes, other countries are more technical. Yes, soccer is part of their national culture and never will be in the US. It doesn't mean we can't continue to be competitive in international competitions and need to blow up the system. The sky is not falling.

Here is your thing though - we're not talking about the Dutch but the US team here. I agree that the Dutch lost it 2nd half but that's about them. They lack a lot of the aggressiveness and drive that has been hallmark of not just US team but if you look at Spain, Japan, other teams, they have it too. The Dutch are great technicians but lack that attacking spirit - it's a style of play for them. I think it's why it was a tie game. HOWEVER - the US did not just not play well - even in the 2nd half, you can see that technically, they really were not all that. They could not put the ball in against Dutch defense. So it's not like they came back to life in the second 1/2 you see, it's that the Dutch kinda fell apart a bit in the 2nd half, and the US looked BETTER than they did in the 1st half. It's not like the US improved technically that they could actually do anything more than they did. That my friend, is the big problem with US team in this WC.

It's never looking at your strengths but your weaknesses - the US weakness is truly in their technical abilities. The style of play is different. They could win all these years because it's impressive how quickly their style of play and how inspiring their drive. But let's face it, the other countries were not as invested in womens' soccer. Now that they are, they have always been leaders from a technical and development perspective. US soccer focuses on speed, athleticism and drive/aggressiveness - that will.

Her old club on the other hand promoted girls who weren't as technical as she was but who play more aggressively. Her private training coach told me her teammate she trained for was not as technical as DD but they are on a higher team because of their style of play. Now she's at a new club and placed higher but not because of how tech she is but because of her speed. Again, I think in both cases it was the wrong approach. I think she has a lot of talent but needs to be developed - US culture does not promote pure technical development, rather speed/drive/will to win. Of course they girls aren't totally clueless technically but just comparing with rest of the world's approach to soccer.

Look at mens soccer - US mens soccer cannot go against the world.

The bolded is US college soccer in a nutshell. And, also most of youth soccer across the US which is why you are in trouble if you are a boy with a late growth spurt. You will be iced out of every top team starting at age 11-12. And then when you emerge at 17/18 at 6 feet and muscular, you are an after thought and never were in an MLSnxt or US youth Natl team camp so your 'career' is over. Even in college recruiting, it's a real sh*tter. Since Holland really is a factory to develop and sell players, there is a completely different way of looking at players over the years. We are ditching players before they have even come close to their prime---no chance.

Look at Rose Lavelle. She is the type of player who the ECNL/travel coaches do not know what to do with. I am surprised she made it through the club level. I have seen players with similar skill sets ignored by coaches and leave the game.

Technical players need other technical players who see the game the way they do. The players with vision, technical skills and high soccer IQ play a different type of game. It is not that linear chase the ball, turn and go game that is so prevalent in club and college soccer.

When you turn the ball over against a good technical team(including long ball to the other team) within 3 to 4 pass the ball is outside your box. Watch Barca’s women team play. They escape pressure with 3 pass and are off to the races.

I’ve seen this with my DC. DC was a solid player on a very good team which had a lot of talent but was inconsistent, prob bc the technical skill was not consistent among the kids. While DC got lots of playing time, they started getting frustrated bc the team just wasn’t connecting on passes and plays, etc. but could win by brute force and hustle or kickball against less technical teams. They moved to a new team that was very technical and wow, light and day. In their first game, although my kid had never played with this team before, all passes were connecting and players were where they were supposed to be and it’s like the kids had similar visions and the technical skill to execute. It was really an eye opener for us and really illustrated how important soccer IQ and vision and technical skills were but also that those skills and abilities may not be visible unless you’re playing with similar players.