Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This current USWNT better get their act together. They were not impressive at all last night. Zero creativity and were outplayed for numerous stretches of the game. This current team also lacks likability. Not only from the outside looking in, but between players. They seem to be a collection of individuals that feel entitled to be playing on the national team.

You don’t judge by one game. I’ve seen many quality teams look mediocre in a given single game. Plus, they were playing Nigeria, not Brazil or one of the good Euro teams. Low motivation pre-tourney game. A lot of naysayers out there. Let’s see how the olympics go... maybe you’ll all be right and the WNT will fall flat. It appears to be what you’re all hoping for. Meanwhile I will be routing for them and confident in their ability to do well.

Anonymous wrote:This current USWNT better get their act together. They were not impressive at all last night. Zero creativity and were outplayed for numerous stretches of the game. This current team also lacks likability. Not only from the outside looking in, but between players. They seem to be a collection of individuals that feel entitled to be playing on the national team.

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not confuse the success of and quality of the NWSL relative to a few European leagues with the competitiveness of the USWNT. France and Belgium are great examples of not having the best leagues but having great national teams, in this case on the men’s side. At the same time England has a great league but hasn’t won jack from a national team perspective since 1966. Again men’s side analogy. If the top US women start to play more and more in the best leagues that happen to be in Europe then great. Our WNT will still be at or near the top. The NWSL may come and go, but our women’s national team will always be in the top echelon. Is competition getting tougher? Yes. Great. Bring it on. Maybe we won’t win all the time. Makes it all the more exciting.

Again -- it's a question of opportunity.

Belgium's men's national team has plenty of opportunities to play professionally. For many years, that wasn't an option for many women's players in the world.

Today's European players have a lot of full-fledged professional opportunities. That means they can stay in the game. National teams will continue to have competition for places as players go through their 20s and 30s.

And these clubs, along with the national associations, are finally taking youth development seriously.

These things matter. It's why we're seeing the Netherlands, England and Spain rapidly improving.

Again -- can the USA stay on top? Quite possibly. But not without some effort.

fortunately American players can and do play in Europe.

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s not confuse the success of and quality of the NWSL relative to a few European leagues with the competitiveness of the USWNT. France and Belgium are great examples of not having the best leagues but having great national teams, in this case on the men’s side. At the same time England has a great league but hasn’t won jack from a national team perspective since 1966. Again men’s side analogy. If the top US women start to play more and more in the best leagues that happen to be in Europe then great. Our WNT will still be at or near the top. The NWSL may come and go, but our women’s national team will always be in the top echelon. Is competition getting tougher? Yes. Great. Bring it on. Maybe we won’t win all the time. Makes it all the more exciting.

Again -- it's a question of opportunity.

Belgium's men's national team has plenty of opportunities to play professionally. For many years, that wasn't an option for many women's players in the world.

Today's European players have a lot of full-fledged professional opportunities. That means they can stay in the game. National teams will continue to have competition for places as players go through their 20s and 30s.

And these clubs, along with the national associations, are finally taking youth development seriously.

These things matter. It's why we're seeing the Netherlands, England and Spain rapidly improving.

Again -- can the USA stay on top? Quite possibly. But not without some effort.

Anonymous wrote:I used to watch a ton of USWNT before the lawsuit, including a bunch of games in person, but have stayed away for awhile due to their actions on pay.

I have to admit, I have rolled my eyes at some of the comments on this forum on how overrated they are, that they would lose to club teams, etc.

I watched the Nigeria friendly, and while I know many stars didn’t play, holy crap, many of them just looked straight up awful. The first half was maybe as poor as I have ever seen that team play. Both physically and skill-wise, it was pretty abysmal. I started counting the number of passes that were significantly behind a player or went straight out of bounds, some with no pressure on the passer at all, and gave up.

Maybe it was because I have been watching Euro20 games for six days straight, but I was pretty astonished.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:No one's saying the club game automatically translates into the national teams.

Here's why it's relevant ...

For years, U.S. players had tons of opportunities to play. Most of the rest of the world did not. The U.S. women's success is a direct result of Title IX creating chances to play with the financial backing of a college scholarship.

Today, the rest of the world has leagues that can keep their players in the game at a high level.

Meanwhile, the current USWNT is pretty old. Ellis and Vlatko found themselves supplementing the player pool not with promising teenagers but by recalling Ali Krieger and adding Jessica McDonald. Having no young players who can supplant Carli Lloyd, a clutch goal scorer and Hall of Famer (on my ballot, anyway, when I come up in the voting rotation) but someone who's pushing 40 and was never great at passing the ball.

This isn't "wishful thinking." This is an alarm bell. The US has to pay careful attention to player development, either through the federation itself or through leagues and clubs.

those teams rely on the benevolence of parent clubs. Until they are financially self sufficient, they are a line item that can be slashed if the men's team wants to buy a slightly better third string keeper or backup left back. Title IX funding relies on football remains popular and expensive. US girls club soccer relies on parents being willing to spend as much on girls as boys. I think the US girls and women have a much more secure future

LOL what do you think the USWNT and NWSL do? They subsidize the USWNT pool. US soccer pays some(T1 players)USWNT up to $167k a year. NWSL pays $22-52k a year with a big subsidy from US soccer. How many of the USWNT would play in the NWSL without the additional money and the contract restricting them to play domestically? The really question is would they play at all? The playing conditions in the NWSL are worst vs many college teams. You think you can just pick some college players and win the World Cup? Those days are long gone.

The women want to be paid the same as the men. That means you only get a check when you make the game day roaster and in off years you are not getting a lot of games. The collective bargaining agreement runs out this year. The lawsuit has burnt through 42 million meant for youth development. The women want 67 million in back pay. US Soccer does not have that money. The US system is on shaky ground. The European clubs are paying north of $250k a year and it is increasing each year. Macario said no to the NWSL and went to Olympique Lyonnais.

The big European clubs have already build(and own)the stadiums and training facilities unlike the NWSL. Look at Man City. The Man City women’s team trains and eats at Man City’s facilities. Yes they have a world class cafeteria at the training facility. The facilities are great with trainers, the best equipment, coaching, etc. The marginal cost to maintain a women’s team is well within their budgets. They have been doing it since 1988.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:No one's saying the club game automatically translates into the national teams.

Here's why it's relevant ...

For years, U.S. players had tons of opportunities to play. Most of the rest of the world did not. The U.S. women's success is a direct result of Title IX creating chances to play with the financial backing of a college scholarship.

Today, the rest of the world has leagues that can keep their players in the game at a high level.

Meanwhile, the current USWNT is pretty old. Ellis and Vlatko found themselves supplementing the player pool not with promising teenagers but by recalling Ali Krieger and adding Jessica McDonald. Having no young players who can supplant Carli Lloyd, a clutch goal scorer and Hall of Famer (on my ballot, anyway, when I come up in the voting rotation) but someone who's pushing 40 and was never great at passing the ball.

This isn't "wishful thinking." This is an alarm bell. The US has to pay careful attention to player development, either through the federation itself or through leagues and clubs.

those teams rely on the benevolence of parent clubs. Until they are financially self sufficient, they are a line item that can be slashed if the men's team wants to buy a slightly better third string keeper or backup left back. Title IX funding relies on football remains popular and expensive. US girls club soccer relies on parents being willing to spend as much on girls as boys. I think the US girls and women have a much more secure future

This was so dumb that it I didn't even want to respond. That you believe a woman's program costs the same as a 3rd string keeper is such an ignorant insult.

The European leagues are signing our best players away and for larger money than they can make in the States. Europeans love soccer and half their population happen to be women. The European leagues are growing their fan base at a faster pace than we are and they are doing it with many of our stars. Players who are also inspiring young girls to play.

The women's game will never be as lucrative as the men's side but that is different form sayin the woman's game will never be lucrative.

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:No one's saying the club game automatically translates into the national teams.

Here's why it's relevant ...

For years, U.S. players had tons of opportunities to play. Most of the rest of the world did not. The U.S. women's success is a direct result of Title IX creating chances to play with the financial backing of a college scholarship.

Today, the rest of the world has leagues that can keep their players in the game at a high level.

Meanwhile, the current USWNT is pretty old. Ellis and Vlatko found themselves supplementing the player pool not with promising teenagers but by recalling Ali Krieger and adding Jessica McDonald. Having no young players who can supplant Carli Lloyd, a clutch goal scorer and Hall of Famer (on my ballot, anyway, when I come up in the voting rotation) but someone who's pushing 40 and was never great at passing the ball.

This isn't "wishful thinking." This is an alarm bell. The US has to pay careful attention to player development, either through the federation itself or through leagues and clubs.

those teams rely on the benevolence of parent clubs. Until they are financially self sufficient, they are a line item that can be slashed if the men's team wants to buy a slightly better third string keeper or backup left back. Title IX funding relies on football remains popular and expensive. US girls club soccer relies on parents being willing to spend as much on girls as boys. I think the US girls and women have a much more secure future

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:No one's saying the club game automatically translates into the national teams.

Here's why it's relevant ...

For years, U.S. players had tons of opportunities to play. Most of the rest of the world did not. The U.S. women's success is a direct result of Title IX creating chances to play with the financial backing of a college scholarship.

Today, the rest of the world has leagues that can keep their players in the game at a high level.

Meanwhile, the current USWNT is pretty old. Ellis and Vlatko found themselves supplementing the player pool not with promising teenagers but by recalling Ali Krieger and adding Jessica McDonald. Having no young players who can supplant Carli Lloyd, a clutch goal scorer and Hall of Famer (on my ballot, anyway, when I come up in the voting rotation) but someone who's pushing 40 and was never great at passing the ball.

This isn't "wishful thinking." This is an alarm bell. The US has to pay careful attention to player development, either through the federation itself or through leagues and clubs.

those teams rely on the benevolence of parent clubs. Until they are financially self sufficient, they are a line item that can be slashed if the men's team wants to buy a slightly better third string keeper or backup left back. Title IX funding relies on football remains popular and expensive. US girls club soccer relies on parents being willing to spend as much on girls as boys. I think the US girls and women have a much more secure future

This was so dumb that it I didn't even want to respond. That you believe a woman's program costs the same as a 3rd string keeper is such an ignorant insult.

The European leagues are signing our best players away and for larger money than they can make in the States. Europeans love soccer and half their population happen to be women. The European leagues are growing their fan base at a faster pace than we are and they are doing it with many of our stars. Players who are also inspiring young girls to play.

The women's game will never be as lucrative as the men's side but that is different form sayin the woman's game will never be lucrative.

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:No one's saying the club game automatically translates into the national teams.

Here's why it's relevant ...

For years, U.S. players had tons of opportunities to play. Most of the rest of the world did not. The U.S. women's success is a direct result of Title IX creating chances to play with the financial backing of a college scholarship.

Today, the rest of the world has leagues that can keep their players in the game at a high level.

Meanwhile, the current USWNT is pretty old. Ellis and Vlatko found themselves supplementing the player pool not with promising teenagers but by recalling Ali Krieger and adding Jessica McDonald. Having no young players who can supplant Carli Lloyd, a clutch goal scorer and Hall of Famer (on my ballot, anyway, when I come up in the voting rotation) but someone who's pushing 40 and was never great at passing the ball.

This isn't "wishful thinking." This is an alarm bell. The US has to pay careful attention to player development, either through the federation itself or through leagues and clubs.

those teams rely on the benevolence of parent clubs. Until they are financially self sufficient, they are a line item that can be slashed if the men's team wants to buy a slightly better third string keeper or backup left back. Title IX funding relies on football remains popular and expensive. US girls club soccer relies on parents being willing to spend as much on girls as boys. I think the US girls and women have a much more secure future

RantingSoccerDad wrote:No one's saying the club game automatically translates into the national teams.

Here's why it's relevant ...

For years, U.S. players had tons of opportunities to play. Most of the rest of the world did not. The U.S. women's success is a direct result of Title IX creating chances to play with the financial backing of a college scholarship.

Today, the rest of the world has leagues that can keep their players in the game at a high level.

Meanwhile, the current USWNT is pretty old. Ellis and Vlatko found themselves supplementing the player pool not with promising teenagers but by recalling Ali Krieger and adding Jessica McDonald. Having no young players who can supplant Carli Lloyd, a clutch goal scorer and Hall of Famer (on my ballot, anyway, when I come up in the voting rotation) but someone who's pushing 40 and was never great at passing the ball.

This isn't "wishful thinking." This is an alarm bell. The US has to pay careful attention to player development, either through the federation itself or through leagues and clubs.

RantingSoccerDad wrote:No one's saying the club game automatically translates into the national teams.

Here's why it's relevant ...

For years, U.S. players had tons of opportunities to play. Most of the rest of the world did not. The U.S. women's success is a direct result of Title IX creating chances to play with the financial backing of a college scholarship.

Today, the rest of the world has leagues that can keep their players in the game at a high level.

Meanwhile, the current USWNT is pretty old. Ellis and Vlatko found themselves supplementing the player pool not with promising teenagers but by recalling Ali Krieger and adding Jessica McDonald. Having no young players who can supplant Carli Lloyd, a clutch goal scorer and Hall of Famer (on my ballot, anyway, when I come up in the voting rotation) but someone who's pushing 40 and was never great at passing the ball.

This isn't "wishful thinking." This is an alarm bell. The US has to pay careful attention to player development, either through the federation itself or through leagues and clubs.