Three closing thoughts on #USWNT and Women’s World Cup
by Steve Davis on Jul 18, 2011 12:50 PM EDT
Email
Print
Sentimments on a sensational, dramatic final, on the ascending quality of women's soccer and on one particular word that really needs to be retired from the sports writing lexicon:
1. What a superb final. As we all know, caution rules and expectations rise in championship deciders and the matches rarely deliver what we would call, on and around July 4 fireworks period, the “big finish.” As punctuation, these are usual more “period” than “exclamation point.”
The U.S.-Japan delivered like FedEx. And how. Heartening story lines abounded, the bigger one on Japan’s side. The game had goals, two comebacks, added time, tension you could get out and walk on and then the body blow of penalty kicks. ESPN’s excellent Ian Darke said it best: This match ruined anybody’s attempt to enjoy a relaxing Sunday afternoon.
About that one presiding storyline: If we’re honest, every Olympic event and World Cup is wrought with tired rhetoric from media and participants about winning for folks back home. Generally speaking, athletes at this level are highly motivated; they play to win for themselves, for each other and then, perhaps to some extent, for national pride. That should be enough on its own, but somehow we prefer to stretch the truth to up the emotional ante. In this case, however, I think Japanese motivation was truly hard-wired into desire to help mend an aching homeland.
It had something else, too, which made the match (and the entire tournament) enjoyable …
2. The quality of women’s soccer just keeps rising. These matches on the whole were top shelf in technical ability and tactical acumen when held against the well quality of 1999. (I didn’t watch the 1995 or 1991 tournaments, so I can’t go back further in the comparison. Curse my pitiful desire in the early 1990s to actually make a good living as a sports writer rather than scratch out a living as a soccer writer!)
The highly technical French and Japanese sides played a brilliant brand. Brazil always has. The United States shoved its way into Sunday’s final through desire and timely goals, but did add a better possession element in Frankfurt. (Oh, and speaking of quality on Sunday … a quick ‘atta girl to German referee Bibiana Steinhaus for flawless management of a final. She certainly could teach male counterparts a thing or two.)
And can we talk about a tourney full of stunning goals? Erika’s effort against Equatorial New Guinea made me shout out loud. Brazilian teammate Rosana netted an absolute beauty against Australia. Nahomi Kawasumi’s audacious long ranger for Japan against Sweden was a dandy. So was Gaetane Thiney's strike from distance against Canada. I could go on, but you get it.
3. A word about this “choke” notion at the U.S. side. Generally, I just truly detest the word “choke” in sports writing. It’s usually a tool of the lazy and the simple-minded. You take the high ground by tossing the “choke” card and then abdicate any responsibility for further analysis. Now, in all honesty, I don’t think many truly informed sources have written or said this. Some columns suggest perhaps they have, but I tried hard and could only find a few instances, mostly from fringe media ninnies. (And the Twitter thing, but that’s a different animal, one that clearly shouldn’t be fed after midnight, if you know what I’m sayin’.) Still, let’s take this dog of notion out behind the wood shed and put it down:
Losing a one-goal lead is neither perfect nor pleasant. Losing it twice is tougher to swallow, still. But let’s credit Japan’s resilience while we point to U.S. defensive flaws that we all noticed – but kept fingers crossed that Sundhage and Co. could hide for one more match. And let’s have a discussion about Shannon Boxx, who looked gassed. Did anybody notice that Boxx was laboring to move into supporting positions when the U.S. fullbacks held possession late Sunday? In my opinion, that contributed to a turnover that led to one of Japan’s goals. So, how about we toss that around the table? Or, how about U.S. coach Pia Sundhage leaving one sub in her pocket through 120 grueling minutes?
Are we perhaps not talking enough about all those missed chances in the first 20-30 minutes? Can we just dig a little deeper to dissect a bevy of bad choices near Japanese goal, and how that came about?
Now, those penalty kicks were something different. It was a poor, poor round of spot shots for the Americans. But, again, I just hate to reduce so much to one word (“choke”). Was Japan more relaxed, able to step to the spot with a better mindset? It appeared so. Again, let’s have a discussion about the choice to have Boxx, who missed her PK last week (but was allowed to retake), step up first once again. I would have shaken up the order, at least. How could she possibly approach the critical moment with a 100 percent positive mindset in such a familiar scenario?
Did the Americans, during pre-match prep, discuss changing their individual MOs on PKs? After all, Japan had seen the U.S. shooters once, which is a significant scouting advantage.
You may agree or disagree with any of these thoughts; my point is that we can have the discussion. But to wave the wand of “choke” and then just check out … that’s just lame in my opinion, a tactic left to the goofballs who don’t know the game but like to seem like they do.
All in all, none of it should detract from a humdinger of a tournament, capped by a great match won by a deserving champion.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
For all of the missed shots in close
that were obviously fatal, not enough has been said about the number of poor choices to take shots when passes were better. Carly Lloyd in particular, killed about six attacks by either bombing it over the crossbar, or dribbling into the defense. Anybody who was shocked that she shot the pk over the bar didn’t watch the first 120 minutes. Rapino played a terrific game, but she missed Wambach on an easy square across the box to try and hammer it near post. Way too many selfish shots yesterday.
Your First Ever Pinstripe Bowl Champions- The Syracuse Orange
by bigbluethruandthru on Jul 18, 2011 1:05 PM EDT reply actions
Yes, "choke" can be a thoughtless bit of commentary
but the fact is that there are occasions in which it sums the situation up nicely. And the US, in the PKs, flat-out choked. I have no issue with the failure to hold the one-goal leads, as Japan did a great job to pressure their way to equalizers. That’s the game of soccer. But to step up and repeatedly miss those penalties was almost the textbook definition of choking.
Gotta agree.
Respect to Japan, who played hard and capitalized on the errors made, most notably in regulation by the U.S. But in a game when the U.S. side should have been technically superior, they looked tight, sloppy, and finished like the men’s team. There is more in-depth analysis to be had (much of which Steve brought up)… but I do think the word “choke” is also appropriate here.
by vineyarddawg on Jul 18, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Disagree
Foudy mentioned the tactical advantage the Japanese had in seeing the USA PK’s in the Brazil game. Boxx got stopped, and maybe Lloyd got a bit cute with the ball, and Heath telegraphed the shot.
Is it a choke? To me choking is when you’re up 3-1 in the 92nd minute and you end up with a 3-3 draw. Or being up 2-0 in PKs and losing. The USA didn’t choke, the Japanese were just better at execution.
Bloggin' at JoePasDoghouse.com
Questionable tactical advantage
The PKs taken against Brazil were excellent, several notches above the quality shown in the final. There was real venom in those PKs. So yes, it was execution. But why the big drop-off in execution? It can’t be because the Japanese saw some tape. You ought to be able to score some 8 or 9 out of 10 on the same keeper consecutively. Boxx’s PK wasn’t great, but it wasn’t that bad either—give that one to the ‘keeper. But Lloyd’s was awful and Heath’s was weak.
The USA PK's were terrible
reminded me of watching England take PK’s
my English friends watching the game with me were like “well now you know what it’s like to be English”
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jul 18, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
USA did hit a bit of the cruise control button after getting the advantage both times.
"When the Americans score a goal, they stop moving their feet," Sasaki said. "We saw that."
Is that “choking” or is that just playing poorly.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jul 18, 2011 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Penalties are little more than a coin flip. Skill helps, but the PK shootout is still 70% luck. The “choking” happened during the game, both on defense and in sloppy finishing on offense.
I mean just for one example, Wambach had a chance to put the winner into the net from point-blank range near the end of extra time, and she hit it into the 15th row instead. I can’t see how that’s not “choking.”
by vineyarddawg on Jul 19, 2011 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Japan did the US like the US did Brazil
If you want to give the US tons of credit for the never say die win versus Brazil, then you need to do the same thing for Japan after the final.
Pretty much, Japan did to the US what the US did to Brazil.
The US was less than 10 minutes away from a title. Twice.
But, Japan grabbed the victory as opposed to the US choking it away, IMO.
Well, except for Carli Lloyd skying her PK. But, that by itself didn’t cost the US the match.
About the refereeing
Yes it was excellent. But Japan and the US helped by playing soccer instead of playing games with the referee. Further, there was one huge botched call, and that was an incorrect offsides call (wasn’t even close!) that denied Japan an obvious goal scoring opportunity with the game still scoreless. Heck, defenders are sent-off for doing this ;) But seriously, we’ve seen too many of these tight offsides calls come out wrong. Lotta Schelin could have made a run on the golden boot award just on the goals and opportunities she was denied by bad offsides calls.
That was a bad call. Perhaps the only major one, but thankfully it didn't affect the outcome
by ABTsportsline on Jul 18, 2011 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
How do you know it didn't affect the outcome?
It’s not like that call going the other way would have only affected that one moment in time. It would have change the rest of the game from that moment on. Tactics, positioning, emotions, everything can change and all of those have an impact in the game.
lousy finishing
We know from long experience that the penalty kicks have an unpredictable dynamic. part sheer dumb luck, part skill, part nerve. But this is a game the US should have put away early, given their dominance and chances in the first half. Through out the tournament, the US team just could not put shots on frame. Off hand, I would say they put less than 10% of their shots on frame, and not a much higher percentage even for shots within the 18 yards. I don’t think Carly Loyd hit the frame in the entire tournament. She had about three great chances last night, and wasn’t close on any of them. I like Wambaugh’s game, but in many of these games she should have had two, three goals instead of the one that she got much praise for. At this level, US clumsiness in front of goal was inexcusable and in the end it cost them.
They were pretty bad
but I have seen worse! Thank you John Terry!
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jul 18, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
you
obviously didn’t see the Brazil v Paraguay PK shoot out, those were pathetic. You expect that from English players, esp a defender, but the whole Brazilian National Team?
Extra time against Brazil did us in
The ladies were gassed. Our PK order and strategy had just been exposed days prior. There weren’t any lineup shakeups with regards to fitness levels, and Pia was being very cautious with her subs for some reason.
There are 100 reasons you could point to for us losing this one. We didn’t “choke” on anything, however. I very much agree with that point, Steve. I feel it takes away from the Japanese here, and we should be better than that.
Hats off to the Japanese. They fought hard for it and will be worthy heroes, celebrated back home during a time when they need something to celebrate.
re: Tactics
I think we should have bunkered more both times we got the lead, like USA – Spain 2009 or Inter Milan – Barcelona 2010. But Pia didn’t want to “win ugly” so we “lost beautifully.”
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jul 18, 2011 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
To quote a great American statesman
“You play to WIN the game!”
BTW Anyone see Brazil’s mens team’s PKs yesterday? Now that was bad.
I exaggerate.
However, when one makes great and profound statements…
"They were gassed" vs. "they choked." What difference does that make?
They both “take away from the Japanese.” And I’d argue that if someone says “they choked” they aren’t really taking anything away from the other side, since the implication is that the other side didn’t—they handled the pressure (a positive); whereas “they were gassed” implies the other side wasn’t, clearly not the case. Japan also went to extra time in their quarterfinal match against Germany in what had to be an emotionally draining match. Then, just like the US, they handily won their semi in regulation, 3-1. Why not just say “Tonight, they were the better team” and leave it at that? I hate to be picky, but there are a thousand factors that go into every game. That’s just part of the game.
Couple of other notes.
I agree with Steve in regards to Sundhage. I think she is a little more accountable on this one. For instance, why take Rapinoe, who had been a 60th minute terror for the entire tournament, and place her in to start. They forfeited that element of being able to send a real dynamo at tired legs. Then, with a one goal lead, they go and pull Rapinoe, the ONE player still showing real confidence (even if a bit winded). Don’t know about the rest, but she would’ve been the one I would pick for that first PK.
That kind of reminded me of the Men’s 2006 WC, when Argentina was playing Germany. Pekerman had subbed out both Juan Riquelme & Hernan Crespo at the 80th minute with only a one goal lead. The two guys doing the most in that game. In other words, if Germany DID come back (which they did), Argentina would have castrated their own offense and have little chance to get that lead back. (Which happened.)
And what about the Bob Bradley moment? A sub at the 45th minute? Sounds to me like somebody botched the start of the game.
And once we had the one goal leads, the sudden dropping back to play keep away was incredibly irritating. They fought enough to wound, but not to kill.
And how about Hope, going lame with the knee. There was probably going to be one moment where the Japanese, if they played their cards right, would get a free chance at goal. On that corner kick. And they nailed it. The ONE moment the US needed for the 10 outfielders to do their job, and they botched it.
So frustrating.
The subs
First, Sundhage brought Morgan on to start the second half because Cheney couldn’t play any more on her sprained ankle. An injury like that (as opposed to, say, starting someone with a bad hamstring who turns out not to be fit) is not the manager’s fault.
As far as starting Rapinoe is concerned: it looked to me like it got Sundhage what she wanted: tons and tons of good chances in the first half. Rodriguez hadn’t done much of anything, and maybe she wanted to jump out to an early lead — and from a tactical perspective, it worked: her starting 11, with Rapinoe, created a lot of good chances. It’s not Sundhage’s fault that no one could get their shots on target.
It’s also possible — and this is pure speculation — that she told Rapinoe to go 100% until she was gassed, at which point she’d sub her out.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I Know
I’m Like, why the hell doesn’t Barcelona sub in Messi in the 60th minute because he would be all blaaahhahawaoouuuuusaaaalll all over the place when everyone else was tired. Why can’t they figure that out?
Regardless, I hope this will draw some interest in WPS.
It’s a travesty that Hope Solo, Abby Wambach, Rampone, Rapinoe, Boxx, and Sauerbrunn play for a team named after an infomercial in a 1,200 seat stadium in Boca Raton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagicJack_%28WPS%29
Bloggin' at JoePasDoghouse.com
SOCCER IS A GAME OF CHANCE
Everyone saw that the US outplayed Japan is many aspects of the game. By my count, they had a HUGE advantage in not only SHOTS, but CLOSE CALL SHOTS was completely lopsided.
If one were to tinker with the rules in order to chance 2-1 contests into 10-5 contests, the US would have had little problem in winning this game. But the way the soccer rules are, contests are decided by the smallest things.
When a single referee call (or non-call) makes all the difference in the game, when 10 near miss shots count for nothing and 1 slip on the grass scores one for the other team, when 22 players are running around for 120 minutes and there have been only 4 “significant” moments in the game, something is wrong. And to think, 2-2 was the highest scoring final of the 6 tournaments held so far. But the men’s game is the same!
I love soccer, but I hate how winners are determined.
A lot of sports are like that.
In American football, your team can rack up 500 yds of offense, but if you can’t close the deal and get some scores, a fumble and return by the other team can flip the game the other way. You have to close the deal, and that applies here to.
If you dominate a game, you should make it show up on the scoreboard. Japan simply played a little defense, and was able to make their shots count.
Yeah, but...
…in Football, you’ll usually be able to get 3 TD’s and a FG or two.
Football games hardly ever end 7-0.
Happens in soccer ALL THE TIME!
Yeah, but...
That’s a different story altogether. Soccer is naturally a low scoring game. Unfortunately any efforts to increase scoring would have to come from FIFA and they have a “why fix it when we’re already making lots of money” attitude. For the most part, on a global scale, soccer has no natural predators which might force it to stay one step ahead. Being the giant it is, it is happy simply to exist and make money.
The better team doesn't always play better on a given day
and the team that plays better on a given day doesn’t always end up with more goals/points/runs. The scoring is supposed to measure quality play, but no system is perfect.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Completely agree
Just look at Brazil on Sunday. Gotta close the deal.
by musamonster on Jul 19, 2011 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Funny thing about soccer
is that I think there’s more debate over the “right way” to play — as opposed to a winning way to play — than in other sports. The English, Dutch, and Brazilians all have a sort of moralistic belief in the proper kind of football, to a certain extent regardless of final outcomes. Dunga not only lost, but did it playing defensive football — you can lose, but there must be samba. There’s a long list of Dutch soccer leaders who have insisted on playing the traditional Ajax style (if not total football, at least attacking, quick-passing soccer), even if they don’t win tournaments that way. And there was a tremendous amount of criticism of Man City for playing cynical, Italian football, even though they had the most successful season in the club’s history, by far. There’s a lot less support for aesthetically pleasing losing in American football or in baseball, I think. There’s some in basketball (say, Don Nelson’s Run TMC vs the Detroit Bad Boys or something), and in hockey. But it’s very, very common in soccer. Maybe the amount of luck involved in a single game encourages people to emphasize the stuff you can control — style and effort.
The French team was reminding me of Arsenal (is their coach connected to Wenger at all?) — brilliant technically, but with real problems getting the ball into the net. The USWNT seems to me to naturally slide towards a kind of traditional, English style lump it and run style (Wambach is a classic English centre-forward, no? and Rapinoe has often played as a run-and-cross wing) that the English have traditionally seen as virtuous — no silly passing or deception, just good old blood-and-guts fearlessness and charging forward.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Jul 19, 2011 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
My Thoughts
Steve, good work and I pretty much agree with what you wrote.
1. I disagree with those who insisted that our PK-takers “choked.” I have a different perspective. Really strong penalty takers are going to hit balls that are either in areas that require not only a the right guess in direction but are hit with enough power or height or accuracy that the GK has to be incredible to make the save. Or you play mind games with the keeper (hit it at the keeper, chip the keeper, do a hitch step approaching the ball). Boxx and Heath both hit penalties that score ONLY if the Japanese keeper (Kaihori) guesses the wrong way—that basically meant there was probably a 40-50% chance those kicks are saved. Lloyd’s PK was similar to Baggio’s—you get tired, you step 6 inches too short so your foot isn’t next to the ball and you sky it high. Not chokes but really a combination of being dog-tired and less skilled than the Japanese penalty takers.
2. The US saved it’s best game for last—very impressive display on a lot of fronts. But defensively some really inept play at times—Buehler’s “clearance” inside the box right in front of goal…for any of us who have coached youth soccer (like…U10), don’t we all tell kids “don’t clear the ball in front of goal”? And the lack of finishing came back to haunt us—isn’t that so often true…a team dominates at first but goes in to the locker room 0-0 and they rue those missed chances later?
3. Here’s a thought: I agree with Steve that this year’s Women’s NT is much better technically than say…the 1999 team or the 1991 team. But I think there are more countries taking women’s soccer seriously, there are more countries who’ve upped their level of play. It used to be: USA, China, Norway. Then Brasil, Sweden, and Germany got serious. Now you add France and Japan to that mix. Unless the USA can get an injection of technical skill and talent, we may be like Norway at the next WC….a former giant that now is just a good team but not a contender.
I see your point
but we just played in the final. Hard to say that right now. Again, I see where you’re going with it, though.
As someone who has hardly watched women’s soccer, very impressed with much of the play. The U.S. team’s skill and touches were much better than I expected. Only questioned a lot of their decision making throughout the tournament.
All in all, very entertaining tournament.
Oh and I can’t wait to see that girl Morgan in next year’s tournament, a hell of a player and a looker.
by I need more Esteban on Jul 18, 2011 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
US Future
I know, we were the #1 team ranked going in, we just lost in the final in a game where the US women were the better team. But here’s my thinking:
1. FIFA ratings are based on games won against competition, not a coaches’ poll. Otherwise Germany and probably Brasil would have been rated ahead of us based on play this year. How does a team that doesn’t win it’s qualifying conference and has to resort to a playoff to get to the WC really deserve to be #1?
2. We used to be the best (or among the top 2-3) b/c we devoted resources (residency camp), had a professional league for some of the time, and a great feeder system (ie: women’s college soccer). But here’s what’s happening:
-women’s programs are doing more recruiting overseas-France is not a one tournament wonder, Germany is only getting better and deeper, England is okay. Look for Holland to emerge out of nowhere—that is a country that has a higher percentage of registered players than any other country in Europe and they take an approach to development that allows a high success rate with a small pool of candidates. Mexico is going to get better b/c they love soccer and they’ll get a lot of dual-nationality players. Canada is solid (but you see how they’ve got from serious threat to also-run…the quality of competition has gotten better). Maybe Colombia will get better but I think sexism/machismo will hold back most Central and South American women’s teams. In the Pacific, Australia will continue to be solid, NZ is there. But Asia—expect an explosion. I think both Koreas will get better, Japan is (other than Sawa) a young team. And imagine China if they ever get their act together (and Japan winning may be sharp prod for them to do so). China is Brasil with even less Federation support (tons of players but no money, no organization). I discount Africa for now b/c of lack of organization, money and federation corruption. But my point is: the US is getting better (Steve is right: compare technical ability and quality of play—"99 team and 2011 team are totally different) but the rest of the world is improving even faster. We were always bigger and stronger (except compared to maybe Norway) but we were usually technically better to. Now, I’d pick at least 4 teams that I think are obviously superior to the US technically (Japan, Brasil, France and Germany) with a couple of others coming a lot closer or maybe even ahead of us by a bit—and that’s right now. In 4 years, I think the gap will be wider, the competition tougher, and Wambach will be 35.
—other countries (like Germany and France) have viable pro leagues and the US may no longer have one
—women’s college soccer is a “plus” to a degree. Ultimately, it rewards big girls who run hard and play directly. It punishes midfielders who stroke the ball around, slow the game up and try to last 90 minutes. Just as MLS can’t rely on college soccer to grow all or most of our future men’s NT talent, the women’s NT is going to be at a disadvantage if the heart of Japan’s talent is coming from federation camps and development programs, if Germany and France’s talent is coming via pro teams and our talent is coming from college ball.
—sleeping giants are awakening. People used to call the USA a sleeping giant. But what do you think happens in women’s soccer if Brasil ever gets their act together, has a month before tournaments and plays 7-8 games a year? France emerged out of nowhere. You’ve countries with great traditions of soccer that have never invested in women (Germany was a great example) that now are they’re going to advance quickly b/c you’ve got a lot of girls playing against boys in playgrounds surrounded by a soccer culture that we still mostly lack in this country.
—I think the Scandinavian countries will still be factors more or less (combination of soccer cultures, early success feeds more investment and a real social commitment to equality). You’re seeing more of Northern Europe invest in soccer
by JoeWillmore on Jul 19, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Strike through/lines
Not sure why my last post had the lines through some text—weird!
I don't know why either, Joe
But it’s makin’ me dizzy!
by Steve Davis on Jul 19, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
It's using the dash as a punctuation mark without spaces, I think...
sometimes people do it and the blogging editor sees it as a shortcut to a formatting tag… I noticed you punctuate with dashes a LOT :)
Two I know about are demonstrated below, depending on the forum editor (but true here):
- leading asterisks lead to a bullet list
- bounding asterisks to bolding
Now I shall try to get strikethru :) test – test – –test– test /test/ (yes, the bounding – and the bounding _ give us strike thru and italics
Random...
is that your photo used during the SI chat and other places? Looks pretty different from your mugshot on this blog…and when we used to square off in 30+ NTPSA!
I Would Like to Add One Thing to the Mix
Deciding the winner of the final in a World Cup by taking penalty kicks is just as stupid for women as it is for men.
FIFA CHANGE THE DAMN RULES. At the very least take the penalties BEFORE extra time. This would take ZERO innovation, forward thinking thought, courage, strategic vision, and involve absolutely no hard work, YOUR FORTE!
