Women’s World Cup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Shots on goal or conceded don’t mean much. Soccer rankings are notoriously bad. The US in no way dominated this game. US quality of play was poor all tournament. Most US chances were off of set pieces, and Sweden defends those well, so it’s unsurprising that it was 0-0 game that went to the proverbial coin toss that is PKs.

It's hard to believe you are posting in a soccer-specific forum because you clearly have no understanding of the game or did not watch it. The US, after not playing well in the group stage, absolutely dominated in today's game and was the more dangerous team by any measure. Their best chances were in the run of play, not off set pieces. Rodman and Williams toyed with the left defender and there was a clear mismatch there that the US exploited. Sweden not scoring was not a surprise, as they rarely penetrated the box and had only a single shot 85 minutes into the game. The US had the great majority of possession and shots, and absent the superb performance by Sweden's keeper the US would have finished this game easily in regulation time. As much as the US got lucky against Portugal, Sweden was VERY lucky today.

That said, winning requires scoring, and the US has to finish chances.

This is an accurate description of the game. I am still surprised at Rapinoe's inclusion on the team. She was a liability on the field.

[Anonymous]

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying: I’m NOT saying Sweden played better than the US. I’m saying that the US didn’t “absolutely dominate” Sweden, which is what PP said and I responded to. It’s not often - maybe never - when a team “absolutely dominates” a game and it’s 0-0 after 120 minutes.

Don’t misunderstand what I said. The word “absolute” was meant as a contradiction to your claim that the US did not dominate. My response was intended as “yes, they absolutely did,” and not to modify the extent of domination. The US objectively dominated possession and shots, and had more quality chances than Sweden (and I understand what constitutes a quality chance).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying: I’m NOT saying Sweden played better than the US. I’m saying that the US didn’t “absolutely dominate” Sweden, which is what PP said and I responded to. It’s not often - maybe never - when a team “absolutely dominates” a game and it’s 0-0 after 120 minutes.

Don’t misunderstand what I said. The word “absolute” was meant as a contradiction to your claim that the US did not dominate. My response was intended as “yes, they absolutely did,” and not to modify the extent of domination. The US objectively dominated possession and shots, and had more quality chances than Sweden (and I understand what constitutes a quality chance).

That’s fine. The US didn’t “dominate” that game. They outplayed Sweden, but they had a whopping 3-4 quality scoring chances that Sweden’s GK saved or hit the bar. That’s not domination.

[Anonymous]

Time to clean house.

[Anonymous]

A sad performance by the USWNT. They didn't look like winners from the get go Time to re-build.

[Anonymous]

This thread is sad.

[Anonymous]

MATIIIIIILDAS!!!!!

[Anonymous]

I was shocked they didn't take the opportunity after the Olympics to gently push all the older players out the door. Ah well, they have the chance to now.

Like Japan or the Dutch to take it all.

[Anonymous]

England got lucky today. Wow what a game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Shots on goal or conceded don’t mean much. Soccer rankings are notoriously bad. The US in no way dominated this game. US quality of play was poor all tournament. Most US chances were off of set pieces, and Sweden defends those well, so it’s unsurprising that it was 0-0 game that went to the proverbial coin toss that is PKs.

It's hard to believe you are posting in a soccer-specific forum because you clearly have no understanding of the game or did not watch it. The US, after not playing well in the group stage, absolutely dominated in today's game and was the more dangerous team by any measure. Their best chances were in the run of play, not off set pieces. Rodman and Williams toyed with the left defender and there was a clear mismatch there that the US exploited. Sweden not scoring was not a surprise, as they rarely penetrated the box and had only a single shot 85 minutes into the game. The US had the great majority of possession and shots, and absent the superb performance by Sweden's keeper the US would have finished this game easily in regulation time. As much as the US got lucky against Portugal, Sweden was VERY lucky today.

That said, winning requires scoring, and the US has to finish chances.

Yeah, you’re wrong. You don’t understand what a quality chance is and how quality, technical players hit the ball when they are in a position to score. You watch too much crap US Soccer. Watch futbol and it may start to make sense to you.

DP - I kinda agree with PP. I feel like the US played much better and their best to date in the tournament. However, if you look at how MANY chances they had to score and didn't, you know...

Also, when you actually take a look at how many takeaways Sweden had and passes that were not connecting among players, that says a lot too. World cup level can't be played so carelessly. I think that they demonstrated they possessed more technique than I actually thought they had, but I don't know that this game showcased that they were an A level team. I definitely didn't think Sweden was better, just that the US wasn't that much better than Sweden.

I don't think they could have beaten Japan but even if they did, on a good day, the Dutch would absolutely defeat US I think.

I cannot believe that 3 US players missed PKs. I get hitting a goal post and if the keeper saved the shot but, an air ball???!!!!! How do you actually completely miss the net??!

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying: I’m NOT saying Sweden played better than the US. I’m saying that the US didn’t “absolutely dominate” Sweden, which is what PP said and I responded to. It’s not often - maybe never - when a team “absolutely dominates” a game and it’s 0-0 after 120 minutes.

Disappointing outcome although the US team seemed to be bracing themselves for that almost from the start

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked they didn't take the opportunity after the Olympics to gently push all the older players out the door. Ah well, they have the chance to now.

Like Japan or the Dutch to take it all.

Too much to lose financially by not featuring Rapnoe and Morgan, US Soccer said they had to be on the team obvioulsy. Now, let's say they didn't make the roster who comes in and what impact do they make? Hopefully Olympic roster can be the fruition of this excercise, I'll start; 4-2-3-1 looks to be the shape that suits our athletic wingers and fullbacks, and having double pivot allows for greater coverage defensively and help in the build-out (i.e. See how much better Sulli looked with Sonnet next to her) and please put Sophia Smith at the 9 already or try Cat Macario as a false 9

Wish 11:

Huerta, Cook, Girma, Dunn
-----Sulli, Korniek----
Rodman, Lavelle, Swanson
--------Smith--------

Realistic 11:

Fox, Sauerbrun, Girma, Dunn
-----Sulli, Horan-----
Rodman, Lavelle, Smith/Smith
------Swanson/Smith------

[Anonymous]

USWNT played the best game it played for a while against a tough opponent. But soccer is a funny game. You do everything except score, and you lose. The Swedish keeper had an amazing game. The double pivot with Sonnet and Sullivan worked, and Lavalle's absence (which forced the coach to play this lineup) actually worked out well for the team. Sonnet was a revelation, Sullivan for me was the best player on the field, and Horan played free and loose, the best she has played in the entire tournament. Rodman was terrific as long as she was on the field, Sophia Smith not quite so, and Morgan was not good enough for someone who leads the line in the #1 ranked team in the world. Ertz and Girma were great as always - Girma is probably the best CB of the tournament so far - and Fox had her best game of the WC. Dunne was good in parts but wasted the ball sometimes. The goalie was incredible in the PKs and strong in the air all through the game. Hats off to Ertz for giving everything she had after her comeback, what a player!
The coach and team management should be fired en masse for playing an old over-the-hill player like Rapinoe, who was clearly not fit and sharp enough to be on the field even for a minute. I have no problem with her activism, politics - I agree with all of it in fact - and am grateful for her long service to the team during her prime years, when she was a creative, smart and hardworking players. At her prime, one of the US soccer greats. But having her on this team and putting her on the field at a crucial stage of a knockout game is an absolute joke. Makes one think whether the coach is under some kind of real or imagined pressure to play her. It also undercuts women's soccer claim to being a serious and professional sport where winning counts for more than hype. Can we imagine France (men's champions in 2018) going to the 2022 WC with a half-fit Pogba, even though he was one of the stars of 2018 and is still playing? Or Kante? And then either of them inserting them into a round of 16 game with the score at 0-0? And where the hell was Ashley Sanchez? Or DeMelo? Even though Demelo had a poor half against Netherlands, she would have been better than the awful Rapinoe who couldn't even deliver a proper free kick or corner into the box. Sanchez and Demelo are young, creative, energetic players who could have made a difference at that stage.
Bottom line: I think this team and the pipeline has plenty of talent to continue to be one of the top 10 teams in the world (the glory days of winning a "new" sport are totally irrelevant). US soccer needs to make the right decisions, forget the hype (and arrogance) and select and play the right players (and coach). It might also not hurt to encourage young players to at least go out on loan to European clubs which is where most of the growth in quality is happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USWNT played the best game it played for a while against a tough opponent. But soccer is a funny game. You do everything except score, and you lose. The Swedish keeper had an amazing game. The double pivot with Sonnet and Sullivan worked, and Lavalle's absence (which forced the coach to play this lineup) actually worked out well for the team. Sonnet was a revelation, Sullivan for me was the best player on the field, and Horan played free and loose, the best she has played in the entire tournament. Rodman was terrific as long as she was on the field, Sophia Smith not quite so, and Morgan was not good enough for someone who leads the line in the #1 ranked team in the world. Ertz and Girma were great as always - Girma is probably the best CB of the tournament so far - and Fox had her best game of the WC. Dunne was good in parts but wasted the ball sometimes. The goalie was incredible in the PKs and strong in the air all through the game. Hats off to Ertz for giving everything she had after her comeback, what a player!
The coach and team management should be fired en masse for playing an old over-the-hill player like Rapinoe, who was clearly not fit and sharp enough to be on the field even for a minute. I have no problem with her activism, politics - I agree with all of it in fact - and am grateful for her long service to the team during her prime years, when she was a creative, smart and hardworking players. At her prime, one of the US soccer greats. But having her on this team and putting her on the field at a crucial stage of a knockout game is an absolute joke. Makes one think whether the coach is under some kind of real or imagined pressure to play her. It also undercuts women's soccer claim to being a serious and professional sport where winning counts for more than hype. Can we imagine France (men's champions in 2018) going to the 2022 WC with a half-fit Pogba, even though he was one of the stars of 2018 and is still playing? Or Kante? And then either of them inserting them into a round of 16 game with the score at 0-0? And where the hell was Ashley Sanchez? Or DeMelo? Even though Demelo had a poor half against Netherlands, she would have been better than the awful Rapinoe who couldn't even deliver a proper free kick or corner into the box. Sanchez and Demelo are young, creative, energetic players who could have made a difference at that stage.
Bottom line: I think this team and the pipeline has plenty of talent to continue to be one of the top 10 teams in the world (the glory days of winning a "new" sport are totally irrelevant). US soccer needs to make the right decisions, forget the hype (and arrogance) and select and play the right players (and coach). It might also not hurt to encourage young players to at least go out on loan to European clubs which is where most of the growth in quality is happening.

Agree with all of this, well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they had a whopping 3-4 quality scoring chances that Sweden’s GK saved or hit the bar

Compared to how many quality scoring chances for Sweden?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USWNT played the best game it played for a while against a tough opponent. But soccer is a funny game. You do everything except score, and you lose. The Swedish keeper had an amazing game. The double pivot with Sonnet and Sullivan worked, and Lavalle's absence (which forced the coach to play this lineup) actually worked out well for the team. Sonnet was a revelation, Sullivan for me was the best player on the field, and Horan played free and loose, the best she has played in the entire tournament. Rodman was terrific as long as she was on the field, Sophia Smith not quite so, and Morgan was not good enough for someone who leads the line in the #1 ranked team in the world. Ertz and Girma were great as always - Girma is probably the best CB of the tournament so far - and Fox had her best game of the WC. Dunne was good in parts but wasted the ball sometimes. The goalie was incredible in the PKs and strong in the air all through the game. Hats off to Ertz for giving everything she had after her comeback, what a player!
The coach and team management should be fired en masse for playing an old over-the-hill player like Rapinoe, who was clearly not fit and sharp enough to be on the field even for a minute. I have no problem with her activism, politics - I agree with all of it in fact - and am grateful for her long service to the team during her prime years, when she was a creative, smart and hardworking players. At her prime, one of the US soccer greats. But having her on this team and putting her on the field at a crucial stage of a knockout game is an absolute joke. Makes one think whether the coach is under some kind of real or imagined pressure to play her. It also undercuts women's soccer claim to being a serious and professional sport where winning counts for more than hype. Can we imagine France (men's champions in 2018) going to the 2022 WC with a half-fit Pogba, even though he was one of the stars of 2018 and is still playing? Or Kante? And then either of them inserting them into a round of 16 game with the score at 0-0? And where the hell was Ashley Sanchez? Or DeMelo? Even though Demelo had a poor half against Netherlands, she would have been better than the awful Rapinoe who couldn't even deliver a proper free kick or corner into the box. Sanchez and Demelo are young, creative, energetic players who could have made a difference at that stage.
Bottom line: I think this team and the pipeline has plenty of talent to continue to be one of the top 10 teams in the world (the glory days of winning a "new" sport are totally irrelevant). US soccer needs to make the right decisions, forget the hype (and arrogance) and select and play the right players (and coach). It might also not hurt to encourage young players to at least go out on loan to European clubs which is where most of the growth in quality is happening.

Sweden is not a top team. I know they are “ranked” 3rd but they do not meet the eye test. I think the US matched up really well with Sweden. Remember the US was favored to win against Sweden. It was about 2 to 1 odds the US would advance over Sweden. No one was picking Sweden to win the World Cup.