Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Actually, the discussion on "technical ability" in this thread is the real nonsense. The Barca nazi on this thread only cares about style of play, and winning or losing matters not, as long as the team looks "good" doing it. It's clear that their style of play is no magic elixir, as many have shown the way to dismantle it. Style of play is a choice, and there are many good options. Drawing conclusions that suit your preference based on a single game is downright silly.

This, however, is a great question. The answer is "yes" relative to their division, they are, by definition. the best team that season. Relative to other leagues, harder to say unless they play those teams, though we know the reality is that there are other leagues, for example, MLS/GA/ECNL, depending on gender, that trump NCSL. Of course, teams with lesser records in any league aren't necessarily "bad" teams, and even players on the worst performing team aren't necessarily "bad," players with no technnical ability.

Playing a “style” like Barca requires a high level of technical and tactical ability and cohesion. Not every player is suited for it. But I think you are minimizing the technical ability required to play in such a system as well as the technical demands of the entire team to play the style effectively.

Basically, you don’t know what you don’t know.

Disagree--you are making the broad brush assessment that this one U15 team beat another U15 team and as a result the girls were technically better. Playing styles can vary and lead to success or failure depending on how they are countered. A team with superior technical ability can lose to a team playing a style that is suited to countering the former's style. The single game result doesn't prove the "superiority" of either the style or the players' technical abilities.

Let me simplify for you. Rock beats scissors and paper beats rock. Does that mean that paper is harder than rock or that rock is sharper than scissors? Of course not. Which is the "best" of these? None, they have different strengths and weaknesses, and they are suited for different situations. The same is true with playing styles.

I am not making a broad brush assessment. Now, since YOU brought the "just one game" up again. Lets take a look at why it could be considered more than "just one game". PDA hadn't lost since 2017 to Cincinnati, 0:1. They hadn't lost a game since that 2017 game. In fact they won every and tied ONCE from that point going forward. Their Goals For on Youth soccer have them at 381. Their Goals Against is 38.

So, this particular PDA team is not just a run of the mill Youth Team. A team with a career Goal Differential of +343 at a ECNL level is astonishing. So to say that it is "just one game" diminishes PDA's achievements up until that point. They played the best teams our country can muster and dominated. They did not lose a "squeaker" against Barca, they got beat.

This is not a anti PDA thing, I have gone out of my way to demonstrate the absolute quality of that team over the span of nearly 3 years because only with that context can how Barca played PDA be truly appreciated. If you don't want to look at the game objectively through the lens of one of the absolute best Youth teams we have at the club level then I don't know what to tell you. But there is no doubt in my mind that PDA represented the BEST example and BEST team our Youth Club system can produce.

But look over their record for yourself. Look at how they absolutely abused ECNL teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Actually, the discussion on "technical ability" in this thread is the real nonsense. The Barca nazi on this thread only cares about style of play, and winning or losing matters not, as long as the team looks "good" doing it. It's clear that their style of play is no magic elixir, as many have shown the way to dismantle it. Style of play is a choice, and there are many good options. Drawing conclusions that suit your preference based on a single game is downright silly.

This, however, is a great question. The answer is "yes" relative to their division, they are, by definition. the best team that season. Relative to other leagues, harder to say unless they play those teams, though we know the reality is that there are other leagues, for example, MLS/GA/ECNL, depending on gender, that trump NCSL. Of course, teams with lesser records in any league aren't necessarily "bad" teams, and even players on the worst performing team aren't necessarily "bad," players with no technnical ability.

Playing a “style” like Barca requires a high level of technical and tactical ability and cohesion. Not every player is suited for it. But I think you are minimizing the technical ability required to play in such a system as well as the technical demands of the entire team to play the style effectively.

Basically, you don’t know what you don’t know.

Disagree--you are making the broad brush assessment that this one U15 team beat another U15 team and as a result the girls were technically better. Playing styles can vary and lead to success or failure depending on how they are countered. A team with superior technical ability can lose to a team playing a style that is suited to countering the former's style. The single game result doesn't prove the "superiority" of either the style or the players' technical abilities.

Let me simplify for you. Rock beats scissors and paper beats rock. Does that mean that paper is harder than rock or that rock is sharper than scissors? Of course not. Which is the "best" of these? None, they have different strengths and weaknesses, and they are suited for different situations. The same is true with playing styles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Actually, the discussion on "technical ability" in this thread is the real nonsense. The Barca nazi on this thread only cares about style of play, and winning or losing matters not, as long as the team looks "good" doing it. It's clear that their style of play is no magic elixir, as many have shown the way to dismantle it. Style of play is a choice, and there are many good options. Drawing conclusions that suit your preference based on a single game is downright silly.

This, however, is a great question. The answer is "yes" relative to their division, they are, by definition. the best team that season. Relative to other leagues, harder to say unless they play those teams, though we know the reality is that there are other leagues, for example, MLS/GA/ECNL, depending on gender, that trump NCSL. Of course, teams with lesser records in any league aren't necessarily "bad" teams, and even players on the worst performing team aren't necessarily "bad," players with no technnical ability.

Playing a “style” like Barca requires a high level of technical and tactical ability and cohesion. Not every player is suited for it. But I think you are minimizing the technical ability required to play in such a system as well as the technical demands of the entire team to play the style effectively.

Basically, you don’t know what you don’t know.

Disagree--you are making the broad brush assessment that this one U15 team beat another U15 team and as a result the girls were technically better. Playing styles can vary and lead to success or failure depending on how they are countered. A team with superior technical ability can lose to a team playing a style that is suited to countering the former's style. The single game result doesn't prove the "superiority" of either the style or the players' technical abilities.

Let me simplify for you. Rock beats scissors and paper beats rock. Does that mean that paper is harder than rock or that rock is sharper than scissors? Of course not. Which is the "best" of these? None, they have different strengths and weaknesses, and they are suited for different situations. The same is true with playing styles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Actually, the discussion on "technical ability" in this thread is the real nonsense. The Barca nazi on this thread only cares about style of play, and winning or losing matters not, as long as the team looks "good" doing it. It's clear that their style of play is no magic elixir, as many have shown the way to dismantle it. Style of play is a choice, and there are many good options. Drawing conclusions that suit your preference based on a single game is downright silly.

This, however, is a great question. The answer is "yes" relative to their division, they are, by definition. the best team that season. Relative to other leagues, harder to say unless they play those teams, though we know the reality is that there are other leagues, for example, MLS/GA/ECNL, depending on gender, that trump NCSL. Of course, teams with lesser records in any league aren't necessarily "bad" teams, and even players on the worst performing team aren't necessarily "bad," players with no technnical ability.

Playing a “style” like Barca requires a high level of technical and tactical ability and cohesion. Not every player is suited for it. But I think you are minimizing the technical ability required to play in such a system as well as the technical demands of the entire team to play the style effectively.

Basically, you don’t know what you don’t know.

Disagree--you are making the broad brush assessment that this one U15 team beat another U15 team and as a result the girls were technically better. Playing styles can vary and lead to success or failure depending on how they are countered. A team with superior technical ability can lose to a team playing a style that is suited to countering the former's style. The single game result doesn't prove the "superiority" of either the style or the players' technical abilities.

Let me simplify for you. Rock beats scissors and paper beats rock. Does that mean that paper is harder than rock or that rock is sharper than scissors? Of course not. Which is the "best" of these? None, they have different strengths and weaknesses, and they are suited for different situations. The same is true with playing styles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.


+100 and by the way, did those few players had to go to Europe or had to be trained by non American coaches?
This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

For hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people who play and follow the beautiful game all over the world, it is indeed an art. But you keep being you, US Soccer Dad, because you surely know better. And again you are confirming that the girls aren’t technical. Since you seem so certain in your views of superiority, why are you so defensive about this?

I guess Jose Mourinho and Antonio Conte aren’t good coaches. The only good way of playing is like Barcelona. If you don’t play like that, why even bother with the sport?

Nobody said that. But you continue to compare pro clubs with youth players. If we are so great at developing world class players then why do we have so few Americans in the Premier League?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

For hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people who play and follow the beautiful game all over the world, it is indeed an art. But you keep being you, US Soccer Dad, because you surely know better. And again you are confirming that the girls aren’t technical. Since you seem so certain in your views of superiority, why are you so defensive about this?

I guess Jose Mourinho and Antonio Conte aren’t good coaches. The only good way of playing is like Barcelona. If you don’t play like that, why even bother with the sport?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Actually, the discussion on "technical ability" in this thread is the real nonsense. The Barca nazi on this thread only cares about style of play, and winning or losing matters not, as long as the team looks "good" doing it. It's clear that their style of play is no magic elixir, as many have shown the way to dismantle it. Style of play is a choice, and there are many good options. Drawing conclusions that suit your preference based on a single game is downright silly.

This, however, is a great question. The answer is "yes" relative to their division, they are, by definition. the best team that season. Relative to other leagues, harder to say unless they play those teams, though we know the reality is that there are other leagues, for example, MLS/GA/ECNL, depending on gender, that trump NCSL. Of course, teams with lesser records in any league aren't necessarily "bad" teams, and even players on the worst performing team aren't necessarily "bad," players with no technnical ability.

Playing a “style” like Barca requires a high level of technical and tactical ability and cohesion. Not every player is suited for it. But I think you are minimizing the technical ability required to play in such a system as well as the technical demands of the entire team to play the style effectively.

Basically, you don’t know what you don’t know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

For hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people who play and follow the beautiful game all over the world, it is indeed an art. But you keep being you, US Soccer Dad, because you surely know better. And again you are confirming that the girls aren’t technical. Since you seem so certain in your views of superiority, why are you so defensive about this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

For hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people who play and follow the beautiful game all over the world, it is indeed an art. But you keep being you, US Soccer Dad, because you surely know better. And again you are confirming that the girls aren’t technical. Since you seem so certain in your views of superiority, why are you so defensive about this?

I’m not the US Soccer Dad you’re referring to but I want to point out that every professional soccer coach and player are paid big bucks to win and to win big and NOT TO LOOK BEAUTIFUL OR PRETTY.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

For hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people who play and follow the beautiful game all over the world, it is indeed an art. But you keep being you, US Soccer Dad, because you surely know better. And again you are confirming that the girls aren’t technical. Since you seem so certain in your views of superiority, why are you so defensive about this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Actually, the discussion on "technical ability" in this thread is the real nonsense. The Barca nazi on this thread only cares about style of play, and winning or losing matters not, as long as the team looks "good" doing it. It's clear that their style of play is no magic elixir, as many have shown the way to dismantle it. Style of play is a choice, and there are many good options. Drawing conclusions that suit your preference based on a single game is downright silly.

This, however, is a great question. The answer is "yes" relative to their division, they are, by definition. the best team that season. Relative to other leagues, harder to say unless they play those teams, though we know the reality is that there are other leagues, for example, MLS/GA/ECNL, depending on gender, that trump NCSL. Of course, teams with lesser records in any league aren't necessarily "bad" teams, and even players on the worst performing team aren't necessarily "bad," players with no technnical ability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.