Category: World Cup

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

Posted on by RJ Allen

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

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

The Laws of the Game are Pretty Okay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The introduction of VAR takes that one step further. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s have a little thought experiment:

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

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

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

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

Probably not.

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

Can you make a judgement call on that weird bounce?

Also, probably not.

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

I would think no.

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

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

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

VAR addresses that hesitation.

In Closing

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

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

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

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

Posted on by RJ Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rules of soccer are shockingly vague

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 13

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 13: Matchday 7

Australia 3 – 2 Brazil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Africa 0 – 1 China

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

Tomorrow’s action

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

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

Three Results Reviewed: This World Cup Has Been A Blast So Far

Posted on by RJ Allen

Sometimes I forget how much I love soccer. It sounds strange but after recording and editing podcasts and writing pieces and editing those and editing the works of others, it can sometimes feel like a tad bit of a slog.

And then I started watching this World Cup. And all of that slog was washed away like a summer rain washing the pollen out of the air.

The World Cup has been, by and large, pretty damn amazing. We’ve gotten to see historic goals, historic points, players doing fun things, teams seeing their nation’s colors in the stands. And there are still 40 plus games to go.

There have been some great results so far. Let’s take a look at the three that have some big impacts.

Argentina 0 – 0 Japan

Argentina has about as much support from their federation as Pope Clement VII had from King Henry VIII. That’s to say support in the negative direction.

But they did it. Argentina held for 90 minutes against a young Japanese team. And they didn’t just hold, didn’t just bunker for 90 minutes and try to hold on by the skin of their teeth. They played soccer. They fought. They showed a country which hadn’t really ever been allowed to see this team due to federation neglect that they were ready for the world’s stage.

They shouldn’t have to prove themselves to their federation. They should be supported as each men’s national team and women’s national team should be. It frankly sucks that they have to show they can compete before they will get the support they need to go out and win games.

But in this game they did show they aren’t going to just roll over after making it to the biggest stage in the world. They have fight. And that was pretty neat to see.

Italy 2 – 1 Australia

It’s not really a secret that I am a fan of the Australian team. I find them fun to watch, outside of a backline that leaves me questioning why bad things happen to good people.

But watching Italy and Barbara Bonansea leading the charge out there was magnificent.

Italy played like they knew the world was watching, and they wanted to put on a show for each and every eyeball on them. Bonansea scored the latest non extra time goal at 90+5 to take 1 point to 3 for the Italians and really put Australia against the ropes for the rest of the group stage. Now matches Australia may not have had to think about all that hard are life and death. And Italy in their green, red and white, have a shot at not only leaving the group but doing so on top.

Margherita pizza all around.

France 4 – 0 South Korea

One of these matches is not like the others, I get it.

But France, sweet France did the damn thing to set off the World Cup on the right foot.

France looked like they knew this was their event to win. And really, it is. And while some teams (Canada) have gone in to events and let that weight crush them, it looks like France is going in to the event and letting it lift them up. They have a chance to create a new narrative for themselves as a team that can win the damn thing and not just a super talented team that chokes. The idea of them as the lovable team that can’t get it done might finally be put to rest.

And knowing they are on a crash course for a meeting with the US in the quarterfinals only makes watching them more exciting.

What are your favorite moments?

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 12

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 12: Matchday 6

Nigeria 2 – 0 South Korea

So far, the World Cup has mostly been games with clear favorites trying to overcome plucky underdogs, with only one or two real exceptions. This game was something different: two solid teams, with different styles of play, and no obvious advantage. Before the tournament, I think I said that South Korea might just beat out Nigeria, but certainly not by much. Nigeria have good attacking options, but their direct approach didn’t seem particularly well-suited to handle the collective defensive work that South Korea could bring.

I therefore anticipated a cagey match, with South Korea controlling possession, and probing carefully, always with an eye toward protecting themselves from the counter. And that’s more or less what we actually got. The problem was that South Korea made a huge mess of one attack, with a missed clearance finding its way into their net for an own goal, and with a wonderful bit of strength and skill from Asisat Oshoala – who had up until that point actually been pretty terrible in the tournament.

For South Korea, this is just about the end of the road. Despite having a team with a fair bit of potential, they just weren’t able to find their rhythm. And now, given other results, they’ll either have to beat Norway by four goals (very unlikely), or beat Norway and make up 5 goals on Nigeria – who are playing France so it’s possible.

Germany 1 – 0 Spain

This was an enjoyable game in many respects, but also a very frustrating one. It was enjoyable because we got to watch two very talented teams start to build toward their true potential.

Spain possessed the ball well, unsurprisingly, but also managed to produce more incisive passes and direct movement than in their first match. It didn’t produce any goals, and they couldn’t really sustain it, but through the opening half hour, they looked like the version of Spain that we all tipped as a genuine dark horse.

Germany showed that they can play well without Dzsenifer Maroszán – albeit in a less exciting style. They were mostly content to cede possession, and to attack directly when they could force a transition. It was a fairly measured defensive performance – not much in the way of true pressing – but it was enough to keep Spain relatively at bay and generate enough chances. They were able to convert one of their two or three clear chances this produced – about par for the course – and it was enough to take home the three points.

It was a frustrating game, however, because we only saw glimpses. Spain produced some good work in the opening 30, but really struggled otherwise. The two Garcias looked lively in the buildup, but failed in either their touch or shot once they got into the box. Hermoso did some good creative work pushed back in the #10, but it’s not clear she did enough to justify taking her away from goal. Especially since the shift pushed Alexia Putellas out wide left where she was a relative non-factor. The underlying problems are all still there for Spain. They can possess the ball nicely, and there are flashes of brilliance. But it never quite comes together.

For Germany it was frustrating because this team has so much more potential. A squad with this kind of midfield talent shouldn’t struggle so much to keep the ball. I’m a big fan of Sara Däbritz (a Däbritz Believer, as I named myself today), but she was extremely restrained in this game. In fact, I tweeted this exact point:

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

And then approximately twenty seconds later, she scored:

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

Still, the goal had little to do with her creative work, and more to do with cleaning up a loose ball at the end of a nice attack down the right. Which is where the vast majority of Germany’s attacks went. They had clearly targeted Corredera as a weak link in the Spanish defense, and found a lot of success down that wing, with great work from Gwinn at right wing and Hendrich at right back.

The biggest concern for Germany going forward has to be their center backs. That’s nothing new. They were a problem against South Africa, and a clear weak link going into the tournament. But this game potentially showed how that weakness can be managed. The biggest problem is their movement in space and skill on the ball. With a high defensive line, those are both very exploitable. But they are both reasonably strong defenders with their backs to the wall. If allowed to set up deeper, they’ll be solid. That does, of course, mean conceding quite a bit more space. But this game showed that the German midfield is probably good enough to generally cover that ground. It will mean playing a lower-possession game, but that’s not necessarily a problem.

France 2 – 1 Norway

A wonderful game, possibly the most entertaining of the tournament so far. That’s partly because each of the goals was a delight in its own specific way. And partly because the level of play was exceptional throughout. France were clearly the better team over 90 minutes and certainly deserved their victory. But Norway were no pushovers. They did excellent work to police the midfield and keep from getting overrun, while their wide players struggled but (mostly) held out against the waves of attack.

The key match-up in the game was on the French right wing, where Diani showed off her pace and skill, regularly beating the defense. However, she never quite managed to make anything of the crosses she was able to send in. So despite the apparent danger, the eventual goal actually came from the other wing. And what a wonderful goal it was. It started with the French counterpress which recovered possession quickly. A quick pass to Henry found her with a mile of space in front of her to run at the Norwegian defense. As they closed ranks, Henry slid a quiet ball wide left to Majri who now had plenty of time to pick out her pass into the box. As the ball bounded in, Thiney held off her defender and shielded the ball, allowing it to reach Gauvin, who then buried her shot.

All together the whole move took maybe 13 or 14 seconds, and involved six or seven French players. It was a wonderful team goal.

Then came the bonkers Wendie Renard Own Goal, or ‘But Contre Son Camp’ (CSC) as I have learned they call it in France. It was a colossal mistake, of course, but also a demonstration of what happens when you force defenders to make point blank decisions while facing their own goal. Renard simply couldn’t know what was behind her and had to try to put the ball out. She missed, and the game was even.

But France eventually found their winner through a penalty. On that point, I won’t bother to rewrite what I already said on twitter, I’ll just link to it here, and reiterate the crucial point: defending in the box is supposed to be hard because we want to incentivize good attacking soccer. In the case of the handball rule, we’re probably going to need to change the rule or interpretation. In the case of these ‘would be fouls anywhere else’ calls, the change is going to come from defenders changing their behavior. And that will make soccer better.

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

For a brief moment, it seemed possible that France might not win this group. But they’re now virtually locked in. Which means they’ve held up their half of the bargain, and that fatal showdown between the US and France in Paris on June 28 remains very much in the cards. I know I’m excited!

Notes

– I’m going to try not to say much more about the US game against Thailand. It’s mostly there in the piece I wrote last night. But the key thing I want to come back to is: I’m not looking to cast blame. And I don’t think there’s any definitive right answer to these questions. But I just wish people (myself included) were more willing to take a look at what they take for granted, and consider whether it’s really something they want to endorse. I know most of the conversation on this subject has been standard talking head stuff, but I feel like a little bit has seeped through at the edges which really has me (and hopefully others) reflecting a bit on what responsibilities we all have to be good humans as well as sports fans.

– This piece from Kim McCauley convinced me that I probably understated the genuine strategic value of the US going all-out.

– If you’re not following Katja (@applessquabble), you’re really missing out on learning about the Scandinavian teams (and plenty of others as well).

– As my twitter followers know, I’ve become a huge Miranda Nild fan – she’s a Bay Area girl (go Bears!) who just played her first World Cup match against her home country. Check out my quick thread on her comments after the game last night. For a very emotional moment, she comes across really well.

Tomorrow’s action

I’m previewing these games over at Stars and Stripes FC tomorrow, so take a look over there at some point fairly early in the AM eastern time to see my thoughts.

But the tl;dr is that Australia-Brazil is a HUGE game, much more significant than we were anticipating, while South Africa – China is another between two teams with zero points who need a win. It’s in Paris, so that’s the one I’ll be at.

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.

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 11

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 11: Matchday 5

New Zealand 0 – 1 Netherlands

I was only able to watch about 20 minutes of this game (see below in the Notes), but I followed along electronically the best I could. From what I can tell, this was not one of those games which requires us to ask whether New Zealand deserves credit for shutting down the Dutch, or the Dutch deserve blame for failing to create anything. Rather, it’s one of those games where the Dutch created a million chances and eventually one of them went in.

Compare, for example, these two performances:

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

xG isn’t the end-all and be-all, but it certainly tells part of the story. And the story here was: the Netherlands were unlucky in their finishing. And considering the lethal strikers they have at their disposal, there’s no particular reason to think that will continue. Again, not having watched most of the game, I’d caution against assuming that the Dutch are in trouble.

For New Zealand, this was an agonizing result. To hold out for 90 minutes only to concede at the death will be frustrating beyond belief. But they didn’t really need anything from this game. They kept their goal difference down against the high-scoring Dutch, which likely ensures that a single victory will be enough to make them one of the advancing 3rd-place teams. Anything beyond that is gravy.

Chile 0 – 2 Sweden

Unlike the day’s first game, this was an example of a heavy favorite being unable to break the deadlock because they genuinely just couldn’t create enough chances. But unlike yesterday’s masterful team defensive performance from Argentina, Chile was merely solid. They set up their defensive block, and waited for Sweden to come at them. And it mostly worked.

The opening fifteen minutes were nervy, and Sweden looked like they were inching closer and closer to the goal. But instead of heightening, the pressure began to ease. By the 60th minute, it increasingly felt like we were in for another 0-0.

But then came the weather delay. After a lengthy wait for the lightning to depart, the teams came back out, and Sweden finally seemed to have developed a bit of urgency, and an understanding that going wide and sending in crosses is not a complete strategy. And so the goal finally did come, and then another to seal the deal.

It wasn’t a great performance from Sweden, but they got the job done. Meanwhile, Chile did more than enough to do themselves proud, without quite ending up with anything to show for it.

USA 13 – 0 Thailand

I talked about my thoughts here.

I have literally nothing to say about the specific content of the game. We learned no lessons, and there is nothing important here to analyze. The US got the three points they were always going to get. Time to move on.

Notes

– This afternoon, I took the train from Paris to Reims to catch the US game. It was extremely fast. I love the trains of Europe so very much.

– My plan was to get to Gare de l’Est an hour early and catch the first half of New Zealand-Netherlands in a bar or café. But I couldn’t find a single place showing it! To be somewhat fair, that was partly because TVs are less ubiquitous in Parisian establishments than in US ones. And I managed in my broken French to ask in several places with TVs if they would put it on (French friends: does “est possible de regarder la Coupe de Monde Feminin?” mean what I think it means?), but they didn’t have the channel.

– One underrated storyline: the US just played its first game of the World Cup. One day later, France will play its second. If that quarterfinal does end up happening, that means the US will have played five games in 18 days, while France will have played the same number of games spread out over 22 days. That extra little bit of rest could make a real difference.

– My official position on the Hope Solo/Jill Ellis ‘controversy’ is that I don’t care about it at all and you shouldn’t either.

– For those keeping track, these are the Official Players of the Backline Soccer Women’s World Cup daily column: Barbara Bonansea (Italy), Sydney Schneider (Jamaica), Lorena Benítez (Argentina), Miranda Nild (Thailand).

Tomorrow’s action

  • Nigeria – South Korea. The two teams from Group A that lost their first game. South Korea were blitzed by France, while Nigeria played Norway a bit more evenly. But it all resets here. In this format, though, even three points is usually enough to make the next round, so neither are anything close to out.
  • Germany – Spain. The two winners from Group B, neither of which really performed up to expectations. Both faced teams that mostly sought to frustrate rather than create, so this will be a very different test. Germany will be missing Maroszán, after the referee in the previous game allowed China to kick her to pieces, which is a big loss. But if there’s any country in the world that can survive her absence, it’s probably Germany.
  • France – Norway. This should be a much sterner test for France than their opening match. If they can brush Norway aside as easily as they did South Korea, they will truly lock down their status as World Cup favorites. For Norway, with three points in the bag, they can treat this as a bit of a freebie, which might give them the freedom to find a result.

The US beat Thailand 13-0. I was there. It felt gross.

Posted on by RJ Allen

I just attended my first World Cup game featuring the United States, my home country. A game which they won by an absurd margin. Am I happy? No. I feel gross. I wish I hadn’t been there. I wish I had gone to Rennes, or just stayed back in Paris. I wish I hadn’t been in a stadium full of Americans, cheering on – with chants of “USA! USA!” and “We Want More!” ringing out around me, while their team racked up double digit goals.

I’m not trying to lob accusations at anyone. I understand that it’s complicated. People paid a lot of money, took a huge amount of time and energy to come here. This is one of the only chances they may ever get to see their national team play in the World Cup. They want to celebrate, and they have every right to take some joy in the process. I get all that.

And still, I have a sour taste in my mouth, and my stomach is churning.

The fans made a deliberate choice to put their own joy over recognizing the pain of others

Because, in the bigger picture, this wasn’t an event to celebrate. The US obliterated the opposition, and they were able to do so because they have fifty years of institutional support behind them. Thailand was overrun, not because there is no one in Thailand with the ability to play soccer. They were overrun because there is no network of support to nurture and develop the people with the potential. There is no coaching system to train them. No resources to pay them.

That inequality is a part of the game, and there’s no way to run a tournament like the World Cup and not have it play a role. So the solution can’t simply be to throw up our hands and give up. We still want a tournament, and that means the teams with more resources are very likely to beat the teams without them.

But we don’t have to celebrate it. And the fans in the crowd stepped over that line. I am sure that none of the meant it maliciously. I don’t think they’re bad people. But as a group, they exhibited behavior that we should lament, not valorize.

The coaches made a deliberate choice to run up the score

I don’t blame the players. They kept going because that’s what they do. Maybe they could have cooled it with the big celebrations after the 8th or 9th goal, but in the moment, I completely get it. So while I wish that they had decided to dial things back a bit, I don’t blame them.

But I do blame the coaches. The US made three substitutions. Three forwards. They finished the game with five strikers on the pitch – six, really, if you count Crystal Dunn. There was no need for that.

I understand why they did it. Strikers work on confidence, and you want all your attacking options to feel like they’re in the zone. You want to give them a chance to get their feet wet in a low pressure situation. I get it.

But you could equally argue that the US would have benefited from ratcheting everything down five notches – save legs, save energy, coast to an easy 6-0 win and call it a day. The US does this all the time, and suffers no psychological problems. I’m thinking of the semifinals from the CONCACAF qualifying against Jamaica, for example.

If Ellis had subbed in three more defensive players, she would have communicated to the team: now is the time to practice seeing out a victory. That would have been a perfectly valid tactical goal, would have caused no problems with psychological management, and would have kept this in the realm of a normal thumping. Instead, she subbed on the strikers, and told her team to keep going full pelt. She told them: we want to be the bully.

And yes, sometimes being the bully works. But that doesn’t make it right. And it certainly doesn’t make it something that I personally want to associate myself with. And please don’t bring up goal difference. The US is going to blow Sweden out of the water in goal difference, and that was true by the time they scored their fifth goal.

Sometimes, feeling bad is the only good thing to do

This should have been a happy occasion. I’m at the World Cup. I just got to watch the team I’m covering win a famous victory. It should have been fun.

It wasn’t fun. It was just a sad reminder of how unequal the playing field is, and little is being done to remedy that inequality. None of it is any one person’s fault, and I don’t want to imply that US fans or US coaches caused any of this. They’re merely small parts in a huge story. Poor players who strut and fret their hour upon the stage.

But tonight a lot of people had a choice: do I do the hard thing, and swallow my sense of self just a little bit? Do I put myself in the shoes of the others out there who don’t have what I have? Do I do those things, even acknowledging that it’s going to dull the joy a bit?

I understand why everyone did what they did. No one was being unreasonable. No one was being intentionally cruel. So I hope this doesn’t read like an attack on anyone. I’m certain that I have made many similar choices in my own life. But here, tonight, it felt wrong. And it felt important for me to try and explain why. Even though it was hard.

 

The Women’s World Cup is big news all around the world

Posted on by RJ Allen

The tournament is breaking viewership numbers across Europe and in the United States. But how is it being seen elsewhere?

The Women’s World Cup is doing great numbers around the world, with a record-breaking number of viewers in several countries. Over 10 million tuned in from France (along with the sold-out crowd) to see their team open the tournament in style, more than doubling the previous record for a women’s soccer match. The England-Scotland game was the most-watched women’s soccer game in UK history, with 6.1 million. Italy also broke their record with 3.5 million viewers who saw their team triumph over Australia. Numbers are up in the US compared to similar matches from 2015 (though of course we’re still a long way from the 26.7 million who watched the final). Spain didn’t set their record (recently set by the Copa de la Reina final last month) but their 859,000 still handily beat the numbers for their men’s team who competed in Euro qualifying against France. Down in Australia, 570,000 saw the game, more than watched the Cricket World Cup match on the same day.

Clearly, something is in the air. But these numbers are all from the big, established countries, who are now apparently taking a step forward in the media landscape. I was curious how this event was being watched in some other parts of the world, where the game has less support. So I put out a call for people to share their experiences. Here are some of the most interesting responses I got:

From Argentina:

“I can report from Argentina that the WWC is getting almost no coverage. I’m obviously not watching every station all the time but I’ve seen two semifinal games in the tournament for promotion from the third league to the second, a replay of every goal scored for or against Liverpool in CL play, two different 30 minute shows on possible moves for Boca after losing in the super liga final, endless gnashing of teeth over the U20 loss to Mali along with the usual slate of major games, highlights and transfer discussions. I’ve seen one report on the Argentina ladies. They beat Long Beach State 2-1 in a friendly.

France vs. South Korea was not broadcast.

That’s the report from soccer mad Argentina. They do not care about the WWC.”

The same correspondent did note the next day that they saw “A nice 8-9 minute piece on the Argentine women’s team and then good highlights and discussion of the games today.”

More from Argentina:

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

From Spain:

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

From Denmark:

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

From Germany:

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

From Dubai:

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

From Nepal:

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

From Switzerland:

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

From Sweden:

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

From Mexico:

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

From Kenya:

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

From Poland:

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

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 10

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 10: Matchday 4

Argentina 0 – 0 Japan

Anyone who thinks a 0-0 game can’t be thrilling should be lucky enough to be in the stadium for a game like this. From the opening few minutes until the final whistle, this was full of tension, waves of action, and moments to set your heart racing.

It was also an exceptional team defensive performance, with Argentina putting on a clinic in how to frustrate a possession-oriented team without ever having to resort to the Dark Arts. They hardly committed a foul in the game – in fact it was Japan that was far more likely to commit serious infractions, with Argentina’s Estefania Banini drawing several bookings from the normally restrained Japanese players.

And while this was a defensive approach from Argentina, don’t let anyone tell you that it was a ‘bunker’ or that they ‘parked the bus.’ There is an important difference between those things. The problem with bunkering is that you effectively subject yourself to constant pressure, with very little in the way of failsafes. What Argentina did was far more refined and impressive. They set a solid block, but also continually sending players at the top of the block forward to harass Japan as they attempted to probe the Argentinian defense.

It was a wonderfully controlled performance, one which put enough pressure on Japan to significantly restrain their attacking creativity, without exhausting themselves in the process by consistently chasing the ball. It takes a degree of precision to strike that balance – one that is certainly possible for a club team that trains together every week, but is rare among national teams and virtually unheard of in national teams with the level of resources provided to Argentina.

The heart and soul of the operation was Lorena Benítez, a 20 year old futsal player (!), who only joined the team in March (!!). This was just her fourth time playing for Argentina, but she turned in one of the great performances from any player in the whole tournament. As defensive midfielder, she shepherded play, tracked runs, and covered an almost impossible amount of territory. Watching from high above, it genuinely seemed like she was everywhere. Each time a potentially dangerous attack from Japan was snuffed out, she was there. And as the game progressed, she ranged further and further forward, applying pressure in much more advanced zones.

It would also be impossible to let the game go by without talking about Estefania Banini, who ranged all across the field, providing crucial relief for Argentina by holding possession and disrupting Japan’s efforts to build any serious rhythm. And as the second half went on, and Argentina seemed to grow more comfortable, Banini was a whirling dervish, helping to guide several counterattacks.

For Japan, this was very much a game to forget. They may seriously regret the points they dropped here, but the reality is that things haven’t really changed that much for them. Beat Scotland and they’ll likely finish second in the group. Beat England and Scotland, and they’ll finish first. That was true before this and it’s still true. The question is whether this was a one-off case of nerves, or whether it’s a sign of deeper malaise in the team. My bet is that they sort things out and emerge fine, but it’s certainly something to watch out for.

Canada 1 – 0 Cameroon

This was a peculiar game. In my pre-match writeup over at Stars and Stripes FC, I said that it was a clash between styles, with Canada wanting a tight game and Cameroon wanting an open one. And I suggested that whoever controlled the tempo would therefore have an advantage. The first half was frantic and chaotic, much like Cameroon would have wanted. Except it didn’t produce the goals we might have expected. The one and only tally came on a corner, and all the other chances just fizzled away.

Then, goal in hand, Canada came out in the second half to completely shut up shop. And they pretty much succeeded. The result was a narrow 1-0 that felt like a pretty wide margin by the end, as it seemed less and less possible that Cameroon would be able to get a grip on the game.

On a day when Japan – a team fairly similar to Canada in terms of expectations and ability – failed to get a result against an inferior team, getting the three points probably counts as a major success. But Canada really had no business letting it be as close as it was.

Those two perspectives are going to define this team over the coming weeks. And, as I said on twitter earlier today, as unpopular as it is, this conservative, stifling approach to the game may end up serving Canada very well. It doesn’t produce many goals, but it keeps games close. When they come up against The Netherlands, we’ll get to see whether that tradeoff is worth it.

Notes

– Check out my post over at Stars and Stripes FC about what to watch for in the US – Thailand game tomorrow. The US is going to win, but the way it plays out is still potentially pretty important.

– I also wrote up the discussion post at SSFC for today’s games as well.

– I was thrilled to see the level of support in the Parc des Princes today for Argentina – Japan. 25,000 is well below capacity, but is still a huge crowd, and they were into the game. I’ve got more thoughts on that subject, but you’ll have to wait for the next 123rd Minute episode to drop (look for it tomorrow) to hear them.

Tomorrow’s action

  • New Zealand – Netherlands. Another game with a clear favorite, but one where the underdog has a very real chance to find a result. New Zealand could lose this game 5-0 or could scrape a 1-1 draw. I’ll be particular curious to see if Vivenne Miedema (my pick for the golden boot) can get off to the races.
  • Chile – Sweden. Sweden should have enough to stifle Chile, and enough firepower to slice through their defense. But Chile have a top-class goalkeeper, and we’ve already seen what a disciplined squad can do against superior opposition. I’d certainly bet on Sweden here to win comfortably, but it’s no sure thing.
  • USA v. Thailand. See my post at SSFC.