Tag: World Cup 2019

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. 

Women’s World Cup Daily: June 23

Posted on by Backline Soccer

Round of 16, Day 2

England 3 – 0 Cameroon

I have to admit that I don’t have the emotional energy to provide a ton of commentary on this game. There was just too damn much going on.

Obviously, the major story was the refereeing, and Cameroon’s response. At several points they seemed on the verge of literally walking off the field. At others they were pointing at the big screen insistent that it proved them right, when it very much did not. And the fouls…oh dear, all the fouls.

So rather than trying to digest it all, I will split my comments into a few bullet points, first on the match itself and then on the meta-match.

The game

1. England played exceptionally well in the opening 20 minutes, and showed in that period why they should be considered legitimate contenders.

2. England played like garbage in the next thirty minutes, and showed why they could easily lose to Norway in the quarterfinals.

3. That said, I don’t think you can draw too many conclusions from this match about England’s future prospects. They’re not going to play anyone like this again, and they certainly won’t play through this kind of chaos, or deal with the emotional thunderstorms of this game. England looked completely lost for much of the early second half, but you can understand why. At least Cameroon had anger to focus their attention. England had to stand around for long periods just feeling bewildered.

4. Cameroon did very well to execute their plan. They got beat – badly, and repeatedly – in the midfield, but their defenders were fantastic as stepping up to clear up the messes before they had a chance to explode. They posed a real threat on the counter, and could easily have scored a couple. But in the end it was always going to take a huge amount of luck, and they didn’t get it. The other events of the game will overshadow it, but they did about as well as you could reasonably expect in this game.

The discourse

1. Cameroon’s players absolutely lost their cool, and it was to their own detriment. None of the calls were wrong, even if they were extremely frustrating. Emotions were riding high, but it would have been good if they and/or their coaches had been able to pull things back a bit quicker than they did. It’s also not great to accuse the officials of rigging the game against you, especially when the calls were all correct, albeit close.

2. That said, they did rein things in pretty quick. As noted above, it was England who looked the most out of sorts for quite a while in the second half. Cameroon played better in the second half, even with what must have been a thousand volts of adrenaline running through them.

3. We also need to talk about the larger story here. Many of these players live on the margins of professional soccer. As much as emotions ride high in an event like the men’s World Cup, there are some relatively cushy fallbacks for players. Here, not so much. The stakes are enormous.

4. It also has to be said that the referee bears some of the blame for this. Once again, the communication was poor. The various VAR referrals were not well explained. And those things can build. Once you feel that the system is rigged, you will be even less inclined to listen the next time. It also seems to me that she genuinely felt bad for Cameroon and wanted to let them vent. But at a certain point, it just meant that the game fell completely out of her control.

5. Broadening the scope even more, as with our conversation about Nigeria yesterday, it is extraordinarily frustrating how people seem to be unable or unwilling to see how their depiction of black athletes can contribute to racial stereotyping in extremely harmful ways. That’s not an excuse for bad behavior, of course, but it’s absolutely a reason to seriously interrogate our assumptions of what counts as ‘bad’ behavior, and what interests are served by policing it in that way.

6. To wrap this up, I absolutely don’t think that Cameroon covered themselves in glory today, and I certainly think it’s necessary for there to be genuine and serious criticism of some of the things they did. Not just the reactions to the refereeing decisions, but also the rough play, the spitting, etc. But the choice about how to engage in that criticism is an important one. Far too many people today leapt to outrage. Far too few took any time to consider the context. And that ultimately may end up being far worse for the world than anything the Cameroon players did.

France 2 – 1 Brazil (aet)

France certainly did not look like the tournament co-favorite that we all have been calling them. They managed only a handful of shots on goal over the course of the whole game, and struggled mightily to create any sort of dangerous attacking moves. The whole night, they focused almost exclusively on attacking with width and then sending in crosses. But their delivery was generally poor, and on the few occasions that Gauvin could get her head to the ball, it didn’t produce much.

There was one exception in the first half – an opening goal which was disallowed on review by VAR. To my eyes it was a good goal, and should have been allowed to stand. Who knows if that lead might have changed things. But it wasn’t allowed, and so it took until the 52nd minute before Gauvin got her goal. For once, instead of simply reaching the end line and then immediately sending in the cross, Diani chose to cut inward, beating a defender and giving herself less distance to cover with her cross, and a better angle. This time, the goal stood, and France had their lead.

While Brazil didn’t exactly come roaring back, they did begin to pose a bit more of an attacking threat, often led by Debinha who I must (begrudgingly, given my past critiques) admit was Brazil’s player of the tournament, by a mile. She raced into the space left open by Torrent, the French right back, and left Bussaglia – who could theoretically have tracked her – in her dust. From there, a dangerous cross whipped in left Renard with little choice but to weakly tap a clearance down into the penalty area. The waiting Thaisa thanked her for the gift by burying her shot.

And that was it for regular time. France certainly pushed, and seemed like they might get the winner. They were helped by the departure of Formiga, both because it removed an intelligent player from the field, and because Brazil simply didn’t have a similar replacement. Andressinha is a nice player, but simply can’t do the defensive work to control a midfield. France responded by bringing on Thiney, restoring their traditional 4-2-3-1, and finally started to look more like the France that was dominant earlier in the tournament. And yet…they couldn’t find their goal.

But finally, in extra time, the dam started to crack. France began pouring on the pressure. They brought in Delphine Cascarino who provided a breath of fresh air, and the pace out wide that had been missing. And it was only a matter of time. Eventually, it was (who else) Amandine Henry that actually delivered the winning goal. And for all of the good work Brazil put in over 120 minutes, it’s impossible to say it wasn’t deserved.

France weren’t good today. But they were good enough.

And so the fated showdown between the US and France remains on track. If the US can indeed win tomorrow, the last piece will be in place. And it will all come together this Friday, at the Parc des Princes. On the evidence of the tournament so far, the US will be favored, but I’d be very careful to avoid overinterpreting recent results. This France team had a rough day today, but they remain incredibly good. And unlike the US, they will come into the game having already faced some serious challenges. That could make them more fragile. But it could also make them more resilient. Only time will tell.

Notes

I am in England for the next few days (see the image featured above for evidence). I was hoping to catch the England game today in a pub with locals, but sadly wasn’t able to find anywhere with much excitement for the game. The tournament is doing good business up here, by all accounts, but I couldn’t find much evidence of it in town. But I’ll continue to poke around and see what I can find.

Women’s World Cup Daily: June 22

Posted on by Backline Soccer

Round of 16, Day 1

Germany 3 – 0 Nigeria

A comprehensive victory for Germany, who continue to roll through the tournament despite the protestations of pundits on both sides of the Atlantic that they haven’t looked great. This was by no means a perfect performance, but they absolutely bulldozed Nigeria in the middle of the field, and controlled the game accordingly.

It was particularly notable how physical they were, consistently descending on any Nigerian player who had the ball and often directly dispossessing them, or at least forcing them into a hasty pass. Considering that Germany’s big problem game so far came against a China team who unsettled them with physical play, this was a significant improvement.

The only real worrying thing is that all three of their goals had some degree of fortuitousness involved. A better team would be unlikely to let the ball drift to the head of Alexandra Popp standing flat-footed in front of the box. A better team will be less likely to give away a penalty needlessly. A better team won’t accidentally pass the ball to your lethal striker directly in front of goal.

But this is the game of soccer. Most goals come at least in part from defensive mistakes. And yet we still see plenty of goals, because defending is exceptionally hard. Perhaps a team like the US or France might not make those precise mistakes, but they are likely to make some. And Germany has shown the ability to capitalize. The third goal, for example, was a gift. But it also took a perfect finish from Schüller to actually score it.

If there’s an area to focus on, it’s translating their dangerous possession into genuinely good shooting opportunities. That was the only real missing piece today. Repeatedly, they unlocked the first line of defense and found themselves with the ball in space, moving forward with speed, and looking for chances. But also repeatedly they were stopped by a Nigerian defender stepping up, or their cross sailed over the heads of everyone, or they simply let the ball get too far away from them and lost their angle.

Of course, this is precisely where Dzenifer Maroszán could be critical. She made the bench today, after missing the past two games entirely with a broken toe. If she can make a full return, she will be the exact sort of player Germany have been missing—the connecting force who can receive the ball near the top of the box and take the final touch or make the final pass which generates a clean chance.

For Nigeria, the World Cup ended here, in a frustrating game against a team who gave them very little to work with. They certainly weren’t completely shut out, and were able to produce a couple decent chances that might have swung the game back in their direction. And as discussed above, the goals were all definitely fixable mistakes rather than examples of being truly outmatched. At the same time, it also took some exceptional defensive recoveries to keep the margin where it was, and while VAR is certainly annoying, it did get all the calls right.

Norway 1 – 1 Australia – Norway advance on penalties (4-1) 

This was an absolutely bonkers game, which contained just about everything you could hope for in a soccer match, with the one exception of ‘good teams playing well.’ But if you could just accept that it was going to be a wild and crazy, end-to-end explosion of emotions then it sure was a lot of fun.

The openness didn’t really feel like a plan by either team. It was just a game played at a crazy tempo without a huge amount of execution. There were plenty of beautiful passes, wonderful touches, great tackles. But there were also plenty of misplaced balls, terrible touches, confusing decisions, crosses to no one in particular.

On balance, Norway were the better team, but it wasn’t by a huge margin. They did get the early goal and held the lead for most of the game. But they weren’t especially comfortable in the process, and seemed to drop back into a crouch far earlier than they probably should.

Australia’s hopes generally rise and fall with Sam Kerr, and she wasn’t able to get a whole lot going here. But that was less do with poor play from her than it had to do with Australia’s frailty in the middle third of the pitch. In my preview, I suggested that Norway might try to clamp down in that space to starve Kerr of the ball, but that’s not actually what happened. Given the quickness of play, no one was clamping down on anything. The Australian midfield just couldn’t find her, and the Norwegian defense generally stuck close enough to keep her under wraps once she did get the ball. All that said, Kerr was given enough to work with that you’d probably expect her to have found a goal somewhere. But she didn’t. And so once Kennedy was sent off for a Denial of a Goal Scoring Opportunity, Australia were reduced to hanging on for dear life to go to penalties.

And then once they got there, it all fell apart.

I feel awful for Kerr, who really is the best in the world – or at a minimum one of the two or three best – and deserved more chances to show what she’s capable of. But unfortunately for her, the Australia team has kind of fallen apart in the past six months, so it’s hardly surprising at this point to see them go out.

I’m sure there will be more written about this Australia team, and some serious questions asked about the relentless schedule that these players have followed over the past few years. But for now, we unfortunately have to say goodbye to the Matildas.

Notes

The subtle racism with which commentators describe African teams really went into high gear today, with all the subtlety wiped away.

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

A brief summary of today’s awfulness is here. I’m sure more will be written about this, but if you want a quick breakdown of what goes wrong when you engage this separation between ‘tactics’ and ‘athleticism,’ above and beyond the laziness and stereotyping, check out this thread from Michael Caley.

The long and short is that the way Fox commentators have discussed teams primarily composed of black players is absolutely shameful and it’s frankly appalling that they haven’t publicly apologized and specifically reprimanded the people who keep saying this stuff.

Tomorrow’s action

Tomorrow we’ll see England v. Cameroon in the early game and France v. Brazil in the late one. Remember that you can check out my preview of each game in this round here.

I will unfortunately be leaving France for a couple days. I have a conference in Newcastle, and won’t be back until the first quarterfinal in Le Havre on the 27th. That does however mean I’ll get a chance to watch England tomorrow in England. Hopefully I can find a good crowd to watch with.

Top Three Matchups in the Round of 16

Posted on by Backline Soccer

The Group Stage of the Women’s World Cup is over and the Round of 16 is set. The Group Stage featured some difficult goodbyes and some surprise teams going onto the Round of 16. Italy won Group D, topping both Brazil and Australia in the standings. They will go on to face China in the Round of 16. Nigeria and Cameroon both qualified for the Round of 16, marking the first time two African teams will compete in the Round of 16 in a Women’s World Cup. There are lots of great matchups coming up, but here are the top three games I think you should watch.

France vs. Brazil: Sunday, June 23rd at 3:00pm ET

All Americans should be keeping their eye on France, since the two teams are currently on course to meet in the Quarterfinals. I think France will beat Brazil, but this is definitely going to be an interesting game. Coming into this tournament, Brazil had lost their past nine games. But they seem to have found some of their lost rhythm in the Group Stage, defeating Jamaica and Italy. They only lost to Australia because of a Monica own-goal. 

While Barbara is a fantastic keeper, I don’t think Brazil’s backline will be able to stand up to the likes of Diani, Le Sommer, and Thiney. If France can win the battles in the midfield and maintain possession, they should be able to comfortably control this match. But I also think Brazil will be able to test France’s backline. Don’t be surprised if Cristiane, Marta, or Debinha puts one past Sarah Bouhaddi. If they can disrupt France’s possession, they could make this an interesting match. 

There weren’t very high expectations for Brazil coming into this tournament. But if there is one thing they have shown in the Group Stage, it’s that they won’t be packing their bags without a fight. This might be the last World Cup match for Marta, Cristiane, Formiga, and other Brazilian stars. They will definitely make it count.

Sweden vs. Canada: June 24th at 3:00pm ET

Sweden and Canada both finished in second place in their groups, meaning they will go head-to-head in the Round of 16. Sweden finished their group with six points, earning wins over Thailand and Chile, but losing 2-0 to the United States. Canada also finished with six points, earning wins over Cameroon and New Zealand, but ultimately losing 2-1 in their final match against the Netherlands. 

These are two of the most equally matched teams in the Round of 16. Sweden had an easier group than Canada, but also earned more commanding wins and scored more goals. Canada struggled in their first match against Cameroon, but certainly went toe-to-toe with the Netherlands and earned a convincing 2-0 win over New Zealand. Canada might have a slight edge over Sweden in the attack, especially considering the motivation of Christine Sinclair, but Sweden’s attack will surely test the Canadian backline as well. 

Losing both Christine Sinclair and Marta in the Round of 16 would be sad. I think Canada has a slight edge over Sweden, but this game could genuinely go either way. Don’t be surprised if this one goes to extra time or even penalties. 

Netherlands vs. Japan: June 25th at 3:00pm ET

The Netherlands vs. Japan feels like the old guard versus the new. The Netherlands won all three matches in their group: 1-0 over New Zealand, 3-1 over Cameroon, and 2-1 over Canada. Japan, on the other hand, struggled a bit more in Group D: they played to a scoreless draw against Argentina, beat Scotland 2-1, and lost 2-0 to England. They have featured in the last two Women’s World Cup finals, winning it all in 2011. Could they really be packing their bags in the Round of 16? 

I think the Netherlands will likely win this match. Their first match against New Zealand was a bit shaky, but they seem to have settled into this tournament. They’ve scored 6 goals in three games compared to just two from Japan. Scoring on the Japanese defense won’t be easy, but if the last fifteen minutes of their match against England is any indication, I think the Japanese will really struggle to get that final touch against the Dutch.

In these three matches, I think France and the Netherlands have a clear advantage. But all six of these teams will have to be 100% locked in. Any slip up will be capitalized on by their opponents, and even one bad move could send any of these teams home. 

12 Standout Players from the Women’s World Cup Group Stage

Posted on by Backline Soccer

Thirty-six games are in the books, with only sixteen left to go. Obviously, the ones remaining are the most important, but it seems like a good point to stop and take stock of who impressed in the group stage of the tournament. I picked twelve names – two from each group. My goal wasn’t to identify the absolute best performers, but rather to pick a range of folks from the obvious to the slightly unconventional. For example, while I would be happy to write another rhapsody about Sam Kerr, it felt more useful to call attention to some less well-known players that also performed superbly.

Group A

Amandine Henry – France

Henry was my pre-tournament tip for the Golden Ball winner, and nothing I’ve seen so far makes me regret that choice. She’s the closest thing there is to a perfect all-around player in the game today. Everything you’d want, she can do it: win tackles, hold the ball, link play, brilliant throughballs, wonderfully struck goals, good in the air, good on the ground. And she sees the game as well as anyone. France is stacked from bottom to top, but Henry is the ticking heart of the team.

Guro Reiten – Norway

She scored and assisted a goal in Norway’s opening match, but was arguably even more impressive over the next two games. She has done some excellent work out wide, where her pace and dribbling skills allow her to run at defenses, but at her core she’s really more of a true #10, at home in the middle of the pitch pulling the strings. The ability to get Reiten more of the ball is one of the key reasons for Norway’s success so far in the tournament.

Group B

Mapi León – Spain

León has excelled in wide defensive roles in the past, but has played center back in this tournament. Theoretically, you risk losing something when you put such a creative and inventive player into that role. But the way León plays center back, it really hasn’t been an issue. We’re used to ball-playing defenders these days, but it’s still exceptionally rare to see someone lean so heavily into the libero (sweeper) role, particularly as part of a back four. But León is doing it, and with distinction. By moving forward in possession, she gives Spain a whole separate hinge from which to build their attack, and is a key part to their strategy of suffocating possession. León has also done excellent defensive work, particularly in her recovery runs, which is crucial since her wanderings often leave her out of ideal position when the opponent does get the ball.

Lin Yuping – China

I could just as easily have gone with Peng Shimeng, who showed exactly what she is capable of in China’s 0-0 draw with Spain, making a number of top quality saves and ensuring her team a point in a game that they generally got blitzed. But Peng is somewhat of a known quantity, one of China’s few true young stars. Lin is different – at 27, she’s hardly young, but still has under twenty caps. I tried to do some digging, but language barriers and a general lack of content left me with nothing. I don’t know her backstory. All I know is that she is dominant in the air and pretty solid as a one-on-one defender. She effectively shut down South Africa before they had a chance to even start attacking, and was a key part of the defensive wall that limited the German and Spanish attacks.

Group C

Barbara Bonansea – Italy

You could pick three or four players from this wonderful Italy team, but I want to focus on Bonansea, the hero of their famous victory over Australia for the brace that she scored. She also had a third goal in the back of the net, only to have it called back on the narrowest of offside decisions. Above and beyond just the goals, Bonansea has been a constant threat, with slashing runs that left Australia under constant pressure in their first game, and with cool link play that helped unlock the Jamaican defense in their second. She’s also done some excellent defensive work, dropping quite deep to pressure the ball and provide critical support. And she has an absolute rocket of right foot, and seems as likely a candidate as anyone to score the golazo of the tournament.

Deneisha Blackwood – Jamaica

Blackwood has fewer than 20 caps, but on this Jamaican team that still makes her a veteran presence. She can play in a number of different roles, but the evidence of this tournament suggests left back might be the best spot for her. She was a whirling dervish in the second half against Italy, racing up and down the pitch, winning tackles, delivering crosses, and playing an endless run of clever one-twos. It was one of the most impressive displays from a fullback I have seen in the tournament, and in a fairer world would have led to Jamaica’s first World Cup goal.

Group D

Lorena Benítez – Argentina

Argentina were one of the great stories of the group stage, and while their success should be regarded as a genuine collective effort, two players have generally been specifically singled out for praise: forward Estefanía Banini and goalkeeper Vanina Correa. Both are absolutely deserving, but I want to add a third name to this list: Lorena Benítez. Her performance against Japan was absolutely everything you could hope for in a central midfielder. She disrupted play, she won tackles, she leapt in for critical blocks, and she raced everywhere to plug holes and fill in gaps. If a center back stepped forward to challenge the ball, Benítez dropped behind to fill the space. If a fullback had moved forward in attack, Benítez slipped into the space to block a cross. It was a truly inspired performance, and there’s no way Argentina could have so thoroughly choked off the Japan attack if not for her efforts. In their third game, Benítez took on a more progressive role, serving as a fulcrum for the attack, and demonstrating that she’s far more than just a destroyer.

Erin Cuthbert – Scotland

If you were paying attention to the pre-tournament hype you already know about Cuthbert’s skill and technique. She an inventive attacker, who can dribble, pass, and (especially) shoot with the very best of them. But for me, the most revelatory thing about watching here over these three games is just how big of a pain in the ass she is to deal with. It’s one thing to dazzle with your touch or your precision. It’s another thing to be clinical—to bury your chances when they appear. But one quality I value over almost any other in a striker is peskiness. The players who are constantly in your face, who don’t let a single pass go easily, who are constantly buzzing through the backline, shedding defenders left and right. Cuthbert has this quality in spades. Combine it with top quality skill, and you’ve got a player genuinely ready to take the step up to superstardom.

Group E

Vivianne Miedema – Netherlands 

It’s probably not telling you anything you didn’t already know, but Miedema is a truly exceptional striker. Her success is even more impressive given the existence of some very real limitations in her game. She relies pretty heavily on service, and is unlikely to create much all alone. But give her the ball in any sort of dangerous position, and set her loose, and chances are the ball is going to end up in the back of the net. She might well be the most clinical finisher in the world, and doesn’t need clear chances to convert. The Dutch have generally not looked great so far, but Miedema is a clear exception.  

Desiree Scott – Canada

Canada is not here to make friends, and they’re not here to score goals. They are here to make their opponents miserable, and there’s no player who’s done more for that goal than Desiree Scott. Scott doesn’t offer a huge amount going forward, but more than makes up for that with her relentless defensive work. Her responsibilities are particularly large when Canada shift to a back three, which often leaves Scott as the only player on her line, needing to harass and harry any counter-attacking threats to protect the backline from becoming exposed.  

Group F

Christiane Endler – Chile

Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one. Many of us flagged Endler as the key player for Chile before the tournament, but we don’t really deserve credit for ‘calling’ that one because anyone with access to the internet and two minutes could have told you the same. But Endler really has been marvelous. She’s not the only reason the US scored ten fewer goals between their first and second game, but she’s a big part of why. Her saves were stupendous, even more so because they ran the gamut of different goalkeeping skill. Some were incredibly athletic, requiring significant extension in the air. Some were pure reflex, requiring instant movement. Some were purely about positioning – putting your body in the right spot to make the save virtually inevitable. The second half against the US was truly virtuosic, but she was good throughout all three games.

Kosovare Asllani – Sweden

Asllani used to be a rising star. She spent five years at PSG in France and Manchester City in England and always seemed to be just on the cusp of making the leap into the stratosphere. But it never quite happened. But since returning back to Linköpings in Sweden in 2017, she seems to have settled into a new phase of her career, one that makes her absolutely central to Sweden’s plans. Playing as a true number 10, Asllani is given the freedom to drift. Step back and she can play make from in front of the defensive line. Step forward and she becomes a second striker, able to make intelligent runs into space. Asllani is one of those players who needs only the barest bit of space to work with. Back off by even a foot and she’ll exploit the angle. She was the most dangerous Swedish attacker in the group stages–both in terms of chance creation and in terms of ultimate production. 

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 14

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 14: Matchday 8

Japan 2 – 1 Scotland

It’s almost bizarre how closely this game tracked with Scotland’s first match. Once again they fell behind 2-0 in the first half, partly due to a somewhat questionable penalty. Once again they finally found some attacking venom in the final twenty minutes, and did enough to get a consolation goal back, despite looking extremely leggy. Once again they were furious about the refereeing.

In the end, 2-1 was a pretty fair result. Japan were by far the better team for most of the game, but weren’t able to translate it into as much attacking success as they would have liked. And while their light pressing was enough to frustrate Scotland for most of the game, the defense broke down a bit toward the end.

Scotland can deservedly feel a little hard done by, with several decisions going against them. The penalty is a great example of something RJ Allen brought up in our pre-World Cup episode of The 123rd Minute – an NWSL player who is not ready for the stricter refereeing at this tournament. Rachel Corsie does this exact thing multiple times per game every weekend for the Utah Royals, and no one bats an eye. And even on the international level, it was a soft penalty. But the reality is that if you put your hands on an attacker in the box – particularly if you do it high up on the body rather than down at the waist – you’re opening yourself up to a penalty.

Later in the game, Scotland seemed to earn a penalty of their own, after kicking the ball off a Japanese player’s arm in the box. It’s precisely the sort of thing that shouldn’t be a penalty, but which have been repeatedly called according to the new interpretation of the rule.

In either case, you could absolutely go either way. It just happened to be the case that both decisions went against Scotland. For them and their fans, that will be absolutely infuriating.

The Scottish team probably didn’t ‘deserve’ a result on the night, given the overall balance of play. But while it often felt like Japan was on the verge of adding more, they only actually managed the one goal from open play. So if those two decisions had merely evened out, Scotland very easily could have earned a point here.

Even without that point, they have a decent chance of making the knockout stage. It will take beating Argentina, of course, but they’ve kept their goal difference very tight, which is the key thing. If they can actually get the three points, they’ll go through.

Japan haven’t technically qualified yet, but for all practical purposes they have. They looked much better today than they did against Argentina, and seem very much like a team who will play to the level of their opposition. There’s no realistic chance of them winning four straight games to win the tournament. But I certainly wouldn’t want to play them in a knockout game.

Jamaica 0 – 5 Italy

Going into the tournament, Italy were generally regarded by casual fans as a random European team who probably couldn’t be written off, and by more knowledgeable folks like Yours Truly as a team with ‘Potential, Who Aren’t There Yet.’ And then a few genuinely knowledgeable people (everyone is following Sophie Lawson, right?) popped up a hand and said ‘well, they might actually be there already.’

Folks, they’re here already.

I’ve been lucky enough to see them in person twice, and they might just be my favorite team in the whole tournament so far.

No, this Jamaica team is among the weaker teams here. But that’s a relative matter. They’re still pretty good. And Italy played them exceptionally well, and more than deserved a lopsided result, even if there were some peculiar twists and turns along the way.

I’m not really going to get into the penalty save/retake situation, except to say that this is yet another prominent example of the way that the laws of soccer are essentially arbitrary, and ill-suited to the kind of work we expect them to do in the 21st century. Did Schneider come off her line? Yes, by a very small amount. Is this sort of thing called? Almost never. Is it technically a violation? Yes. What are we honestly supposed to do with a system that’s so fundamentally incoherent, which simultaneously claims to measure fouls by a fraction of an inch?

Over the course of the game, Italy showed that they are strong not only in their tactical play – they were masters of occupying space and shutting down passing lanes – but also in their sheer physicality. There was no single player in the Italian backline who could individually handle Bunny Shaw, but as a group they kept her relatively quiet. As the captain Sara Gama noted after the match, Shaw is dangerous because she will shoot from anywhere and with almost no warning. But all those shots were blocked because there were consistently two or three Italians hanging on her shoulder.

And the Italian attack was superb. Admittedly, the Jamaican midfield gave them some room, but it was still marvelous to see them exploit it. And their striking core is proving themselves to be one of the most dangerous in the tournament. And they can find success in so many different ways and from different angles. Barbara Bonansea didn’t add to her goal tally but her link play was excellent. Cristiana Girelli managed a hat trick without any of the three looking particularly impressive. But those things don’t happen by accident. It may look silly to score with your face or to chest in a goal, but it takes being in the right place. Then, substitute Aurora Galli entered the game and produced a wonder strike fitting of a 5-0 victory.

Italy, a team that has not been to the World Cup in two decades, is through to the knockout stage with every chance of topping their group. As Girelli told me after the game: “It’s a kind of magic. I mean, we left from Italy hoping to enjoy first, and then to pass the round. We made it, so we are really happy!”

For Jamaica, this was another frustrating result. They actually played quite well, and almost certainly should have found at least a consolation goal, if not two, in the second half. But the chances didn’t fall. At times, it looked like their urgency overwhelmed them and they tried just a bit too hard – playing faster but not necessarily smarter. But there were huge bright spots. Despite the goal tally, keeper Sydney Schneider put in another solid performance, including the penalty save that was taken away. Shaw couldn’t score, but occupied several Italian defenders all night, and gave her teammates space to work. Mireya Grey was a breathe of fresh air in the attack, while Jody Brown brought tons of energy in the second half. Chinyelu Asher looked dangerous out wide, while Havana Solaun played quite a few dangerous passes. And Deneisha Blackwood put in one hell of a performance at fullback. She was a dynamo, covering huge amounts of space, wrestling off defenders, winning tackles, and generally looking like someone who is impossible to play against. It was the best I’ve ever seen her play, and genuinely thrilling to watch.

England 1 – 0 Argentina

I saw zero minutes of this match, since it coincided exactly with my travels back from Reims. That means I’ve now seen zero minutes total of England. I was really interested in England going into the tournament so it’s weird I still haven’t seen them. And since I’ll be at the Scotland-Argentina match that happens at the same time as their final group stage match, I probably won’t catch much of that either.

It sounds from reports that this was a less successful defensive performance from Argentina, rescued by a show-stopping night from Vanina Correa in goal. Still, it’s incredibly impressive that they’ve gone 180 minutes against two of the top ten teams in the world and only conceded one goal.

Two points could theoretically be enough to advance, if neither New Zealand or Cameroon win a game, and Chile and Thailand. But more realistically, they’ll need a win against Scotland to go through. I wouldn’t say the chances are high there, but it’s certainly a realistic possibility.

The danger is that they’ll have to actually open themselves up a bit to attack, and in doing make it far harder to keep their own goal protected. I’m certainly pulling for them,. As much as I love the Scotland team, it would be a hell of a fun story if Argentina get through.

Notes

– As I mentioned above, I wrote a long piece on the laws of the game, and the problems that VAR is exposing (though not precisely creating). Give it a read, and then read Ian’s response/elaboration which offers a very interesting alternative perspective.

– I am a massive Bunny Shaw fan, but she should have been sent off. Her attempted bicycle kick put a boot directly into Sara Gama’s head. It was lucky that the connection was more glancing than full-on, but just a few inches different and she could be in intensive care right now. It wasn’t intentional, but that’s a red card.

– Kim Little is one of the best players in the world, but she’s having to do too much and it’s really limiting her effectiveness. I don’t know what the right place for her to play is, but it’s probably not holding mid. I understand the impulse to put your best player at a critical hinge, but I think they need to trust someone else to do a job, and take some of the responsibility off Little to shepherd play every single instant.

– I have thoroughly enjoyed riding the trains with fans of the various teams. Props to the Jamaica fans on the 21:12 out of Champagne-Ardenne tonight. Y’all were great.

Tomorrow’s action

  • Netherlands – Cameroon. The Netherlands couldn’t finish in their last match, but given the lethal strikeforce they have at their disposal, there’s no reason to expect that to last. Cameroon were solid against Canada, but this feels like it’s as likely to finish 4-0 or 5-0 to the Dutch as it is for Cameroon to get a result.
  • Canada – New Zealand. These teams are both good at many things, but scoring goals is not one of them. Of course, having said that, maybe it will end up a wild 4-3. I doubt it, though. We’re still in Sinclair watch. Failure to get any against Cameroon makes it much less likely she breaks the record in this tournament, but it’s absolutely still possible.

I’m not going to either of these games. In fact, I’m not traveling anywhere at all. For the first time in the whole tournament, I could just sit on the couch in my Airbnb all day if I wanted. But assuming I can get myself up, I’m going to see some water lilies at the Musée de l’Orangerie, and if it’s nice out do some reading in the Tuileries Garden, and then get some crepes.

Which, hey, if you’re in Paris and you want to talk about soccer or see some great impressionist art tomorrow, hit me up.

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

Posted on by RJ Allen

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

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

The Laws of the Game are Pretty Okay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The introduction of VAR takes that one step further. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s have a little thought experiment:

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

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

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

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

Probably not.

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

Can you make a judgement call on that weird bounce?

Also, probably not.

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

I would think no.

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

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

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

VAR addresses that hesitation.

In Closing

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

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

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

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

Posted on by RJ Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rules of soccer are shockingly vague

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women’s World Cup Daily – June 13

Posted on by RJ Allen

June 13: Matchday 7

Australia 3 – 2 Brazil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Africa 0 – 1 China

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

Tomorrow’s action

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

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