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]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

PP whose comments you were responding to. Mostly agree with your last sentence, that the style of play reflects the system they come out of, with a (subtle) difference on the exact nature of the problem.

It's not that ECNL and other top club level teams do not play and develop players the right way. Many of them do, esp at the early ages (before U15/16). However, the problem is that at every stage of selection in the pyramid-like system that youth soccer is, there is a strong bias toward the superior athletes with attributes of speed, strength and quick dribbling ability relative to other qualities such as tactical awareness, technical strength (beyond dribbling and shooting) and soccer brain. And I say this as an unbiased youth soccer parent as my (different) kids have benefited as well as lost out from this bias. Even if you develop players the right way, if the funneling process favors certain types over others, this percolates all the way to the top to the national team pipeline.

Why does this happen? I suspect that it's because the first set of attributes are much easier to spot than the second. It's not that the first set of attributes aren't important. But your ideal soccer team needs players with a mix of strengths and attributes. Both men's and women's national teams lack the technical CMs and Ds who are absolutely crucial to play technical football. They do have a lot of quick wingers and creative attackers, and bruising box-2-box midfielders and defenders, as these are the types that are more likely to get funneled through the pyramid of youth soccer. I also think the pressure to win games (even among MLS Next and ECNL teams) also tends to bias coaches toward selecting players with the more obvious attributes. [/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