Author: RJ Allen

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 18

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 18: Matchday 12

Jamaica 1 – 4 Australia

Italy 0 – 1 Brazil

It was a day for chaos. While it didn’t end up quite as bonkers as it could have possibly gone, it was still a thrilling day, with goals pouring in and positions changing several times.

Ultimately, Australia got the goals they needed to haul down Brazil’s edge in goal difference, thanks to a Sam Kerr scoring spree, and were able to ride the ‘goals scored’ tiebreaker into second place. That’s potentially a big difference, since this pits them against Norway in the round of 16, rather than Germany or France – which is who Brazil will now be stuck playing.

I had the Jamaica-Australia game on my other screen and only paid it minimal attention, so I can only speak in the broadest strokes. But once again, Australia looked fragile basically everywhere except their center forward. But when your center forward is Sam Kerr, it can paper over a lot of deficiencies. I certainly wouldn’t bet on them to go far in the tournament on the evidence of their three group stage games, but I also have learned that it’s rarely wise to bet against teams who have Sam Kerr.

Jamaica got their goal, and perhaps even more importantly, turned in a high quality performance. They certainly could have done more to deny Kerr on several of the goals, but in terms of overall play, they looked legitimately solid. They didn’t get any points, but that really shouldn’t be the measure of their tournament. As I think I said back in the winter when talking about this team with Ana De Souza on the on the Futbol Ace podcast, they were put into a very tough group, and it was always going to be tough. But they played well, and should definitely be proud.

In the day’s other game, which I watched far more closely, Brazil came away 1-0 winners, which is probably a mildly flattering result on the evidence of the whole game, but certainly not unfair. Italy were the better team in the first half – though both teams had very good chances – but came out pretty flat to open the second half. With Brazil pushing more and more aggressively, it only felt like a matter of time before they scored.  And then they did, though it came on one of the softer penalties you’re likely to see. I don’t think it was clearly wrong, but Debinha fell very easily, and the play looked far more to me like a standard shoulder-to-shoulder play.

Then came the penalty itself. After the recent controversies, everyone paid close attention to the question of encroachment here. But, not enough attention to actually do anything about it, apparently.

Brazil played…well enough today. But it wasn’t a particularly impressive performance. And given their date with either Germany or France, they’ll need to be far better (or extremely lucky) if they hope to go any further than the round of 16.

Meanwhile Italy definitely showed that they aren’t a fluke, but also showed that they’ll probably end up the weakest of the group winners. Bonansea had a fabulous game, and Girelli was excellent as well, but their other attacking options looked overmatched and their wide defenders looked extremely exploitable. Brazil didn’t do nearly enough to capitalize, but it’s hard to see Italy being able to cope with some of the truly deadly wingers in this tournament.

Notes

– I tweeted about this during the games today, but the number of obvious and flagrant rules violations that happen in every game stands as a categorical rebuke to the argument that ‘the referees are required to enforce the letter of the law.’ When it comes to things like players preventing quick free kicks (an automatic booking according to the laws of the game), keepers holding the ball for more than six seconds, players cheating wildly on throw-ins, etc. the referees let things slide. They could also let it slide when keepers come one inch off the line if they wanted. It’s a choice not to do so. Whether you like that choice or not, it is a choice.

– At the end of Italy-Brazil, we were treated to the bizarre scenario where Italy were losing the game but assured of winning the group if they just kept it at 1-0. But instead of trying to kill off the game and preserve their group victory, they continued to fly forward searching for an equalizer. It was really fun to watch, particularly because it’s so antithetical to the attitude we’d expect from the Italian men’s team.

– I’ve been a huge Jamaica fan since I saw them in qualifying last fall, and I’m thrilled they found a goal. I wish they could have scored some more, but I think they should be proud of what they accomplished. This team effectively didn’t exist two years ago, and even nine months ago were a haphazard group of individuals trying to learn to play together. They built a genuine team, and I really hope that lasts. I wouldn’t want to bet on the Jamaican Football Federation giving them the support they deserve, but I hope their supporters can do enough to hold all the suits’ feet to the fire and force them to do what’s right.

– Featured image is from the Jardin du Luxembourg, which was very nice, but did not have the children’s playground that was anticipated. Fortunately, my friend’s kid is extremely chill and had plenty of fun digging around in a sandpit. 

Tomorrow’s action

I’ll be previewing Group E over at Stars and Stripes FC, so look for a post there tomorrow morning. The tl;dr is that Japan, Scotland, and Argentina all need to win. Draws do nothing useful for them. England can top the group with a draw, but after two unconvincing performances, they’re going to want to get everything clicking. So in theory we should be treated to a couple cracking games.

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 17

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 17: Matchday 1

China 0 – 0 Spain

I was hoping against hope this would turn out to be an exciting game. Instead, it played mostly as expected, with Spain trying somewhat fruitlessly to score and China trying somewhat effectively to earn the scoreless draw that advanced them to the next round and protected them from the United States.

But it wasn’t quite as dull as that sounds. Spain couldn’t score, but they did actually create quite a bit. They had a period of about twenty minutes in the first half when they were totally in control, and building very coherently and effectively down the left side. It didn’t produce any goals, but they came close enough to feel pretty good about their approach. Things quieted down significantly to start the second half, as they succumbed to their usual tendency to pass and dribble themselves into oblivion rather than just taking a shot. But with the final twenty minutes they came back to life a bit, and actually put quite a significant amount of pressure on China. In the end, it didn’t produce any goals, but that was more to do with an outstanding performance from Peng Shimeng in China’s goal. But on another day, Spain could have won this 2-0 or 3-0.

What to make of all that really depends on what you think Spain’s fundamental problem is. If it’s a general lack of self confidence and belief, a 0-0 result against a pretty mediocre China team wasn’t the thing to unlock their potential. But if it’s an inability to actually take the shots that would turn all that possession into something useful, well they did actually demonstrate some progress here. That’s something they can build on.

Of course, there’s also a third problem, which is that Spain also suffers from the basic lack of a clinical finisher. They can create plenty but there’s never anyone there to put them away. And there frankly isn’t really anything they can do about that.

For China, this is pretty much the exact result they wanted. And they got it without doing much to hinder their chances in the round of 16. I anticipated a more physical performance from them, really looking to get in Spain’s faces (and shins, to be honest) and make life difficult. But they mostly didn’t play that way. Presumably, it’s because that style requires a lot of work, and they didn’t want to burn the energy. And that style also exposes you to a lot of risk of bookings – which could trigger suspensions of key players.

So instead they backed off, defended a bit deeper, and just hoped that they could hold out. It was actually quite surprising to see them play a fairly lackadaisical style, since energy and athleticism is kind of their whole thing. But it worked, albeit with a bit of luck.

None of this is to suggest that China was actively trying to throw the game. They were attacking, just not a whole lot, and not in any significant numbers. If one of the chances had gone in, I’m sure they would have celebrated a big win over a good team and taken their lumps in the knockout stage. But this was clearly not a team trying everything they could to win a game.

South Africa 0 – 4 Germany

I only caught tiny glimpses of this one, since it was on simultaneously with the China-Spain game. But from what I saw, Germany dominated, and maybe shut up a few of the critics who had started wondering if they were actually any good. At the same time, this was a rotated South Africa side, so Germany certainly should have been expected to dominate, so one doesn’t want to read too much into it.

They’ll certainly be happy to have notched a few more goals for some key players, but the really important thing is that they topped their group with the full 9 points, and secured themselves a spot on the other side of the bracket from the top two teams in the world. Well, probably. It does still depend on the US not losing to Sweden.

For South Africa, this wasn’t the final result they’d have hoped for, but for a first-time team in a very tough group, there were plenty of positives here. A great goal in their first game and a hard-fought game against China are both fantastic points to build from.

As with many new entrants to the tournament, it remains an open question whether this will actually be a foundation on which more support can be layered, or whether their institutions will let them down and the team will fail to scale these heights again.  We’re all certainly hoping for the former.

Nigeria 0 – 1 France

South Korea 1 – 2 Norway

I couldn’t watch either of these games because I was on a train with no wifi coming back from Le Havre. From what I can tell, they both more or less went according to expectations, with France dominating but unable to find a goal, and with a fairly even game between South Korea and Norway.

The big controversy was obviously the penalty that determined the game in Nigeria-France. I haven’t seen anything but screen shots, but this is yet another example of the problem we’ve been discussing ad nauseum. The rules of soccer are not well-equipped for the burdens we are placing upon them, and it’s causing a lot of problems. I won’t dwell any further on the point now, but it’s absolutely something we’re going to need to come back to again.

These results put France through in first place, as we all expected, meaning that they have fulfilled their part of the bargain and slotted themselves in place to set up that quarterfinal showdown with the US. They’ll still have to get through the round of 16, of course, and the US may yet slip elsewhere. But it’s looking more and more likely.

Norway are through in second place, and booked a round of 16 match against which of Australia, Italy, and Brazil finishes second in Group C.

And Nigeria have been very hard done-by. The rules have been followed, but in text far more than spirit. And now they’ll have to wait on results in other groups to see if they will advance. They still have a good chance, though not a great one. They are behind China, and will almost certainly trail whoever finishes third in Group C. That means they need two of the following three things to happen:

  • A draw in Scotland-Argentina
  • A draw in Cameroon-New Zealand, or a 1-0 victory for New Zealand
  • Chile to win by two goals or less, or draw, or lose (unless they lose by 15 goals)

These are predicated on the assumption (which I think is accurate) that would lose on the fair play tiebreaker if they end up equal on points, goal difference, and goals scored with any of these teams. But yeah, it’s a complicated process, and I’m sure the next couple days will not be fun for the Super Falcons.

Notes

– This was another great game from Mapi León, the Spanish center back who is a boatload of fun to watch play. Her aggressive ball-playing from the back would be incredibly dangerous on many teams, but it really works for Spain who love having an extra body in the midfield to start attacks. And she had quite a few excellent defensive stops and clearances that cut out potentially dangerous attacks. I called her out as a player to watch in my Group B preview and I’m feeling pretty good about that one.  

– I commented on this during the game, but one major issue with the China-Spain match is the system in which 16/24 teams advance. It’s an inelegant setup, and one which makes it a little too easy for teams to advance. Any system is going to end up with dead rubber matches, or games where both teams are happy with a draw, but they’re more common when three-quarters of a group can advance. The worldwide dispersal of talent probably isn’t there yet to truly justify going to 32 teams, but I’m not sure it would be that big of a drop, and 32 is the obvious, objectively correct size for a tournament. Again, the talent probably isn’t there yet, so you’d likely end up with a bunch of groups with the top two teams both beating the bottom two teams and going through easily, which would hardly be more interesting. But I don’t think we’re that far away from this being a reasonable move.

Tomorrow’s action

Two games tomorrow, which will sort out the fate of Group C. This is certainly the most volatile group, with real potential for any of the top three teams to finish in any order.

  • Jamaica – Australia. Jamaica are pretty much only playing for pride at this point, with no realistic path to the knockout rounds. But there has been a lot of positives so far, and they do have a foundation to build from. Australia will be looking to win, and win big. They could still top the group, and secure a spot in the easier half of the bracket, but it would take a big win, and some luck in the day’s other game.
  • Italy – Brazil. Italy have been potentially my favorite team of the tournament so far, and this will be another test for them. Any result and they top the group. Even a one-goal loss would potentially be enough, since Australia would need to score five on Jamaica to pass them. But a two-goal loss would drop them below the Brazilians, and could even leave them stuck in third place.

If I had to guess, Italy-Brazil feels like a draw, leaving Italy to top the group, Australia to finish second, and Brazil third. But I really wouldn’t be surprised at any order here.

 

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 16

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 16: Matchday 10

Sweden 5 – 1 Thailand

Sweden get the three points, as expected, and pretty easily in the process. This group is very strange, with both of the big teams having faced incredibly weak opposition in their first two games. Everyone else is a week or more into a serious tournament, while the US and Sweden are still out there on the training ground. I don’t know if that will end up mattering, but it’s certainly peculiar.

Sweden will be happy to see some of their important attackers open their accounts, and in convincing fashion as well. They ‘only’ got five (and the fifth was a literal last-second VAR handball penalty). But there were a couple very nice goals in the mix.

Again, it’s Thailand, so don’t read too much into into, but for a Swedish side that often looks ponderous despite having a lot of theoretical firepower, a few nice goals are a good segue into their big match against the US. They’ll be much happier with their first half performance, but even the second half saw a few very nice moves – especially the 4th goal which was just about the perfect example of how to create space out wide and then execute a thumping header.

For Thailand, this was another frustrating game, but one with some genuine positives to take away. They put up far more opposition this time around – actually making some threatening attacks, and doing a bit more to disrupt play, especially in the second half. And they were rewarded with a genuinely deserved goal at the end. 

The first half was better than last time, but still exhibited many of the fundamental problems that had plagued them against the US: physical deficiencies and a lack of technique, combined with a frankly bizarre approach to the game. Repeatedly, they lingered on the ball and were dispossessed, or tried a low percentage pass which obviously went awry, rather than a safer play that would have allowed them to regroup a bit. It genuinely seemed to me like they were a team that had never faced opposition that were better than them, and how no idea how to adapt. They were continuing to play like you would against inferior opponents, and then getting stomped by Sweden when it didn’t come off.

It may have been the halftime talk, nerves finally settling a bit, or something else, but when they came out for the second half they finally looked like the team we had expected going into the tournament. Still the worse team in many ways, but with a far more coherent approach to the game. The defensive shape was more solid, covering players started backing up the first line of defense, and they even started winning some tackles. And when they got the ball, there was a bit more clarity, with players starting to pick their heads up and assess, rather than dribbling into a sea of Swedish defenders or sending an aimless pass away to no one.

Dropping Miranda Nild into the midfield made a big difference here. She wasn’t a particularly good defender one-on-one, but she did a lot to occupy space. And she got much more time on the ball – where she was a critical calming presence. The same can be said of Silawan Intamee, who put in a real shift today, and did a huge amount to buy her team some breathing room. And of course the goal-scorer Kanjana Sung-Ngoen, who kept making those runs all game, and was finally rewarded at the end.

I’m now thoroughly invested in the Thailand Redemption Arc, so I hope their final match against Chile is at least competitive. If they can play like they did in the second half, it should be.

USA 3 – 0 Chile

This was another dominant performance from the United States. They scored 10 fewer goals, but a huge part of that is the difference between an almost impossibly bad goalkeeping performance in the Thailand game and an almost impossibly good performance from Christiane Endler today. Chile also put up sterner opposition, of course, but with a different keeper this could easily have been 7-0 or even worse.

The US made a whole host of changes, and with the substitutions, they’ve now given minutes to every single field player, which is a major change from past iterations of the team. Several of the new additions did very well. I’m not sure anyone did enough to play themselves into the starting XI, especially given how much Ellis tends to lock herself into place on that front.

But this game certainly demonstrated that the US can handle some necessary rotation in the frontline. Christen Press was phenomenal out wide, which actually isn’t anything new – she’s really grown into the wide role a lot in the past couple years. But this was maybe the best she’s played there, and a clear demonstration that she can be a fantastic creative force out wide, as well as a serious goal-scoring threat. If not for Endler standing on her head, Press would have had a brace, maybe more.  In the middle, Carli Lloyd got two goals and was once again dangerous. It didn’t seem like she was really up for 90 minutes at full throttle, but it remains abundantly clear that Lloyd is not here as a token gesture. She remains a deadly player in the attack who will absolutely contribute going forward. And then there’s Jess McDonald, who earned her first World Cup minutes, and nearly got a goal in the process. McDonald’s story is truly wonderful, and I hope to discuss it more in a piece coming later.

Further back, Morgan Brian looked good, and even more important: she seemed to grow into the game. Her first half was fine, but her second half was truly impressive. With Ertz lifted, Brian occupied a deeper holding role, and did so with distinction, controlling play, spraying passes, and generally making it impossible for Chile to do much of anything on the rare occasions when they got the ball. It’s been a long, hard road back for Brian, but she’s here, and showed today that it’s not just a legacy thing. She played very well. And you could tell a similar story about Ali Krieger, who seemed far far away from the national team just a few months ago. But tonight she played 90 minutes and more than held her own in the process.

So what is there to ultimately make of all this? Well, to be completely honest, probably not that much. All we really learned is that the B team is also excellent, and they all appear to be primed to contribute whenever they’re called on. That’s hugely important, but it’s not really news. Beyond that, the US thoroughly outplayed Chile, surprising no one. But the unfortunate reality is that these were more training senses than true matches. The next five games are the real World Cup, and until we see how the US fares in higher stakes matches, we can’t really say anything for sure.

Notes

Before the tournament I tweeted:

I was thinking about that today, and celebrating just how much I’ve learned over the course of this tournament. How many names that were entirely unfamiliar but who are now on the tip of my tongue. How many teams I now understand far better. How many stories I have now heard.

And then multiply by by a thousand, by ten thousand, by a million. How many people before today knew about Endler? And how many more will now remember this performance forever? Think about how many games Kanjana Sung-Ngoen has played in her career, how many goals she’s scored, that went almost entirely unnoticed. And then think about how many people around the world celebrated with her today.

And then think about just how much more there still is for all of us to learn. 

It’s truly wonderful to be a part of it. I hope you’re all enjoying it as much as me.

Tomorrow’s action

  • China – Spain. This will be a really tricky one. Both are on three points and are just about through, no matter the result. But a 2-0 or 3-0 could still leave them potentially vulnerable to being overtaken for that last 3rd place slot. The additional complicating factor is that it’s almost certainly preferable to finish 3rd in this group rather than second. The runner-up will probably play the US, while the 3rd place team will play someone much worse. Spain are currently ‘winning’ the tiebreaker, so a draw would leave them second. Top-level teams are never going to throw a game, but it can certainly influence tactical setup. Basically, expect China to play for an aggressive 0-0 draw.
  • South Africa – Germany. South Africa are all but eliminated, and Germany are virtually certain to finish top of the group. Germany need at least a point here to ensure they don’t get stuck playing the US, so they’re not going to take it easy, but I don’t expect a full-scale assault. This feels like a comfortable 2-0 to Germany.
  • Nigeria – France. A point would guarantee Nigeria a spot in the knockout stage, while a narrow loss would leave them in decent shape, but needing results elsewhere to go their way. On sheer quality, France should win this comfortably. But they don’t need much from this game and several of their key players are banged up, so will probably rest. That could give Nigeria some space.
  • South Korea – Norway. South Korea are all but eliminated and would to win by 2 or 3 goals to even have a chance. That’s unlikely, though certainly not impossible. But more realistically, they’re playing for pride here. On the other side, Norway could lose this game and still probably finish second, though they obviously prefer to win and lock that down.

I’ll be in Le Havre to see China v. Spain. I hope it’s fascinating, though I fear it will be a tedious 0-0 where no one does much of anything. Either way, it will likely determine who the US plays in the round of 16 so from an American perspective it will certainly be worth watching.

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 15

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 15: Matchday 9

Netherlands 3 – 1 Cameroon

This was an ugly, ugly game. Lots of fouls, poor refereeing, plenty of bizarre unexplained stoppages, along with poor touches and poor tackles from just about everyone. It did produce four goals, three of which were nicely worked, and remained close for most of the game. For those reasons, I’ve seen it described as one of the more exciting games in the tournament. But let’s be real folks, this was a terrible game of soccer.

In their first game, the Dutch were reasonably good but couldn’t finish. This time around they were very bad, but were able to finish. I suppose it more or less comes out in the wash, but if I were a Dutch fan I’d be extremely worried about this team. To be more precise, here’s a complete list of players who played well today: 

  1. Vivianne Miedema

This team is ridiculously talented, but at the moment they look about as weak as you can reasonably imagine them looking. Now, they have still managed to acquire six points from six, so maybe it’s just a case of a good team powering through a slow start. But at least so far, we haven’t seen anything remotely like the dazzling side that ripped apart their opponents two years ago in the Euros.

The backline is a major worry. It was a known concern going into the tournament, but has been even worse than expected. Anouk Dekker returned to the starting XI today after serving her suspension, but only brought more chaos, giving the ball away several times in incredibly dangerous areas for no particular reason. Bloodworth scored, but was off the pace all day and was often out of position. 

But it’s more than just the defense. The whole team just looked bad today. They couldn’t connect simple passes. Their touch was bad. They weren’t reading the game well. And despite some significant athletic advantages over Cameroon, they were pushed around quite a bit.

To some extent, this might be an officiating issue, with a referee who failed to keep a grip on the game. But this didn’t feel like China v. Germany, where the overall combativeness was in service of some larger tactical agenda. This was just a very snippy game that didn’t need to be.

For Cameroon, they were realistically never going to get much from two games against Canada and the Dutch. To hold their goal difference to just -3 over those two matches absolutely gives them a fighting chance. Beat New Zealand and they’ll be in the running for a berth in the knockout round. 

Canada 2 – 0 New Zealand

An exceptionally dull game, defined by one team that was entirely willing to let the other side attack, and an opposition that probed and probed and probed and probed, but lacked the technical ability to produce much of anything in the process. Canada did generate two goals, which is 100% more than I expected, so that does count for something. But this really just felt like exactly the result you’d expect from these two teams.

It was interesting to see Canada adapt fairly quickly. Once it became apparent just how deep New Zealand were going to set up – and that they were going to keep two forwards – coach Kenneth Heiner-Møller shifted his team shape significantly, dropping Schmidt into the central defense, allowing the fullbacks to operate as midfielders. They played most of the game in a 3-1-4-2, and were never really troubled in the process. It was a breath of fresh air in a tournament with exceptionally little tactical innovation.

For Canada, this was a job done. The results on the day do mean that they’ll need to beat the Netherlands to take top spot in the group, since the Dutch now hold the tiebreaker. But it’s not especially clear that it matters who wins the group – either way, you play a 2nd place team from another group in the round of 16. The only caveat here is that the runners-up could theoretically face the US if Sweden were to somehow beat them in the final game of the group stage, which is an eventuality you probably want to protect yourself from.

Canada remain a thoroughly limited team, but it’s hard to argue with results. No one much enjoys watching a team with talented players grind out results, but the reality is there just isn’t enough talent here to actually play some of the top teams in the tournament. So they’ve decided to lean into functionality, and hope for a thunderbolt now and again to generate a goal. It’s certainly worked so far, but we can see how it works against the Dutch before drawing any more conclusions.

Notes

– By my count, there were eight teams entering the tournament that felt like plausible title contenders. Of those, Australia and the Dutch have looked awful, Germany has struggled, Japan couldn’t do anything against Argentina and England only looked somewhat better. Canada has looked very professional and very dull, which seems to be their game plan, so we can call that a neutral result. But only the US and France have truly impressed.

I wouldn’t want to over-interpret the results from a tiny set of games, but it’s possible the two favorites deserve to be even heavier favorites than we once thought.

– I once again subjected myself to the Fox commentary for the Canada game and…it astonishes me that people being paid to talk about soccer on a major national broadcast can exhibit so little interest in actually describing what’s going on in the soccer game they’re ostensibly covering.

– As planned, I took the afternoon to wander around the Musée de l’Orangerie, which was really lovely. I’m a big fan of Monet, so the huge panels of water lilies were great, but I also really liked the other exhibits downstairs. Obviously, hit up the Louvre, Pompidou, and d’Orsay first, but if you have time for more, strong recommendation.

Tomorrow’s action

  • Sweden – Thailand. Based on their first game, no one will be expecting anything from Thailand. And while Sweden are not on the level of the US, they’re still quite good, so it’s quite likely we see another lopsided result. Still, Thailand were subjected to an epically bad goalkeeping performance last time, so if they change keepers (or remind Charoenying that she’s allowed to use her hands), it should be less of a bulldozing. 
  • USA – Chile. See above. Unlike Thailand, Chile have a world class keeper, so will not give away goals nearly so cheaply. But it would be an epic shock if the US failed to win this game. Expect something on the order of 4-0. Maybe tighter, but also maybe much worse. The one big question is whether the US rotates, and if so, how much. Ellis doesn’t like doing it, but it’s a short tournament and probably would be wise.

 

 

Coming out of the World Cup Break: No, this isn’t the 2018 Orlando Pride

Posted on by RJ Allen

Starting the second half on the National Women’s Soccer League from the World Cup break the Orlando Pride look to shake off the doldrums of starting this season without a win. Has this been a carryover from the end of the 2018 season which was rough goings for the Orlando Pride?

The team underachieved last year and played itself out of playoff contention as the Pride dropped points until the bitter end of the season. There was a cloud of general malaise hanging over the team which led to the parting of the ways with Coaches Tom Sermanni and Khano Smith. The organization also replaced the general manager which lead to a mostly stagnant off-season.

A new chapter in team history began with the appointment of a new general manager and the hire of Marc Skinner from Birmingham City Women’s FC, a club which has held firmly to fourth on the Women’s Super League table against the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City, and Arsenal.

Coach Skinner has a difficult task of instilling a new system in a three-week long preseason with a revolving door for his national team players. Orlando only had all of its players together in camp the Thursday before the first match. Compounding the challenge is the schedule of the fixtures to start the season.

The results haven’t come, but the performance on the pitch has progressively gotten better. The core players have demonstrated some of the ball and player movement Skinner is looking to instill in Orlando; however, the touch in the final third has still left the team lacking.

Beyond the results on the field, Orlando has evolved its organizational structure. First, the club appointed team-specific general manager, Erik Ustruck, who is focused on adding players Skinner hopes will increase the level of quality on the squad; such as, with the signing of Scottish international Claire Emslie while allowing the head coach to concentrate on tactics, player development, and game planning for opponents. In addition, the club has committed to the future of the Pride as the team announcement stated, “…first-ever customized, exclusive training facility…tailored to and used only by a women’s team.” While the future appears bright, currently all Orlando is looking for is the first win at Houston against the Dash. The last meeting was won by Houston on an early Kealia Ohai goal which stood up to get the three points.

The obvious key to victory for the Pride comes down to the fundamentals. Players have to find their finishing boots because the offense for Orlando has been awful. The only two goals scored by the team thus far have come from a center back on a set piece. Things haven’t worked out from the run of play. In regards to his side and the preparation for the match Marc Skinner said, “We’ve got to get to a point where we can play anybody. I’m happy with the progress, not the results I will say that, but we’re happy with the progress that the players are showing. If we can limit the mistakes and make the other team make more mistakes we’ll be in a good place.”

Even though signs are pointing to a season for a rebuild, the serious work for that won’t be done until after this year. Until then, the players on the roster will attempt to demonstrate to Skinner they belong in his long-term plans. No excuses on national team players being absent, the players remaining should show progress in their development and bloom. The real question is will this be enough to move Orlando up the standings in the league?  



Women’s World Cup Daily – June 14

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 14: Matchday 8

Japan 2 – 1 Scotland

It’s almost bizarre how closely this game tracked with Scotland’s first match. Once again they fell behind 2-0 in the first half, partly due to a somewhat questionable penalty. Once again they finally found some attacking venom in the final twenty minutes, and did enough to get a consolation goal back, despite looking extremely leggy. Once again they were furious about the refereeing.

In the end, 2-1 was a pretty fair result. Japan were by far the better team for most of the game, but weren’t able to translate it into as much attacking success as they would have liked. And while their light pressing was enough to frustrate Scotland for most of the game, the defense broke down a bit toward the end.

Scotland can deservedly feel a little hard done by, with several decisions going against them. The penalty is a great example of something RJ Allen brought up in our pre-World Cup episode of The 123rd Minute – an NWSL player who is not ready for the stricter refereeing at this tournament. Rachel Corsie does this exact thing multiple times per game every weekend for the Utah Royals, and no one bats an eye. And even on the international level, it was a soft penalty. But the reality is that if you put your hands on an attacker in the box – particularly if you do it high up on the body rather than down at the waist – you’re opening yourself up to a penalty.

Later in the game, Scotland seemed to earn a penalty of their own, after kicking the ball off a Japanese player’s arm in the box. It’s precisely the sort of thing that shouldn’t be a penalty, but which have been repeatedly called according to the new interpretation of the rule.

In either case, you could absolutely go either way. It just happened to be the case that both decisions went against Scotland. For them and their fans, that will be absolutely infuriating.

The Scottish team probably didn’t ‘deserve’ a result on the night, given the overall balance of play. But while it often felt like Japan was on the verge of adding more, they only actually managed the one goal from open play. So if those two decisions had merely evened out, Scotland very easily could have earned a point here.

Even without that point, they have a decent chance of making the knockout stage. It will take beating Argentina, of course, but they’ve kept their goal difference very tight, which is the key thing. If they can actually get the three points, they’ll go through.

Japan haven’t technically qualified yet, but for all practical purposes they have. They looked much better today than they did against Argentina, and seem very much like a team who will play to the level of their opposition. There’s no realistic chance of them winning four straight games to win the tournament. But I certainly wouldn’t want to play them in a knockout game.

Jamaica 0 – 5 Italy

Going into the tournament, Italy were generally regarded by casual fans as a random European team who probably couldn’t be written off, and by more knowledgeable folks like Yours Truly as a team with ‘Potential, Who Aren’t There Yet.’ And then a few genuinely knowledgeable people (everyone is following Sophie Lawson, right?) popped up a hand and said ‘well, they might actually be there already.’

Folks, they’re here already.

I’ve been lucky enough to see them in person twice, and they might just be my favorite team in the whole tournament so far.

No, this Jamaica team is among the weaker teams here. But that’s a relative matter. They’re still pretty good. And Italy played them exceptionally well, and more than deserved a lopsided result, even if there were some peculiar twists and turns along the way.

I’m not really going to get into the penalty save/retake situation, except to say that this is yet another prominent example of the way that the laws of soccer are essentially arbitrary, and ill-suited to the kind of work we expect them to do in the 21st century. Did Schneider come off her line? Yes, by a very small amount. Is this sort of thing called? Almost never. Is it technically a violation? Yes. What are we honestly supposed to do with a system that’s so fundamentally incoherent, which simultaneously claims to measure fouls by a fraction of an inch?

Over the course of the game, Italy showed that they are strong not only in their tactical play – they were masters of occupying space and shutting down passing lanes – but also in their sheer physicality. There was no single player in the Italian backline who could individually handle Bunny Shaw, but as a group they kept her relatively quiet. As the captain Sara Gama noted after the match, Shaw is dangerous because she will shoot from anywhere and with almost no warning. But all those shots were blocked because there were consistently two or three Italians hanging on her shoulder.

And the Italian attack was superb. Admittedly, the Jamaican midfield gave them some room, but it was still marvelous to see them exploit it. And their striking core is proving themselves to be one of the most dangerous in the tournament. And they can find success in so many different ways and from different angles. Barbara Bonansea didn’t add to her goal tally but her link play was excellent. Cristiana Girelli managed a hat trick without any of the three looking particularly impressive. But those things don’t happen by accident. It may look silly to score with your face or to chest in a goal, but it takes being in the right place. Then, substitute Aurora Galli entered the game and produced a wonder strike fitting of a 5-0 victory.

Italy, a team that has not been to the World Cup in two decades, is through to the knockout stage with every chance of topping their group. As Girelli told me after the game: “It’s a kind of magic. I mean, we left from Italy hoping to enjoy first, and then to pass the round. We made it, so we are really happy!”

For Jamaica, this was another frustrating result. They actually played quite well, and almost certainly should have found at least a consolation goal, if not two, in the second half. But the chances didn’t fall. At times, it looked like their urgency overwhelmed them and they tried just a bit too hard – playing faster but not necessarily smarter. But there were huge bright spots. Despite the goal tally, keeper Sydney Schneider put in another solid performance, including the penalty save that was taken away. Shaw couldn’t score, but occupied several Italian defenders all night, and gave her teammates space to work. Mireya Grey was a breathe of fresh air in the attack, while Jody Brown brought tons of energy in the second half. Chinyelu Asher looked dangerous out wide, while Havana Solaun played quite a few dangerous passes. And Deneisha Blackwood put in one hell of a performance at fullback. She was a dynamo, covering huge amounts of space, wrestling off defenders, winning tackles, and generally looking like someone who is impossible to play against. It was the best I’ve ever seen her play, and genuinely thrilling to watch.

England 1 – 0 Argentina

I saw zero minutes of this match, since it coincided exactly with my travels back from Reims. That means I’ve now seen zero minutes total of England. I was really interested in England going into the tournament so it’s weird I still haven’t seen them. And since I’ll be at the Scotland-Argentina match that happens at the same time as their final group stage match, I probably won’t catch much of that either.

It sounds from reports that this was a less successful defensive performance from Argentina, rescued by a show-stopping night from Vanina Correa in goal. Still, it’s incredibly impressive that they’ve gone 180 minutes against two of the top ten teams in the world and only conceded one goal.

Two points could theoretically be enough to advance, if neither New Zealand or Cameroon win a game, and Chile and Thailand. But more realistically, they’ll need a win against Scotland to go through. I wouldn’t say the chances are high there, but it’s certainly a realistic possibility.

The danger is that they’ll have to actually open themselves up a bit to attack, and in doing make it far harder to keep their own goal protected. I’m certainly pulling for them,. As much as I love the Scotland team, it would be a hell of a fun story if Argentina get through.

Notes

– As I mentioned above, I wrote a long piece on the laws of the game, and the problems that VAR is exposing (though not precisely creating). Give it a read, and then read Ian’s response/elaboration which offers a very interesting alternative perspective.

– I am a massive Bunny Shaw fan, but she should have been sent off. Her attempted bicycle kick put a boot directly into Sara Gama’s head. It was lucky that the connection was more glancing than full-on, but just a few inches different and she could be in intensive care right now. It wasn’t intentional, but that’s a red card.

– Kim Little is one of the best players in the world, but she’s having to do too much and it’s really limiting her effectiveness. I don’t know what the right place for her to play is, but it’s probably not holding mid. I understand the impulse to put your best player at a critical hinge, but I think they need to trust someone else to do a job, and take some of the responsibility off Little to shepherd play every single instant.

– I have thoroughly enjoyed riding the trains with fans of the various teams. Props to the Jamaica fans on the 21:12 out of Champagne-Ardenne tonight. Y’all were great.

Tomorrow’s action

  • Netherlands – Cameroon. The Netherlands couldn’t finish in their last match, but given the lethal strikeforce they have at their disposal, there’s no reason to expect that to last. Cameroon were solid against Canada, but this feels like it’s as likely to finish 4-0 or 5-0 to the Dutch as it is for Cameroon to get a result.
  • Canada – New Zealand. These teams are both good at many things, but scoring goals is not one of them. Of course, having said that, maybe it will end up a wild 4-3. I doubt it, though. We’re still in Sinclair watch. Failure to get any against Cameroon makes it much less likely she breaks the record in this tournament, but it’s absolutely still possible.

I’m not going to either of these games. In fact, I’m not traveling anywhere at all. For the first time in the whole tournament, I could just sit on the couch in my Airbnb all day if I wanted. But assuming I can get myself up, I’m going to see some water lilies at the Musée de l’Orangerie, and if it’s nice out do some reading in the Tuileries Garden, and then get some crepes.

Which, hey, if you’re in Paris and you want to talk about soccer or see some great impressionist art tomorrow, hit me up.

A Referees Perspective on the Women’s World Cup (so far)

Posted on by RJ Allen

Hi, my name is Ian and this is my first post here. I like to start every post with a disclaimer, so please bear with me. 

Disclaimer:

I am not a PRO or FIFA referee. In fact, I’m not even a “professional” referee. I primarily referee adult recreational and youth leagues and write software as my primary line of work. On average, I am involved in around 150 games a season, most of the U16 and over and as many major tournaments as I can find my way into. It is solely my intention to look at incidents and explain how I feel the IFAB Laws of the Game apply, were applied, or should have been applied.

If you’re interested in becoming a referee, please check this link for information on how to locate your state officiating group.

Now that we’ve taken that out of the way, let’s jump on into it…

The Laws of the Game are Pretty Okay

This post is mostly spurred on in response to Charles’ post about the Laws of the Game needing an Overhaul, but I’m not going to directly argue anything. I think Charles did a great job discussing some of the pitfalls of how application of the Laws of the Game have caused a degree of chaos throughout this years World Cup, but I’m willing to argue that they’re actually pretty dang good…it’s just different look than we’re used to seeing, especially in women’s soccer.

The Laws of the Game have been evolving at a rapid pace over the last couple years as has the IFAB. This year, they even went as far as to have a mobile app created to help give more people access to the Laws of the Game without needing a third party PDF reader nor the Google-fu required to know how to get the current Laws and not previous versions.

This World Cup is the first time we’re seeing the 2019-2020 Laws of the Game applied in an actual competition. I believe most of the teams had friendlies throughout the spring that the new Laws were used, but most of those did not have VAR or any of the other intricacies of the full tournament since they were just friendlies.

Between the changes in the Laws of the Game and the introduction of VAR, I think we’re having a peak into the future of the sport at the highest levels.

Ultimately, I think it’s good, but it will take some getting used to. 

I think to facilitate this conversation a bit, I’m going to try and generalize some of the comments and questions I’ve seen come across my Twitter feed and respond directly to them. 

“Why is the Assistant Referee holding their flag down on offside? They should be calling it immediately!”

Offside is an extremely complicated section of the Laws of the Game. In fact, it’s complicated enough that it actually has its own section. It’s complicated to the point that I’m extremely hesitant to even approach the subject, but I’m going to and I’m going to do it with some broad generalizations.

For a while now, the Laws have been working on ironing out a definition between an “offside position” and an “offside offense“. In between those two definitions, there are a list of situations that reset of offside position. This creates a degree of subjectivity, but tries to make concrete that there is a difference. A player can be in an offside position all day and, as long as they don’t become involved in play, never be called for it. That same player who is hanging out offside forever, can be completely saved by a defender making a bad play on a long ball.

At every level of the game, referees and assistant referees are being told to wait and make sure that an offside offense has occurred before putting the flag up. In all games, you’ll sometimes see an assistant have to make a 50 yard run just to make sure that the attacking player commits that offside offense and then have to make the long slog back to the half line to raise the flag. 

This is how it should be. If there’s a chance that someone other than the player in the offside position plays the ball, then you have to wait and see.

The introduction of VAR takes that one step further. 

Now, instead of relying on a single persons line of sight, the referee crew has 4 extra people with an Orwellian amount of cameras that can back up those calls. It’s possible to give an even longer wait and make absolutely sure that there was, in fact, an offside offense before you call off a goal or a potential goal scoring opportunity.

It’s allowed the ability to go from potentially calling a good goal back because of potential offside offense to allowing play to continue until it can be verified that there was an offside offense that needed to be dealt with.

I don’t have any hard numbers, but I’d be willing to be there are more goals that have been allowed because of that wait than there are goals that have been taken back.

“What are defenders supposed to do now? Play with their hands behind their back? This is ruining the game”

Well, you see, this is a fun one, because the Laws haven’t changed too much regarding handling. This years changes mostly just took away some of the vagueness that previous iterations had exposed. Instead of using words like “deliberate” or “intentional” (I wrote about those here), the Laws now try to better define where the hands should and shouldn’t be.

All that said, the couple hand balls that I’ve seen called have always been handling offenses. The difference is that now we have someone watching from another angle that can confidently make that call. 

Let’s have a little thought experiment:

You’re the assistant referee. There’s a quick counter attack starting at the half line and breaking down the nearside of the field. You have to watch three things:

  1. Offside
  2. In/Out of Bounds
  3. Potential Fouls

At the 18 yard box, a cross is fired in and takes a weird bounce. The attacking player is between you and the defender.

Can you make a judgement on why that ball took a weird bounce?

Probably not.

Okay, same scenario, but now you’re the center official. You’re trying to run on something like a diagonal line across the field to keep the bulk of play trapped between you and your assistant referee. Your run had to start from the other third of the field, so you’re going in top gear trying to get back into position ahead of or in line with the play. You see the cross and the ball go off at a weird angle, but you’re about 5 yards behind the defenders shoulder. 

Can you make a judgement call on that weird bounce?

Also, probably not.

In either situation, would you feel confident giving a penalty kick?

I would think no.

This is where VAR solves the problem. The referee still has ultimate responsibility over the match and can make those decisions if need be. However, they also have a barrage of cameras looking at all of the angles to figure out that weird bounce and a voice in their ear telling them whether or not it’s worth going back and having a second look.

If it’s not, don’t sweat it. If it is, go back and make it right.

I heard a saying this morning that went something along the lines of “if it’s a foul in the middle of the field, it’s a foul in the box” and that’s 100% true. The difference being is that one rarely leads to a goal and the other rarely doesn’t. In the interest of maintaining a match, the referee may have hesitation about giving that foul in the box because of that certain outcome.

VAR addresses that hesitation.

In Closing

There are a lot of intricacies in soccer. There always have been and there always will be. With or with out VAR.

At the World Cup though, it’s absolutely imperative that even with all those potential situations, it’s important that everything is as consistent as possible. While I, as a fan, may not agree with all of the calls being made I can easily see a clear line that is being held by the officiating crews. You can see consistency across games and across days that I can really appreciate.

It will take some getting used to at the large stage, but I think in the long run we’ll be better off for it.

Soccer’s Laws Need an Overhaul in the World of VAR

Posted on by RJ Allen

When agrarian societies transition to industrial ones, they often find themselves struggling badly to adapt to a world which contains technology far beyond the scale of what their institutions were designed to accommodate. Systems that worked fine on an informal basis are suddenly exposed to a level of scrutiny and detail that they simply can’t manage. Norms that helped everyone sort things out through rough consensus are obliterated as hyper-technical companies (and the lawyers they hire) carve them to bits.

Soccer is going through a similar transition. And it’s been rough.

We’ve seen two new flashpoints in the past two days at the Women’s World Cup. Two games that hinged on critical penalty calls, with critics firing in all directions about the rules and their implementation. In both cases, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was involved. In both cases, the real issue isn’t VAR itself but rather the way VAR interacts with a system of rules designed for a different world.

Soccer is a common law system, and it’s not equipped for the precision of VAR

For 150 years, soccer has been regulated more through feel than through a strict application of the rules. Referees exercise a great deal of discretion, which often produces different calls in different games, based on what seems appropriate in context. That can be frustrating for viewers and players, for obvious reasons, and that frustration has driven us toward standardization and systematic implementation. But the result has been problematic because, to be blunt, soccer’s rules don’t really make any sense. They work as guidelines to instruct the referee, but depend pretty heavily on a solid dose of common sense.

In legal terms, soccer has been a common law system, with referees as judges granted discretion to mete out justice under the broad rules handed down. There are certain things that are hard and immutable. But for the most part, the individual could measure out the rules as seemed appropriate based on their feel of the game.

Suddenly, however, the world has changed. We’re no longer in a common law system with rough justice meted out by a roving judge. Now we’re in a statutory world of strict technicalities and millimeters, with contentious plays assessed in frame-by-frame analyses. In the old world, referees would generally try to apply the vague and confusing rules in a way that broadly made sense, and then would get on with things. In this brave new world, that’s not an option.

That means we now need to go back and reconsider what these rules are actually for, and whether they can possibly achieve their objectives as currently formulated.

VAR is forcing us to reconsider the rules for penalties and offside calls

By examining the two recent examples, we can see how this plays out. The first case came in France’s match against Norway, when France earned a decisive penalty after Ingrid Engen was spotted with her cleat pressed firmly into Marion Torrent’s knee, after she followed through on a kick.

To many, this was an injustice, albeit one that appeared to be correct according to the rules. After all, Engen had ‘gotten the ball’ and merely clipped Torrent after. ‘Are defenders not supposed to follow through?’ was the common refrain.

But by the laws of the game, there is nothing surprising here. Getting the ball has never been a defense against dangerous play, and putting your cleats into someone’s knee is a foul. However, for centuries, we’ve operated in a world where ‘that would be a foul anywhere else on the pitch’ has been an ubiquitous cliché. Technically, many plays in the penalty area were fouls, but referees simply didn’t call them. We all knew it. You could get away with more in the box than you could outside it.

With VAR, however, the rough and tumble flow of the game – and the vague sense of discretion employed by the referee – has been replaced by a strict enforcement of the rules.

Is that good or bad? I would argue that it’s good. Defending should be hard. It’s extremely difficult to score goals, and we don’t need to make it even harder by giving defenders special rights to commit challenges in the box that would be whistled anywhere else. The purpose of the rule about the penalty box is to shape behavior, and giving referees an additional tool to accomplish that objective seems like a clear good.

Will strict enforcement of this rule produce more penalties? In the short run, yes. But in the long run, players will adapt, and the game will be better for it.

But this brings us to the second case, which came in Australia’s comeback win over Brazil. Here, the deciding goal was an own goal, which was authorized by VAR based on a bizarre claim that Sam Kerr was not influencing play by being in an offside position since she did not attempt to play the ball, or interfere physically with the defender who was trying to play the ball. But why was Monica trying to play the ball? Because she knew Kerr was behind her! If the point of the offside rule is to ensure that attacking players can’t gain an advantage by being in an illegal position, the rule completely broke down in this case. I have looked at the rules (such as they are) and it’s possible that this is a literally correct decision. But it’s certainly not clear, because the rules are vague and confusing.

Once again, people asked: what are defenders supposed to do? Faced with a split-second decision, they are expected to assess whether the attacker (who is behind them) was offside when the ball was played, and if so, let the ball go and hope they were right? Or they can play the ball, and thus reward the opposition for having been offside. It’s utter nonsense and a total perversion of what the offside rule is supposed to do.

The rules of soccer are shockingly vague

People who know the laws of the game all seem to agree that this really is the rule (and I believe them). That said, they have a hard time pointing to where exactly in the laws this is specified, because the laws of soccer are rather shockingly ill-defined. Compare the offside rule – the most complex law in the game – to any random section of the Major League Baseball rulebook, and you’ll see what I mean.

Here’s an example of how baseball’s rules are written:

  • 5.09 Making an Out
  • (a) Retiring the Batter
  • A batter is out when:
  • (1) His fair or foul fly ball (other than a foul tip) is legally caught by a fielder;
  • Rule 5.09(a)(1) Comment: A fielder may reach into, but not step into, a dugout to make a catch, and if he holds the ball, the catch shall be allowed. A fielder, in order to make a catch on a foul ball nearing a dugout or other out-of-play area (such as the stands), must have one or both feet on or over the playing surface (including the lip of the dugout) and neither foot on the ground inside the dugout or in any other out-of-play area. Ball is in play, unless the fielder, after making a legal catch, steps or falls into a dugout or other out-of-play area, in which case the ball is dead. Status of runners shall be as described in Rule 5.06(b)(3)(C) Comment.
  • A catch is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught.

That’s one section of one subpoint of Rule 5.09. There are 14 more points under 5.09(a). There’s also a 5.09(b), 5.09(c), 5.09(d), and 5.09(e). And it goes on and on like this for hundreds of pages.

Soccer’s rulebook is nothing like this. What are the rules for added time? The referee adds some time. You know, however much they think is appropriate. What are the rules for throw-ins? They should take place roughly where the ball went out, more or less. Except when they don’t and it’s not worth arguing. And on and on.

If VAR is here to stay, the rules are going to need a significant overhaul

The laws of soccer are full vaguely defined principles that are designed to give the referee the ability to guide the game. They very much do not provide universal criteria for guaranteeing that the principles can be achieved. As a result, they are exceptionally ill-designed to handle the level of precision and objectivity that VAR is meant to bring.

This isn’t a problem with the rules per se, nor a problem with VAR as such. It’s a problem with the combination. And it’s something that’s going to have to be fixed, with more than a few minor clarifications.

Ultimately, the purpose of a law is to produce a desired result. If VAR is the new way of life, we’re going to need a significant overhaul of the rules, to bring them in line with a world of minute attention to detail and objective judgments. The key question: what is a rule actually meant to accomplish, and can it do so if enforced in these new terms?

The law on fouls in the box seems fine. Defenders will adjust and the game will go on. By contrast, the offside law and the law on handballs seem like ticking time bombs. It’s up to the International Football Association Board to get to work on defusing them. Sooner rather than later, hopefully.

Alex Morgan, Ada Hegerberg, and the Conundrum of Awards Voting

Posted on by RJ Allen

Ada Hegerberg doesn’t play for Norway. But this isn’t a piece about if she should or shouldn’t play for them.

Alex Morgan plays for the Orlando Pride and US women’s national team. But this is no more a piece on Morgan’s club choice than it is about Hegerberg’s choice to not play for her country.

This is a piece about how we see players and how we vote for awards.

The awards voting is larger than Hegerberg vs Morgan. But they do stand on different sides of a large gulf. On one you have Hegerberg who is in maybe the best club form in the world. On the other you have Morgan who has been excellent for country while having lingering questions about her club form. So for now we stand in the middle and look right and then left.

Awards are complicated when they span time and leagues and bring in factors that can be as complicated as league strength and the roles players play on different teams.

It is made all the more complex because of the way the calendar in soccer works. It is the four year cycle that reigns here and not a calendar that any non-soccer person would understand. It doesn’t matter if you count it as World Cup, Olympics then two off years or if you count it two off years, the World Cup and finally the Olympics. Either way you count you have two on years and two off. And in those years where there is a major international event that crosses from CONCACAF to UEFA to Oceania to the rest of the world we are often heavy handed with support for who scores the most goals in a month or few weeks long event. Because the World Cup and the Olympics are big deals. And they should be big deals.

When I look at Hegerberg’s body of work and the only thing that I am given is her work for Lyon it presents a mental hurdle for me. And that isn’t on her. Club is all she has elected to play and she is under no obligation to change that to make voters more comfortable. While one may quibble if she should or should not play for Norway, frankly that has nothing to do with her performance for Lyon. In the context of voting when judging someone, you can only judge them on what they have given you. On a report card for Hegerberg it would simply be listed as N/A under country.

For Morgan it becomes a little more complicated. She has elected to play club. Partly because the US women’s national team players all play in the NWSL. And in the choice to both play club and country, Morgan has opened herself up to having a larger body of work to judge and all that comes with the league she plays for. The NWSL is, at least in my estimation, more competitive than just about any league in the world. And that changes how we see some players and it changes what those players are able to accomplish on the field. Morgan for club and Morgan for country are often about as related as first cousins. They share a passing resemblance, sometimes strikingly so, but often you can tell they are two different people.

So the judging of Alex Morgan for awards becomes harder because the math is more complex.

It is not Alex Morgan > or < Ada Hegerberg > or < Sam Kerr > or < whoever else you want.

It becomes the much more complex and much less elegant (Alex Morgan for country + Alex Morgan for club / what you think should matter more or if one should matter at all) > or < (Ada Hegerberg for club) > or < (Sam Kerr for country + Sam Kerr for club / what you think should matter more or if one should matter at all) > or < so on and so on.

What I keep coming back to is how are we supposed to judge when all the factors become this complex? And is it fair to judge them based on what they’ve chosen to give us versus what we think they should have given us?

At the end of the day I believe that it is fair to judge more heavily if a player plays for their country in a year when country does take center stage. And in those years where there is no major international tournament that spans the globe I do believe giving more preference to club play is fair.

But I will add this, if you don’t value the fight or the choice Hegerberg has made then it really doesn’t matter if it’s a World Cup year or not, you wouldn’t vote for her. And if you think Morgan should be better at club before winning awards based on her performance for her country then a Golden Ball and/or Boot won’t change your mind.

Voting for awards ultimately comes down to what you value in a player and what you don’t. It is a reflecting glass aimed back at those who cast a ballot. 

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 13

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 13: Matchday 7

Australia 3 – 2 Brazil

This game was completely bonkers, and a lot of fun to watch. But hardly an impressive display from either team. The big questions going in were: ‘can Australia improve on their mediocre start’ and ‘is Brazil actually better than we all thought?’ The answers to both were unfortunately ‘no’ and ‘no.’

But before dwelling on the negatives, let’s talk about the positives. This was a wild, open game, especially in the first half, with both teams going full blazes. Australia found very little in front of goal, sending in a bunch of weak crosses, but at least they were moving the ball with some purpose, especially down the right flank. The decision to play Steph Catley (one of the top left backs in the game) at centerback was mostly successful. She injected some pace, and they were finding enough joy from Carpenter at right back that the loss of Catley’s attacking force down the left wasn’t a huge problem. But then we saw the limitations of play Catley in the center, as Debinha sent in a cross and Catley was simply outmuscled by Cristiane who powered it home. That, along with Marta’s penalty, put Brazil up 2-0.

But then came the comeback. A superb ball in from Logarzo found Foord. Then Logarzo got on the scoresheet herself on a bizarre ball that seemed aimed for Kerr in the box. But the two defenders and goalkeeper were so focused on blocking out Kerr that they didn’t actually stop the ball, and it bounced right in. Then came the coup de grace: an own goal under truly bizarre circumstances. I’m not going to get into analyzing it here, since I’ll have a more developed piece out tomorrow. But it counted, which is the important thing, and Australia had their lead.

In the end, it was enough. There was a late penalty shout from Brazil for what looked like a rugby tackle by Kennedy in the box, but it wasn’t called, and Australia had their victory.

It was a famous comeback for Australia, and Kerr took at shot at their doubters after the match. Which, count me as one. Because while Australia won this game, they looked pretty awful in the process. The defense is in shambles, and the midfield was completely overrun by Brazil – not a particularly strong team in the midfield, to be honest. For a team that looked like genuine contenders pretty recently, Australia has kind of fallen apart. Polkinghorne has been a disaster, and Kennedy only a little better. Catley as a makeshift centerback worked okay, but wasn’t great. Kellond-Knight was bad at fullback, and Carpenter is still a very limited player. And there’s almost literally no one behind these players in the depth chart either.

Meanwhile, the midfield can barely play the ball, since the only two credible ballwinners they have (Kennedy and Kellond-Knight) are stuck in the backline.

Any team with Sam Kerr is going to be a terrifying opponent in a knockout game. But unless Australia figures the rest of their business out, and soon, they are going to get steamrolled the first time they play a legitimately good team.

South Africa 0 – 1 China

A thoroughly professional showing from China, who dominated the game from start to finish, and effectively shut down South Africa across the board. They possessed the ball very nicely, and while the finishing left something to be desired in general, it only takes one. And what a one it was. Li Ying had an impressive game, and her goal is one of the prettiest of the tournament.

I wasn’t thrilled with the way China played against Germany, but there’s no denying it was effective. They probably won’t get away with it to the same extent again, but even if they’re significantly more reined-in, that kind of disruptive performance could be enough to really threaten any team in the tournament. But it was nice to see them go wholly in the other direction this game, with lots of quick passing and movement. They were still physical – and made it extremely difficult for South Africa to ever settle – but they came to play, and it was a lot of fun to watch.

One player who particularly impressed me was Lin Yuping, the 5’11 central defender who was absolutely dominant in the air, shutting down basically every single ball that South Africa tried to play over the top, and thereby neutralizing one of their only attacking weapons. Lin is 27 and only has 15 or so caps to her name, so has clearly been a late-bloomer. But I really know nothing more than what I saw here. Would love to know more about her story.

For South Africa, advancing from this group was always a long shot, and it’s now probably impossible. They put in strong efforts against two excellent teams, and now get the reward of playing Germany. Ouch. But even so, they should be proud of what they’ve accomplished.

Notes

– The atmosphere in the Parc des Princes for South Africa v. China was fantastic. It was only about half full, which is less than ideal. But the 20,000 who were there made up for it with enthusiasm. At many times, there were three or four different songs or chants all competing to be loudest. And the corner of the stadium that was taken over by the traveling Chinese contingent was L.O.U.D. Really wonderful to be there.

– Kerr didn’t score today, but her mere presence led directly to two of Australia’s three goals. On Logarzo’s, they were so distracted trying to prevent Kerr from scoring, they failed to actually stop the ball. And the own goal was clearly a product of fear about Kerr lurking behind. It hasn’t been a great tournament so far for Kerr, but even without a gaudy goals-total, she’s still making a difference.

– I’ve been thankfully protected from the Fox coverage of this tournament for the most part. But I have heard what’s going on. And I have to say: the lazy, racially coded stuff about black teams being physical and athletic is pure trash and thoroughly embarrassing. Please be better.

Tomorrow’s action

  • Japan – Scotland. This should be a fascinating tie. Japan were frustrated against Argentina, but may have gotten over their nerves a bit. Scotland played well against England, but not well enough to earn a result. They’ll both still feel confident in their ability to advance. But what lessons will have Scotland learned from Argentina? Will they follow the same strategy: play tight and hope to spring them on the break? If so, having weapons like Cuthbert and Little could be enough. But Japan will also be ready to adapt. So Scotland may prefer to come out more aggressively and apply pressure high.
  • Jamaica – Italy. Italy got a surprise win against Australia, which puts them in great position here. They will certainly be favored against Jamaica, and a win would guarantee them a spot in the Round of 16. Prepare for a game with a lot of running. Neither side are particularly strong in possession, and would prefer to attack with pace more than precision.
  • England – Argentina. Can Argentina work another miracle? I certainly wouldn’t bet on it, not against an England team that should be far more prepared to simply overwhelm their defensive structure. But I wouldn’t have thought they could hold out against Japan either. Look for England to get their clever midfielders a lot of time on the ball, spraying passes and forcing open channels for the forwards to run into, and for their fullbacks to get very engaged in the attack to put pressure across the whole spectrum and limit Argentina’s ability to provide covering support.

I’ll be traveling to Reims to see Jamaica v. Italy, which I’m really excited about. I’ve really enjoyed following Jamaica ever since CONCACAF qualifying back in Texas last October, and Italy’s performance last week was one of my highlights of the tournament. Can’t wait to see this one.