Category: World Cup

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.

Netherlands vs. Sweden Preview and What to Watch For

Posted on by Backline Soccer

On paper, Sweden and the Netherlands is a less enticing matchup than the showdown between the US and England that we saw last night. There certainly isn’t as much pedigree. This is only the second appearance for the Dutch, and while Sweden do have some strong showings in their history (including a finals appearance in 2003), they were knocked out in the Round of 16 or earlier in two of the last three competitions.

At the same time, the Dutch are the reigning European champions after cruising to victory in 2017. And Sweden were finalists at the Olympics, the last major global tournament. So it isn’t that surprising to see them both come this far.

They have taken slightly different paths over the intervening years since their recent success. For Sweden, it’s been a period of transition. For the Dutch, it’s been an almost aggressive commitment to staying the course.

Sweden: No longer Pia’s team

The 2016 version of the team were defensively solid—boring if you want to put it nicely, or ‘cowards’ if you’re Hope Solo. This certainly reflected the style of their coach Pia Sundhage, who prioritized efficiency and execution, and got a lot of results in the process.

But after her departure following the 2017 Euros, they brought in a new coach, Peter Gerhardsson, who has tried to instill a more attack-minded and expansive style. The spine of the team remains the same, with veterans like Caroline Seger in midfield, Nilla Fischer in defense, and Hedvig Lindahl in goal combining for over 500 caps. But there have also been some infusions of new blood, and some re-applications of old talent.

With Kosovare Asllani now installed as the number 10, Sweden have a more flamboyant style—one that sacrifices some solidity but creates more exciting chances as a consequence. They’re still not a team that will possess the ball a huge amount against top competition, but their three-player midfield gives them a little bit more control over the center of the pitch. And with wide attackers like Sofia Jakobsson, with the pace to drop back or push forward, they aren’t reduced to merely playing a counter-attacking game.

They certainly will still look to beat their opponents by executing simple tactics well—witness their extremely old fashioned ‘hit balls over the center backs and then run past them and score’ approach against Germany. But this is a team with options, who will be able to adapt their plan for the opposition. Especially if that opponent is extremely predictable. Which, fortunately for the Swedes, describes the Dutch very well.

Netherlands: A free-flowing attack that’s virtually unstoppable…when it’s working

Unlike Sweden, the Dutch squad has worked very hard to undertake as few changes as possible over the past two years. They found a formula that worked in the Euros and are sticking to it like a kid following a paint-by-numbers set. At the tip of the attack is Vivianne Miedema—one of the world’s best strikers, and as capable as anyone of burying chances when they come her way. Out wide, their two creative forwards: Lieke Martens and Shanice van de Sanden. Their job is to spread the defense and then play the ball into space for Miedema to convert. And occasionally to cut in themselves and have a shot.

Behind them: Daniëlle van de Donk, a tireless box-to-box midfielder who deputizes a bit as a ‘#10’ but is really there to bring endless movement to the midfield. She shares the forward midfield role with Jackie Groenen, who provides stability and vision. Groenen is an excellent passer, and one of those players who seems to play three or four moves ahead of everyone else. The final piece of the midfield puzzle is Sherida Spitse—not a true holding midfielder, but someone capable of filling the job in a Dutch side that otherwise lacks a bit for options. Spitse is probably less famous than the other five names in the Dutch front lines, but is potentially their most important player. If she plays well, she’s the gyroscope that keeps everything in balance. If she struggles, it all begins to wobble. Overall, the Netherlands haven’t necessarily looked great through their first five games. But they also haven’t fallen apart. A lot of the credit there probably should go to Spitse.

Those front six are about as locked into place as anything in this tournament. Despite significant struggles (and/or health concerns) for their wide forwards, there have been no changes yet. That stability has its advantages, but might also read as stubbornness. And in such a short and intense tournament, the lack of rotation could be a significant problem.

So rotation (or lack thereof) is one clear danger zone for the Dutch. The other is the backline, which has looked porous and ill-fitting all tournament. They’ve gotten away with it, but their match against Japan to advance from the Round of 16 showed just how fragile this defensive unit really is, especially when faced with teams that can move the ball quickly and generate new angles for attack. They’ve also struggled in possession, withering in the face of an aggressive press.

What to watch for

These strengths and weaknesses suggest the potential for a tactically intriguing match. The Dutch are susceptible to being picked apart. And Sweden has the potential to build that sort of attack. But they’re not Japan, so if they really try to play that way, the Swedes could find themselves a bit more open than they’re comfortable with. That’s particularly dangerous when facing a Dutch attack that loves to see space in wide areas for them to run into.

Conversely, the Dutch have had a lot of trouble creating chances on the ground. Their wide forwards have rained in a million crosses, but generally not very good ones. A solid backline could potentially afford to pack it in and simply knock all those crosses out of the way. Miedema is always a danger, but if she only really has one vector for attack, she’s probably more manageable.

So how will Sweden try to play? Will they push forward in possession and try to break the game open? Or will they simply drop back and defend? If the latter, will Netherlands’ head coach Sarina Wiegman have come up with a plan for her team that helps them pick that lock? So far, they’ve done precious little through the middle. But players like Martens, Groenen, and van de Donk (not to mention some options that have mostly been sitting on the bench) have the skill to take on that challenge.

It’s all delicately poised. You probably wouldn’t go wrong to bet on this to look somewhat similar to the famous USA v. Sweden game from the Olympics in 2016, with the Netherlands generally controlling the game but not finding much luck actually getting the ball to Miedema in a position to score. It’s an obvious approach for Sweden, and one with much to recommend it. But they have more tricks up their sleeves than a simple bunker.

The Dutch are pretty heavily favored to win by the bookmakers. That is probably right. They are the stronger team on paper, and even without firing on all cylinders yet, they’ve probably performed better in this tournament. But Sweden are no pushovers. If I were betting, I’d probably put money on Sweden. They’re underdogs, but maybe not quite as heavy underdogs as the odds makers think.

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.

Football is Coming Home? A Breakdown of the England National Team

Posted on by Backline Soccer

England enter the semifinals in good form, fresh off their best performance of the tournament—a 3-0 defeat of Norway. That match demonstrated both their strengths and weaknesses. It therefore provides a good template for understanding how they could win the tournament, or how they could lose it.

A strong and multifaceted attack

England’s primary strength is a dynamic and diverse attack. At the tip of the spear is Ellen White, who has probably done more than any other player to raise her stock over the course of this tournament. She has five goals, and has been integral to their attack. And this from a player who was by no means a certain starter coming in. This is because England’s strike force is extremely deep—almost certainly the second most powerful behind the US in the tournament.

Supporting White on the wings will likely be Nikita Parris and Toni Duggan (though the excellent Beth Mead could also make an appearance here). Both are top-quality strikers themselves, but have found themselves redeployed in support roles, to generally positive effect. Parris, in particular, has been devastatingly effective out wide, quite impressive for someone who is primarily a goal-poacher in her club role. But with England, Parris has been supremely unselfish, generally looking to create rather than score, and dragging defenses out to create space for the central strikers and onrushing midfields to work.

The England attack also relies on generating space for their progressive midfielders to work. Generally, the #10 has been Fran Kirby, one of the most talented passers in the world, who has the ability to unlock even the most solid defenses. But Kirby also has a tendency to go missing for long stretches—failing to generate space to receive the ball, or drifting forward and occupying space that is well-marked, and where her diminutive stature will make it hard to win balls coming in high. So coach Phil Neville may decide to opt for the young but extremely dynamic Georgia Stanway instead. In either case, that attacking midfield role will be critical to their chances. They can certainly survive a poor performance in that role—given their ability to create from wide positions—but without that extra spark in the middle, it will become quite predictable

Whoever plays the number 10 will likely be flanked by two more defensively oriented midfielders. Jill Scott will almost certainly be one of the two. The veteran brings experience and calmness to the team, and she’s playing about as well at the moment as we have ever seen. In the quarterfinals, Scott was joined by Keira Walsh. The pair largely controlled the game in the first half, as Norway generously gave them space to work. But once pressure was applied, Walsh began to falter a bit. That’s certainly what their remaining opponents will want to do. Both Walsh and Scott are excellent all-around players, but neither is a devastating ball-winner, nor are they at the top levels for retention. They therefore rely on support and positioning to supply them with options. An opponent that overloaded that space might find some real success.

Lucy Bronze

The other key strength for England is Lucy Bronze. The right back is one of a handful of players in serious competition for the Golden Ball, particularly amazing for someone playing fullback. But Bronze is far more involved in all levels of play than the usual fullback. Her defensive work is good, but it’s in the attack that she rises by leaps and bounds above the competition. She has a vicious shot, as Norway was forced to recall in the last round, and can also make superb overlapping runs down the right flank. But the true heart of her ability is revealed when she cuts inside, effectively becoming an additional creative central midfielder. By adding a fourth player to the midfield, she can overload the opposition, ensuring there is always a free body. And since she arrives from unexpected angles, it’s extremely hard to pick her up before she arrives. All that attacking does mean England’s right flank can sometimes be dangerously exposed. This is where the deeper-lying midfielders will be critical. If they can read Bronze’s movement and avoid chasing play forward, they will be in position to protect that space. If not, they will be exploitable on the counter.

A solid but exploitable defense

England are most troubled by quick attacks. The central defensive pairing of Steph Houghton and Millie Bright have generally been solid, but neither deals especially well with balls over the top, and they can both also be exposed by quick passing on the ground near the top of the box, which forces decisions on whether to step or stay. If they are given the chance to set, the backline is robust. It’s when they’re trying to defend in space that things get far more dicey. So far, their hesitations and mistakes have generally gone unpunished. But against more lethal opposition, England could certainly have given away three or four goals in their previous knockout matches. Against the remaining opposition they might not be so lucky.

One other complicating factor is that Bright was clearly struggling with fatigue and sickness (she apparently caught a bug) in the last game, and was at fault three or four times in the final half hour against Norway. But England have a lot of depth in the role, and should be able to mix and match without huge concern.

At left back, Demi Stokes seems to have asserted her hold over the job with a competent and assured defensive performance against Norway—particularly useful since Bronze is so often far more advanced on the other side. But Alex Greenwood could potential start here. If so, opponents will be even more inclined to attack wide.

Finally the keeper, Karen Bardsley, is extremely dependable, though unspectacular. If they’re relying on her to save the team from a barrage of shots, they may be in trouble. But her presence will go a long way to stabilizing the defense and preventing that situation from arising.

Phil Neville

England also have two other small but meaningful advantages, which are linked together. The first is their coach. Phil Neville was not a popular choice for the job in many circles, but he’s taken a team with potential and developed them into one that now consistently performs at the top level. He is adaptive, and helps organize his team to face the specific challenges of a game, setting them up to succeed. And he also seems to have kept the dressing room together. That someone like Neville could so easily step into the job and be a strength for his team is more a comment on the overall quality of coaching in the women’s game (frustratingly very low) than a resounding endorsement. But it is a strength.

The second advantage for England is a group of players who should be comparatively well-rested. Neville was criticized repeatedly in English media for rotating so much coming into the tournament and in the group stage. But England are now in the late stages with players who have expended less energy, and with a supporting cast that all have meaningful match experience. Given the heat in France, having a tiny bit more left in the tank could be the final decisive factor.

So just how good are England? It still remains to be seen. They have clearly established themselves as belonging in the top tier. Even if they lose to the US on Tuesday that will still be true, based on what they’ve accomplished so far. But there is still room for them to get even better. The next few days will tell us whether they can make the leap.

Stop Complaining about the Qualification Process for the Olympics. It’s Fine.

Posted on by Backline Soccer

Two of the world’s four best teams will not be competing in the Olympic Women’s Soccer tournament in 2020. France and Germany, due to their elimination in the quarterfinals of the World Cup, have also failed to qualify for the Olympics. This has provoked some consternation and confusion, as well as quite a few demands for changes to the system.

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

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

Unfortunately, as is often the case when Americans jump into situations to offer their opinions, it’s quite a bit more complicated than this.

There isn’t time to run a fair European qualification process

It certainly is strange that European teams don’t get a separate qualification process for the Olympics. It feels like double jeopardy: fail in one tournament, and you’re also blocked from the next.

But there is a pretty obvious explanation why they do it this way: the steady march of the clock. UEFA already runs full qualification campaigns for the World Cup and the European Championship, which take up the vast majority of available time. World Cup qualifying didn’t finish until November of 2018, and Euros qualifying begins in August of 2019. That’s next month!

Compare to CONCACAF’s qualifying process for the Olympics, which is theoretically spread out over a few months but for all realistic purposes takes place in a single two-week tournament. Teams from Central America and the Caribbean go through their own mini-competitions for the privilege of making that final event, but the US and Canada—far and away the two best teams, and the ones overwhelmingly likely to actually make the Olympics—jump directly into the competition at this final stage.

UEFA can’t do something like this because they have close to 50 teams, of which 15-20 could realistically challenge for a spot. It takes time, a lot of time, to whittle that down using any kind of fair process. And with the Olympics coming just twelve months after the World Cup, that time doesn’t exist.

The alternatives aren’t really any better

UEFA could try to create a modified system – maybe inviting a certain set of the top teams in the World Cup to play a mini-tournament. But this doesn’t really resolve the underlying problem of double-counting success and failure. Plus, it’s arguably equally cruel to the teams who outperformed their competitors at the previous tournament, who would now be forced to do it all again. And it would still eat up a decent chunk of time that isn’t really available. European leagues, after all, run through the fall and winter and expect member countries to follow the FIFA calendar. There really isn’t time for even a two-week break.

One change that would slightly ease this process would be to expand the field for the Olympics. Twelve teams is a weird number for a tournament, especially when geographic balance is enforced so rigidly. If it grew to sixteen, you could add two more European teams, guarantee a second spot for Africa, and allow a third Asian team to fight the playoff against South America. The men’s tournament has 16 teams, so there’s no good argument against allowing the same number on the women’s side.

But lack of good arguments has never made much difference when it comes to the Olympics’ organizers, who are not going to want to bring in 72 more athletes and schedule six more matches. And there’s no guarantee that they’d allocate the slots in a way that makes sense. And even if they did, it would just mean five European teams get selected through this process, without actually fixing the underlying time crunch.

The Olympics is a second-tier tournament, and that’s okay

So we can try to improve the system. Or we could just accept the reality that the Olympics isn’t as big a tournament as the World Cup, and never will be. That they ever seemed comparable is really just a historical accident. In the 1990s, when professional women’s soccer was barely a dream, every international tournament was an opportunity for real competition. And women’s soccer was added in 1996, in the United States, at a moment when American audiences were primed to grab hold of it. So it was a big success.

But as the pool of competitive nations grows, it’s far outstripping what the Olympics can offer. And so it can’t really be a true international tournament. In 2020, it will be without France and Germany. But if they had made it, we would have lost the Dutch, or England, or Sweden. Spain and Norway won’t be there. There will be no Argentina, no Scotland, no Denmark. We might see a playoff between Cameroon and Chile, with the loser missing out. These are all teams that could add a lot to the tournament.

Rather than lamenting all these absences, we should just get comfortable with the reality: the Olympics is a second-tier tournament, and that’s okay. It will still involve 12 very good teams, all of whom will do everything they can to win it. A gold medal will still mean a lot. But it simply isn’t the pinnacle.

Europe already has its own second-tier tournament with the European championships. And given the expanding quality of European women’s soccer, you could potentially argue that the Euros are equivalent to the Olympics at this point. Which actually creates some nice symmetry. European teams all get their own high-quality tournament to compete against each other. And the Olympics is a tournament for the rest of the world, with a few European teams invited to the mix to keep everyone honest.

Somewhat by accident, the Olympics has ended up being a very useful alternative for non-European nations that aren’t members of a federation deep enough to generate a meaningful tournament.

So if the system for picking which European teams come to play with everyone else in the Alt-Euro competition isn’t perfect, it’s just not that important. They have their own big event coming up a year later, and it’s not worth them mucking with their calendar to sort out their Olympic entrants. 

None of this was designed this way. But it’s worked out that way. And we should just accept it for what it is, instead of trying to fix the unfixable. 

Women’s World Cup Daily: The Axis Falls

Posted on by Backline Soccer
Italy 0 – 2 Netherlands

This was always going to be a tough challenge for Italy, and they gave it a real go. But after the teams came back out from halftime, the writing was pretty quickly on the wall. Under a blazing hot sun, playing their fifth game in three weeks, the Italian players were truly struggling to keep up the pace. The ball virtually never left the Italian half. Or if it did, it was only a hopeful long ball which was quickly snagged by a Dutch defender and immediately returned. It felt like only a matter of time before they scored, and so it proved.

The two goals both came on set pieces. Perhaps strangely, given that Italy’s obviously tired limbs seemed more exploitable in open play. But it turned out to be the dead ball situations that got them – with first Miedema and then Van der Gragt simply leaping over the opposition to power home goals.

It wasn’t a game that either side will much want to revisit. For all their dominance during the second half, the Dutch never really looked like they were doing much until their opponents began to fall apart. There will still be many doubts about their ability to unlock a defense better equipped to resist. For the Italians, the first half felt like a genuine competition, but it never really seemed plausible that they would score after the half, so even a 1-0 lead for the Dutch seemed pretty insurmountable.

For all that, I do want to hit a couple themes from the game.

First, Italy’s intriguing formation. They set up in a 4-3-1-2, with Aurora Galli as a free floating #10 in between the frontline and midfield. It’s a peculiar setup, one that you don’t see very often because it has some significant limitations. But for this game, it actually worked pretty well. Italy generally looked to defend deep, with two banks fairly close together. Normally, it would be two banks of four, but here they sacrificed some solidity in the middle for a roving presence higher up. It worked well because the Dutch seemed completely unable or unwilling to shift the ball into the middle.

The result was something very similar to last night’s game between the US and France, with Italy taking on the role of the Americans. Effectively, they dared the Dutch: here is an opening, go ahead and try to exploit it. And the Netherlands couldn’t do it. Every attack went down the wings, mostly turning into over-hit crosses or soft, low balls that were cleared easily.

And, because Galli was moving freely outside of the defensive lines, when the Dutch tried to recycle play out, she was often in unexpected places and able to snag a few interceptions and launch counter attacks.

They couldn’t sustain this approach into the second half (see above re: heat and exhaustion). But for 45 minutes it really worked.

Second, the continuing struggles of the Dutch wingers. This was another awful game for Van de Sanden. And while Lieke Martens was able to play – after some injury concerns – she was again pretty anonymous. These are two superstar players, but they’re simply not getting it done. And it can’t have helped to run around in the heat today either. To be fair, once Lineth Beerensteyn came on (as I have been yelling about for a week now), she didn’t really do much either. But it remains a real issue, and one that could really use fixing. The Netherlands now have five wins so far, without ever really looking like they were that good. But we have absolutely seen them perform at the highest level. If they can get things to click into gear, there’s zero reason why they couldn’t win two more games and take home the cup.

Germany 1 – 2 Sweden

I tried to watch this game, but it turns out that tethering to my cell phone and then using VPN to pretend I’m in the US was a bridge too far. So I didn’t see a second. But it sounds like Sweden more or less executed the plan that has looked promising against Germany before: give them the ball but defend well, and then hit them with long balls that exploit their weakness and slowness in central defense.

And so Germany go out earlier than expected. They certainly did not have as successful a tournament as I thought they would, both in terms of the final result and in terms of performances across the games. They weren’t bad, but they also weren’t good. Which isn’t that different from the four teams that did make the semifinals, all of whom have shown some real weaknesses. But the Germans couldn’t manage to overcome them, and so here we are.

It can’t go without mentioning that part (maybe a big part) of the reason they have struggled is that they lost their best player after the first game (because the referee decided to let China play recklessly – a point that I’m not going to let go). They have enough depth that it really shouldn’t have been devastating, but it is certainly part of the equation.

Sweden, meanwhile, are into the semifinal. They underwhelmed a bit in the group stage, but are a genuinely exciting team. You might not know that from the commentary about them, which still seems to believe that this is Pia Sundhage’s team that defended their way to an Olympic final three years ago. There is still plenty of defensive solidity here, but they can play many ways. They probably won’t be favorites against the Netherlands, but there really isn’t much between them.

Notes

– Coming into the tournament, four teams were regarded by the bookies as being a clear step above the rest: the US, France, Germany, and England. Until this evening, they had collectively won 18 of 19 games, with the only loss being France’s defeat to the US. Frankly, it wasn’t really a surprise that one of those teams eventually lost to someone else. It’s more weird that it took so long.

– This was my first experience seeing the Netherlands traveling fans, and it was everything I had been told, and more. Truly amazing to see the walk before the game, and to hear them all in the stadium during the match.

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

– I’m off to Lyon! I’ve got an early train tomorrow and will spend the afternoon getting settled and exploring a bit. I’ve never really been to the south of France, so it will be a new experience.

– (Germany and Italy were two of the primary Axis powers, while Sweden was non-aligned and the Netherlands were, of course, occupied. With the US and England making up the rest of the quartet, it’s certainly a good day for the Allies.)

 

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.

To The Team That Stole My Heart

Posted on by Backline Soccer

I don’t get a lot of chances to watch my favorite soccer team.

I cheer for the French national team, a fact that usually catches people off guard. An American women’s soccer fan who doesn’t cheer for the U.S.? Unlike so many of my friends and co-workers, it wasn’t watching the United States play soccer that made me fall in love with the game. It wasn’t watching Abby Wambach take shots or Hope Solo make incredible saves, it wasn’t watching Amy Rodriguez with her crazy pace or Becky Sauerbrunn defending that backline.

I became a women’s soccer fan during the 2015 Women’s World Cup. I saw that FOX Sports was running the games on their stations, so I decided to turn on France vs. England in the group stage. And I fell in love. It was watching Wendie Renard defend the backline and Amandine Henry dominate the midfield that made me fall in love with women’s soccer. It was Eugénie Le Sommer and Louisa Nécib and Claire Lavogez and my first favorite soccer player, Laure Boulleau. I didn’t care if I was “supposed” to cheer for the U.S., France stole my heart and they would always be my squad.

When I watched France take on Germany in the Quarterfinals, it didn’t feel fair. This should have been a final, but life isn’t fair. These women were warriors. We played through 90 minutes, and then 120, until finally we stepped up for penalties. In the end, it was 21-year-old Claire Lavogez, a player I had identified with deeply in that tournament, who missed the penalty for France. Germany went on and we went home.

It was one of the most painful matches of my life. And I think I cried a little bit, but I knew that this was only the start of my relationship with this team.

I didn’t know that it was gonna be my last time watching Laure Boulleau play. I didn’t fully understand at the time how much effort was gonna be required to keep up with France, how few chances I’d get to see them. I tried to make the most of it. In 2016, I got to watch them in the Olympics. During the first She Believes Cup, I went to Tampa to see them play in person for the first time. I followed them through the Euros, but really it was all building towards this moment.

I couldn’t wait to see these women take the world’s biggest stage in their own country.

A lot of people thought we could win this World Cup. I hate to be a pessimist, but I didn’t. I wanted them to with all my heart, but I didn’t think the French women had made the necessary changes to win on this stage. We had seen a lot of retirements, brought in a lot of youngsters, and had a head coach who had not yet proved she could win on this level.

They did everything they could to prove me wrong.

And I’m so god damn proud of this team.

They couldn’t avoid a quarterfinal collision with the U.S. Like 2015, it felt unfair. Why was this in the quarterfinals? But there was no time to dwell on that.

The U.S. came out swinging and in the 5th minute, they took the lead. Megan Rapinoe launched a free kick that I knew instantly was going in. The cluster of players blocked Sarah Bouhaddi’s vision. The ball went right through Amandine Henry’s legs and past an outstretched Bouhaddi. 1-0 USA.

The French fell into a familiar rhythm. They dominated possession, but they couldn’t finish. They didn’t even get a lot of great shots off. You don’t usually see the U.S. allowing possession and defending like they did, but it worked. The French out possessed the US, they took more shots, they had more corners. But it wasn’t enough.

In the 65th minute, Rapinoe got her second goal. The French defenders scrambled to stop Sam Mewis and somehow left Rapinoe wide open. She took her shot and it sailed past Bouhaddi. I broke down in tears because I knew that was the end.

I was messaging my friends and family, telling them that the game was over, that there was no way France could score two goals in 25 minutes. Just as I started to accept our fate, Wendie Renard found the back of the net. She seemed to be flying across the field, both in actually scoring the goal and in the celebration.

I screamed and cried again.

The Renard goal was one of those moments. It felt like a personal reminder not to give up. It was the French team’s way of reminding me why I fell in love with them. And even though we didn’t win, and I cried for a third time as I watched the French players shake hands with the U.S. team after the final whistle, it didn’t feel like the world was collapsing around me anymore.

The French will be back.

Last week, I said thank you to Marta. This week, I say thank you to France. You didn’t win it all, but you played your hearts out. You reminded me why I love this team, why they are my favorite soccer team in the world. And for that, I am forever grateful.

Women’s World Cup Daily: Are England the new favorites?

Posted on by Backline Soccer

England have played five games in the World Cup, and won all five. After the events surrounding their 3-0 victory over Cameroon ended up overwhelming any conversation about their actual performance, they came out tonight and recorded another emphatic 3-0 victory. With many of their fellow contenders struggling mightily to overcome their opposition, England is both the first team to take a berth in the semifinals as well as maybe the team with the most momentum.

They were fourth-favorites coming into the tournament, according to the bookies, and none of the teams ahead of them (the US, France, and Germany) have yet been eliminated. But one will be gone by this time tomorrow. So England is certainly among the favorites. But have they done enough to lift themselves up to the level of the other top contenders? Or maybe even outpaced them?

I wouldn’t go that far. Because while a 3-0 performance tonight was certainly reflective of the game overall–a match that England dominated for long stretches–there were also far too many danger signs here to simply ignore.

But let’s start with the good. First and foremost: Lucy Bronze. She was unstoppable tonight, and has arguably been the player of the tournament so far. She created the first goal, with a brilliant overlapping run, as well as the confidence and skill to take her defender on rather than simply sending in a fruitless cross. By attacking on the dribble, she ripped through the Norwegian defense, and gave her two wide open targets when she cut back her pass. Ellen White completely whiffed, but it didn’t even matter because Jill Scott was right behind her to bury it. Bronze also created the second goal and scored the third. She was a force of nature.

But this wasn’t purely the Lucy Bronze show. England also got a great performance from Nikita Parris, who is a goal scorer for her club but has refashioned herself very nicely as an unselfish wide creator for England. Ellen White scored another, pulling level with Alex Morgan and Sam Kerr in the golden boot race. Jill Scott and Keira Walsh bossed the midfield. Steph Houghton and Millie Bright executed some superb tackles and clearances to keep the clean sheet. Fran Kirby showed off the magic she can perform with the ball. And all of this was orchestrated by coach Phil Neville who (despite grumblings to the contrary over the past weeks, months, and years) actually does seem to have a very good idea what he’s doing.

So there were many positives. England played well for long stretches, toying with Norway, then breaking with incredible speed. When it all clicked, they looked masterful.

But the lingering, glaring problem: when things broke down, they broke down fast and catastrophically. Norway didn’t manage to score, but it was only through an almost comical inability to finish the chances that kept presenting themselves.  

Many of the most dangerous plays came from incredibly simple attacks. Norway would simply launch direct balls straight at the centerbacks, who repeatedly struggled to handle them, sometimes literally just missing their clearance and watching the ball bounce behind. Bright and Houghton both seemed to have a lot of difficulty mapping defensive space, and found themselves caught by these simple attacks repeatedly. This may be in part to a lack of experience playing together. Despite being the obvious first choice pairing, they have actually had very few chances to actually appear in the same game. On one of these, goalkeeper Bardsley came out to close down an attack and clattered into Lisa-Marie Utland. Play went on as Utland kept her feet. But on a different day, with a more aggressive VAR check, that could easily have been a penalty and a red card for the keeper.

On a similar note, Scott and Walsh controlled the midfield for much of the game. But when they lost their grip, it almost instantly turned into a huge problem. On those few occasions where Norway found a slipped pass, their wide runners like Reiten and Saevik were clear through into the penalty area before anyone got near them. On a different night they could have turned those chances into high-value shots.

There were also quite a few nervy moments when England tried to play out from the back, or across the backline. Misplaced passes or dilly-dallying on the ball left them struggling to catch up to a quick Norway attack.

Again, I don’t want to overstate these points. England were excellent for 85% of this game. They could easily have scored three or four more, on top of the three they did manage. They pushed Norway around with ease.

But that other 15% generated five or six excellent opportunities for Norway. Only a superhuman effort by the Norwegian attack to find more and more new ways to avoid putting the ball in the net, and some top quality goal-line clearances, kept England’s clean sheet.

So that is the big question for England. Can they produce this sort of dominant attack–fast, direct, intelligent, multifaceted–without bringing along the calamitous defensive breakdowns? If so, they can absolutely beat anyone in this tournament. But we haven’t seen it yet. In every game so far, there have been moments when they switched off and relied on extreme generosity from their opponents to avoid scoring. Somehow, their luck has continued to hold. But Japan could easily have scored several. Cameroon were ascendant for a big chunk of the second half. Norway absolutely should have found at least two tonight. And good luck has a way of running out when you encounter the very best opponents.

All you can do is beat the teams in front of you. And England have managed it five times from five so far. But the real test is still to come in Lyon. And only time will tell.

How Did It Get So Late So Soon?

Posted on by Backline Soccer

Time is a funny thing. We always think we’re going to have more of it. That we can do more with what time we have. In sports time is everything. American football, basketball, hockey, soccer, they all have clocks controlling when it’s time to end the game and declare an outcome.

When it comes to players’ careers the clock is still there, tick, tick, ticking away. We just can’t look up at the top left of our screens and see the seconds passing. We don’t know if Alex Morgan is in the 41st minute of her career or the 65th. There is no clock over Lucy Bronze’s head that ticks slowly by to tell us when she might take her final turn on the pitch.

But sometimes the writing is on the wall. While there is no clock over their heads there is a sense that we’re getting close to the 90 minute mark. Will they get one minute of stoppage time or seven? Will there be last minute heroics or an uneventful whining down to the final whistle?

I wish we had more time with some players. It doesn’t feel like we should already be nearing the end.

I wish Christine Sinclair had more time. I wish she was nearing her halftime mark and not inching ever closer to the full time’s three whistle blasts. But we thought we had more time. We’re human and she is an all-time great. We let what we wanted cloud over to what we may otherwise have seen. We took for granted that Christine Sinclair would break the all-time goal scoring record at the World Cup. We assumed without looking at the clock, without knowing how much time there was left that there was more of it. And we were wrong.

I don’t know if Sinclair will play in another World Cup for Canada. If she is fit and able to contribute in 2023 I would love to see her out there. But Father Time? He’s undefeated and his sense of timing is not always one we can understand. And like it or not he is coming in on Sinclair before any of us are ready to see the collision.

Every World Cup this happens. And every World Cup we feet a little sting at what it means to never to see Lauren Holiday play again or Célia Šašić lace up her boots or Abby Wambach to put in another header. Win or not we see players who use the World Cup as their last bow; that last moment to turn their face toward the sun and just try to stand in the warming rays. We see the tears from players in federations that have not supported them who know they may never return to this stage. We see giants in the game know their time has come and they must go from a player on the field to a supporter in the stands as those who came before them did.

Time moves on if we’re ready for it to or not. Players go from the next big time to elder stateswomen of the game. Marta goes from lighting the world on fire to impassioned pleas to the next generation. Sinclair goes from being in the shadow of those who have come before her to the giant who supports the next generation on her shoulders. Why did time have to move so fast?

The World Cup is the greatest event in sports. Every four years like clockwork it shows up and puts on a show for us. The truth is the clock has already started ticking on players who haven’t gotten their first senior cap yet who will play in 2023 or 2027. Time does not work on our schedule but on one we cannot control or predict.

“How did it get so late so soon?” Dr. Seuss once asked.

That’s a very good question.