Tag: USWNT

The USWNT Are The Girls Next Door Grown Up

Posted on by Backline Soccer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US beat England because Jill Ellis got her tactics right

Posted on by Backline Soccer

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

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

I know. I’m as surprised as anyone.

Christen Press made a big difference on the left wing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sticking with Rose Lavelle

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

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

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

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

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

Neville outsmarted himself, and Ellis made him pay

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winning ugly is still winning

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

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

But they didn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Backline Soccer

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

That’s the current state of the USWNT.

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

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

Her Majesty, the Lionesses of England.

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Backline Soccer

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

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

Tonight, that was enough to make up the difference. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women’s World Cup Daily: Previewing the Quarterfinals

Posted on by Backline Soccer

After a lovely trip to Newcastle and a conference on social and political philosophy concluded, I am back in France and ready to brave the weather to see some exciting quarterfinal ties.

As you may have noticed, it’s effectively the US against the world at this point. If you want to see my thoughts on what this European dominance means, check out my piece over at AllForXI.

Norway v. England (27 June – Le Havre)

A rematch of the Round of 16 game from the last World Cup. England won that showdown and will be favored to come out ahead here again. But not heavily favored. On paper, the England squad is superior, with better top-level talent and greater depth. But that certainly does not mean Norway is weak. And what they may lack in individual ability, they have made up for with organization and structure. Their greatest weakness is an over-reliance on a few players to orchestrate the attack. If England can successfully mark Graham Hansen, for example, they will significantly dull the edge of Norway’s attack. By contrast, England have five or six viable fulcrums of the attack, and multiple players in most of those positions who can provide different variations. Look for Lucy Bronze at right back to play a crucial role. Her ability to overlap wide right, or to tuck in and create from a more central position could go a long way to unlocking the Norwegian defense.

One other point to look out for: both England center backs are in doubt—Steph Houghton from the injury she received from a vicious tackle at the end of their match against Cameroon. Millie Bright to a flu bug that’s apparently working through the camp. However, coach Phil Neville has rotated heavily, with an eye toward ensuring that anyone could step into the team if need be. That has been widely attacked by the English press, but may yet prove to be prescient here.

France v. United States (28 June – Paris)

This is the game we all marked on our calendars last winter when the draw was announced. And now it’s finally arrived. A couple of days ago, after a very difficult match against Brazil, France was being talked down significantly. Then the next day the US needed a couple of soft penalties to defeat Spain and things were recalibrated again. To my eyes, this remains every bit the exciting clash that it was always expected to be. Neither team is flawless, but both are exceptionally good. And I have a feeling that we’ll see both bring good performances here.

The game is likely to be defined primarily by who controls the wide spaces. Both sides like to attack with width, though it’s more of an absolute religion with the US than with France. A huge amount will therefore depend on which of those wide strikers turn up on the day. For the US, Megan Rapinoe has looked well off her game. But if she can find her form—or if Ellis does the somewhat unthinkable and starts Christen Press there instead—the left wing could be an important danger zone, given that Torrent at right back is exploitable for France. By the same token, Crystal Dunn has had a lot of difficulty at left back, and she hasn’t come up against anyone nearly as good as Kadidiatou Diani or Delphine Cascarino.

But while the wings will be crucial, we shouldn’t completely ignore the middle. With players like Rose Lavelle and Sam Mewis in fine form, the US has finally started to generate dangerous attacks from the inside out at this tournament. If they can maintain that sort of passing acumen here, it could make it much harder for France to cover all their gaps. But that will be no easy thing, given the strength of the French midfield. It all may therefore come back to Amandine Henry. If she produces a game at the top of her abilities, it could be enough to shift the whole tide in France’s favor.

Italy v. Netherlands (29 June – Valenciennes)

Every team left at this stage is excellent, but these are arguably two of the least-excellent teams remaining. In theory, the Dutch are the stronger team. The 2017 European champions are stuffed full of attacking talent, and should have enough to overpower an Italian defense that hasn’t yet had to face anything on this level. But at least so far, the Netherlands hasn’t been able to produce the sort of free-floating attack that we’ve all hoped to see. Their two wide forwards, Lieke Martens and Shanice Van de Sanden have both been well out of form, and the whole team seems to be lacking in ideas. If Vivianne Miedema has a good game, it probably won’t matter since she can score a brace from one and a half chances. But if she doesn’t, it’s unclear where the goals will come from at the moment.

Italy looked knackered against China, and I worry for them having to play another game on short rest. But of all the teams at this stage, they’ll be feeling the least pressure and will have the best chance to let the adrenaline carry them. Strong defensive positioning may be enough to keep them from getting overrun, and they have the personnel to come at the Dutch defense quickly—not so much through individual speed, but through quick and intelligent ball movement.

Germany v. Sweden (29 June – Rennes)

The Germans have not been especially fancied, but have done their business with relative calm all tournament. After an extremely difficult opening hour against China, they haven’t really been troubled. I don’t see any particular reason to think Sweden will be the team to knock them out, though there also isn’t any reason they couldn’t get it done. Both of these teams have been unfairly treated as ‘boring’ in quite a few corners, but there’s actually quite a lot here to enjoy.

On both sides, an impact sub could end up making a big difference. For Germany, it doesn’t sound like Dzsenifer Maroszán will be able to play a full 90 (or 120) on her broken toe but might be able to come in for a crucial late intervention.  For Sweden, Lina Hurtig got a full match against Thailand but has otherwise been a late substitute in the other three games. She’s exceptionally talented and might just be the spark they need.

Predictions

According to the betting odds, England, the US, and the Netherlands are modest favorites, while Germany are a bit heavier favorites. I do think those are the four likely winners, but I also would be tempted to take the odds and bet on the underdog in three of the four cases (with Italy the one exception).

The United States have enough to beat Spain. Barely.

Posted on by Backline Soccer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women’s World Cup Daily: Previewing the Round of 16

Posted on by Backline Soccer

Tomorrow begins the knockout stage. While we all take a break today, here is a preview for each match. If you want a bit more detail on a couple of the most tantalizing games, head over and check out our own Allison Cary’s post on the Top Three Matchups in the Round of 16.

Germany – Nigeria (22 June, Grenoble)

Germany will be heavy favorites, but it would be a huge mistake to write off Nigeria. They were after all one bizarre penalty retake away from earning a draw against France. And their strike force has the speed and intelligent movement to wreck the fragile Germany defense. The big question will be whether Nigeria can do enough to harass the German midfield. If this turns into a training ground exercise sort of match, with Nigeria endlessly chasing, I have faith in Germany’s ability to pick off the defense and score the goals they’ll need.

Norway – Australia (22 June, Nice)

One of the most exciting matches of this round. If you subtract Sam Kerr, Norway has arguably the stronger team in all three lines right now. Of course, add Kerr back and the equations start to change pretty rapidly. Not only is she arguably the best striker in the world, her mere presence warps games and forces the other team to re-organize to accommodate. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out. In theory, this should be a high-scoring thriller, with Norway using their ability to attack directly to pose all sorts of troubles for Australia’s cobbled-together backline, and Australia firing back with Kerr and Foord up top. But it could go very much in the other direction. If Norway decide to focus on controlling the midfield and starving Kerr of chances, this might end up a tedious 0-0 decided on penalties.

England – Cameroon (23 June, Valenciennes)

England went three-for-three in the group stage without quite kicking into full gear. This could be more of the same, against a Cameroon team who has proven to be quite difficult to play without posing nearly as much attacking threat as anticipated. As with every England game, one big question will be who Phil Neville chooses to play. It’s a squad with a huge amount of depth, and with five or six spots where you can make compelling arguments in multiple directions about who to play. Will he go with experience or youth? Pace or precision? Volatility or dependability? I’m particularly curious to see whether Georgia Stanway might have done enough to play herself into taking over the role of creative midfielder from Fran Kirby.

France – Brazil (23 June, Le Havre)

This is the glamor tie of the round, with two of the great names in world soccer. But these are very much two teams moving in different directions. France is a co-favorite for the tournament, while Brazil is an aging team trying to eke out one more result before their key players shuffle off the stage. Still, for all their struggles coming into the tournament (nine losses in a row!), Brazil managed six points in the group stage, including a solid performance against Italy in their last game. But for all that Italy has been great, they’re no France. Brazil will need much better from Marta (who hasn’t really contributed much, to be honest) and will need flawless games from the likes of Thaisa and Andressinha. That’s certainly possible, but if they expose any cracks, that midfield is going to get absolutely run over by France, and that will probably be the game.

USA – Spain (24 June, Reims)

If this game feels familiar, it should. The US played Spain just five months ago. It was a 1-0 game for the US that day, but Spain earned plaudits for their excellent possession and ability to control the game for long stretches. Expect some of the same this time, but probably to a lesser extent. The US were in their off-season last time, with Spain right in the middle of their season. That’s not true now, and it’s hard to see this version of the US conceding any space for Spain to play. The main question for the game is whether Spain is able to exert enough control in the middle of the pitch to dictate play, or if the US can overload the wings and bring overwhelming force to bear against the center backs before anyone can get back to help them. I’m betting on the latter, and would be surprised at any result other than a comfortable win for the US.

Sweden – Canada (24 June, Paris)

This has been widely billed as a boring tie between two teams that play hyper-defensively. Which is a good test of whether folks have actually been watching Sweden. Because this version of Sweden is hardly the stolid defending team that rode a series of drab games to the Olympic final three years ago. They may not be scoring much, but it’s not for lack of trying. They’re not going to say damn the torpedoes and go full leather into the attack, but this shouldn’t be a completely cagey match, and has at least some potential to be genuinely interesting. Both coaches have the ability and willingness to adapt, which could make for some fascinating chess as the game progresses.

Italy – China (25 June, Montpellier)

Italy were the surprise winners of Group C and as a reward got a game that certainly looks easier on paper than their groupmates. But in practice, this looks like precisely the sort of team that Italy will hate to play. China showed against Germany that they have the ability to play an aggressive physical game which depends very little on doing anything constructive. But Italy’s success so far has largely come from two things. First, picking at the weak spots in their opponent’s setup and then ruthlessly exploiting them. Second, using their physicality to disrupt the opposition, riding their luck a little bit to avoid getting tossed into the sin bin. Will they have the same results against the chaotic bundle of energy that is China? On the opposite side, will China look to play at full tilt like they did against Germany, or will they sit a bit deeper and ride their luck like they did against Spain. The former was far more successful than the latter, so I’d be surprised to see anything else here. Let’s all say a brief prayer for the lower-body health of Italy’s forwards.

Netherlands – Japan (25 June, Rennes)

On paper, this looks like the most exciting match of the round. Two teams with a lot of attacking potential, but in very different styles. The Dutch will look to spread the defense, to create spaces for Miedema to work in, and to give their wide attackers targets to ping with crosses, and create room for slashing runs. This relies on a great deal of technical ability but is fundamentally about vertical movement. Japan, by contrast, are all about triangles. They’ll hope to move the ball quickly through the middle. So far, Japan has been more potential than reality, and my gut tells me that will continue here as well. The Netherlands are absolutely exploitable, but I’m not sure Japan has enough firepower to match the goals they’re likely to concede. At the risk of invoking the pundit’s curse and ensuring this ends up 0-0, I’d expect goals—quite a lot of goals—here.  

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 20

Posted on by Backline Soccer

June 20: Matchday 14

The group stage is over. It took 14 days and 32 games to eliminate a grand total of eight teams. It’s actually kind of a silly process, but so many of these games have been so great that I find it hard to really complain. 

Cameroon 2 – 1 New Zealand

Netherlands 2 – 1 Canada

In the day’s early games, the Netherland confirmed their status at the top of the group with a win, albeit not a particularly easy one. The real excitement was in Cameroon v. New Zealand, where we looked set for yet another ‘draw that helps neither team’ until literally the final seconds of the game, when Cameroon found their winner. It was an absolutely magical moment for them, and a well-deserved result for a team that has played tough in all three games. That result did eliminate Argentina and Thailand, and really put the pressure on Chile for the late game–forcing them to win by a clear three goals to advance.

The Canada-Netherlands game mostly confirmed things we already knew about these teams. Canada did an excellent job killing off the game for about an hour – showing why many of us have tipped them as team that could go further than might seem plausible. They’re not going to beat many of the other top teams, in the sense of outplaying them. But they can neutralize just about anyone. 

At the same time, the Dutch did find two goals, one more than Canada had conceded over the entire rest of 2019. So even though the Netherlands still didn’t quite look right, there were a few solid glimpses of the team that won the Euros. It was enough to net them the two goals they needed. 

If they expect to go significantly further in the tournament, they’re going to need to get better performances from their defenders, who once again looked pretty shaky. They also may want to consider whether the likes of Jill Roord and Lineth Beerensteyn might deserve a start. They’ve been getting very little from Lieke Martens and Shanice van de Sanden. It’s hard to argue against going with proven talent, and the substitutions have been working well. But they’ve also had to ride a decent bit of luck to win their three games.

Sweden 0 – 2 United States

Thailand 0 – 2 Chile

Heartbreak for Chile, who came achingly close to qualifying for the knockout stage by only managing two of the three goals they needed. I was in Le Havre watching the US so I didn’t get a chance to see it, but it sounds like this was the truly exciting match of the late time slot, one which was unfortunately probably seen by a tiny fraction of the people who watched the other game.

But since I was one of those who watched the other game, that’s where I’ll have to restrict my comments.

After two matches that were effectively uncontested, the US finally got to face some serious opposition. It didn’t actually look that serious in the opening twenty or thirty minutes, as the US moved at breakneck speed and looked like a constant threat to score. Sweden struggled badly in this period to do anything with the ball, occasionally finding a little space out wide but almost nothing else. And they also seemed at a loss to cope with the US ball movement and speed of play. They didn’t really press, but also didn’t drop back to limit space. They mostly just backpedaled and then got turned by either a dribble or pass. It looked like it might turn into another bloodbath.

But eventually Sweden got their bearings, and the US dropped off a bit. The second half was much closer, with Sweden finding a lot more time on the ball, getting a lot of dangerous play from Kosovare Asllani in the middle and from Sofia Jackobsson out wide. Fridolina Rolfo also looked dangerous after she came on as a substitute.

Still, in spite of those threats, the US never really looked to be in danger. After a wonder goal from Tobin Heath (officially listed as an own goal), they rested fairly easily on their 2-0 margin.

In the end, that pretty much just means they held serve. This was a second-string Sweden team, with quite a few changes from their primary XI, and the US would have been expected to win pretty easily. Which they did. And that’s fine. When you’re the best team in the tournament, as long as you hold serve you’ll probably win. 

But this certainly was’t a dominant performance, and it showed that all the weaknesses we’ve discussed at length are still there. 

It also exposed one newish weakness: Megan Rapinoe. I don’t think this is actually that new of a phenomenon, since I actually struggle to think of examples from this year when she’s really been Megan Rapinoe. But this was a particuarly rough game for her. She was virtually nonexistent in the attack, and actively blew up several promising moves. It’s possible that this is her lingering injury. Maybe it’s rust from lack of training and limited games. Maybe she’s just finally reverted to the aging curve we all expected her to follow a couple years ago. Or maybe it’s just a bad patch and she’ll be back in top shape soon. I certainly don’t feel comfortable saying for sure. But given how dynamic Christen Press has been in that exact role, it’s certainly time to at least consider whether Press should be the first choice there for the upcoming knockout games.

Notes

– If you didn’t see it already, check out my post on last night’s truly mad experience: Scotland, Argentina, and the Human Condition.

– The second US goal was allowed to stand. And according to the rules as they appear to be written (and interpreted), that is apparently the correct call. But by any reasonable interpretation, it should clearly have been disallowed. Carli Lloyd very obviously interfered with play from an offside position. This is the rule, apparently. But it is an absolute nonsense rule and we should absolutely not tolerate it.

Tomorrow’s action

There are no games tomorrow. I don’t really know what we’re supposed to do with ourselves, to be completely honest.

 

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 16

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 16: Matchday 10

Sweden 5 – 1 Thailand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USA 3 – 0 Chile

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

Before the tournament I tweeted:

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow’s action

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

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

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

Posted on by RJ Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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