Tag: Women’s World Cup

Women’s World Cup Awards: My Ballot

Posted on by Backline Soccer

The United States have taken home the trophy, making them the second nation to win back-to-back titles, and giving them four total out of eight tournaments. For obvious reasons, the US end up reasonably well represented on my end-of-tournament awards. Though they don’t have quite as many names as you might expect. That’s a function of a team that played well across the board, but also suffered some poor games in virtually every position. 

It’s a testament to the quality of the team that some mediocre individual performances were always backed up by teammates sufficiently that it never quite bit them. 

And that’s actually a general feature of the tournament as a whole. Plenty of players had incredibly good games. Very few had rock solid tournaments from top to bottom. 

That’s potentially a demonstration of the parity in the sport these days, which is good. But it did make it difficult to pick individual players. Nonetheless, here is my Best XI

Ellen White (ENG), Alex Morgan (USA)

Rose Lavelle (USA), Kosovare Asllani (SWE), Amandine Henry (FRA), Jill Scott (ENG)

Kelley O’Hara (USA), Nilla Fischer (SWE), Abby Dahlkemper (USA), Lucy Bronze (ENG)

Sari van Veenendaal (NED)

Forwards: White, Morgan

The easiest name on the whole list was Ellen White. In a tournament where few strikers were truly excellent, she was the one exception. She consistently scored, and consistently put herself in position to make trouble for the defense. It was hardly a surprise–we already knew she was great–but it was still a revelation to put it all together on this stage.

I’ve paired her with Alex Morgan. But not because Morgan also tied for the joint lead in goals. Five of her six came against Thailand in that crazy game, and should be heavily discounted. But Morgan was an immense physical presence, holding the line for the US game after game, making runs, putting defenses under pressure. That sort of work produced several of the key penalties, without which the US would not have progressed. I was a bit of a late convert on this point, but enough smart people kept telling me where to pay attention to what Morgan was doing that I came around. In a different tournament–where Australia progressed and gave Sam Kerr more chances, where Barbara Bonansea maintained her form, where Caroline Graham Hansen had one more great game–she wouldn’t have done enough. But given a limited field, she provided enough critical interventions to deserve the nod.

Midfielders: Lavelle, Asllani, Henry, Scott

Rose Lavelle had a truly awful game against France. But she was just that good in her other matches that it overwhelmed that game. She was creative with the ball, unstoppable on the dribble, active in defense, and generally dominated the midfield. It was a true coming out party for a player that we’ve spent so long calling ‘the future of the team’ that it feels almost predetermined.

Asllani started strong and only got better as the tournament progressed. She was absolutely immense in the knockout rounds, orchestrating a Swedish symphony from the number 10 position. Even in her worst game of the tournament against Canada, she unleashed an all-time great pass to produce the game’s only goal and take her team through. Asllani has long been a great player. For the last month, she has been transcendent.

Henry exited the tournament in the quarterfinals, but not through any fault of her own. While she wasn’t the dominant midfield force against the US that France might have hoped, she was one of the few players on that team that didn’t shrink from the occasion. She also scored the winner in the octofinals, and was one of the only reasons France held together as well as they did.

Scott had a relatively quiet tournament, in precisely the way that the very best midfielders will hope for. She was rock solid and absolutely consistent, controlling the midfield, regulating play, stepping forward in the attack when needed but also holding the line. Many other England players got more attention during the tournament, but possibly none were so essential to their ability to control the game.

Defenders: O’Hara, Fischer, Dahlkemper, Bronze

I’ve cheated a bit here by picking two right backs, but it just feels ridiculous to pick a left back, when so few had even decent tournaments. Crystal Dunn struggled mightily for several games, though she certainly grew into things in the later knockout games, but probably ended up the best of the pack. But Kelley O’Hara can obviously play left back, and had a far more successful tournament than her counterpart on the left. So I’m going with her. She didn’t contribute a huge amount to the attack, but was useful in small doses and provided some absolutely essential defensive cover.

On the other side, the obvious choice is Lucy Bronze. We already knew how good she was, but if anyone wasn’t previously aware, they surely are now. She was absolutely dominant in several games, including probably having the single most impressive game of any player in the whole tournament when she single-handedly dismantled Norway in the quarterfinals.

In the middle, I’ve gone with Nilla Fischer and Abby Dahlkemper. Both provided calm, precisely measured defending game after game. Fischer is a longtime veteran who showed her intelligence and experience, playing a huge role in driving Sweden toward the 3rd place trophy. As for Dahlkemper, this was a truly massive tournament. For several years she’s been the apparent partner for Becky Sauerbrunn, but more by default than any ringing endorsement. And yet once they actually arrived in France, it was Dahlkemper that was the steadier player. Finally, the rest of the world got to see the player that has been so good for North Carolina in the NWSL.

Goalkeeper: Van Veenendaal

On a per-game basis, I don’t see how you could beat Christiane Endler or Vanina Correa, who single-handedly kept their teams in the tournament. But over the course of seven games, Van Veenendaal was able to generate enough bulk to take the award. She pulled off several absolutely critical saves, without which her team very likely would have gone home far earlier, and also served as a calming presence for a backline comprised of quite a few converted defenders.

Golden Ball:

  1. Kosovare Asllani
  2. Lucy Bronze
  3. Rose Lavelle

The World Cup is Over. Come Watch the NWSL!

Posted on by Backline Soccer

The World Cup is a wonderful event. Once every four years, the whole world collectively watches the best players in the world compete. We watch their triumphs and their failures. And we share it with millions of others all watching together. There is nothing that can replicate that kind of communal experience.

But there’s actually something even better out there: club soccer.

It hasn’t always been true. For most of the history of women’s soccer, ‘clubs’ barely existed at all. They were amateur organizations at best, literally nonexistent at worst. That all changed in the United States in the early 2000s with the arrival of the Women’s United Soccer Association. For three shining years, the biggest stars in the world all played in America. But then the league folded. Things started up again in 2007 with Women’s Professional Soccer. Which also lasted for three years before folding.

So expectations were suitably low when the National Women’s Soccer League started up in 2013. But it has now outlasted the other two leagues combined, and is going strong.

The World Cup comes every four years, but the NWSL is here every week, and the quality is every bit as high as what you’ve been watching at the World Cup. It features all the very best American players, along with many other top players from across the world. Its teams draw big numbers—with Portland the shining jewel bringing in over 16,000 fans per game. The league just signed a sponsorship deal with Budweiser, and reportedly has more deals coming. That influx of cash will help them stabilize and develop. They also just signed a TV deal with ESPN, which will make the league more accessible to casual fans. And those fans will be primed to go, thanks to all the excitement over the World Cup.

And they’re going to get a great show. In terms of talent on the pitch, this is maybe the best league in the world. But for too long, these world class players have been surrounded by a league run on a shoestring budget—under-capitalized, under-marketed, under-supported. But that’s ready to change and you can be a part of it.

Here are five reasons why you should be pumped to watch the NWSL.

The players are world class

Every single player competing for the US in the World Cup plays in the NWSL. If you’ve been enjoying Megan Rapinoe, Rose Lavelle, and Tobin Heath…they all play every week. Not to mention some incredible players who have barely seen minutes, like Jess McDonald, Mallory Pugh, and Morgan Brian.

But this is a truly international league. The NWSL also features Sam Kerr, maybe the best player in the world. And Marta, maybe the best player of all time. Christine Sinclair, who is also in that conversation for GOAT. Debinha, the rising star for Brazil. Abby Erceg from New Zealand. Caitlin Foord, Steph Catley, and Ellie Carpenter from Australia. Yuki Nagasato from Japan. Rachel Daly and Jodie Taylor from England. Raquel Rodríguez from Costa Rica. And these are only a few of the names.

From top to bottom, this is the deepest, highest-quality league in the world. Turn on any random game, and you’re likely to see a genuine superstar, and plenty more players close to that level.

The talent pool is deep

Skim off all fifty-odd players that went to the World Cup, and you’ve still got an incredibly deep pool of talent. That’s a feature of a US developmental structure that generates tens of thousands of high-level players per year, hundreds of whom reach the end of their college careers with the plausible talent to play professionally. It produces a league full of players who have contributed years of high-level performances completely outside of the national team.

If you like Rose Lavelle, you’ll also love Vanessa DiBernardo, who plays for Chicago. Been enjoying Alex Morgan? Check out Lynn Williams on North Carolina. Or Kristen Hamilton, who just scored four goals last night. Or you might just remember Amy Rodriguez, who has been banging them in for Utah. Love Julie Ertz? Take a look at McCall Zerboni. Big fan of Sam Mewis? Andi Sullivan is right there with her. There’s Midge Purce, who’s been on a scoring tear. And Simone Charley who had to fight like mad to make it onto the field, and then delivered the goods when she got there. Like defenders? Take a look at Megan Oyster for Seattle or Amber Brooks for Houston.

Every one of these players has her own story, each of which is worth digging into. Think about how fun it has been to learn the backstories of the US national team players. Then multiply that by ten. 

The league is balanced

In many leagues around the world, the talent is highly concentrated, leaving just a couple teams at the top competing with one another and running roughshod over everyone else. The NWSL isn’t like that. There certainly are better and worse teams—but just look at the table right now. Five teams are within four points at the top, with two more in touching distance.

And it’s not only about the teams at the top. Just last night, the two bottom teams in the league—Orlando Pride and Sky Blue FC—each managed wins over teams far above them in the table.

That’s the way this league goes. Every single game is a battle. There are no pushovers, no easy points. It’s part of why so many prominent international players choose to come here—because they know they’ll be tested in a way that just doesn’t exist anywhere else. 

From a fan’s perspective, it’s also great. It means every game is tense. There might be a favorite and an underdog, but until the game is actually played you can never know if it will hold to form. It’s thrilling stuff, which is setting up to be one for the ages.

The fans are the best

There is something joyful and communal about following this league, even more than following international soccer–where allegiances always carry that weird tinge of nationalism. In the NWSL, there are obviously still fans of given teams, and certainly rivalries–as you would hope for in any good league. But there is a sense of togetherness as well. People are all rooting for each other, because we all know how fragile these things can be.

It can sometimes be daunting to jump into a new hobby or interest. Where do you begin? How do you get up to speed? Will the people who have already been there a long time be welcoming?

The NWSL community does a whole lot to ease those worries. Show up to a game, reach out on twitter, and you’ll get dozens, hundreds of folks who will be thrilled to welcome you in. Who will be happy to share inside jokes and explain references. Who will love nothing more than to share the history of their team, talk about favorite players, or anything else you’d care to discuss.

The NWSL is diverse, in all the best ways

The sports landscape is not especially welcoming to those who fall outside the traditional trope of the sports fan. It can feel alienating for those who aren’t in love with white, hetero, masculine tropes that dominate the sporting world.

The NWSL is a good home for anyone who feels that way. Which certainly doesn’t mean that it’s not a sports league. Despite the best efforts of many involved in marketing the league, this is not simply a home for young girls and their parents. It’s still a fun and raucous place. It’s just that the fun comes from a much wider range of sources.

Look at the crowd at an NWSL game and you’ll see queer people, trans people, men, women, children, people of all colors. And you’ll see supporters groups that work very hard to blend all these elements together to produce an inclusive, exciting environment which is genuinely fun for everyone.

There are very few places like this in our culture. Far too many of our social spaces are controlled by those who are loaded up with cultural advantage. Even if they try to be open and inclusive, the whole structure is still defined by white, male, cishet standards. But come to an NWSL game and you’ll experience what it’s like when those standards aren’t just taken for granted. It’s wonderful.

If you’ve been enjoying the authenticity of players like Megan Rapinoe, who express themselves in thoughtful and considered ways about complicated and important subjects, it’s worth seriously thinking about what kinds of structures make it possible for that sort of engagement. To think about what a difference it makes when many prominent players are queer. When many members of the media are people of color, women, gay, trans, etc. When many of the fans are as well. It all creates a support structure in which people can think about new ways to perform, discuss, and appreciate sports.

The culture of the NWSL–along with leagues like the WNBA and NWHL–is bringing something new and important to the sports landscape of this country. It’s a place where competition doesn’t have to mean abuse. Where tension and passion can flourish without having to be accompanied by exclusion. Where compassion adds to the thrill of victory and tempers the pain of loss.

How to watch

If you live anywhere near one of the markets, go and see a match live. Soccer is so much better in person. But if you’re not near a stadium, the league just announced a TV deal with ESPN, which will air 14 matches on ESPNEWS and ESPN2 over the rest of the season. If you don’t have those in your cable package, you might be able to get them through a streaming service like Sling or YoutubeTV, or you can simply pay for the ESPN+ service.

With matches on TV, you can also stop by your favorite local watering hole and ask them to put the game on. There’s no better way to find other fans and make new friends.

If none of those sound appealing, every other game streams for free at Yahoo Sports or on the Yahoo Sports App. If you live outside the US (or know how to convince your computer that you’re outside the US) you can also stream the games directly from nwslsoccer.com.

The national team players are expected to take a week or two after the conclusion of the World Cup to rejoin their teams. So if you’re excited for their return, you can target the games at the end of July. But every team in the league has plenty of exciting players, even without their US national teamers, so don’t worry too much about it. 

Reign FC and the North Carolina Courage – 1st and 2nd in the league at the moment – meet on Saturday, July 14. It’s going to be a great game, and you should check it out.

USA v. Netherlands: Four Questions for the Final

Posted on by Backline Soccer

The big one is finally here. The United States enter this match on an 11-game winning streak in the competition, which goes all the way back to the group stage in 2015. One more win here and they will win their fourth World Cup.

According to the bookies, that is overwhelmingly likely, with the US favored at around 80% to take home the title. I’m inclined to agree. But 80% isn’t 100%, so let’s talk through a couple of the key variables worth considering while we wait.

Will Megan Rapinoe and Rose Lavelle start?

Rapinoe was held back from the semifinal with a hamstring strain, while Lavelle had to be removed after an hour with the same injury. Both have been training in the run-up to the final, and are at least theoretically available. But will they be 100%? And if they’re anything less than that, will they start anyway?

In the case of Rapinoe, the US has a more-than-able backup in Christen Press. In fact, as I argued after the England match, Press is almost certainly a better option right now, even setting aside injury concerns. It would be hard to sit Rapinoe—who has been the biggest story of the tournament. But the reality is that, goals notwithstanding, she hasn’t actually played that well. And Press is in the best form of her life.

With Lavelle, there isn’t an obvious replacement, with no other players on the US roster really capable of creating the same way that she can (Crystal Dunn is the exception here, but that ship has long since sailed). However, it’s not clear that the US needs a player in Lavelle’s mold in this game. The more muscular and mobile trio of Ertz, Horan, and Mewis might be best-suited for throttling the Dutch midfield, and ensuring the US keeps a tight hold on the game.

In both cases, the US has a range of options. Even with no injury concerns, you could make a decent case for resting them both. And with the injuries, the argument gets stronger. But, in general, Jill Ellis has a preference for sticking with her best XI, so I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if both Rapinoe and Lavelle start.

Will the US play sloppy, and can the Dutch make them pay?

The US have won every game so far, but have also been pretty sloppy in the process. A mistake from Alyssa Naeher almost gifted Chile a goal. Some extremely questionable defending against Sweden could easily have conceded a goal. Spain, France, and England all had excellent chances to find an equalizer or winner in their knockout matches.

In every case, the US has had enough to hold off the opposition. But these have not been blowouts. They’ve generally been lucky that their defensive breakdowns have been relatively contained. A big part of that has been the oft-maligned Abby Dahlkemper, who is quietly having her best run of games in a national team kit. But the US have been playing with fire. And, at least in theory, this Dutch team has the potential to ruthlessly exploit the kind of gaps that the US has been allowing.

Will the 2017 Netherlands ever show up?   

In 2017, the Dutch were a revelation. They raced to a European title, obliterating every opponent that came their way. They were particularly devastating against teams that expected to control the game. Given space to work, the wide attackers were relentless. Opponents simply couldn’t cope with the quickness of play and repeatedly found themselves overwhelmed.

Over the next two years, though, the Dutch showed relatively little of that prowess. They struggled to qualify, having to go through the playoffs. And even here, with six wins out of six, they have never really turned up. They’ve made the final, which is a huge accomplishment, but compare the route the US have taken (Spain, France, England) to the Netherlands path (Japan, Italy, Sweden). The gap is enormous. And then remember that the Dutch were thoroughly outplayed by Japan and only managed to scrape through on a 2019 Handball Special.

Most of the problem has come from the frontline: Lieke Martens has been bad, and Shanice van de Sanden has been worse. Vivianne Miedema has done just enough to keep them going, but has only really had one excellent game (against Cameroon). The substitutes have played well in limited minutes, but shown little when given more of a chance to make their mark.

The midfield haven’t controlled games to the extent they would like, but have done enough to keep them in every match. The problem there is that Spitse, Van de Donk, and Groenen have played 1651 of a possible 1710 minutes over their first six games. They’ll need to get 100% performances from all three in this match, and it’s hard to see that happening under the hot midday sun, on no rest, at the end of a long tournament.

So on the evidence of the last month, this game should be a fairly easy win for the US. But we know what the Dutch are theoretically capable of producing. If they can put it all back together, this could be a lot tougher for the US than expected. I wouldn’t bet on it, but you certainly can’t rule it out entirely.

How do you mime eating a stroopwafel?

I certainly don’t know, but we’ll probably get to find out!

The Netherlands outlast Sweden, and earn the right to take on the United States in the World Cup final

Posted on by Backline Soccer

It wasn’t pretty, but they eventually got the job done. The Netherlands were favorites coming into the match and had just enough to make good on that promise. But those of us who were hoping for an expansive attacking experience had our dreams dashed pretty quickly. The opening half hour was pretty open, with both sides seeming quite willing to try the audacious pass when the chance presented itself. But neither were especially sharp, and after trading a pair of excellent chances in the opening quarter hour, things settled down into a match with a lot of back and forth through the middle of the pitch but not much happening near the goals.

As the match progressed, the ominous possibility of a 0-0 draw and penalties began to loom more and more heavily over the match. And yet…there were some very close calls along the way. It didn’t necessarily feel exciting, but a couple fingertip saves on both sides were necessary to keep things level. A few inches either way and several shots could have gone in, rather than ringing off the post.

But it wasn’t to be. And so extra time arrived. Something neither team would have wanted—given that the winner would need to play against the fittest and most athletic team in the world for the championship in a few days. But neither was willing to switch game plans to open things up, either.

The frustrating part of the game is that both sides actually did a lot of things very well. This wasn’t a situation of two teams both sitting deep and hoping to play on the counter. Both actually played somewhat expansively. Sweden pressed very aggressively for large portions of the game, routinely challenging the Dutch defense all the way back to their own box. And the Netherlands kept pushing high, hoping to hit balls over the press to find their array of attackers.

The result was a match with a lot of good individual performances—almost all happening in the defensive end—but very little variation or excitement. Sweden defended very well collectively, and made it extremely difficult for the Dutch to play. And none of the high quality Dutch attackers ever managed to do much to break the lines. On the other side, the Netherlands backline looked nothing like the porous unit that had struggled so much previously in the tournament. Especially the fullbacks. Van Dongen was immense, and Van Lunteren had the best game I’ve seen from her.

And so Sweden just couldn’t manage to get anything going. But not for lack of trying. Asllani was in constant movement, and tried every trick in her book. But she needed to find the perfect pass and it never came.

And so we mostly got stalemate. A dreary game. Not because they were awful, but because they weren’t good enough to overcome the other. Apart from one moment of magic, the Dutch looked like a limited team out of attacking ideas. But that one moment should serve as a reminder of what this team can actually do.

The Netherlands, after all, absolutely obliterated some excellent teams in the Euros two years ago. We haven’t seen any real evidence that this Dutch team has the energy or form to repeat those performances. But in these tiny glimpses, the quality does show. If they can bring that sort of fire for longer stretches on Sunday, they might just have enough to beat the US.

I wouldn’t bet on it though, especially after they just spent 120 minutes running this game out. And the US will have an extra day’s rest. But that’s why they play the game. So we’ll just have to wait and see!

The Orange Wave: A Breakdown of the Netherlands National Team

Posted on by Backline Soccer

If someone told you before the start of the 2015 Women’s World Cup that debutante Netherlands would get knocked out in the round of sixteen, but would rise through the ranks of global women’s soccer to a 2019 Women’s World Cup semi-final against Sweden would you have believed them?

Would you believe that along the way the Dutch, led by manager Sarina Wiegman, claimed the 2017 UEFA Women’s Euro? Or, due to how UEFA handles Olympic qualifications, the Netherlands also qualified for the 2020 Olympic soccer tournament?

Well, believe it or not, that’s exactly what the Netherlands has done.

The run to the semis began in group E for the Netherlands where the Dutch swept the three other teams: Canada, Cameroon, and New Zealand by a combined goal total of six to two. It won’t come as a surprise to anyone that the Dutch line up in a 4-3-3. The captain of the squad is Sari van Veenendaal, the 29 year-old former Arsenal goalkeeper, who continues to impress in major tournaments coming up big when it matters. In front of her, the first choice center back Dominique Bloodworth teams with either Stefanie van der Gragt or veteran defender, Anouk Dekker. It’s worth noting that the Netherlands have found some offensive production from this group as each center back has scored once in this tournament. 

Playing out wide as fullbacks are Desiree van Lunteren and Merel van Dongen who will attempt to join the attack with overlapping runs. While in the midfield the Orange will have Daniëlle van de Donk centrally, Sherida Spitse on the left, and Jackie Groenen on the right. In the recent run of matches, Spitse has contributed to the attack generating four assists so far; three of which have happened in the knockout stage. Other midfielders, such as Jill Roord, have come off the bench to contribute with the game winning goal in the group stage versus New Zealand. The true bite in the attack comes from the front line for the Netherlands.

There’s little doubt the starting front three will be Lieke Martens, Vivianne Miedema, and Shanice van de Sanden. The group has scored a combined total of five goals so far this tournament without a contribution from van de Sanden, so the attack still has some room to improve against Sweden. The tendency of this Netherlands team is to score goals late; in the five World Cup matches the Dutch have scored in the 80th minute or later in four of them. The team will not quit pressing the attack and seems to wear down their opposition.

The stage is set for the final four in the World Cup, and it’s almost unbelievable to consider that the Netherlands were referred to as a dark horse for possible tournament winner. The champions of Europe have managed to fly under the radar while England and France have taken the spotlight. Perhaps the results of the Algarve Cup put doubt in pundits’ minds; however, this run demonstrated that the Euro results were not a fluke. Every opponent facing the Orange Wave have been washed away. Could their path so far have been more challenging? Perhaps, but no one can claim the Netherlands don’t belong here. The remaining teams better watch out. 

The US beat England because Jill Ellis got her tactics right

Posted on by Backline Soccer

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

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

I know. I’m as surprised as anyone.

Christen Press made a big difference on the left wing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sticking with Rose Lavelle

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

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

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

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

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

Neville outsmarted himself, and Ellis made him pay

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winning ugly is still winning

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

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

But they didn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netherlands vs. Sweden Preview and What to Watch For

Posted on by Backline Soccer

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

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

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

Sweden: No longer Pia’s team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to watch for

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Backline Soccer

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

A strong and multifaceted attack

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

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

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

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

Lucy Bronze

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

A solid but exploitable defense

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

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

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

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

Phil Neville

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Backline Soccer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The alternatives aren’t really any better

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women’s World Cup Daily: The Axis Falls

Posted on by Backline Soccer
Italy 0 – 2 Netherlands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Germany 1 – 2 Sweden

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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