Reply to Women’s World Cup

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Women’s World Cup "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [b]US soccer focuses on speed, athleticism and drive/aggressiveness - that will.  [/b]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Look at Rose Lavelle. [u][i][b]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. 
[/b][/i][/u]
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[/quote]

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[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics