Category: USWNT

The USWNT Are The Girls Next Door Grown Up

Posted on by Backline Soccer

I read during this World Cup that the USWNT aren’t the girls next door anymore. They have shed their images in the wake of comments made by Megan Rapinoe, Ali Krieger, Alex Morgan and others.

When I read that I can’t help but think of my grandmother.

My grandmother was a baseball person. She watched the Yankees nearly every game for 50 plus years, she was the commissioner of the young leagues or on their board for 30 plus years, she kept score for the baseball team when she was in high school. She loved baseball and it’s in no small part to her why I love it too.

Watching the World Cup this year and the personalities that make up the USWNT, I can’t help but think how much she would have loved this team.

My grandmother was a business woman and a sports fan, politically active and as take no nonsense as they come. She grew up in a time when if a woman worked it was on the family farm or maybe taking in wash or sewing. They did not open a farm equipment business and spend 30 years going all around the world for Case Tractors with their husbands.

In her day women just didn’t speak out against the town plowing the churches parking lots for free or write letters to the editors of the local paper in support of LGBT rights or freedom of expression before it was more normalized.

The more Megan Rapinoe speaks and the more she stands up, or kneels, for what she thinks is right, the more I can’t help but think just how much my grandmother would have loved this team and maybe Megan Rapinoe most of all.

I think she would have looked at Rapinoe with her pink/purple hair, her outspoken nature and her ability to ball the fuck out and I think she would have smiled. She would have seen Alex Morgan sipping tea and she would have cheered her. Because women being badass and saying “fuck it, I’m going to do the damn thing” crosses generations.

One of my great frustrations with how the USWNT has been marketed is that they push the family friendly, girl next door, no controversy here narrative. They do not push how outspoken, how radical, how progressive these players are.

It really feels like after a lot of years of letting the bland, vanilla narrative crafted for them to live, the team has collectively said “fuck it, we’re going to be as powerful and smart and queer and radical and whatever else we want to be and if you don’t like it that’s not on us that’s on you”. And it’s wonderful.

My grandmother will have been gone for 12 years this September. But watching this team, seeing them do what they have done and speak out like they have, it makes me think of her and smile.

The US beat England because Jill Ellis got her tactics right

Posted on by Backline Soccer

The US defeated England last night, in one of the most thrilling games of the tournament. It had everything: Great goals, great passes, a goal taken away by VAR, a saved penalty, a red card. In the end, the US booked their place in a third consecutive World Cup final, a monumental achievement.

There are plenty of reasons why the US came out on top. But the critical difference-maker, somewhat shockingly, was the tactical decisions from coach Jill Ellis.

I know. I’m as surprised as anyone.

Christen Press made a big difference on the left wing

The starting XI announcement brought several interesting changes, but by far the most notable was the replacement of Megan Rapinoe with Christen Press. As details emerged, it became clear that this was a switch from necessity more than choice. A hamstring strain meant Rapinoe would never have been able to start.

Just like four years ago, outside circumstances prevented Ellis from sticking with her same XI. And just like four years ago, the resulting change worked out extremely well.

All the pre-game hype had focused on Rapinoe—partly due to the surrounding political controversies and partly because she had scored all four of the US goals so far in the knockout phase. But that goal-scoring record did not actually tell the full tale. Rapinoe had one of her worst games in memory against Sweden to end the group stage—losing the ball repeatedly and offering virtually no successful attacking moves. She was better, though only marginally against Spain, despite facing one of the weaker right backs in the tournament. The two goals she scored both came from penalties. They count the same, of course, but it was hardly a vintage Rapinoe performance.

She was better against France, though still hardly looked like the Megan Rapinoe who has been one of the best players in the NWSL over the past two seasons.  But that made her third game in eight days, and Rapinoe is no longer young. For a player in her mid-30s, who had already looked sluggish over the course of the tournament, it felt like a bridge too far to expect anything close from her top level in the semifinal.

On another team, with limited options, the case for starting her would still be powerful. Look at the Netherlands, who keep running out a clearly less-than-fit Lieke Martens. But the US has the deepest roster in the world. Specifically, they have Christen Press, who has arguably been the US forward in the best form over the course of 2019. And unlike in previous years, when Press was an ill fit out wide, she’s increasingly grown into that role—developing both in her ability to serve as creator of chances for others, and as a striker herself.

Then consider what else Press brings. She has speed to burn. And crucially, unlike Rapinoe, she’s capable of putting in a solid defensive shift. That would be critically important against England, who have the world’s best attacking right back, and some of the best right wingers, and had every intention of targeting Crystal Dunn as the weak link in the US backline. With Press on the pitch, England had far less room to run at Dunn in space. Spain actively shifted the defense away from Rapinoe’s position, urging the US to attack that space. But with Press’s superior ball retention, England could not afford to do the same. That kept Bronze back further and limited her influence further up the pitch. And Press is obviously no slouch on the attacking end, either. Despite a history of checkered performances in big games, she turned up huge last night, delivering the first goal, and playing a key role in setting up the second.

Called into the spotlight, Christen Press delivered at the highest level, and was potentially the difference-maker in the match. It wasn’t surprising that she was great. But it was surprising that she got the chance at all.

Sticking with Rose Lavelle

The other big talking point of the USA XI was the midfield. Over the tournament, the US have repeatedly faced the happy problem of having four players that all deserved to start, but only three spots for them to fill. With Julie Ertz apparently nailed in as the unchangeable number 6, that really left three players—Lindsey Horan, Sam Mewis, and Rose Lavelle—for two spots. In the octofinals and quarterfinals, Ellis had chosen to sit Horan. It was a move met with bewilderment and frustration. That’s not a knock against Mewis and Lavelle, who have been among the best players in the tournament. But Horan is on the very short list of players who might conceivably be called the best in the world. It felt like madness to leave her on the bench.

After a rotten performance from Lavelle in the quarterfinals, the obvious move seemed to be to rest her for a game and call on Mewis and Horan. The extra athleticism and mobility in the midfield would provide some needed steel, and lessen the risk of getting torn to bits whenever Ertz went on walkabout.

But Ellis didn’t take the obvious move. Instead, she stuck with Lavelle and sat Mewis. Which turned out to be extraordinarily prescient.

England set up in a hybrid 4-4-2/4-2-3-1, with Nikita Parris in the free role, drifting between the midfield and front line. England coach Phil Neville may have been looking to find a way to get four dangerous strikers on the pitch, but in practice it left the England attack disjointed. But that left England’s holding pair of Jill Scott and Keira Walsh busy trying to cope with Horan and Ertz, and Parris somewhat adrift, Lavelle repeatedly found herself with the ball and acres of space to utilize. And she certainly took advantage of the opportunity, putting herself into dangerous positions over and over.

It wasn’t entirely a one-way affair. With Lavelle on the job, the US also occasionally found itself understaffed in the midfield, which allowed Walsh and Scott to occasionally get free. But overall the trade-off was a huge victory for the US. Lavelle was the most dangerous player on the pitch for the first half, while Parris accomplished far less in a similar position.

Neville outsmarted himself, and Ellis made him pay

England’s 4-4-2 didn’t make a huge amount of sense on paper, and it made even less sense once the US lineup was released. And the players themselves hardly seemed committed. As noted, Parris never really played like a second striker, dropping back far more often into a withdrawn striker role. The result wasn’t really any different from England’s more standard 4-3-3, except that the personnel were less well-suited to their positions.

As a huge fan of Rachel Daly’s work, I was thrilled to see her starting. Her speed, physicality, and directness made her a smart choice to double up with Bronze in an effort to overwhelm Crystal Dunn. But partly because of the Press-Rapinoe swap, and partly due to a lack of effective linkages with the midfield, this never worked as well as intended.

England’s greatest strength in this tournament has been the stratospheric rise of Ellen White—whose ability to split central defenders and work magic with a little space has absolutely taken the world by storm. But this setup provided her vanishingly few chances to work that magic. The ball went out right, and while Bronze and Daly were certainly able to beat Dunn on a few occasions, it was a slow process, which allowed the rest of the US defense to set up and block out White.

It’s precisely the same thing that happened to France a few days earlier, which makes it all the more confusing that Neville fell into the same trap. What France was missing, desperately, was a creative midfielder who could pick out angles and punish a defense with little room to maneuver. France doesn’t currently have that player. But England has two of them—Fran Kirby and Georgia Stanway—neither of whom saw the pitch until the final half hour.

Imagine having the key to a door, but insisting on trying to pick the lock anyway for an hour, while everyone stands around watching in frustration.

Whether it was stubbornness, or an inability to diagnose the problem, Neville wrote himself into a corner and couldn’t seem to find his way out.

Winning ugly is still winning

I wrote after the quarterfinal that ‘winning ugly is still winning,’ and that proved true once again last night. For the second straight game, the US settled into a back five during the second half, looking to close down attacking chances rather than to create much themselves.

Once again, it almost came back to haunt them. After all, it was during this period of deep-defending that England scored a goal—invalidated by VAR by the narrowest of margins—and earned a penalty. An inch or two difference in a run, and a better-taken penalty, and England could have taken the lead in the course of a few minutes.

But they didn’t.

That’s two games in a row where the US decided to sit on a lead, effectively daring the other team to prove they could rise to the moment. And that’s two games in a row where the other team faltered.

One could certainly criticize Ellis for exposing the team to risk. Why not keep attacking? The US is better, and were controlling the game. Why not continue to exploit the advantage? But when you have the lead, time is your friend. Scoring goals is hard. Even with some golden opportunities, England (and France before them) couldn’t get it done.

If they had, the US could certainly have opened back up. But they didn’t, and so after weathering the storm, the US spent the final quarter hour of the match drawing fouls and suffocating the game dead, content in the knowledge that their opponents had no more tricks up their sleeve.

Ellis is still a frustrating coach. But so is everyone else

Over the course of the tournament, Phil Neville has been a good coach. Not a great one, but that’s the thing. There aren’t any great coaches in the ranks of women’s soccer right now. The jobs aren’t lucrative or prestigious enough.

So Jill Ellis is a source of endless frustration to US fans and media. But she successfully out-managed Neville last night and Corinne Diacre a few days earlier. Kenneth Heiner-Møller’s anti-football only got Canada to the octofinals. Sarina Wiegman has effectively no ideas for the Dutch. Australia were a disaster. And on and on down the ranks.

So no, Ellis isn’t great. Especially when it comes to big picture tactics and style. But she’s managed to incorporate a few minor tactical tweaks. As I wrote two years ago, she’s a terrible strategic thinker, but a pretty solid tinkerer. And when you’re blessed with the best roster, that is often enough.

There are plenty of reasons to be frustrated with Ellis as a coach. This tournament doesn’t change that. But let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Because for all her limitations, she’s now 90 minutes away from winning her second consecutive World Cup.

Celebrating USA’s Independence from England, Again. Hopefully.

Posted on by Backline Soccer

It’s just like every action movie; no matter how many bad guys keep coming and no matter how good they are, the good guy will always win. They’ll pull off some ridiculously glorious fight and come off victorious, not caring that you spent two-thirds of the fight with your hands clasped together with anxiety sweat.

That’s the current state of the USWNT.

They came into this tournament as not only the front runner, but as close as you come to an obvious winner. They breezed their way through the group stage, winning pretty decisively. Until they matched up with Spain in the round of 16, they had yet to face any real competition. Their first knock out game was almost their last, with Spain pulling them apart from stem to stern and exposing real defensive problems. But like the champions they are, they managed to stave off all mortal danger and though beaten and bruised, come out the winner.

Facing France in the quarter-final was marketed as the final, with both teams evenly matched and poised to make history in more ways than one; France sending the Americans home fairly early in the World Cup; USA finally defeating the French and on their home soil for a clear shot to the final. With a handling of Les Bleues (to my dismay and tears), everything seems to be going according to plan for the Stars and Stripes to advance to the final and play for their fourth star and become back to back champs. Their last obstacle?

Her Majesty, the Lionesses of England.

England has come into this tournament with both hands swinging, taking on every opponent and showing them the current squad has what it takes to make their fans sing-scream “It’s Coming Home!”. The USA will no doubt be their toughest opponent. With yellow cards starting over, Lindsey Horan will likely be taking her place back in the starting line-up, it’s safe to say that a midfield boasting of Rose Lavelle, Sam Mewis and Lindsey Horan is definitely something to be feared. Julie Ertz and Carli Lloyd are both excellent super-subs to come off the bench to finish the job and I know a lot of fans break out into a cold sweat when Lloyd walks up to the fourth official. The offense is still lacking in my opinion, with Alex Morgan being relegated to being a punching bag instead of a traditional striker; however Megan Rapinoe is filling that role nicely, tying Morgan and England’s Ellen White with five goals of her own. The only real concern still to be had is the defense. Crystal Dunn is still being wasted as a left back, her speed being her only redemption when she inevitably lands herself in a sticky situation. England’s right side has been shredding teams left and right, so Kelley O’Hara and Abby Dalhkemper will BOTH need to be on their A game. O’Hara has been getting away with a lot since the group stage and how she hasn’t been red carded out of the tournament is an answer only the refs and the soccer gods can give.

All that being said, this is an American side that is the epitome of “Goonies never say die” and they will need every ounce of that to defeat this England side and bring home that fourth star.

Every movie ends with the good guy waltzing off into the sunset, cool as the other side of the pillow. The Americans have a real shot of keeping their happy ending on track, with only themselves to blame if this ends with the bad guys cackling in Paris.

Women’s World Cup Daily: France 1 – 2 USA. Winning Ugly is Still Winning

Posted on by Backline Soccer

The main reason the US is better than France isn’t that the US has better players, though they do. And the US certainly isn’t better than France because they have better coaching–though Corinne Diacre hardly had a game to write home about tonight.

The main reason the US is better than France is that the US players take their chances when they come, and the French players don’t.

Tonight, that was enough to make up the difference. 

The US didn’t play well. In fact, for long stretches they were pretty awful. But they were good when they had to be. And they played smart. For the better part of an hour, this game was a dare. The US said to France: “prove that you can beat us.” And France couldn’t do it.

It didn’t make for an impressive showing. On the whole, France had the better possession, the better progressive movement, the better passing, the more dangerous attacks. But they never quite managed to pay off on the promise. Exciting attacks were wasted with an errant pass. Or if the pass connected, they sent in a cross when they might have found a more dangerous ball on the ground. And if they did manage to create a good chance, they failed to score it. 

Meanwhile, the US created virtually nothing. They sat back and soaked up pressure, counting on the central trio of defenders–Sauerbrunn, Dahlkemper, and Ertz–to provide help where necessary, and counting on Alyssa Naeher to find the saves where needed. And it mostly worked. 

One of the major themes of the game was problems with fullbacks. Crystal Dunn, on the US side, had a wretched evening, getting beaten over and over by Kadidiatou Diani–the only France player to truly show up on the night. But because Diani’s strike partners were consistently locked down, all of her incredible work ended up for naught.

For France, the fullbacks were also terrible, with Marion Torrent conceding all sorts of dangerous space on the right, and with Amel Majri consistently giving the ball away on the left. 

The difference of the game: when France gave the US an opening, they buried their chances. When the US gave France a chance, they dawdled and dallied, and couldn’t find the incisive pass.

So the US won ugly. They won despite Alex Morgan being (again) an almost complete nonentity in the attack. Except that she won the free kick that led to the first goal with a brilliant run, and created the second goal with a lovely pass. They won despite Megan Rapinoe again looking a bit off the boil. Except that she scored two goals! They won despite Tobin Heath basically not turning up for the night. Except for her assist. 

They won despite Rose Lavelle having her worst game in memory. They won despite Sam Mewis contributing very little. They won despite not starting Lindsey Horan for reasons that defy explanation. They won despite Crystal Dunn being exposed over and over and over.

That’s the thing about the US Women’s National Team. It may seem silly and it may be a cliche. But they know how to win. It didn’t really look that way for most of the game. They looked bewildered and befuddled, getting pushed around repeatedly by France. But then you looked at the scoreboard and remembered who was winning.

And so they’ve passed the big test. You can’t say they passed it with flying colors. But you don’t get extra points for looking good. And you don’t lose points just because you played an opponent that didn’t manage to turn up.

At the end of the day, all that actually matters is who advances and who goes home. And once again, just like the last seven World Cups, the US is advancing to the semifinals.

The USWNT vs Spain: Is This Your King?

Posted on by Backline Soccer

You know that scene in Black Panther when Killmonger and T’Challa fight for the first time and at the end, Killmonger points down at a bloody and beaten T’Challa and shouts “IS THIS YOUR KING?”

That’s what Spain did to the United States of America in front of 19,663 fans. They pulled the USWNT apart at the seams and exposed them for the whole world to see.

Defense?

Where.

Offense?

The only two USA goals that happened in this game came off PKs.

According to the official stats, the USA registered 12 shots, with only 3 on goal. 3 shots on goal. Spain came into this match the immediate underdogs and were expected to be handled by the Americans, only to turn the tables on them very early in the game, making a play in the box in the first two minutes.

Already we were seeing the cracks of the defensive foundation that escaped scrutiny in the group stage. In the knock-out round the USA found themselves in a bad position that took almost the entire game to get out of. Spain had a game plan going into this match and they stuck to it. They were physical, yes, but they were also smart. Almost all of their fouls were getting the ball so they wouldn’t get carded along with the foul. Alex Morgan is going to be a walking bruise for the quarter final, something France will be keeping in the back of their minds.

First off, let’s talk about the FIFA Player of the Match, Megan Rapinoe. She was awarded this for her pair of PKs and not anything she did on the pitch. If I can say this, I feel comfortable saying that Rapinoe was one of the worst players on the pitch. She constantly lost the ball, she got herself in bad positions and when she did take a shot, the ball was sent to the parking lot. She hasn’t been the Megan Rapinoe everyone knows since the slaughter against Thailand and that has been evident for some time now. She will no doubt continue to get the start, but I think a real discussion needs to be had about her role as a starter.

Now to look on the bright side! Rose Lavelle and Sam Mewis were an absolute joy to watch. Lavelle has really come into her own since this tournament began and has continued to surprise me with how much better she gets with each game played. I was worried about her when she picked up all those injuries in 2018, but they seem to be a thing of the past. Mewis was equally incredible to watch, showing everyone (including her coach) why she should have been starting this whole time. She and Lavelle together in the midfield has been one of the best pairings since Lauren Holiday and Carli Lloyd and Heather O’Reilly.

With that being said, we need to talk about the defense. I’m not sure where all the disconnect and miscommunication was coming from, but that defense looked like they had never played a game together in their lives. Crystal Dunn, who is normally such a bright spot, was getting beaten again and again on the flank. I think I heard Kelley O’Hara’s name called three times. Abby Dahlkemper was doing her best and Becky Sauerbrunn found herself playing every role to keep the peace. I don’t know what kind of pep talk Alyssa Naeher was given, but it needs to never happen again. Spain’s only goal of the game came off a horrendous back-pass to Sauerbrunn who was caught off guard and couldn’t clear it out quickly enough. Jenni Hermoso took that ball off her feet, whipped around and shot the ball past Naeher, who could do nothing but watch it happen. Spain showed everyone what La Roja are made of and almost knocked the USA out of the World Cup in the Round of 16.

At the end of the day, the USA is advancing to play France thanks to two PK goals and Spain is going home, heads held high and asking just one question: is this your king? Is this your 2019 World Cup Champion?

Only time will tell.

The United States have enough to beat Spain. Barely.

Posted on by Backline Soccer

I have, at times, been a Jill Ellis apologist. But not today. This was about as poorly-managed game as you can imagine someone putting together, and came agonizingly close to bringing the whole US tournament crashing down.

It’s not Ellis’s fault that several of her key players were terrible, but it’s absolutely her fault that she persisted in playing them as the minutes rolled on, and on, and on. And it’s also on her to do anything to change up the game once it becomes clear that the team is no longer clicking. And it’s on her to get her team’s heads in the right place when they’re getting rattled by the other team’s physical play.

The vaunted US attack is not fit, and it’s a big problem

Coming into the match, I had some real questions about the fitness and form of Megan Rapinoe and Alex Morgan. Absolutely nothing about this match put my mind at ease. They both looked to be seriously struggling.

Rapinoe lost the ball a good half dozen times in the opening half hour, and was regularly shown the business by Marta Corredera. In fact, Spain seemed to be deliberately shading their defense toward the left, hoping to get extra bodies in front of Tobin Heath, and actively encouraging the US to play toward Rapinoe. It absolutely worked.

Morgan, once again, was clearly not 100%. Her touch was poor and her movement sluggish. The US produced fewer dangerous balls than usual, but there were still plenty. Normally, Morgan would latch onto the end of them. But today she simply wasn’t there. Against a Spain team that rode their luck (and trusted a referee who seemed reluctant to get out her whistle) with aggressive physical play, Morgan looked very much not up for it. One of the key changes in her game over the past couple years has been a more vigorous physical presence. We saw none of that today.

This was a game screaming out for Christen Press and/or Carli Lloyd – who both eventually came on in the final waning minutes, long after they would have had the chance to make a difference.

The US got their goals, but they were both from pretty soft penalties. I wouldn’t call either a mistake – those were fouls, albeit pretty weak ones. But for this US team to create so little is a reason for genuine concern. And it’s absolutely time to ask some serious questions about whether Rapinoe and Morgan are really ready to go against France.

The US defense has significant holes, and it’s a big problem

Further back, the US got reasonably good games from the midfielders, but they looked nowhere near as crisp as in previous games. Lavelle and Mewis both seemed to press a lot, trying for perfect passes that didn’t come off, rather than working it a bit more cooly. 

And in the defense, once again, the left side was a real danger area. Becky Sauerbrunn is a legend, but she just doesn’t have the pace of precision anymore. Crystal Dunn seems to get worse at defending with each passing week. And she also isn’t managing to get involved with the attack, which is the whole point of playing her!

And then there’s Alyssa Naeher, who was shaky on balls over the top, and far more than shaky with the ball at her feet. Spain pounced on the one gift that was given to them, but couldn’t quite pry things open to get another. But it’s certainly not hard to imagine a Diani or Cascarino from France having a field day down the left.

Spain raised their game, and gave the US some big things to think about

For Spain, this was an excellent performance, and one that showed why people were talking about them seriously as a dark horse coming into the tournament. They held the US largely at bay, losing on two garbage penalties, and were able to build some decent attacks as well. They were able to do it through flexibility and a clear collective vision.

They worked very hard to keep a coherent and tight defensive shape in the middle, trying to shift bodies left to protect against Tobin Heath but generally waiting for the US to come at them. They also leaned pretty heavily into physical defensive play. Which really shouldn’t have worked – the US is the strongest and fastest team in the tournament and no strangers to a crunching tackle (they all play in the NWSL for god’s sake). But surprisingly, it was very successful. The US looked frustrated, and simply weren’t able to find their rhythm after a strong opening 20 minutes. For much of the second half, they looked like they were more interested in appealing to the referee for foul calls that weren’t coming than they were in actually trying to win the game.

I’ve commented previously on my feelings about referees who permit violent play to continue, and I certainly would have liked to see a tighter hand on the till here. But this was not like the China performance against Germany. Spain were going in, but they weren’t going over the top with it. 

In the attack, Spain did not rely nearly as heavily on possession as expected. As the game progressed, they did start to hold the ball a bit more. But generally their attacks were direct, and involved putting the ball in the air far more than usual. 

Again, this seemed to reflect some good scouting. The US backline is slow and prone to errors when asked to chase quick defenders down. And we definitely saw that here. By the end of the match, Spain’s aerial efforts were a bit too speculative, and the US began to settle in deep and handle them fairly easily. But for much of the game, they seemed out of sorts.

The US are still favorites. But this is a wide open tournament

In the end, the US did enough to go through. But it was a very weak performance from a team that was being talked about just last night as the obvious and virtually inevitable winner of the tournament. They absolutely could still win this thing, and it would be just as big a mistake to overinterpret one mediocre game as it was to overinterpret a couple good games against bad teams. 

Every team at this tournament has flaws. But that’s not actually the interesting story. Because the only reason those flaws really matter is that many teams at this tournament are good enough to exploit those flaws. The US is still the best in the world, but the world is a heck of a lot closer. Spain showed that today. And France may well show it again on Friday.

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. 

The Tragedy of 13-0

Posted on by RJ Allen

The USWNT scored 13 times against Thailand.

Morgan 12′, 53′, 74′, 81′, 87′
Lavelle 20′, 56′
Horan 32′
Mewis 50′, 54′
Rapinoe 79′
Pugh 85′
Lloyd 90+2′

And after each goal the US celebrated. Sometimes with the bench and sometimes just the players on the field. For Lavelle, Horan, Mewis, and Pugh it was their first World Cup game. Scoring then is an incredible accomplishment. For Morgan, she now shares a record with Michelle Akers for most goals scored in a Women’s World Cup game. For Rapinoe and Lloyd, it was a good day at the office.

And it felt bad. I felt bad. Watching it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth and a slightly uneasy feeling as I heard the chants of USA from the stands.
It took me a while to get my feelings in order. I went from “The US players should be pumped” to “maybe they should have taken their foot off the gas” to “score all the goals always” and around and around.

I finally settled on my feelings and how I see this game. And in those thoughts a few things are true. None of them are the fault of the players.


1) The US players have every right to celebrate after scoring goals.

2) Thailand earned their trip to the World Cup but are overall a pretty poor squad

3) The bulk of the feeling of grossness steams from FIFA.

I don’t blame Sam Mewis for being ecstatic over scoring a brace in her first game playing in a World Cup. I don’t think Morgan was over the line even counting the goals she scored after her fourth. And honestly, I will always be down for Rapinoe twirling and then sliding after she scores.

But at some point the joy of seeing all that turned bitter. Not really because of the US players but because of the context.

Thailand is a team without a great deal of institutionalized support behind them. And while their players have been on both ends of 13-0 wins, (Thailand beat Indonesia 13-0 in a friendly in 2018) I can’t help but wish more money, more training, and more resources were going to this team as they headed toward these games.

But really, at the end of the day, this lays at FIFA’s doorstep.
FIFA has roughly more money than Gringotts Wizarding Bank has Goblins. By not giving support to the federations for the women’s teams and not demanding that federations use that money, or for the larger federations their own, they are enabling results like this.

FIFA could have prevented this but they are too worried about running studies and having their partners run ads for the next generation of players.

The worst part of this game was many of us, myself included, had the first reaction of blaming players for being happy that they did an incredibly hard thing well and scored a goal or goals in a World Cup game. That is the biggest loss in this match. That FIFA has to pit these, one against the other, while we often spare them our wrath.

FIFA has about $2,700,000,000 in their reserves. They could give every country on earth, all 195 of them, $10,000,000 and send a team to make sure the money went to the women’s teams and not into pockets of the perpetrators of the current oppression and they would still have a half billion dollars left in their reserves.

FIFA could change 13-0 games. They could. They chose not to. Remember that.

Backline Chat: The World Cup Is Here!

Posted on by RJ Allen

Charles Olney (@olneyce): Hello, and welcome to our pre-World Cup Backline chat. Given time zones, this is probably the last of these I’ll be able to do for a while, but I’m excited to get some conversation in before the big event kicks off.

But, before we jump into the international talk, let’s cover the NWSL, since that gives us some actual results to work with. So, to open things up: everyone who had the Washington Spirit in first place at the World Cup break, raise your hand.

RJ Allen (@TheSoccerCritic): No one saw this coming. At all.

Charles Olney: I will admit that I have missed both of their recent victories, so I’m not in a good position to comment, but it sure seems like it hasn’t been a fluke. They really are playing very well.

Creating a lot of discomfort for those of us who are still angry about the lack of response to the abuse allegations from the offseason, which RJ discussed very compellingly in a recent piece.

RJ Allen: The league has to do something when it comes to Burke or that will become the media narrative around this team. Honestly part of the reason they haven’t is they are so under staffed. Which is just horrible.

Allison Cary (@findingallison): Yeah. But I agree that any success they have will be overshadowed by this until the NWSL and the Washington Spirit take some substantial action.

Charles Olney: I would love to be able to focus on the players, who deserve a lot of credit. And I’d love to be able to have a normal conversation about what Burke has brought as a coach (whatever it is, it seems to be working), but it’s hard to dig into either with all that floating over.

RJ Allen: It’s very ‘other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?’

Charles Olney: That said, does anyone have any insight into how they’ve turned things around? Is this just them waking up from a dream and forgetting all about 2018, and this is where they ‘should’ always have been given all the young talent they stockpiled?

RJ Allen: I think having so many young, hungry players who are willing to seemingly run through walls for each other really helps. They remind me a bit of the old Western New York Flash team in 2016.

Charles Olney: It certainly seems to help that Andi Sullivan is finally back playing really well. But there’s also a cohesion to the whole team that goes beyond any one player. I’ll absolutely be curious to see if they can sustain it. The WNY comparison is a great one. That team was also maybe a year ahead of schedule, but they didn’t care about timelines.

RJ Allen: Ashley Hatch looks really solid this year as well. And her having a big year is key.

Allison Cary: Yeah, Hatch has been a standout. And of course having Bledsoe in goal is a big help too.

Charles Olney: Elsewhere in the league, I feel like I’m getting some whiplash. Chicago looked like they were going to dominate the break, now they’re in crisis. Utah was flying high and now is stumbling badly. Houston and Seattle keep throwing away points…or maybe finding points. North Carolina look mortal. Is this just what we should expect for the whole break?

Allison Cary: It’s all chaos. Welcome to the NWSL.

RJ Allen: You know who are good soccer players? Christen Press and Sam Kerr. You know are away from their club teams right now? Christen Press and Sam Kerr. Oversimplification, yes. But when you pull so many starters out it is just brutal.

Allison Cary: But then isn’t it brutal for their opponents too?

RJ Allen: Some teams have lost bigger pieces and some teams have stepped up. We see it every World Cup and Olympic year. Some teams have deeper benches.

Charles Olney: At the moment, Portland feels like the exception. On paper, Chicago looked far stronger this weekend, but Portland just blew them away in the opening half hour and then held on nicely for the win. Was that just finally being back home in a great atmosphere? Are they set for a reversion to the mean, too? Or do they have something special?

RJ Allen: I think playing in Portland after such a long time not being able to was a huge boost, yes. But Purce and Charley were really fantastic that match.

Charles Olney: My gut says that with lower overall quality, there is just more room for wacky results and we shouldn’t read too much into anything. But maybe one team (Portland perhaps) just reels off five or six wins and opens up a huge lead.

RJ Allen: Right now chaos reigns.

Charles Olney: It certainly has been exciting seeing some of these marginal players get a chance and REALLY take advantage of it.

RJ Allen: Bethany Balcer, Rookie of the Year.

Allison Cary: Amen.

Charles Olney: DiBiasi, though! And Sam Staab!

Allison Cary: Yeah, DiBiasi was also a standout to me.

RJ Allen: They will be nominated, for sure.

Charles Olney: After a very down year for rookies in 2018, it’s been great seeing new faces doing so well this year.

Alright, what about the other side of the table. We’ve got seven teams within six points of each other at the top, and then two teams that have COMBINED for three points through fifteen games. Is there any hope at all?

Allison Cary: Nope.

RJ Allen: Nope.

Charles Olney: We’re missing Luis, our resident Orlando optimist, but I’m pretty sure he would say…”nope”

Allison Cary: Orlando hasn’t shown any signs of life. Sky Blue has had better flashes, but…

RJ Allen: I don’t know what you do with Orlando. They were bad ever when they had their full team.

Allison Cary: Yeah. I think there’s some deeper stuff going on there.

Charles Olney: One conclusion that could be drawn is that Tom Sermanni actually did a lot to hold them together as much as he did. Alternatively, he let things get so out of hand that they were unfixable even after they got someone new?

RJ Allen: I understand that you have to give Marc Skinner time but the team is just not playing well under him. Orlando once bet the farm on Morgan and there is a very real chance she nopes out when LAFC comes in and they will have nothing.

Charles Olney: But it’s weird how quickly Orlando went from having a solid roster that people insisted on calling a top-tier roster to having a mediocre roster that people think is pure garbage. Because, it’s not great, but it’s also not THAT bad.

RJ Allen: The roster is playing THAT bad though. The players themselves are mostly NWSL level.

Charles Olney: But they really did over-leverage themselves based on Morgan and Marta, and that’s really coming back to bite them now. There’s no denying that.

Allison Cary: There are a decent amount of international and national team players on that team. But no one was performing even before everyone left for the WC.

RJ Allen: And they aren’t getting butts in seats either. Which is why I think they did it partly in the first place.

Charles Olney: In conclusion: I hope they turn it around somehow. but ‘turn it around’ is relative. I just want them and Sky Blue to start pulling closer to the pack.

Charles Olney: Okay, let’s turn our attention to the World Cup, which is starting this week.  It’s a huge event, obviously, and there’s a million pieces to unpack. But what are your top level thoughts about the tournament as a whole?

RJ Allen: I really hope it’s fun. The women’s game just needs a really fun world event where some wild shit happens and a lot of great goals are scored.

Allison Cary: Agreed.

Charles Olney: I think that this tournament has a chance to be a genuine turning point in a way that we’ve never quite seen. But I’m not going to demand that it be a revolution in order to call it a success. As you say, it will definitely be fun, and that will be enough even if that’s ‘all’ we get.

Allison Cary: It definitely feels special. It feels like the tournament we’re gonna look back on and say “that was it.”

RJ Allen: It feels like it may be 1999 but for more than just the US.

Allison Cary: That would be magical. I want all the new teams to do as well as possible, especially teams like Jamaica and Chile and Argentina. It will mean so much to even be able to go back with goals, even more if they can get a win or two.

Charles Olney: I got a chance to talk with Kieran Thievam for the podcast this week, and that’s the comparison he made. 1999 was a big deal here, but not really anywhere else. But this could be that tournament for five or six teams.

RJ Allen: I think having it in France helps. It’s close together with other countries who can reasonably just decide to show up. I understand not always having it in Europe but logistically it is really nice.

Charles Olney: Definitely. I was looking at the Dutch group schedule, for example, and they’ve got two games in the northeast of France. That’s just a 3-4 hour train ride from the Netherlands. I bet there is a LOT of orange in the crowd for those. And there’s potential there for a lot of teams. The English traveling contingent is going to be big. And if this is a breakthrough tournament for, say, Italy and Spain, there’s a LOT of folks nearby who might decide on a whim to make a trip.

RJ Allen: I love the idea of the Aussies hosting it in 2023 but it would be a travel struggle moving place to place and just getting there. Being able to just decide to go to a game the day of, tickets not withstanding, is amazing.

Charles Olney: One slightly negative thing is that there doesn’t seem to have been much marketing in France itself, which means there will probably be a major difference between games. Some with 50,000, others with 5000. That feels like a missed opportunity.

RJ Allen: It does. You would think they would want the money that having games with 50,000 people bring in if nothing else. But hey sexism is real.

Charles Olney: Alright, dialing in a little bit on the games themselves, who are we pulling for, outside of the obvious?

RJ Allen: I would like Scotland to win some games and get to the knocks outs. Please and thank you.

Charles Olney: I’m definitely on Team Jamaica, and if RJ doesn’t mind the company, I’ll join her on the Scotland bandwagon

Allison Cary: Yep, those were the two teams I was gonna mention.

RJ Allen: I would like Sarah Bouhaddi to do well and have a good World Cup.

Allison Cary: Please.

RJ Allen: I am invested in her journey.

Allison Cary: Me too, not necessarily by choice.

RJ Allen: I do not know why I enjoy her so much. She is everything that I dislike usually about goalkeepers but we stan who we stan. And yes, Charles, please join me on the Scotland bandwagon.

Allison Cary: I, too, am on the Scotland bandwagon. My sister goes to school there. That’s my connection.

Charles Olney: I’m also really excited to see Thailand. They’re maybe the most isolated of all the teams, with virtually no one that plays outside of Thailand. And they had a pretty easy road to get here. So they might get blown away. But the few times I’ve seen them, they’re one of those teams that manages to frustrate the opposition without completely backing into a shell. I really hope they find a result or two.

RJ Allen: If Scotland beats England I may have to move to Scotland like Allison is going to move to France if they win.

Allison Cary: Europe here we come!

RJ Allen: I am really excited to see Canada too. I want them to have one more least real shot at a title for Sinclair.

Allison Cary: I would love to see Thailand do well. I think it could mean a lot not just to them, but to that region.

Charles Olney: Some of the other bigger teams that I’d really like to see do well: France – because it would be incredible for the home nation to finally overcome their problems with the big games, Spain – because they’re ready to join the ranks of the very top nations in the world, and Australia – because Sam Kerr.

I mean, I love a lot of things about Australia, and would be thrilled to see them do well in any case. But after watching Marta spend a career as the best in the world with no trophies to show for it, I don’t want Kerr to go through the same.

Same logic applies for Canada and Sinclair.

RJ Allen: France vs Australia would be a fun match. Not for Allison, but still.

Allison Cary: I’m really hoping this is France’s year. But… I’ve cheered for teams that choke my whole life and it’s a hard thing to break out of.  I’m starting to believe they could really win this thing and that’s just setting me up for complete and utter disappointment.

Charles Olney: One thing I’ve noticed is that most of the teams I’m pulling for are very likely to face the US: Thailand, Spain, and France. So I guess that sets me up for happiness no matter what happens?

Allison Cary: That’s soccer.

Charles Olney: Yep. The reality is that ALL these teams are interesting and fun, and there really aren’t any bad choices. But let’s try to quantify that: which team would you LEAST like to see win?

Allison Cary: Norway winning would be… complicated. But there are a lot of players I like on that team, so it might be worth it.

Charles Olney: That was my answer, too.

Charles Olney: They’ve also already won one, even if it was quite a while ago, in a very different game. But yeah, I’d be hard-pressed to be sad about that group of players winning it.

RJ Allen: Germany. I am petty.

Charles Olney: I am absolutely here for RJ’s pettiness re: Germany. But I would love to see them win. That team is wonderful.

Allison Cary: I have mixed feelings about England. I shouldn’t, it will be massive for that country if they do well. But the way they handled Mark Sampson and the Eni Aluko thing— and I mean the players, not the FA— rubbed me the wrong way.

RJ Allen: The problem is you can say that about almost any federation. Every federation, the smaller ones more than most, have huge issues. So I try not to count that against the players/coach if it’s changed.

Allison Cary: Well, but like I said I’m not talking about the FA side. I’m talking about individual comments from players.

RJ Allen: But I don’t deny I get why you feel like that.

Charles Olney: Okay, so it’s foolish to make predictions, but we’re all fools, so let’s make some predictions. I think we’re all on record already with some of these, but we can knock them out quickly.

First: who wins the tournament?

RJ Allen: France

Allison Cary: Do I say France? I don’t know what to say.

Charles Olney: You have to pick! It’s France for me, too.

Allison Cary: Damn it. I guess I’m committing. This definitely means they’ll choke.

RJ Allen: Or as Kim McCauley said, whoever wins the US vs France game.

Allison Cary: That’s a fair prediction.

Charles Olney: Okay, #2: golden ball and golden boot winner. I think Miedema wins the golden boot, and Henry wins the golden ball.

Allison Cary: Miedema for boot.

RJ Allen: Sam Kerr for Golden Boot, Amandine Henry for Golden Ball.

Allison Cary: I’ll go with Henry for Golden Ball.

Charles Olney: We all think very similarly, it turns out. We need more conflict here! Let’s try this one: who is the most surprising team in the semifinals.

RJ Allen: Canada.

Allison Cary: England.

Charles Olney: I’ll go Canada as well. But if it’s someone really wacky, I’ll take whoever finishes second in Group A (I’d bet on Norway, but SK or Nigeria could do it).

Charles Olney: Next: how many minutes do Morgan Brian, Ali Krieger, Ashlynn Harris, and Adi Franch play combined?

RJ Allen: I could see Brain or Krieger get time in the first two games so 47.

Allison Cary: I’m gonna go a bit higher and say 60. Taking risks.

Charles Olney: I think there’s a real chance that it’s zero, but just for the sake of differentiation, I’ll take the over on those. Maybe 90.

RJ Allen: Does Julie Ertz play more than 30 minutes at centerback by the end of the US’s time in the World Cup?

Allison Cary: Follow up— does Tobin play right back?

Charles Olney: Oh, that’s a good one. I think yes, and not for any particularly obvious reason, either. I think no on Heath at right back, unless it’s for like two minutes while they’re warming up a sub.

RJ Allen: I think at some point we see Tobin Heath slotted back. If she “plays” or not is another question.

RJ Allen: I think Ellis will want Mews in without taking anyone out. So Ertz will drop back sometimes.

Allison Cary: Yeah, that’s a good reason. I was kind of with Charles on the “yes but for no real reason.”

RJ Allen: Does Christen Press play in more than 3 games?

Charles Olney: Yes. I think she probably goes unused in one group stage game but plays in most or all of the rest.

Allison Cary: No.

Charles Olney: Leading goal-scorer for the US?

RJ Allen: Tobin Heath. I think she is doing things with the ball right now that are cheat mode.

Charles Olney: Morgan is the obvious answer, and probably is right, but given how weird these things can sometimes go, it genuinely could be someone really wild like Lloyd or something.

Allison Cary: Morgan. I’m gonna stick with predictable.

RJ Allen: In 2015 it was “we need a bitch, get Kelley”, who is the bitch in 2019?

Allison Cary: I definitely don’t know how to answer that question.

Charles Olney: I feel like that’s not the vibe of this team. For better and for worse.

RJ Allen: I think those are answers unto themselves.

Charles Olney: But they still have Kelley!

RJ Allen: They do. And she played like herself in New Jersey against Mexico. I think she and Becky Sauerbrunn are huge for the US. If they both don’t play 8/10 each game we’re in trouble.

Charles Olney: RJ and I already discussed this one on the podcast, but can rehash here: which US player(s) get suspended for yellow card accumulation?

RJ Allen: The Great Horan.

Allison Cary: Horan

RJ Allen: Or someone really funny like Rose Lavelle.

Charles Olney: If I remember correctly, we also mentioned Ertz and Heath as real possibilities.

RJ Allen: Heath called herself a psycho when she plays in a piece written by Richard Farley. And on the pitch, she is 100% right. She could get a few cards.

Allison Cary: I see Ertz as a solid possibility.

RJ Allen: I almost want it to be Becky Sauerbrunn but I also 100% do not want it to be Becky Sauerbrunn.

Allison Cary: I’m good with her getting suspended when the US plays France. Or her being suspended for that game, rather.

RJ Allen: Allison, I have a question for you. Would you rather see France win or Becky Sauerbrunn score a game winning goal?

Allison Cary: France win. They’re my TEAM. But I love Broon like all normal people do.

RJ Allen: All sane ones at least.

Charles Olney: Any final thoughts?

RJ Allen: Please @ Soccer Gods no ACL injuries, ok?

Allison Cary: One quick note: everyone should read the article by Shireen Ahmed in Time about the women who won’t be playing at the World Cup. It’s a must read.

Charles Olney: That is a great call. So, with that, let’s wrap up for the week. I hope everyone is excited for the World Cup, and will join along with all the coverage we’ll be providing over the course of the tournament. I’ll be posting something (almost) daily, and there should be plenty more coming from back home as well. It’s going to be a grand ride, and there will certainly be a lot to talk about along the way.

And don’t forget that the NWSL will be back on June 15 after a one-week break, so there will be plenty there to cover as well!

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 6

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 6: Matchday 0

Greetings from France. As I write this, I’m sitting in a coffeehouse in the 9th arrondissement of Paris, waiting for the action to start. It’s absolutely thrilling to be here.

I’ve followed this sport for a little over two decades, but really only as a casual fan for most of that time. I checked in for the big tournaments, maybe caught a friendly here or there, vaguely checked in on the WPS or NWSL, and that was it. But I decided in 2015 that I wanted to really invest. And that decision has led me here. It’s frankly kind of unbelievable. I consider myself incredibly lucky to be able to make this crazy trip, to attend all these matches, to bathe in the atmosphere, and to continue to learn more about this game.

That last part is critical. Because, while I’ve learned a huge amount over the past four years, it’s a truism that the more you know, the more you begin to understand just how little you actually know. I’ve been humbled at the depth and breadth of coverage out there about this tournament, and the incredible knowledge that some people are bringing to the table. And I’m so excited to get to play some small role in that process. 

I’ll be publishing plenty of traditional stories: match reports, tactical breakdowns, opinion columns – all the usual stuff. But I also wanted to provide something a little more informal, and more regular. That’s what this column will be. My plan is to write something here (just about) every day of the tournament. That will generally be match commentaries, and other assorted thoughts about the progress of the tournament. But it will also include some personal notes. The travel, the atmosphere, conversations with fans, and so forth.

One thing I’m interested in: how the tournament is marketed. After just a couple hours in Paris, so far it looks like the answer is: not very much. This is what I’ve seen so far.

Just to give you a sense of my travel plans, I’m going to be based in Paris for the group stage, though I’ll be making quite a few trains around northern France to catch games. I’ll be at all the US matches, and will also take some trips to places like Valenciennes for Australia v. Italy and Le Havre for Spain v. South Africa. Once the knockout rounds start, I’ll have to miss a few days as I travel to a political science conference in Newcastle, but I’ll be back in time for the quarterfinals, including that fated potential showdown between France and the US. Then I’ll be heading to Lyon for the final stages of the tournament.

And all along the way, I’ll be posting updates here at Backline. I hope you’ll join me. And if you’re going to be out here in France, feel free to drop me a line (@olneyce). After all, part of the fun of these events is meeting new friends.