Women’s World Cup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People come to sports (or used to) to escape all that BS and appreciate human athletic excellence and endeavor. Now it's forced down our throats at every turn and corner. It gets old regardless of perspective, though I don't remember too many right leaning athlete opinions getting too much airtime. And when they do, this happens.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/06/04/drew-brees-apologizes-kneeling-comments

It's beyond tedious. But, yes, it's also ridiculous when Bill Gates spouts off on all manner of things he knows nothing about or when rich people tell us how to live just because they've made a buck somewhere.

You felt the same about Tim Tebow discussing his faith in God then, right?

Suuuuuure they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People come to sports (or used to) to escape all that BS and appreciate human athletic excellence and endeavor. Now it's forced down our throats at every turn and corner. It gets old regardless of perspective, though I don't remember too many right leaning athlete opinions getting too much airtime. And when they do, this happens.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/06/04/drew-brees-apologizes-kneeling-comments

It's beyond tedious. But, yes, it's also ridiculous when Bill Gates spouts off on all manner of things he knows nothing about or when rich people tell us how to live just because they've made a buck somewhere.

You felt the same about Tim Tebow discussing his faith in God then, right?

Suuuuuure they did.

Why would this be so hard to believe? Nobody wants to be preached to at a sports game, no matter what form the preaching takes.

[Anonymous]

Why is Lavelle not starting?

[Anonymous]

Rose is making a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is Lavelle not starting?

She’s coming off being injured.

[Anonymous]

Great goal by Horan! Solid 2nd half by US.

[Anonymous]

Portugal will be an easy game for the US. So they will advance. It will be goal differential to determine who wins the group but it really does not matter neither Sweden or Italy are powerhouses.

I would not start Lavelle and watch the minutes on Rodman and Smith. Get a goal or two up and pull them out. More important to rest key players for the knock out round.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Portugal will be an easy game for the US. So they will advance. It will be goal differential to determine who wins the group but it really does not matter neither Sweden or Italy are powerhouses.

I would not start Lavelle and watch the minutes on Rodman and Smith. Get a goal or two up and pull them out. More important to rest key players for the knock out round.

You can't take anything for granted in tournament play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Portugal will be an easy game for the US. So they will advance. It will be goal differential to determine who wins the group but it really does not matter neither Sweden or Italy are powerhouses.

I would not start Lavelle and watch the minutes on Rodman and Smith. Get a goal or two up and pull them out. More important to rest key players for the knock out round.

Rodman and Smith? Neither have enough quality to worry about their minutes. Both should’ve been subbed for not creating/finishing chances. Just keep Lavelle, Morgan and Horan fresh.

[Anonymous]

How are people thinking Portugal is going to be an easy game for the US when the Netherlands only beat them 1-0 and tied the US. In other brackets the top teams are bearing the weakest by scores if 6-0 or 5-0. The US only beat Vietnam 3-0. (28 shots in goal but only 6 on goal/target).

Compared to Spain -costa Rica where Spain had 46 total shots (12 on goal).

US needs to step up their game!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Portugal will be an easy game for the US. So they will advance. It will be goal differential to determine who wins the group but it really does not matter neither Sweden or Italy are powerhouses.

I would not start Lavelle and watch the minutes on Rodman and Smith. Get a goal or two up and pull them out. More important to rest key players for the knock out round.

Rodman and Smith? Neither have enough quality to worry about their minutes. Both should’ve been subbed for not creating/finishing chances. Just keep Lavelle, Morgan and Horan fresh.

Right I forgot how many goals Morgan scored? Morgan is not a consistent contributor or threat any more. This is what happens when you are an older player. At 34 you are a different player vs 28.

It is Lavelle, Rodman and Smith who draw the attention of the defense and create not Morgan. Subbing out Rodman or Smith you lose a lot because there is a big difference between them and their replacement. Not really the case with Morgan. That said the problems really are in the US midfield not the offense. Sam Mewis being out really hurts the US. She was a dominant midfielder.

Horan was at fault for the goal scored last night. She was out of position in the midfield and tried to close down the space. That is not what you do if you are out of position in the midfield. She got smoked and opened up space which the Dutch took. For most of the night she was chasing the game. She is big and physical but is a step slow and out of position a lot of times. Her passing under pressure leaves a lot to be desired. When facing a technical midfield she has problems. She is fine against direct teams.

I would play Horan against Portugal. This is your starting defense and they needs more time playing with each other.

[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.

Maybe an unsophisticated level of football.

[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.

I agree with a lot of your points. Though I think the athleticism has equaled out. The Dutch are not a top team and they were fairly close athletically. In the past the US had the biggest, best athletes and that is how they won. Not so much with technical skill but with athleticism. With a pool as big as the US it is a no brainer to play that way but you have to turn over players.

Now that the athleticism is balancing out the difference makers are the technical players. The current US midfield is not the type that can play a one or two touch game. Their passing is atrocious at times. It is best just to skip the midfield play.

The problem with skipping the midfield is the other teams will force Lavelle, Rodman and Smith to come back for balls and to help the midfield. Meaning they will be get the ball around midfield as opposed to the final third. This really impacts the opportunities for those forward players.

I will say they kind of look like a lot of travel and college teams in terms of style of play. If that is the system they come out of you really can not expect them to play tiki-taka. They should be fine till the quarterfinals.