Category: Analysis

Route Two Soccer: Projecting the NWSL Season

Posted on by RJ Allen

Projecting performance is difficult, even for highly qualified people. For those of us who don’t have decades of experience under our belts, it’s even harder. To clarify that point, I want to talk today about a simple but powerful idea which has helped guide conversations in baseball, and then apply it to a soccer context.

The idea is this: what if you designed a projection system so simple that a monkey could use it? At the time when this was first discussed, Friends was still on the air, so the guy who came up with it called his system a ‘Marcel Projection.’

The way it works is: you take the last three years of performance. Combine them together, but weight the most recent year most heavily, the middle year less heavily, and the most distant year the least. Then divide by your denominator, and that’s your projection. Depending on what you’re projecting, you might want to add some small other tweaks to normalize the data, but that’s really just about all there is to it.

The system is designed to project individual player performance, which is relatively easy to do in baseball (which is filled with quantifiable statistics). But for soccer purposes, where such stats are less available (and less relevant) I want to pull the camera out wider to look at an even more basic unit: the team.

To that end, here’s a Marcel projection for the 2019 NWSL standings:

TeamPointsGoalsGAGD
North Carolina Courage48452124
Portland Thorns43382315
Chicago Red Stars3733276
Seattle Reign3633267
Orlando Pride313333-1
Utah Royals312325-2
Houston Dash273037-7
Washington Spirit212336-13
Sky Blue212946-17

Producing this projection took about three minutes of work. I entered the results from 2016-2018* into an Excel sheet, weighted the seasons by a 5/4/3 ratio, and then generated a result.**

My ‘projection’ knows almost nothing about these teams. It doesn’t know who the coach is, which players had breakout seasons, what trades were made, who is coming back from injury. It doesn’t know style of play. It doesn’t know that it’s a World Cup year. All it knows is the bare results from the last three years.

And yet, I would wager that this projection ends up being pretty close to accurate. In fact, it will probably beat the projections from a lot of very intelligent people, who know far more about all those issues I just listed.

That’s because human beings are absolutely full of unquestioned biases, of all sorts. We overrate some players, while underrating others. We overstate the importance of some events while failing to properly include others. And there is the classic problem of punditry: it’s fun to predict change and boring to predict continuation of the status quo.

Now, I certainly don’t mean to suggest that there is no value in expert analysis. I only want to lay a marker for how to judge assessments. Because in the current women’s soccer ecosystem, there’s almost no accountability. Pundits are free to make predictions, but not only is there no one checking back to see what they got right and wrong, there isn’t even a structure for measuring success.

So things like a simple Marcel system are useful, if only because they generate baselines against which people can measure themselves. It may not be exciting to predict that everything will more-or-less remain the same. But it does have the virtue of generally being true. And that’s something that everyone involved in this business can use a reminder of now and again.

I’ll put together my own real projection once the season gets closer. When I do so, I’ll certainly think about all the little details of player movement and development. I’ll look at the schedule. I’ll consider how teams will deal with losing their national team talent for the World Cup. And I’ll try my level-best to produce something that is accurate.

But, to be honest, there’s every chance that the dumb Marcel from this column will end up being more accurate than my clever prediction to come.

* For the purposes of this exercise, I’m treating Western New York/North Carolina and FCKC/Utah as continuous teams, despite the name and venue changes.

** Eagle-eyed readers will notice that the goals, goals allowed, and goal difference don’t quite add up. That’s partly due to rounding errors (e.g. Orlando are actually projected to score 32.5 goals and concede 33.25, which is a GD of -1, even though both are listed as 33), but is mostly because the data includes two seasons of the Boston Breakers, who conceded rather a lot of goals. If you want, you could control for that and subtract one goal per every 24 that a team is expected to score.

France Beats USA: What Does This Mean For France?

Posted on by RJ Allen

On Saturday, the United States traveled to Le Havre, France to face the host nation of the 2019 Women’s World Cup in a friendly. The U.S. went through 2018 without losing a single match, but they started the new year with a 3-1 defeat against France.

Many have looked at this game from the American perspective. But what does this victory mean for the French national team?

France has been one of the top ranked teams in the world for a long time, but they have failed to win a major tournament. They are considered strong contenders for the 2019 World Cup title, due to their skill level and the added bonus of being a host nation. But the same was true for their last three major tournaments, and each time they fell out in the quarterfinals. That’s a trend they’ll be hoping to break this year.

The French started Saturday’s game with a goal in the ninth minute scored by Kadidiatou Diani. They were able to stop the U.S. from controlling the game and executing their preferred style of play. But Christen Press got some chances for the United States, and France’s lead felt shaky until the 56th minute. It started with a beautiful pass from Marion Torrent that cut through the U.S. defense. Diani got on the other end of the ball and took a shot from a difficult angle that went over Alyssa Naeher and into the net. When Marie Katoto bagged another goal for France in the 78th minute, the French knew they were starting their year off with a win.

There were many positives for the French to take away from this match. First, they scored three goals on fourteen total shots. Finishing has always been an issue for the French national team, but Diani and Katoto stepped up to make sure France did enough to get the win. Additionally, the crowd in Le Havre was sold out and definitely favored the French side. It was a positive glimpse of what to expect this summer.

Before the game, team captain Amandine Henry spoke with the media. “We know that we can play the big teams,” she said. “We know that we have to be mentally ready, and we are. We also know that we have to play from the first to the 90th minute. We are definitely more mature now.”

My own biggest takeaway from the match is the Henry is right. Whether its the finishing, the dominance, or the boost from the home crowd, France proved on Saturday that they are amongst the best in the world. They can face the big teams and no one should count them out.

In the World Cup host nation, they are hoping that their win over the United States is just the start to a legendary 2019 campaign.

The USWNT are World Cup Favorites No Matter What Kelley O’Hara Says

Posted on by RJ Allen

The United States Women’s National team had to be happy when they saw their draw in the 2019 Women’s World Cup but are trying to bang the drum to keep their motivation high. The team is in Group F against Thailand, Sweden and Chile who have poor historical record against the reigning World Cup Champions.

Still, that hasn’t stopped defender Kelley O’Hara from stating that they may be champs but aren’t the favorites in France come June:

“I would never place us as ‘favorites’ or put it on us,” said O’Hara following the draw. “We do hold ourselves to a very high standard and , yeah, we want to win. Who doesn’t want to win the World Cup? Being the defending champions, I absolutely want to go back-to-back.”

O’Hara may be referring to France as the potential favorites who are not only hosts but also have a win over the United States since the last World Cup. This year the French side has only lost one game, a 4-1 defeat to England back in early April, and have won their last seven games in convincing fashion. That coupled with fact that the US will more than likely meet France in the Quarterfinals if all go according to plan, stacks the pressure on both teams but doesn’t quite push the hosts over the reigning champions.

Then there is the issue of Sweden. They represent the only team in the group with a result of note, a goal-less draw against the US back in 2015 World Cup. While O’Hara and squad will certainly be looking for a slight bit of revenge, the group is structured in a way that makes it very difficult to fail and thus why there is no way that the reigning champions cannot be considered favorites.

“The gap between the top-ranked team and the lowest in this World Cup is much closer than it ever has been, in terms of just level of play,” O’Hara said. “That is attributed to federations investing more time and money into their female program which, I think, needs to continue. It’s just starting and it’s only going to get better, but it does need that investment from the federations.

“I think they’ll be pleasantly surprised to see that the competition is going to be stiff and exciting.”

The US will begin their warm-up tour in January against France, in France. Should they not get a result in that game perhaps the narrative will change. However, until the someone knocks the champions off of their perch, it will be very difficult for anyone to see the US as anything other than what they really are: Champions with the pressure to repeat no matter the opponents.

World Cup Draw: France Comfortable In Group A

Posted on by RJ Allen
On the morning of December 8th, FIFA hosted an event in Paris to determine the groups for the first stage of the 2019 Women’s World Cup.  Some groups, such as Group D and Group E, are shaping up to be an exciting competition. Other groups, such as Group F, might prove to be a bit boring, but will provide a smooth road for the strongest teams.  The host nation, France, finds themselves in a group somewhere between these two extremes. Group A features France, Korea Republic, Norway, and Nigeria. While France should be able to come out on the top of this group without a problem, it’s dangerous to dismiss any of these teams as a lost cause. Korea Republic have qualified for just two Women’s World Cups (2003 and 2015). In 2015, they made it out of a group that included Brazil, Spain, and Costa Rica, but lost 3-0 in the Round of 16 to France. They almost missed out on this World Cup, but managed to snag the final Asian berth by finishing in fifth at the AFC Women’s Asian Cup. Still, they sit at a FIFA Ranking of 14th and could be dangerous if given the opportunity.  Norway’s fate at the 2019 Women’s World Cup will likely be determined by Ada Hegerberg. Hegerberg is one of the best strikers in the world, but she took a break from international soccer due to perceived inequality from the Norwegian Federation. Even with Hegerberg in the squad at the 2017 Euros, Norway failed to win a single game in their group and exited after the first round. But they defeated the tournament’s champions, the Netherlands, to punch their ticket to France in the European qualifiers. I would probably favor Norway to finish as the No. 2 team in this group, regardless of Hegerberg’s decision.  Nigeria has qualified for all seven Women’s World Cup tournaments and made it as far as the quarter-finals in 1999. On their road to France, they won the Women’s Africa Cup, but barely. They failed to score against Cameroon in the semi-finals or South Africa in the final, winning the tournament on penalties. Nigeria has the World Cup experience, but is likely to struggle against the other squads in this group. As I said previously, France should made it out of the group without much of a problem. But the group will provide enough competition to keep it interesting. France are expected to do well in the tournament, especially with the added benefit of being the host nation. But they have had a lot of retirements since 2015, and haven’t necessarily succeeded in bringing in solid replacements. They will not be a team without weaknesses, and each of their opponents are capable of capitalizing.

World Cup Power Rankings: Evaluating the Draw

Posted on by RJ Allen

Last week I divided the World Cup competitors into five tiers. Now that we have the full draw, it’s worth taking a look to see how everyone is situated. Did anyone’s road get easier? Harder? Is there a ‘group of death’? 

For the most part, the answer to all the questions is ‘no.’ Given a strict seeding system, the pots were pretty evenly balanced. That said, some of the groups do look a bit more interesting, and maybe a bit tougher, than others. So let’s dig in.

Group A: France (tier 1), Norway (tier 3), South Korea (tier 3), Nigeria (tier 4)

This is probably the toughest group from top to bottom. Nigeria was one of the strongest teams in Pot 4, and the same is true of South Korea in Pot 3. Which means all four teams have a legitimate chance of advancing. That said, the overall strength of the group is probably good for France, who is a clear step ahead of the other three. If everyone plays to their level, I’d expect Norway, South Korea, and Nigeria to take points from one another, letting France escape fairly easily with a first place finish. That said, this is one of the groups with the highest variance in possible outcomes. If France does slip up in their opening match against South Korea, there’s a high possibility for chaos to ensue.

Group B: Germany (2), China (3), Spain (3), South Africa (4)

If Group A isn’t the strongest overall, it’s probably this one. Plus, Germany isn’t playing at France’s level right now–and won’t have the home field advantage–which makes the top spot far more open. I’d still expect Germany to have more than enough to handle the others, but it wouldn’t be especially surprising to see either China or Spain sneak into the top position. Then factor in that South Africa is no one’s idea of a pushover, and you have maybe an incredibly fascinating group. I like this Spain team a lot, and was considering adopting them as my dark horse team to follow. This group creates the highest range of possible outcomes they were likely to encounter. They could win the group or finish in last place, without a massive difference in performance.

Group C: Australia (1), Brazil (3), Italy (3), Jamaica (5)

The first group with a clear team at the bottom. Jamaica are probably the weakest team in the tournament, and the draw didn’t do them any huge favors. Italy and Brazil are vulnerable, but it would be a major shock if they dropped points against the Reggae Girlz. Meanwhile, although Australia will want to avoid getting overconfident, they should be able to manage first here without too much trouble, particularly since they play Jamaica last and will know precisely how many goals they’ll need to score to win the goal difference tiebreaker, should they find themselves in a position where that matters. Which means Italy v. Brazil on June 18 could be one of the key matchups in the group stage.

Group D: England (1), Japan (3), Scotland (4), Argentina (5)

This is probably my favorite group. Strictly going by tiers, it looks pretty straightforward. But Japan, Scotland, and Argentina are all among the strongest teams in their tier. If Japan plays like they did over the last 18 months, England should have no trouble with them, and the big question will be whether Scotland can overtake them. But it doesn’t pay to underestimate Japan in big tournaments, and I have a sneaking suspicion that their commitment to youth is going to pay off next summer with a team that looks closer to the dangerous Japan teams over the earlier part of the decade. Then consider the excitement of England v. Scotland, and you’ve got an opportunity for some serious fireworks.

One other thing worth noting: the winner of this group gets placed in probably the best spot in the bracket–facing a third place team in the round of 16 and then a relatively weak runner-up (probably Brazil or Norway) in the quarterfinals. Meanwhile, whoever finishes second will get thrown into a Round of 16 showdown with either Canada or the Netherlands, and would then probably have to play Australia in the quarterfinals. Ouch.

England and Japan play in the final match on June 19, which will probably determine who goes where. That’s definitely one worth marking down on your calendar.

Group E: Canada (2), Netherlands (2), New Zealand (4), Cameroon (5)

This is just about the best possible outcome for the Dutch, who were (pretty easily) the strongest team in Pot 2. They’ll face off against the weakest team from Pot 1, in the only group where there’s nothing close to a clear favorite to win the group. I’d bet on the Netherlands, but not by much. Meanwhile, New Zealand is good enough to play with the top two, but more realistically will have to hope to keep those games tight enough that a big win over Cameroon is enough to see them through.

Group F: USA (1), Sweden (3), Chile (4), Thailand (5)

Yawn. theoretically possible for the US to fail to advance from this group, but it would be the single most shocking result in the history of women’s soccer. In fact, it would be deeply surprising if they did anything other than win the group at a canter. Even if Sweden pulls another miracle out of their hat, their chances of beating the US are pretty low, and the Americans will probably score a dozen or so goals in the other two matches, putting their goal difference out of reach. Basically, the US almost literally couldn’t have been handed an easier group. That said, if they stroll into a quarterfinal match against France having barely been tested, they might end up wishing for a bit more pressure in the early stages.

In my initial framework, I identified 15 teams in the top three tiers. These are the ones that I believe should expect to advance to the knockout round, all things being equal. Now that we have the groups, though, it looks like the teams in Groups A, B, and C might have drawn a slightly shorter stick. They’ll each be competing with other similarly-situated squads for the two guaranteed slots. If they can’t manage that, they’ll have to cast their luck with the third-place chances. But precisely because they’re in tougher groups, they’re more likely to drop points compared to teams in the other groups that face some slightly easier competition.

Meanwhile, Group F looks like the place least likely to produce a third place advancer. Whoever finishes third in that group will probably have a battering from the US dragging down their goal difference, meaning they’ll almost certainly need four points if they want to get through. Which means they’ll need a draw against Sweden–possible, but unlikely.

All of that said, it’s still a long way from June, 2019. Some of these teams may show enough over that time to significantly affect our assessment of their chances. And, of course, soccer is a funny old game so you never want to bet too heavily on things going to form.

What are your thoughts? Who got the easiest draw? The toughest? Which matches are you most anticipating?

Scotland Won’t Win the World Cup

Posted on by RJ Allen

The probability that Scotland is going to win the 2019 Women’s World Cup isn’t very high. But it is a possibility.

Scotland will play in the Women’s World Cup for the first time when they take the field for their opening match. And that game will open up a possibility that has never existed for the program before.

It is almost silly to say but you can’t win a World Cup unless you qualify for it. Which makes qualifying itself an important part of the process. Only 23 teams win their fights for a spot in the tournament (along with the host). And those few newcomers who manage it will be joining a club that’s mostly filled with repeat players.

34 teams have qualified for the Women’s World Cup in the last 27 years. 10 of those countries, including Scotland, Chile, and Jamaica from this round of qualifying, have only made it once. And when FIFA is going to 48 teams for the Men’s World Cup in 2026, to increase the chance for countries like India and their billion strong population to add new viewers, I have to wonder why the Women’s World Cup has just 24 teams.

As of right now the break down for the Women’s World Cup is as follows:

UEFA: 8 slots
AFC: 5 slots
CAF: 3 slots
CONCACAF: 3 slots
CONMEBOL: 2 slots
OFC: 1 slot
CONCACAF–CONMEBOL play-off: 1 slot
Host Nation: 1 slot

This is a much needed boost from the original 12 countries that started in 1991, or the 16 from 1999 until 2011, but it frankly just isn’t good enough anymore.

You can’t ensure that every country who ‘should’ make it is able to qualify. There will always be some of those. But there are more and more countries in the world of women’s soccer that deserve a chance to play for a World Cup. And right now there just aren’t the spots for them.

Of the four teams that made the UEFA play offs – Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, and Denmark – only one team will be able to head to France in 2019. There will be no Mexico or Costa Rico from CONCACAF.

So how would I get the women’s side to 32 teams for the 2023 Women’s World Cup? Glad you asked.

UEFA: 12 slots
AFC: 6 slots
CAF: 4 slots
CONCACAF: 4 slots
CONMEBOL: 3 slots
OFC: 1 slot
OFC–CONMEBOL play-off: 1 slot
Host Nation: 1 slot

It isn’t a major tweak to the make up of the tournament from a confederation stand point but it would give more chances to get more Scotlands or Chiles in the future. More first time teams and more of a chance to get those cinderella runs that sports fans all over the world love.

I would shifted to a OFC–CONMEBOL play off instead of the current CONCACAF–CONMEBOL playoff instead of giving OFC a second automatic slot. It gives teams not named New Zealand a shot to get to a Women’s World Cup.

FIFA has often been negligent in it’s duty to grow women’s soccer in a meaningful way. Between the amount of prize money to turf fields to just a general ambivalence to the women’s side of the sport in general. But growing the tournament? Giving teams the possibility of the chance to put their country on their backs? That could go a long way to making a change for the better.

I am excited to watch Scotland play in France. The idea that Kim Little, Rachel Corsie, Jane Ross and company get to show the world what they can do is something I wouldn’t have bet on being possible four years ago. Now they get to show the world what they can do with the possibility of a chance to win. Other countries should get the same chance.

The High Price of CONCACAF’s Low Investment in Women’s Soccer

Posted on by RJ Allen

The 2018 CONCACAF Women’s Championship has been strange. Both Jamaica and Panama have made the semifinals while Costa Rico and Mexico–two teams that were expected to make the cut–are now out of the tournament. The only really expected result that has held is both Canada and the US making the semifinals.

Well that and CONCACAF federations sending teams that are ill-prepared due to a lack of resources.

As Charles Olney wrote in Cuba, CONCACAF, and the Future of Women’s Soccer,

“Cuba, meanwhile, hadn’t played in three years since the start of this year’s campaign, which means significant portion of their roster had never played a single international game before this year. Nor do they have a meaningful domestic league in which to hone their skills during these significant gaps. And given Cuba’s isolated status, it would be quite difficult for players to play internationally, even for those few with sufficient talent to potentially make the case.”

CONCACAF and the 41 federations that make up the confederation, have a long history of not doing much to promote women’s soccer. The Panamas, Cubas, Jamaicas of the world have seen limited support over the years.

Which is a shame, because there’s a lot of opportunity out there. Look at Panama, who no one would accuse of over preparation, but who nevertheless have featured one of the tournament’s break out stars in Yenith Bailey. The 17 year old Panamanian goalkeeper has launched a thousand tweets with some of her show stopping saves. She has been rock steady on a team that surprised much of the world by advancing to the semifinals.

Both fans and media alike have been captivated by her the way that her performances have defied the odds, keeping her team in games that no one thought they would be in.

Jeff Kassouf of Equalizer Soccer wrote about the young goalkeeper in,Yenith Bailey is the hero Concacaf needs right now, even if not the one it deserves.

Men In Blazers tweeted about how great she was.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

FIFA.com quoted Carli Lloyd as saying, “Very, very impressive,” said Lloyd after the final whistle. “I think I went up to her a couple of times to tell her how well she was doing. She played a fantastic game and I hope that gives her lots of self-confidence.”

Twitter has been awash in tweets that she should play in the NWSL, or that colleges should be offering her scholarships to play in the US. And while I watched the tweets fill up my timeline I started to think about how unfair all this feels. How tournaments like this always serve as a showing of the haves – mostly the US and Canada – and the have nots.

Because players like Yenith Bailey are out there in the confederation. And tournaments like this serve as a reminder that if the federations of CONCACAF wanted to – if they cared even a fraction as much as they do about the men’s national teams – they could make true investments in the women’s national teams. It wouldn’t take much, but it would mean that players like Bailey wouldn’t just shine once in a blue moon but year after year.

Watching this tournament, it’s clear that there’s a cost to spending no money. If you have no camps, and spend most of every four year cycle forgetting that you even have a women’s program, it puts everything on the players when the event finally does roll around. You might get a miracle here and there, but we should expect so much more.

Cuba, CONCACAF, and the Future of Women’s Soccer

Posted on by RJ Allen

Cuba exit World Cup Qualifying having scored zero goals and conceded 29. Their performance shows what’s wrong, and what’s right, about women’s soccer in CONCACAF.

Cuba entered this month’s CONCACAF World Cup Qualifying tournament well aware of the uphill battle they’d be facing. They are currently ranked 88th in the world, and have never been higher than 84th. They were placed in a group with Canada (ranked 5th), Costa Rica (34th), and Jamaica (64th), after managing to qualify for the final round by narrowly scraping past Bermuda in the Caribbean Zone qualifiers. But those numbers don’t even really tell the tale. The Jamaican team has taken a major step forward, bolstered by support from the Bob Marley Foundation and Alacran Foundation, and is quickly moving up the ranks—made clear by their defeat of Costa Rica to secure a place in the semifinals.

Cuba, meanwhile, hadn’t played in three years since the start of this year’s campaign, which means significant portion of their roster had never played a single international game before this year. Nor do they have a meaningful domestic league in which to hone their skills during these significant gaps. And given Cuba’s isolated status, it would be quite difficult for players to play internationally, even for those few with sufficient talent to potentially make the case.

Following his team’s 12-0 loss to Canada last week, Reniel Bonora Peñalver said that most of his players participate primarily in grassroots soccer programs, but have very little opportunity for development. Most teams in those leagues draw primarily from those in their late teens or early 20s, but without any further pathway forward, few players are willing to stick with the regimen. That leaves a very small and constantly rotating pool of available players. Given the need to constantly disassemble and reassemble, it’s virtually impossible to develop a coherent style or set of habits. It’s not surprise, then, that Cuba were severely outclassed when facing teams with even a modest chance to coordinate and develop.

For Bonora Peñalver, the lesson of that match was clear: “Canada is on another level.” He didn’t say this as a complaint, simply as an obvious statement of fact. But he was also optimistic about what his team and country. would take from the experience: “We need to change the structure of our preparation for these tournaments. We need more competition and matches in preparation, more opportunities to develop quality players.”

The question, as always, is whether the Cuban federation lives up to that goal. But they should. Not just because every federation should support their team, though of course they should. But also because this Cuba team brought incredible passion and energy to a tournament where they knew they were going to get blown out. Compare their matches to the ones from Group A, where the US ran roughshod over opposition that seemed utterly resigned to their fate, and the difference is night and day. Cuba was even more lost, but remained committed and energetic for every minute of the competition.

Even more, Cuba was notable for actually trying to play soccer. Despite the enormous gap in preparation and ability, Cuba never once tried to set the sort of deep block defense that is so common in these CONCACAF competitions. After an incredibly shaky first half against Costa Rica, when they looked a bit like a deer in the headlights, they played with style, attempting aggressive dribbles, and pushing forward quickly whenever they got the chance. It didn’t work very well, given the gulf in talent. But that’s what made it even more impressive. This was a team that came to play and came to learn, and which had no fear of looking silly in the process.

I asked Bonora Peñalver about this commitment to playing an open game, and his response was as honest as it was interesting. In effect he said that the gap was so large that nothing they did tactically had any real chance of succeeding. But packing it in deep and just trying to hold on wouldn’t do anything to help them improve. So it was better to focus on the sort of aggressive counterattacking style that will eventually constitute their best approach, once they’ve evened out the quality gap enough to have a realistic shot of winning games against decent teams. That was refreshing to hear, and matched very well with the performances I saw on the pitch.

This is a team that showed up to play. Even if the overall gap in quality made it impossible for them to seriously challenge their opposition, they didn’t shy away from the job. And there were glimpses here and there of what this team could be. Rachel Pelaez showed more quality on the ball than anyone else in the group outside of Canada, dancing around tackles like it was nothing. Her panache in possession was a joy to watch, even if there was never quite enough going on around her to make it stick. María Isabel Pérez exhibited a silky first touch, and a keen eye for openings in the defensive line. She rarely had teammates available on the other side of those throughballs, but they were impressive nonetheless.

To me, the defining moment of Cuba’s qualifying tournament was in the 89th minute of their final game. They were trailing 9-0, and had been outscored 29-0 over the course of the whole tournament. But their heads were still high, and as soon as they gained possession, they raced down the field looking for one final chance to put in a shot on goal. When the ball bounded loose in the corner, they chased it relentlessly. It was all to no avail, in the end, but that’s precisely the point. This is the spirit of a true competitor, and it deserves to be rewarded with more support. These players demonstrated the will, commitment, and desire to get better. They deserve the resources that will help make it happen.

We Are Lucky to Have Christine Sinclair

Posted on by RJ Allen

Yesterday was a big day for Christine Sinclair. In the morning, France Football magazine released their shortlist for the inaugural women’s Ballon d’Or award, and Sinclair’s name was included. This shouldn’t be especially notable, given Sinclair’s quality we would expect these sort of accolades to pile up almost unnoticed at this point. And yet, despite a long career as one of the very best in the world, Sinclair’s performances have all too often gone unrecognized. For the world’s second-leading scorer of all time, individual awards have been few and far between.

And speaking of that record, Sinclair also got the chance to narrow the gap between first and second later in the evening, notching one of Canada’s twelve goals in their rout of Cuba in the CONCACAF Women’s Championship. And she probably could have had more if she hadn’t passed up any number of scoring opportunities on the night in favor of passing to a teammate. But when asked after the game, she was exactly as calm as we’ve all come to expect: “put me in that position again and I’ll pass the ball every single time.”

And that’s the curious wonder of Christine Sinclair. She really is that unselfish, that motivated to simply do whatever is best for the team, that relaxed. It’s a stark contrast to most of history’s other great goal-scorers, most of whom crave the ball and the shot. Sinclair simply doesn’t have that kind of motivation. She’ll score plenty, of course, because she’s a clinical finisher and world class in her ability to find those tiny gaps needed to unleash a shot. But you never get the sense that she’s aching to score. 

Chances are that Sinclair doesn’t win the Ballon d’Or this year, and that will be fair. While she’s had yet another stellar season, the likes of Sam Kerr and Pernille Harder have done even better. Still, it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on Sinclair’s performance, and celebrate the recognition that the nomination provides.

When asked about the award, Sinclair was as self-effacing as ever, saying “you look at the players on that list and it’s just an honor to be mentioned alongside of them.” It’s true that the list is filled with world-class players. But given Sinclair’s incredible career, it’s probably just as fair to say that it’s an honor for everyone on that list to get mentioned along with her.

4 Winners and 2 Losers from the 2018 NWSL Final

Posted on by RJ Allen

This was a fitting end to an unbelievable season for North Carolina, in a city that has set the gold standard for the future of the game. North Carolina came away 3-0 winners, but there was plenty more to this game than just the final result. Here are four winners and two losers from the game.

Winner: North Carolina Courage

This was a fitting end to an outrageous year from the Courage. After a regular season which destroyed the record books, if anything North Carolina did better in the postseason. Two resounding victories over their closest competition staked their claim as not merely the best team in 2018, but arguably as the best in the history of US women’s professional soccer. This is a squad without weaknesses, who can threaten from any angle, who will close down every play, win every second, third, and fourth ball, and simply make it impossible for the opposition to do anything according to plan. On a day when the Courage didn’t get any particularly outstanding performances from their ‘stars’ (Dunn, Williams, and Mewis—all of whom played well, but did not show anything out of the normal), it made no difference. Because they could rely on Denise O’Sullivan, Jaelene Hinkle, and Jess McDonald to blow off the doors. This is a team with no weaknesses and dozens of strengths, and if there were ever any doubts, they were put permanently to rest today.

Loser: Portland Thorns

This one is relative. Portland lost the game, but not because they played especially poorly. They came in with a game plan, and while it wasn’t executed flawlessly, neither was it badly botched. They looked to move the ball quickly forward, forcing North Carolina to collapse on the point of attack, thus creating space above that line for their more creative players to work. The problem is that they just couldn’t do enough to make the pinpoint long passes that were necessary to instigate the plan. As a result, they struggled to create scoring opportunities. And given the relentless Carolina assault, a few half chances were never going to be enough.  All that said, this really wasn’t a bad performance from Portland. They played well. Just not well enough.

Winner: Jess McDonald

I will admit that I voted for a different Courage player as my MVP, but could not possibly argue with McDonald getting the nod. She scored twice, helped create plenty more chances, and was virtually unplayable for much of the day. With better finishing, she might have had four or five. Her dribbling was exceptional, including several moves in Portland’s box where her dance through a sea of Portland tackles almost seemed choreographed. And her contributions weren’t limited to the offensive side, with some of high pressure doing plenty to disrupt Portland’s possession. McDonald has long been one of the league’s most underrated players, and this game is merely one more in a sea of outstanding performances.

Loser: The Portland fullbacks

Ellie Carpenter will have many big games ahead of her, but this is one that she’ll probably want to forget. She struggled to get involved in the attack, sending plenty of errant passes that resulted in Carolina interceptions, and similarly struggled to contain the Courage left-sided attack. Meanwhile, on the far side, Megan Klingenberg was more involved in the attack, and helped keep Carolina slightly more contained down that flank, but also had something well below her best game. Given the range of their possible attack, Portland desperately needed its wide players to bring their A game. Without consistent threats from their fullbacks, they were stretched too thin, and unable to cover the vacancies into which the Courage players pounced.

Winner: Jaelene Hinkle

Every time she touched the ball, the stadium filled with a chorus of boos, but none of that seemed to phase Jaelene Hinkle, who turned in an inch-perfect performance, sending in crosses on a dime, and bottling up Portland’s right-side attack with ease. Hinkle is one of the keys to North Carolina’s dominance—being able to slot in one of the league’s best creative players at left back exponentially increases the defensive obligations of the opposing side, and that was on clear display today. Without anyone forcing her back, she effectively deputized as a left winger, running rampant up and down the sidelines. I voted for her as player of the match. I have no interest in supporting Hinkle’s politics, but she played a whale of a game.

Winner: The City of Portland

At this point, we’ve run out of superlatives to describe the experience in Portland, and everything feels like a cliché. But when language isn’t up to the task, clichés are all we have left. This game gave me goosebumps, and left me more than a little choked up. The atmosphere at this game was electric—the sort of thing you expect from sports with decades, or centuries, of history. The seats were packed with a sea of red. The crowd was engaged, passionate, and ready to watch a game for the ages. While they didn’t get the result they wanted, the support never wavered. And as the Thorns players circled the stadium clapping their fans after the final whistle, they were greeted with thunderous cheers. It was one of the most powerful moments I’ve ever witnessed in sports. This the future, and it’s up to the rest of us to live up to standards that Portland has set.