Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

[/b]Great observation. [b]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.

Thank you. Cruyff was king when I was growing up in the 70s/80s. Our trainer was an Ajax U17 former academy player who was best friend's with Cruyff's brother, Henny. Total futbol was what we were playing as 12-year old girls and I love to see it. The Americans just don't compare it that aspect. WE go for the long physical play every time (we- as in the US women). The triangles and numerical superiority of the Dutch women in the first half was literally a see of orange around every single white jersey. They always had the advantage. And, physical? In the first half, the Dutch women were flattening the US. They were getting the US women so frustrated. They were very physical.

2nd half it was a different game and the Dutch team fell apart after that US goal. They looked gassed. BUT- as the European women academies continue to develop we will be in trouble. You can see the difference in play of these teams as they are coming up in years. Unless we have more and more American girls heading to Europe for that style of training, our physicality isn't going to continue to rule the game. Btw, the Dutch are large people in general (large people in tiny houses )--they will challenge us in physicality as the years move on.

I agree on the finishing. No strong finishers on the Dutch team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

I agree to some extent. We need to maximize our strengths, and the Ajax/Dutch/Barca/Spain way of playing football is not the only way. In fact that way has produced only 1 (Spain) men's World Cup win in the history of soccer, whereas pragmatic teams that defend well, counter and finish (Italy, Germany) have consistently done well. But in playing our style, we still need a high degree of technical skills to stay with the fast-improving teams that are as athletic and fast and us (see England, France, Germany, Brazil). This doesn't mean playing 75 passes out of the back. But it means having central players who can turn with the ball, spread the ball around quickly and play little triangles as needed to get out of midfield crowd.

The no. of shots is often a misleading metric for teams who are not trying to necessarily maximize forays into the box, but looking to control the game (sacrificing some forward play in the process) and create elaborate attacks. That's the Van Gaal style play that the Dutch team seems to have adopted, probably as a tactical plan against the Americans. My suspicion is that they did exactly what they wanted in the 1st half, notwithstanding the no. of shots. They failed in the 2nd half, not because they took just 2 shots but because they had much lower possession and control.

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Rodman, but she seemed gassed mid-way through the second half and probably should have been subbed for. It wasn't her best game, but she did create chances. I don't know that it's Morgan's fault, but her style of play is not ideal for the playing style of Smith and Rodman. There were so many missed opportunities on the part of many players, but how often Morgan is offside makes me furious.

It's shameful for a striker at that level to be offsides that much!!! My 15-year old son seriously couldn't believe it. He was not offsides once last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aggressiveness, competitiveness, athleticism - these are all qualities that have helped the US and they are legit valuable assets to have. No matter how technical you are, you need some drive. The Dutch only had 3 shots on goal last night.

The problem is that you gotta balance the above with some actual technical abilities playing at this world cup level. I think we do tend to play a travel soccer style of game and the rest of the world is now catching up to the above traits we've had but they are technically stronger than the US so yeah, now they got more of a chance than ever to pass us by.

I was really shocked by how bad the US team. Even in their first match - I mean they played Vietnam and had 28 shots but only hit 3??!!! Come on! They should have creamed Vietnam. So yeah, against a team like the Dutch - good luck. A team more aggressive than the Dutch would have crushed them.

Rose Lavalle has always been my favorite US player of the past few years. I think there are likely others of her caliber but the team isn't using them, that's unfortunate as none of the older players including Horan, really need to be at another World Cup. I realize Horan got the goal last night but she messed up for Dutch to score. I don't think that the US will win it this year.

I agree with this assessment. Also why are they playing kickball at this level? There was so little plays from the back like what the Dutch were doing. Almost every time the goalie got the ball, it was booted. It’s like confirming that the team have no technical skills. I mean some of the stopping/trapping and passing of the the USMNT was pretty sloppy.

It is hard to overstate just how much Becky Sauerbrunn’s injury hurt the team. With her healthy, Ertz could play the 6 and make a huge difference. Apparently, Vlatko has no confidence in Alana Cook, who plays center-back for her club.

The other thing in Vlatko’s defense is that this WC should have been Mal Swanson’s star moment. Still, she got injured early in the year, yet he gave Rodman limited playing time in the buildup to the WC, giving her little time to develop chemistry with Smith and Morgan.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US Women’s team seems weak and is losing to Netherlands. Maybe spend more time practicing and less time dying hair, fine-tuning political positions, and showing disrespect during national anthem. Happy to see them flailing - they are not winners.

.

Amazing how a single individual (who’s not even in the game) is clearly occupying your headspace.

rent free!

Anonymous wrote:I think aggressiveness, competitiveness, athleticism - these are all qualities that have helped the US and they are legit valuable assets to have. No matter how technical you are, you need some drive. The Dutch only had 3 shots on goal last night.

The problem is that you gotta balance the above with some actual technical abilities playing at this world cup level. I think we do tend to play a travel soccer style of game and the rest of the world is now catching up to the above traits we've had but they are technically stronger than the US so yeah, now they got more of a chance than ever to pass us by.

I was really shocked by how bad the US team. Even in their first match - I mean they played Vietnam and had 28 shots but only hit 3??!!! Come on! They should have creamed Vietnam. So yeah, against a team like the Dutch - good luck. A team more aggressive than the Dutch would have crushed them.

Rose Lavalle has always been my favorite US player of the past few years. I think there are likely others of her caliber but the team isn't using them, that's unfortunate as none of the older players including Horan, really need to be at another World Cup. I realize Horan got the goal last night but she messed up for Dutch to score. I don't think that the US will win it this year.

I agree with this assessment. Also why are they playing kickball at this level? There was so little plays from the back like what the Dutch were doing. Almost every time the goalie got the ball, it was booted. It’s like confirming that the team have no technical skills. I mean some of the stopping/trapping and passing of the the USMNT was pretty sloppy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did Rapinoe make his roster? She was terrible last night, couldn’t complete a pass against an extremely weak Vietnam team. Hope that’s the last we see of her in this tournament.

Marketing. Rapinoe is very recognizable and the face of the team/women’s soccer. She was over the hill in ‘19 - out of position, slow, not getting back on defense and a turn over machine. Rapinoe is why Dunn plays defense and not offensive. They needed someone to cover for Rapinoe. They still win.

The US has a huge pool of players and I am sure there are other players who would preform better vs the older players but few would recognize them. Let’s see what the lineup is when they play the more competitive teams.

The ugly truth of the matter is a lot of the players of that generation, including Rapinoe, are straight up about themselves and mask their greed and selfishness in talk about "development of the women's game". They should have stepped aside for younger players a while ago.

Yes, this is my main problem with women's soccer in America. The game of soccer is secondary to themselves and their social justice causes. Not just on the national team, but every women's soccer podcast and radio show. I have to hear all about their contrived fight for equality and sexual orientation before they get down to talking about the game. I don't watch the men play and think to myself, "I wonder how Christian Pulisic feels about the immigration issue on the border?" Luckily, I know he won't tell me either. Stick to the game ladies. Once you retire then you can spout off about whatever you want if you think people will listen.

What exactly is contrived about the fact that the women are paid less than the men?

I think aggressiveness, competitiveness, athleticism - these are all qualities that have helped the US and they are legit valuable assets to have. No matter how technical you are, you need some drive. The Dutch only had 3 shots on goal last night.

The problem is that you gotta balance the above with some actual technical abilities playing at this world cup level. I think we do tend to play a travel soccer style of game and the rest of the world is now catching up to the above traits we've had but they are technically stronger than the US so yeah, now they got more of a chance than ever to pass us by.

I was really shocked by how bad the US team. Even in their first match - I mean they played Vietnam and had 28 shots but only hit 3??!!! Come on! They should have creamed Vietnam. So yeah, against a team like the Dutch - good luck. A team more aggressive than the Dutch would have crushed them.

Rose Lavalle has always been my favorite US player of the past few years. I think there are likely others of her caliber but the team isn't using them, that's unfortunate as none of the older players including Horan, really need to be at another World Cup. I realize Horan got the goal last night but she messed up for Dutch to score. I don't think that the US will win it this year.

Guys, please report or try to ignore the troll consistently politicizing the discussion and happy to see any negativity abt the USWMNT. They are common in DCUM threads and has reared their head again now that the forum is anonymous.

Anonymous wrote:I absolutely love Rodman, but she seemed gassed mid-way through the second half and probably should have been subbed for. It wasn't her best game, but she did create chances. I don't know that it's Morgan's fault, but her style of play is not ideal for the playing style of Smith and Rodman. There were so many missed opportunities on the part of many players, but how often Morgan is offside makes me furious.

It’s the midfield play that is the problem. Also who are you going to sub Rodman for?

I find it hard to believe that these older players are the best players in the US system. Many are not really adding much. As a coach you do not get criticized for taking an older big name player. Let’s face it the coach is under a lot of pressure.

I absolutely love Rodman, but she seemed gassed mid-way through the second half and probably should have been subbed for. It wasn't her best game, but she did create chances. I don't know that it's Morgan's fault, but her style of play is not ideal for the playing style of Smith and Rodman. There were so many missed opportunities on the part of many players, but how often Morgan is offside makes me furious.