Commentary

USA-Netherlands: Women's World Cup Final Player Ratings

1. Bob Ashpole, July 7, 2019 at 5:42 p.m.

   The officials did a good job. Otherwise the result might have been different.
   
   With the world championship on the line, the Dutch started out playing dirty punishing some key players away from the play. Before Spitse's yellow card, Lavelle had already been clobbered twice (that I saw) and Spitse had already received a verbal warning. I figure the officials must have seen it all too. What the Dutch anticipated was that the ref would ignore late fouls and fouls away from the action. Wrong. This was a very good crew. Also VAR has real potential for eliminating some of the dirty play in the box like the intimidating studs up high boot on Morgan.
   
   Right now defenders are used to getting away with a lot in a crowded box. But that hopefully will change.  

   Reply
2. Kent James replied, July 7, 2019 at 6:20 p.m.

   Bob,  I agree.  At one point, as the US was preparing for a corner, the ref spoke to the Dutch defender, motioned that she would be watching her, and also made the VAR sign (to suggest that anything she did would be caught).  The ref was quite good (I thought) at not calling fouls just because players were trying to get her to call fouls.  

3. Kent James, July 7, 2019 at 6:25 p.m.

   Very impressive US win.  The intensity of the US, combined with their skill, was impossible for the Dutch to resist.  The Dutch defended well (and matched the US intensity until that last 10 minutes or so, when they clearly were exhausted and discouraged).  It took a while to break down the Dutch defense, but there was no doubt in my mind that we would find a way to score (though getting past the keeper was pretty tough).  The US mixed their attack, and kept focused on gettin shots on goal.  

   
   

   I had not been impressed with Mewis in some of the earlier games, but today I understand why Ellis started her in the final.  Rapino's crosses, Morgan playing with a marker on her back all game, Heath taking players on, Lavelle dribbling at speed...it was beautiful to watch.  Well deserved.  

   Reply
4. frank schoon, July 7, 2019 at 6:30 p.m.

   Holland played a defensive style for they realized they weren't going to win and that was seen by their reaction after the game. They accepted the reality of the situation by not showing any tears except, maybe, for one or two... Holland got beat by the stronger team not by the better soccer playing team. I always wondered what the outcome would have been if the US had played 120min with one less day of rest. The dutch began to run out of steam early in the second half as shown in the many bad passes ....there was no velocity or accuracy...
   The penalty blew the wind out of the Dutch sails .
   I noticed in this world cup  there were way too many penalties called that decided the match ; and furthermore , I found the women defenders creating way too many unnecessary fouls in the penalty area and I think that is due to lack of experience. Look at how often play was stopped during the WC because of unnecessary head collisions. They were heading at places on the midfield where you have to ask yourself ,Why? So often they would go for a head  ball when you don't even know where the ball will go or who will even end up with it, very reactionary.
   Apparently the dutch player admitted kicking high but never saw Morgan coming from behind. Regardless, at that stage of the game the US deserved a goal but I wish it wasn't one of those types of penalties. But rather on an out and out handsball or a real foul that could have led to a sure goal.
   The US although having won, their style needs to drastically change for a more sophisticated one for it relies so much on power and energy.We have the speed ,the power and athleticism than add another dimension to our game which would be one of skill, and technicall savvyness ,this would make us more rounded but instead we keep employing the same old formula
   The USWNT has now the opportunity to bring in a high level coach to get things started to a higher level and turn a new leaf.
   
   

   Reply
Bob Ashpole replied, July 7, 2019 at 7:07 p.m.

Good points Frank. 

What surprised me was good teams trying to play like the US, including Spain and Holland. I suspect that until the US adds positional play as an alternative to the current athletic style, that the rest of the countries will continue the current course.

About Ellis, I think Ellis understands positional play and doesn't go the route she took out of ignorance, but rather because she felt it was the best path to winning the world cup. Although I admit that having a better coach than Ellis would great, but that has got to be a very short list of candidates. I suspect that she may win coach of the year again.

frank schoon replied, July 7, 2019 at 7:25 p.m.

Bob, if Ellis new positional play her team would do a better job of building up, or for teaching the backs not to pass straight up to the wing for devastated Heaths play, as examples,which  Ellis totally overlooked ,along with her coaching staff, the consequences of this upon their attacking and overal play. Like Cruyff states so few coaches today understand positional play.
This is why we need a high level coach coming in. Sure , let Ellis receive her prizes, she deserve them , but we need to move on to a higher level and that is not with Ellis...

Kent James replied, July 7, 2019 at 7:59 p.m.

Frank, while I respect your opinions, I don't see how you can say that the US beat the Dutch physically while the Dutch were technically and tactically better.  That's just wrong.  The Dutch rightfully feared a powerfull attacking US squad, and adopted a defensive posture to try to limit the damage, and score either on a counter or go the distance and take their chances with kicks on the mark.  That may have beed a good tactic given the circumstances, but teams that are tactically and technically superior don't adopt such tactics.  If anything, the Dutch were the more physical of the two teams (probably this was a function of them doing more defending, though both teams went hard).  The defensive posture of the Dutch forced the US to try different things, which they did.  The US attacked down the flanks with crosses, cut inside to take shots, attacked in the air on corners and free kicks, went up the middle.  They struck lots of powerful shots on goal that were technically brilliant (Lavelle's goal, Mewis near post header, Ertz's volley, Morgan's touch inside and low left-footed strike). Only the brilliance of the Dutch keeper kept this game close.   Maybe the Dutch didn't play up to their potential, but the US can only play against the team that shows up. And on the biggest stage, under huge amounts of pressure (it is mentally easier to be the underdog), the US women performed like the best team in the world.  And saying that the US needs to bring in a higher level coach to replace the coach who won consective world cups (and is the only coach to do so) is a bit much.  Ellis coached brilliantly, as is shown by the performance of the team.  Sure, they need to get new blood in for the next WC (as any nation does), but to suggest these players and this coach were not technically or tactically good enough is demonstrably wrong.  They were brilliant.

frank schoon replied, July 7, 2019 at 8:44 p.m.

Kent, You are a ref , I'm sure you have reffed games where  one team that plays a physical style  relying on power and atheleticism beat a team that tries a better brand of soccer but gets beat. It happens all of the time in youth soccer where you ref. Look at Holland(men) that plays a better brand of soccer  but has never won the WC and you take Germany who has won WC's but is not known for sophisticated play . And until recently Germany has decided to copy the Dutch style of a more sophisticated game.So winning a couple world cups doesn't necessarily infer playing sophosticated soccer,as per example Germany.  So I don't understand that your surprised that sophisticated play doesn't necessarily lead to winning. Watch today Atlanta play NY RedBulls for example.
Yes the Dutch played a more physically ,as you say, but it didn't dawn on me, I just found them not playing well. Well lets say they played more physically than as we know them to play(personally I'm not that familiar with the Dutch women  for I don pay that much attention to women soccer), but so what. Why doesn't anyone every say the US women's team plays physical because that is their style, blended with athleticism and therfore it doesn't stand out as compared to the Dutch team who is not known for athleticism and physical soccer but instead it is very noticeable . The US would stand out if all of a sudden they played a positional game, letting the ball do the running ,instead of the player, type of game...that would stand out as well.
I would have liked the dutch to have that extra day of rest and also not have played 120min. But be that as it may the Dutch still would have lost for that they don't have a strong frontline, and they lacked depth. 
 I didn't think the Dutch played that well considering the conditions although I'm more impressed with their off the ball movement, positionally, than the US but that is not enough to win a game.
Van Gaal stated that the Holland would have had a chance to win if it parked the bus type of soccer. Well I'm glad it didn't and played all out,even though their last  game did them in. For a new team about 10years into their program did performed well. NEXT POST
 

frank schoon replied, July 7, 2019 at 8:56 p.m.

Kent , your statement <" teams that are tactically and technically superior don't adopt such tactics.">
Well , you're 100% wrong. The '74 WC dutch team played the most sophisticated ,technically and tactically in the soccer in the world, but also lost the WC to Germany. But did you know they know the Dutch had a reputation of being very physicall.  The Dutch had a reputation and  as a result the world changed its soccer by becoming more physical, as thanks to Rinus Michels as the reason why soccer today has become more physical and less technical..Watch Brazil-Holland  '74WC on Youtube and taste of what physical soccer was.
You have to be physical to protect yourself in case your style of sophisticated soccer is threatened by a team that likes to play physical. 
Our women's style of play has not changed since the 90's and it is time to move to a higher level and maybe the women would be the impetus to initiate a higher style and perhaps it will infect the men to do likewise....

Kent James replied, July 8, 2019 at 12:08 a.m.

Frank, yes I am a ref, but I am a player first, a coach second, and a ref third.  I have seen many games where a technical team has been outmuscled, fouled, intimidated.  I have always played for the technical teams, not the physical ones, and I have coached my teams to play that way (as the Dutch, Barca and Arsenal play). I strongly believe that a technically better team (as long as it is not mentally intimidated) can usually beat a physical team (Messi and Barcelona being the model), so I am not a critic of "pretty" soccer.




But this game was not a case of the technical Dutch being overwhelmed physically by the Americans.  I allowed that perhaps the Dutch had a bad game and didn't play their game, but you said you don't even know the Dutch women's team well, so how can you possibly say they were better technically than the US women (unless it is somehow genetic)?  In this game, the US were both technically and tactically better than the Dutch women.




I have heard critics of the US women's program say we're relying on our athleticism to beat teams that are more skillful than we are.  I watched every game the USWNT played in this WC, and every game was the same.  Every team tried to slow the US down and take us out of our game by playing physically (with the exceptionof Thailand), and they failed.  The US deserved to win every game they played.  The French were probably the best team against us (I think they were the only team that had more possession than we did), but we were also ahead from the very beginning, so it was tactically smart to let the French have possession (and prior to that, we overran them).  Technically the French were quite good, but I don't think they were better technically than the US (though I would accept that they are our equals; it is harder to judge because of our tactics in the only game I saw between them).  




I will always favor developing more skillful players, but not to recognize that this team was more skillful than any other national team they played does the team a disservice.  While their athleticism prevented other teams from overruning them, their skill (especially their finishing) got the teams the wins.  It is not time to rest on our laurels, but it is time to at least recognize their magnificent achievement.  

Bob Ashpole replied, July 8, 2019 at 12:42 a.m.

Kent, dominating someone with superior athleticism is one approach. Dominating through superior fitness is another. Dominating through positional play is a third approach. Positional play allows a team to beat an opponent that is more athletic and fitter. The more ways a team can dominate play, the more success they will have. This versatility is particularly important in tournament play when you want to win, not merely do well.

I use the word athleticism instead of physical, because some people interpret physical play as fouling. The US exploits its superior fitness and athleticism by spreading out to intentionally isolate their players counting on superior abilities to beat others 1v1. They also intentionally force a fast pace on play to take advantage of their superior fitness. These are all good things, if the US can also dominate with positional play if needed. 

For example, opponents through fouling can negate the 1v1 advantage, if the fouling is not managed by the referees. Fouling won't stop positional play since, done right, the opponents never catch up to the ball. They forever chase.  

I agree with you Kent that the US players have superior skills and tactics, which is why they do well in 1v1 play defending and attacking. They just don't use their abilities to their full potential.

When I watch the USA killing off games, it is clear to me that the players are capable of dominating through positional play too. Maybe not the entire pool, but enough of them. 

frank schoon replied, July 8, 2019 at 9:26 a.m.

Kent, love discussing things with you. Before I begin, Bob, like his usual self, gave some good explanations and points for he has a gift that I don't  have, and I wish I had, is the ability to wrap ideas up into simpler terms. When I read his statemenst , I often think damn why couldn't I say it like that....It's frustrating....
I agree in general that it is preferable to play more of a technical than physical game but don't seperate technical and  physical style into two different aspects, as Bob states. Don't think of playing a physical game as playing dirty, or causing many fouls. It can be, but that's why you have a ref . Perhaps it is more intense and bumpy, but not dirty. And true some players and fans think it is intimidation. Watching this game I didn't think dutch were dirty or rough, or intimidating and some did.  Sure there were fouls but that's part of the game.
Watching the Mexico-US game last night I found it interesting when our guys starting playing rough and tough, our announcers stated  that we were "INTENSE" in our play. But if the roles were reversed it is called 'intimidating". I began to laugh because I thought about the posts here talking about intimidation.. It all depends on which side your looking at. Let me tell you , we have players on the women's team who can play the role of intimidator, like O'Hara, Rosie, Lavelle ,Heath and Lewis. Are you naive enough to believe  that Ellis never mentioned to her girls, we have  to play tougher and more intimidating to get this win. This is all part of the game.  Next Post..



frank schoon replied, July 8, 2019 at 10:07 a.m.

Kent, where did I state the Dutch women are better technically than the US women. The only player thus far that I'm impressed with technically and that is only in one particular aspect is which Wiedema the dutch striker. She has exhibited certain technical aspects in her dribbling telling me someone is working with her. Technically I find the women's game poor in passing accuracy...too many bad passes. US soccer to me lives in bubble when it comes really telling it like it is. And I blame that on two things, the selling of the product ,soccer, and the announcers who are not critical, insightful and who only try to keep the audience interested. 
For example, in Holland we have much more honest and better commentators who tell it like it is and made up of former players. The US is great at selling snake oil ,saying anything to sell it . For example, there were several teammates of Cruyff, during halftime, giving their opinionon on women's soccer. They compare the women's game to 5th division men's amateur ball. Another, stated, that is not watchable as far as the technical ability, along with other game aspects  which are so below par...and they explain.  We don't get this type of information neither in the men's game nor in the women's game...It's all rosy and great and Wowsie. And this ,I think,  seriously hurts our soccer development because there is no critical eye during games in commentating to educate our fans , and coaches. We need to bring in retired players in place them in the booth allow them critical analysis to point things for the public to be aware and what went wrong. 
The other assertion you made is how can I judge the Dutch women's technical abilities if you haven't seem them play much. That is easy for you only have to watch them one time to understand the technical level they play at. For example, how one traps or receives the ball, in what manner is she positioned receiving the ball as related to her follow up motion or continuity of play, how many touches she needs when receiving, where are her teammates positioned off the ball when she receives it, does her pass slow or increase tempo of the game, does she pass the ball in a manner that it goes to the correct foot of her teammate in a manner in two ways furthest from the opponent and two allowing to facilitate her movement quicker,and much, much more. You can sense right away the technical level of the players. The only reason why you need to see them more is to establish the difference between the tactical system they play and tactics they employ which are two different aspects the requiring further study but not the technical part that can be established right  away.
Wrapping it all up this is why I advocate bringing coaches of higher level expertise to develop our women's program..

Kent James replied, July 8, 2019 at 11:56 a.m.

Frank, when you said the US won on athleticism, speed and power instead of skill and tactics, I thought you were saying that the Dutch had the latter characteristics.  I apologize if I misread your comments. Of course the US (like any team) can get better tactically and technically (as my father used to tell me, "even the best can improve") but when you just won the WC in convincing fashion, that's not the time to say you need to revamp the program and get a better coach.I don't know Ellis as a coach (other than how I see her manage games), but she's clearly doing something right.;I thought Mewis had not played very well in early games, so I was surprised to see her start (and play the whole game) in the final, but she played well, so credit to Ellis for knowing she would. I agree, I did not see much "dirty" play by the Dutch, but they (like every oppnent except the Thais) were relying on phsycial play (coming in hard) more than we were.;As i said, that may be a function of us having the ball and them trying to take it away, but it was not the US that relied on physical play.As for how these women compare to men, the biggest difference is size (strength) and speed. The US women are competitive with US men's national teams at about the U15 level; after that, the men are able to push the women off the ball (and get to loose balls faster). I actually played with a member of the US women's national team (Meghan Klingenberger, who played outside back in the last WC) a few years ago in an indoor mens league (7 v 7 on a slightly smaller field, but with turf and regular goals (not dasher boards or futsal). ;It was a good men's league (mostly former college players ;in their 20s). She was competitive, but did not dominate (she was a not quite at her peak as a player, but close). I think the women's touches and general skil level is quite high, but because they are not under quite as much pressure as the men (the more aggressive men's game denies space and time more than the women's game), their skill levels are not quite as high as the best men.  But if they had the speed and size of the men (or only played against men with their speed and size), I think they'd be as good.
As an ex-player (forced into early retirement at 53 because of arthritis in my knees), I certainly respect players' opinions, but the ex-player who said the women were unwatchable because their skills are so bad has his head up his you know what. Some people are also very good at tearing people down. I respect analysts much more who point out what players (and teams) are doing right as well as what they can do better. One of the announcers (Aly Wagner) is an ex-player (the other, JP Dellacamera, is the worst US soccer announcer).

Kent James replied, July 8, 2019 at 11:59 a.m.

(Continued). The US did use their athleticism and aggressiveness, but I don't see that as a negative (they did not rely on it, they used it to set up their skill). But you are wrong as to who plays physically on the team (Heath and Lavelle? They both weigh 100 lbs soaking wet, and rely on skill and speed to beat their opponents). The US midfield (Ertz, Mewis and Horan) are the ones who play physically (as do Dahlkemper and Sauerbrunn, though the latter relies more on tactical awareness to shut down opposing attacks), but they also have skills (not as much as Press, Morgan, Rapinoe, Lavelle or Heath). Dunn is not physicallly imposing, but uses her quickness and aggressiveness to torment opposing players who have the ball, so she uses physical play even though she's not big (or pushing people around).






As I said, I generally appreciate (and often agree with) your analysis, but sometimes it is important to appreciate what players (and a team) have done, rather than criticizing them for not being better. And when you've just won a very competitive WC, that's the time for such appreciation.

Seth Vieux replied, July 8, 2019 at 7:17 p.m.

Well said Kent. For all Frank's virtue, repeatedly jamming the square peg of 'if only they played like the Dutch (again my own boyhood heroes) teams of the 70s' into round holes like the USWNT's continued dominance technically, tactically, and physically of women's soccer isn't one of them.

I will admit that I've been skeptical of Ellis, but she's proven herself this tournament. If she wanted to play a physical rather than technical game you wouldn't see any of our starting front three out there. There are far more physically superior players behind each one of them, and they're no slouches technically either. Press is faster and stronger than Rapinoe by a wide margin. Same with Jessica McDonald over Morgan, and Mallory Pugh over Heath. You'd never even see Rose Lavelle, who I constantly encourage my daughter watch as living proof you don't have to be a super athlete to excel in this game. Though plenty physical themselves, she's miraculously converted O'Hara and Dunn from attacking players to highly skilled and dengerous full backs. Dahlkemper starts not because of her physical superiority, but because she's the best player on the squad for accurately passing long. 

And on a side note - the O'Hara and now Dunn conversions of wingers that just barely lacked the quality required for a squad as strong as USWNT.... am I the only one staring at Paul Arriola to solve the long-standing lack of a good LB for the USMNT??? Would also open up the window to start handing the job over to Weah for the next dozen years.

Hal Barnes, July 7, 2019 at 6:59 p.m.

Gimme me a break, Frank. Long winded response that is BS. 

Reply

ARISTIDES SASTRE replied, July 7, 2019 at 7:38 p.m.

Totally agree Hal.  Frank may have a lot of soccer knowledge but he is often too full of himself and Dutch soccer.  There was no mention in his comment about the attempt by the Dutch to intimidate the American players and if the referee had not been strong they would have continued to do so.  As well as Naeher played during the tournament, if the US had switched goalkeepers with the Dutch team the final score would have probably been 5-0.  How anyone can say that the Dutch were a better team with a straight face is a joke.  Ellis is certainly not the perfect coach but Neville didn't do any of the wonders for the English team that Frank implied would be brought by a professional "male" coach.  The truth is that the development of professional women's soccer in Europe is largely due to the financial investments that many of the professional men's teams have been making in the European women's soccer leagues and not to these teams adapting to a "Dutch" style of soccer. It also a reflection that the number of federation registered female soccer players in Europe has caught up to the number of registered American players.  Yes, the Americans could certainly play "prettier" and more efficient soccer at times but their future success is not going to be necessarily determined by their ability to do so but rather than by the ability of other countries to make the financial and emotional commitment to their soccer programs that the US has historically done.  No team can dominate any sport forever and that certainly will be the case with the US team but they will continue to be extremely competitive in international competition regardless of who the coach is.

frank schoon replied, July 7, 2019 at 9:05 p.m.

Aristides, you are reading or rather inferring too much in what I have to say. You want to tell where exactly did I say <"  That the Dutch were a better team"> Please let know where...
And I didn't mention "intimidation" , well I didn't think there was intimidation which happens in games.
So what, are that NAIVE to think Ellis has never told her little girls not intimidate at all when it is necessary....PLEASE, get real....

ARISTIDES SASTRE replied, July 8, 2019 at 7:42 a.m.

Frank I apologize.  You only said that the Dutch were a better "playing" team.  I guess if you consider that bunkering down, fouling hard and attempting to win via counterattack is "better playing" then you are correct.  Also, getting outshot 17-5 and 10-1 on shots on goal must also imply that your team was "playing better" than the opposing team.  Following that theory, for the most part, the USMNT has been the better "playing" team whenever they face non-CONCACAF competion.

frank schoon replied, July 8, 2019 at 8:44 a.m.

Aristides,   where did I state that Holland was "the better soccer playing team".. Again ,you obviously tend to assume things  that I have not said. 

ARISTIDES SASTRE replied, July 8, 2019 at 4:43 p.m.

Frank, what am I misreading from your first post at 6:30 PM? You said: " Holland got beat by the stronger team, not the better soccer playing team". 



frank schoon replied, July 8, 2019 at 5:18 p.m.

Aristide, The US was a much stronger team but a stronger team doesn't necessarily mean a better soccer playing team. Just like the best team doesn't necessarily win the tournament, which happens a lot. For our purposes, you will see a lot of Hispanic youth teams who are better skilled and play a better brand of soccer but the opponents are a stronger team due to speed and athletic ability, lets say. So a stronger team doesn't automatically imply they better brand of soccer.
Realize the dutch team played a 120min, over time,and had one less day of rest, as result they in the 2nd half were beginning to play on fumes. Both teams were basically the same in ability, perhaps the Americans were a tad better and have a longer history of tournament play than the Dutch for they only started about 10 years ago but soccer wise there was really no difference, just like there was really no difference in playing ability between the France and the Americans, it comes down to other factors....

ARISTIDES SASTRE replied, July 8, 2019 at 8:43 p.m.

The US team had one,less rest day before beating Spain, France AND England and they certainly did not have to use that as an excuse. Other than an outstanding goalkeeper,  a couple of excellent defenders and a couple of attackers, what exactly did the Dutch do to distinguish their play as " better" soccer?  How can you justify that statement when Holland had one shot on goal? By the way Frank, I have been around for a long time having been one of the founders of the Florida Youth Soccer Association. Most of my life was spent in South Florida where I coached and saw many Hispanic teams playing beautiful soccer and losing to more athletic teams. There is nothing that you can say to convince me that the Dutch played better soccer than the US team. Comparable at times in some respects, but hardly a better playing team.  There was not as much of a difference in athletic ability between the teams as you have continuously implied. The American goals and many shots on goal were not due to out running or being more physical than the Dutch. Yes, there were more balls played in the air by the American team but they had little choice when the Dutch chose to entrench themselves in their side of the field clogging all of the middle lanes.

ARISTIDES SASTRE replied, July 8, 2019 at 8:43 p.m.

The US team had one,less rest day before beating Spain, France AND England and they certainly did not have to use that as an excuse. Other than an outstanding goalkeeper,  a couple of excellent defenders and a couple of attackers, what exactly did the Dutch do to distinguish their play as " better" soccer?  How can you justify that statement when Holland had one shot on goal? By the way Frank, I have been around for a long time having been one of the founders of the Florida Youth Soccer Association. Most of my life was spent in South Florida where I coached and saw many Hispanic teams playing beautiful soccer and losing to more athletic teams. There is nothing that you can say to convince me that the Dutch played better soccer than the US team. Comparable at times in some respects, but hardly a better playing team.  There was not as much of a difference in athletic ability between the teams as you have continuously implied. The American goals and many shots on goal were not due to out running or being more physical than the Dutch. Yes, there were more balls played in the air by the American team but they had little choice when the Dutch chose to entrench themselves in their side of the field clogging all of the middle lanes.

Seth Vieux replied, July 9, 2019 at 1:27 a.m.

Wasting your time Aristides. Would love to hear which of the 11 Dutch women are better at their roles than their American counterparts? Keeper? Maybe? What style or facet of the game did the Dutch outperform the Americans? They sure didn’t show that ‘74 Gegenpressing! American women by a comfortable margin were better dribblers (name one Dutch woman you’d rather have on the ball ahead of Heath or Lavelle), better at possessing the ball, better passers, better movement off the ball, and stronger defenders postionally and in tackling. Light years better at finishing in the final 3rd. But yes, let’s rebrand the USWNT style of play before Mal Pugh and the next generation step right in for Lloyd and Rapinoe enroute to another Cup in 4 years

Seth Vieux replied, July 9, 2019 at 1:27 a.m.

Wasting your time Aristides. Would love to hear which of the 11 Dutch women are better at their roles than their American counterparts? Keeper? Maybe? What style or facet of the game did the Dutch outperform the Americans? They sure didn’t show that ‘74 Gegenpressing! American women by a comfortable margin were better dribblers (name one Dutch woman you’d rather have on the ball ahead of Heath or Lavelle), better at possessing the ball, better passers, better movement off the ball, and stronger defenders postionally and in tackling. Light years better at finishing in the final 3rd. But yes, let’s rebrand the USWNT style of play before Mal Pugh and the next generation step right in for Lloyd and Rapinoe enroute to another Cup in 4 years

Seth Vieux replied, July 9, 2019 at 1:27 a.m.

Wasting your time Aristides. Would love to hear which of the 11 Dutch women are better at their roles than their American counterparts? Keeper? Maybe? What style or facet of the game did the Dutch outperform the Americans? They sure didn’t show that ‘74 Gegenpressing! American women by a comfortable margin were better dribblers (name one Dutch woman you’d rather have on the ball ahead of Heath or Lavelle), better at possessing the ball, better passers, better movement off the ball, and stronger defenders postionally and in tackling. Light years better at finishing in the final 3rd. But yes, let’s rebrand the USWNT style of play before Mal Pugh and the next generation step right in for Lloyd and Rapinoe enroute to another Cup in 4 years

frank schoon replied, July 9, 2019 at 10:13 a.m.

Aristidis, your statement <"what exactly did the Dutch do to distinguish their play as " better" soccer?">  is the third time you have come up with something  that I somehow asserted. Where did I state that the Dutch played better. It is very difficult arguing with a person who pulls things out of the air then attributes  to what I supposedly said, therefore this will be my last to post for  I don't want to waste time on more none entities, but I will try to answer  a couple of thing you brought up. 
Your statement<"  saw many Hispanic teams playing beautiful soccer and losing to more athletic teams.">. proves my point that you don't necessarily have to play better brand of soccer to win. BINGO!!
So lets take it take it to the next step. The better teams, France, Holland ,England, USA, some others  play have the same quality level of play, in other words there is good parity between the teams. The only difference between them is perhaps an individual star but that has nothing to do with the overal quality of play between the teams.  Therefore the winner will not win because they are so superior in their style and high level of quality of play. It is not like Santos with Pele coming over here like back in the early 70's to show you how to really play this game. Next post



frank schoon replied, July 9, 2019 at 10:15 a.m.


Aristides,There are other factors that come  into play for there is so much parity between the teams. Factors like injuries, rest, depth of players, luck, or it just wasn't our day, lets say.
On depth the US has it over other teams, I'm sure our second team could have performed decently in this tournament . The Dutch had no depth, they usually had one sub which came in around 60min. They had a front line of which the left wing had a foot injury but did try to perform. The whole front line of the Dutch was a gone basically except for the centerforward who basically was on her own and that is why couldn't even muster an attack; and furthermore the front line had no support for the Dutch were hoping to at least get a chance during the game to score.
With this in mind, having played overtime and with one less day of rest, the team with no depth unable to replace the injured left wing, and starting with a sub on the right wing, the dutch knew the only chance they had was to play a defensive game, thwart the coming onslaught. And that is what it was, for lets face it the championship game was really played against France not Holland for they were in no condition.
This game wasn't like Santos coming over here and showing how to really play this game at a higher level for here the better teams had a good parity but the difference would be due to other factors, more so.
That is why I stated  Holland got beat by the stronger team not by the better soccer playing team like my Santos analogy.

Bob Ashpole replied, July 9, 2019 at 12:16 p.m.

It is an error to assme that "not A" means "B" must be true.

Saying that A is "not a better playing team than B" doesn't mean the B plays better than A.

My disappointment in Holland and Spain was that they were playing like the US when I had hoped that they would play more like what their nation's best men's teams did.

I definitely don't want our WNT team to play like our best men's teams of the past--I want them to play better soccer than that. I assume that our former MNT players would say the same.

frank schoon replied, July 9, 2019 at 2:13 p.m.

Bob, Damn , You come in and cleaned it up for me in couple of sentences....Look at the time I spend writing all this stuff. It had nothing to do with soccer itself ,but witha little use logic...Inductive perhaps.  :)

frank schoon replied, July 9, 2019 at 2:19 p.m.

Seth, maybe if you read my explanation than you and Aristides will better begin to understand what i was saying. Bob understood.

R2 Dad, July 7, 2019 at 10:16 p.m.

Great win, great run of games for the USWNT. Our player pool was deeper than any other, and Ellis made adjustments against France that earned her respect (Diacre said she had never seen a back 5 from us before, and thus wasn't expected). We beat all the top teams with the exception of Germany, so it's hard to imagine USSF changing anything going forward. But Frank brought up an interesting issue--do the Nats re-sign Jill Ellis for another 4 years? Can she change? Will USSF insist we change? Or will USSF conclude the opposite; that the men's form follow that of the women because something something winning?

Reply

frank schoon replied, July 7, 2019 at 10:57 p.m.

R2, we have a chance to initiate a whole new program that entails a  serious leap in the level of style of play. We have everything that we as far innate athletic ability ,game experience at big tournaments, power, speed. What we need is more cerebral, smarter technical style of game requires more thinking, positional, 3rd man off the ball play and a sophisticated built up, all of which we don’t have. It would make our women more complete as players.
Or we continue what we are doing and live off  those laurels and just allow the competition to grow in their game for they will be teaching that in due course.  
The dutch striker Wiedeman, although I thought she didn’t play well and needs to pick her game up a notch ,she showed some skills , very nuanced and subtle that our girls don’t have, which tells me someone is working with her.   
We can’t not keep coasting on high octane,with power and plenty of depth. We won the cup now let’s pick it up a notch. Can you imagine , for example , hiring the Brazilian Zico and some his people to coach our girls or some other great people in the coaching world. This particular World Cup is big PR for women soccer and we better take advantage of this.....

stewart hayes, July 8, 2019 at 2:22 a.m.

Fair result today.  The scoreboard could have been 10-1 if all the shots saved had not been.  I was unhappy to see us employing negative stalling tactics in the corners to close out the game.  It was an ugly ending to an entertaining game.  I think against England we did it for a full 7 minutes.  Do we lack any creativity?  Was I the only one begging for some subs 10 minutes earlier?  Some nice through balls by the Dutch, I hope we learn from them.  I enjoyed the game with some folks from Rapinoe's hometown.  You never know when the kid who starts in your league will end up in a world cup.  So my hat is off to the thousands who volunteer and in some small way help make that possible.  We all are winners today.        

Reply

frank schoon replied, July 8, 2019 at 12:24 p.m.

Philip, I was never into heading myself. I would only head the ball if it came  right at me and I can headed into goal or make pass out of it. But to go up for a head ball not knowing where it will go, or to whom it will go, is to me total STUPIDITY. Worse ,at midfield how can professionals  be even so stupid and unaware of jumping up in the air and  clueless of not knowing where the ball will go..
If I do go up it is not to head the ball but making it more difficult for the opponent but certainly not to beat him in heading. You'd be surprised how players win a header at midfield and the other team gets. It is like throw-ins, I never argue on the throw for I that it is a 50-50 chance the other team ends up with the ball anyway...

Philip Carragher, July 8, 2019 at 10:46 a.m.

I watched a decent amount of this game and didn't find myself thinking that there was undue or overt physicality. I just thought it was soccer. I coach/teach a co-ed Catholic middle school team and promote toughness in my players, all of them. My best team had four or five travel-soccer-playing girls that were often the toughest players on the field; one game, the opposing coach yelled at me to get my girls to "play more ladylike". I love telling that story. Fortunately we usually had a Serbian ref who judged their play as tough but legal. That said, I am concerned as well with what FS mentioned about clashing heads: I wish coaches and parents would refrain from asking their kids to be overagressive, especially with headers. Most of my players haven't been through puberty (neck/shoulder muscles not very strong) so I tell everyone that I will not insist they head a ball. Some may not agree with that, or this, but when on the sidelines in 90 degree humidity listening to a parent implore a defender who is looking into the sun and watching a long, high goalie punt coming at him/her to head it, I think, "You (the parent) go head it". I wouldn't want to head it and didn't want to back in my playing days (even with my hard Irish head). My guess is these national team players are so amped-up about headers that they think "any header is a good header". I disagree with that. Protect the head.

Reply

frank schoon replied, July 8, 2019 at 12:25 p.m.

Philip, I replied to you right above you

Nick Gabris, July 8, 2019 at 11:32 a.m.

My MVP...R. Lavelle & Dahlkemper! It was a good exciting game. The one issue that kept bugging me during the game was when T. Keith had the ball, seems she always dribbles unnecessarily (showing off?) and loosing the ball, when she needs to pass or shoot on goal. She would be a better player if she were more team oriented. share the ball.

Reply

Bob Ashpole replied, July 8, 2019 at 2:41 p.m.

If you had said "sometimes" instead of "always" I would not have replyed. A winger's primary job in the attacking third is drawing defenders which creates space elsewhere. Dribbling does that. So when you see Heath dribble until 3 defenders are on her, she is just doing her job. Wingers only have low percentage opportunities to shoot, unless they dribble inside. When a team penetrates with long vertical passes like the US, often the winger has to dribble to maintain possession while waiting for teammates to catch up. 

Seth Vieux replied, July 8, 2019 at 7:22 p.m.

Bob is dead on. In fact late in the game Heath held the ball but dribbled slowly to allow her teammates to join the attack when she surely should have just taken the defender on 1v1 and finished herself.

Comment Read more comments >

Next story loading