Women’s World Cup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I see you with your Rose comments, she has a motor, on the taller side and can do all the physical things asked of modern CM's so I get how she got throught the system, but you're right players like her are typically screamed at to stop dribbling, stop showboating, make quicker decisions. Thats what I've seen in the ECNL games I've observed at least, with few exceptions. Players like this need a chance to make mistakes becasue if they are holding the ball for a beat too long in your opinion its probably becuase they see something developing that needs that extra second or extra touch to develop, overlapping runs that create more space for them or others, waiting for third player to create possesion triangle, not every pass needs to be forward. See Busquests, the king of the pass before the pass, no one would ever say he plays fast, but that brain is working in hyper speed trust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not OP but there is a poster who regularly comes on this forum and seems to have come out again now that the forum is anonymous but they consistently cannot make a comment without politicizing it. You don’t see their comments bc they’ve been taken down when reported but there definitely is a consistency to it with all addl comments made to aggravate the conversation.

If you would really like to have a genuine conversation about politics in soccer, you can start a new thread perhaps. I think this thread has been great in analyzing the weaknesses of the USWMNT without it descending into derogatory discussions which I assure you will happen if the troll is fed.

[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.

Her job is to score goals and she has not. If she is a “target” striker she should not switch to the left, help out on defense, etc. What you describe is a striker that is struggling. Maybe against a weak team like Portugal she will get lucky.

[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.

Clearly trolling, this guy smh... but is s/he wrong? American marketers are so predictable, calling a spade a spade is never the worst thing. My two cents, I support MR for all she speaks out against, but the marketing of her at the WC is driving me crazy, she shouldn't even be on the roster, and I have to listen to her "Your in the prescence of legend" commerical. Please, she can't hold a light to Mia Hamm, that's a legend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m not OP but there is a poster who regularly comes on this forum and seems to have come out again now that the forum is anonymous but they consistently cannot make a comment without politicizing it. You don’t see their comments bc they’ve been taken down when reported but there definitely is a consistency to it with all addl comments made to aggravate the conversation.

If you would really like to have a genuine conversation about politics in soccer, you can start a new thread perhaps. I think this thread has been great in analyzing the weaknesses of the USWMNT without it descending into derogatory discussions which I assure you will happen if the troll is fed.

No what you have done by calling someone a troll in the first sentence is to create a negative post that will be responded to in the same way. You also have engaged with the troll.

This is one of the reason this the forum was changed over to sign in. A few posters attacking and labeling other posters as trolls because they disagreed with what was posted and running to Jeff. These posters are just as bad as the troll. You can not win the internet and Jeff will shut this forum down if he has to spend all day here.

Either engage in a constructive way(ie with facts and not personal attacks) or ignore a post. Report posts that identifies kids or are very offensive.

I am not going back and forth on this because it is off topic.




“ Morgan isn't one

[Anonymous]

^^ no clue how “Morgan isn’t one” got in to my post. It has no hidden meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did Rapinoe make his roster? She was terrible last night, couldn’t complete a pass against an extremely weak Vietnam team. Hope that’s the last we see of her in this tournament.

What exactly is contrived about the fact that the women are paid less than the men?

This was covered 3-4 years ago. The women agreed to a contract that gave them more guaranteed salaries, while the men got money based off performance.
Also FIFA pays much less to women's teams because the Women's World Cup doesn't bring in much revenue compared to the men's draw.
Thus the US men's team earns much more for US Soccer just by making the world cup then the women's team does by winning. US Soccer paid out according to this and the collective bargaining agreements. The women are earning more than their share because they are getting a portion of the men's payout now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interesting thing about this World Cup is the reactions on social media from mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging conservatives who a few months ago were very loudly demanding that the integrity of women’s sports be protected from transgender women. I guess their support for women’s sports is fickle. Kind of like that pesky pay issue.

You seem like the type that goes looking for it...

No, it’s true. The NY Post led this morning with which players sang the anthem. 🙄

I don’t like when the players sit down during the anthem, but fine if they don’t want to sing. The NY Post shouldn’t cover it bc that’s why the women do it… for attention. To me it’s just a matter of respect for your country. If you’re not proud, don’t represent us. Lots of young, probably better women would love to represent the US. And Lots of countries treat their women much worse. Use your platform to help those girls who are being traded or uneducated.

Now that you’re getting the pay… did you forget that you have to earn it? Looks a lot like entitlement if you ask me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I firmly disagree with “stick to the game”. If you have a platform you can choose to use it however you want. Once they stop playing their reach and power to speak out is diminished so use it while you’ve got it.

I find it interesting that people say stick to the game when they don’t agree with the message. But are perfectly fine with people speaking out in other positions of power even though they are speaking about subjects that have nothing to do with their popularity. Business leaders speak out all the time about any number of topics - Elon Musk, Jamie Dimon, politicians, entertainers, musicians. Do we say “stick to making electric cars” or “stick to making money” when they spout off on a topic? Athletes have been using their platform to speak out for a long time. Muhammad Ali. Bill Walton. Kareem. Ask yourself why this is different and why it bothers you so much.

It depends on the delivery. If you kneel during the national anthem that feels like disrespect to the country. And you are probably breaking some league rules also. That is not the same as sharing your thoughts in a post-game presser.

People watching sports want to be entertained. If they think they’re being preached at, they’ll stop watching. Maybe then will those athletes/coaches/owners start to appreciate their audience/consumer. Look at Bud Light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I see you with your Rose comments, she has a motor, on the taller side and can do all the physical things asked of modern CM's so I get how she got throught the system, but you're right players like her are typically screamed at to stop dribbling, stop showboating, make quicker decisions. Thats what I've seen in the ECNL games I've observed at least, with few exceptions. Players like this need a chance to make mistakes becasue if they are holding the ball for a beat too long in your opinion its probably becuase they see something developing that needs that extra second or extra touch to develop, overlapping runs that create more space for them or others, waiting for third player to create possesion triangle, not every pass needs to be forward. See Busquests, the king of the pass before the pass, no one would ever say he plays fast, but that brain is working in hyper speed trust

Great points here. My DD’s coach at U11 actually yelled at her in the middle of training, “you need to stop dribbling. You can do that against your teammates, but you won’t be able to get away with that against other teams.”

[Anonymous]

“FIFA should shorten the field 20 yards. It’s no fun watching people who are tired at the end of their runs try to cross the ball. Way too many wasted scoring chances and free kicks that no one gets to.” My 13 year old.

“Why is this on TV? Let’s go back to the pool.” My 10 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“FIFA should shorten the field 20 yards. It’s no fun watching people who are tired at the end of their runs try to cross the ball. Way too many wasted scoring chances and free kicks that no one gets to.” My 13 year old.

“Why is this on TV? Let’s go back to the pool.” My 10 year old.

[Anonymous]

The France vs. Brazil was very entertaining. Brazil’s goal was a nice bit of skills.

[Anonymous]

Okay you do not want to give up corners against Sweden. The service is insane. That game should have been 8-0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“FIFA should shorten the field 20 yards. It’s no fun watching people who are tired at the end of their runs try to cross the ball. Way too many wasted scoring chances and free kicks that no one gets to.” My 13 year old.

“Why is this on TV? Let’s go back to the pool.” My 10 year old.

Your 13-year old talks like that?