Women's World Cup

[Johnny Carwash]

Holy shit, Carli Lloyd.

[degenerasian]

Needed a goaltending change at 3-0

[rass]

Lost my hat.

[degenerasian]

Lost my hat.

They must have heard you cheering for Japan.

Could you expand on the US youth problems? Since this game is over.

[howard]

And Solo is denied a clean sheet! Win-win.

[degenerasian]

Pearl Harbor, Nagasaki, Hiroshima trending on Twitter in various capacities.

[howard]

Carli Lloyd as Godzilla too

[DC47]

Could you expand on the US youth problems? Since this game is over.

The US formula at the highest level is based on their typical advantage in speed, size and strength. They have a great keeper. They are highly defensive in positioning and player choice, and offensively they emphasize direct play (that is, kick and chase).

This will work pretty well as long as they have a great keeper, and the rest of the world doesn't catch up with female participation in soccer (which will close the physical gap). I don't think this lasts much longer. It's telling that Japan, with far fewer girls playing soccer and a trivial soccer tradition, is now the equal of the USA team.

On the youth level, the sport is fundamentally dysfunctional for two basic reasons. First, parents and players don't know the game. So they judge whether player development is happening based on win-loss records and the level of the league the kids play in. Second, many club teams and all higher-level coaches are for-profit operations. The way to advance both organizational and personal interests is to win games. The most reliable way to do this is to play bigger, faster, stronger players (even if this is temporary, due to variations physical development) and to employ defensive formations and player selection, and emphasize direct play on offense. A secondary emphasis is on set plays, corner kicks in particular. This is an obvious area of advantage to the bigger, stronger athletes.

The result is that players who, when an age cohort is physically mature, would be top-flight due to their potential skill level tend not to get the best development opportunities. So they don't become top-flight players, as they would in a different environment. American teams select from the result of this process. This reinforces the desirability of playing defensive soccer with kick-and-chase being the dominant offensive philosophy.

Today's game will serve to set back US youth soccer on the female side (the male side has the same problem). Those who gain advantage from the current way that youth soccer and the national teams are run (that is, the establishment at every level of US soccer) will use it as an example of how the American approach, as described above, is superior. Those who don't understand the game very well will say the same. Because, after all, look at the results. And anyone who listens to the mind-numbingly stupid game call on Fox will only believe more.

But that's not how I see the first half of this game. The Japanese, even though they have had to change their personnel and tactics due to being so far down, are playing better soccer.

The Americans had enormous good fortune that led to their goals. A very bad play by a defender who couldn't hit a header. A very bad play by the goaltender (who may have been too far forward due to changing their tactics as they were so far behind). A couple lucky bounces in 'the mixer' in front of the goal, plus stronger/bigger players, on a corner and a close-in free kick. Quality American goals? Zero. Which is typical for them against decent competition.

The American goals couldn't exemplify better the American approach. It's not good soccer. It's a good outcome, based on luck, a couple bad Japanese plays, and physical superiority. These things are a part of soccer. But the American approach is based on them being far more significant than they should be. By 'should be' I mean two things. First, this approach is not good soccer as it is traditionally understood. It is not 'the beautiful game.' But second, it is not a sustainable way to win at soccer. It only works when you have physical superiority and a great keeper. If feminism continues to advance around the globe, I think it's predictable that other countries will have increasingly high percentages of girls playing soccer. They will predictably place greater emphasis on building strength and speed. The American advantage will shrink. As it has been in recent years.

The decision-makers in American soccer, from the local level to the national level, will not understand this. Success blinds them. As it always does. The few who do understand this will be outnumbered and silenced if they do not play ball with the dominant establishment. Or they will simply decide that the failure of the American approach will happen slowly enough that their careers in soccer will be done by that time. They will try to milk the declining situation for all they can get from it. As is almost always the case in any business. And of course, soccer is absolutely and without question a business for everyone involved.

[howard]

Or they will simply decide that the failure of the American approach will happen slowly enough that their careers in soccer will be done by that time. They will try to milk the declining situation for all they can get from it.

Sounds like the american medical system. And financial system. usa! usa!

[degenerasian]

Alot of what you say echoes Brazillian mens soccer. We have 5 titles.. you all suck.

Will eleborate later...

[howard]

I wanted Tobin to get one, even more than I wanted Alex to score.

[degenerasian]

Still bitching.

Taylor Twellman @TaylorTwellman
Regardless off the score and play...FIFA is making a mockery of this tournament on turf and in a stadium of sun/shade for a final. #BeBetter

[Johnny Carwash]

Meghan Klingenberg is sneaky-cute.

[DC47]

Or they will simply decide that the failure of the American approach will happen slowly enough that their careers in soccer will be done by that time. They will try to milk the declining situation for all they can get from it.

Sounds like the american medical system. And financial system. usa! usa!

Almost every system in human affairs is prone to this dynamic. What is successful now will be reinforced due to the advantages to the people who can profit from this.

This typical dynamic as it plays out in USA women's soccer is made worse than usual because American parents and kids don't know enough to break through the way soccer is done from the earliest stages.

Eventually, the dominant order in international women's soccer will be disrupted. By this I don't mean that the USA team will fail to win a tournament. That's obviously happened. I mean that USA will have a prolonged period where they finish out side the top two as much as they finish in the finals. That is, unless the American's disrupt their own system so that it will yield players with greater skill, and coaches are required to play a strategy that emphasizes it.

Will this self-disruption happen? It typically doesn't. Only prolonged disaster does the trick. Witness the US auto industry. But of course it's possible. Sadly, I don't see it any time soon. I've passed on several opportunities in recent years, at levels from regional youth soccer to a high level of men's soccer, to try a different approach. I'm tempted, but I don't see the situation as ripe for change at this time.

[howard]

Guys, don't put all your best material on the twitter, post it here


swamper rex
‏@JohnnyMcTweets

I’d be a poor sport if I didn’t take a moment to appreciate the country that gave us this

[Johnny Carwash]

Early on I was going to say "Last time I saw Japanese women in this much distress, tentacles were involved" but didn't want to jinx it.

[howard]

Alex hasn't taken her shirt off. Come on. That is why I watched all this mess.

[mister d]

Meghan Klingenberg is sneaky-cute.

I went back to quote where I already said this in the group stage and realized it must have only been in texts. But yes, especially when not playing. Has a little Tegan in her. Or Sara. The cuter one if there is cuter one.

[degenerasian]

DC: Back to the style of play debate it reminds me a lot of Brazil.

Brazil won in 58, 62 and 70 playing beautifully but then fell on hard times in 74, 78 and most importantly 82. After 82 and 86 they decided that playing beautifully did not garner results and concentrated on physically fitness. This was rewarded in 94 by winning the World Cup with a very pragmatic team.

Time passes and Guardiola comes out saying that he wants Barcelona to play like Brazil 82. Brazilians laugh at him. He comes to Brazil around 2010 for a few lectures. He states that in Spanish football up until age 13 they don't keep score. Games are for teamwork and development. Brazillians laugh at him. There is no way playing like Brazil 82 can produce results and kids need to have that killer instinct from that young age. Survival street football. Barcelona and Spain start winning. Brazil still laughs. Whenever someone suggests that Brazil should take advise from the outside world the response is always "fuck you, how many world cups have you won?"

As Argentina export coaches around the world Brazil has not a single coach in a major European league. Brazilian coaches at youth level get fired by next week. There is no development in Brazil. The first division is unwatchable and the second division almost no-existent. Even Brazilians don't want to watch it. Average attendance in the Brazilian first division is 5000 less then MLS. What DC states as player development based on win-loss record is commonly called 'Short-term culture".

Short-term culture creates an environment in which a coach is afraid to experiment tactically or is unable to put in place any kind of long-term plan. Youth coaches in Brazil are underpaid and are desperate to climb the ladder to senior football. The only way to do that in a results-driven environment is to win games, meaning that as much value is put on racking up victories instead of on learning or experimentation. Equally, it is troubling to wonder what effect working under 4 or 5 different managers between the ages of 18 and 20 might have on the development of a promising young player.

So a coach forces teenagers to play a certain way so that he can climb the corporate ladder when gets a big job, fails in 3 games and gets fired.

7-1 was supposed to be a lesson for Brazil but it sounds like it will be the same old. Rinse and repeat.

[Brontoburglar]

I just bought a Kelley O'Hara jersey

[DC47]

DC: Back to the style of play debate it reminds me a lot of Brazil. ...

Interesting. How have you come to know so much about Brazilian football?

I think there are many paths that lead to failure in developing soccer players who play the game with an emphasis on skill and attacking. The fundamental one is that soccer is a game where you can do well if you are bigger, faster, stronger and more aggressive than the other team. So selecting players for playing time and higher-level teams (the first creates a bias for the second) will get a coach a long way if winning games is the primary way he is evaluated. This is the most reliable path to success for coaches and thus for players.

If a team is at a physical disadvantage, it takes a considerable advantage in individual skill and ability to possess the ball in order to win. That take time to develop. But that's what coaches in America don't have. They get a contract from parents for a maximum of 10 months of play. And in reality, players can defect after the first five months or so (playing as guests or training elsewhere). So a coach who loses by playing players with more skill potential over players who are physically advantaged right now, and by playing possessions soccer rather than having players kick it forward (and away from their own goal) as a first option, is a coach who will rather quickly lose his best players. This is career suicide, so it doesn't happen very often.

The unfortunate result is that when players reach physical maturity, the ones who were selected due to early development are no longer so physically advantaged, and many of the ones who could have been high-skill players didn't get good development or are out of the sport. My guess, having seen many US women players up to the age of U20, including many D1 recruits is that the current team has only 2 to 4 of the players in the top 20 in America in terms of skill level. Perhaps 0 to 2 of those who would have been in the top 20 if they had been given proper selection and development as teens, rather than being passed over for those who developed earlier.

This is devastating to the development of high-level soccer team. Perhaps half of the attacking players who should have been on this team -- if they were going to try to play skillful attacking soccer -- are not on it. Yes, they still managed to win the World Cup. But it was a close call, due to some fortunate refereeing mistakes in the Germany game and some astonishing luck in the final. They were further lucky not to draw France. Other countries are closing the gap. Columbia, China, and England in particular.

America is a strong team as soccer is played currently on the woman's side. I think they'd win half the time if this year's World Cup was played over and over again, so that luck was evened out.

But the situation of 2015 is not static. The clock is ticking. Teams that have a skill and possession strategy advantage will routinely beat those with only a modest physical advantage, unless some factor aids the latter (e.g., loose refereeing, playing fields).

I think this is the fate that awaits America if countries other than Japan can get it right with youth development that focuses on skills and possession strategy at the same time that feminism produces a boost in female participation (boosting the talent pool), as Title IX (among other things) did in the USA in recent decades.

I think this will happen. It happened, from bare metal, in Japan. It's simply not that hard to get the skill and possession thing right. It takes some time, coaching talent, and player talent. There are scattered youth teams in the USA that do this, because there are special circumstances that support it. I know of a U14 boys team from LA that recently played evenly with the Barcelona academy A team in a Spanish tournament; the American team played with more skill and possession. I think there will be countries that will get this right. America's success in the current mode makes me think the odds don't favor our country being one of the first.

[degenerasian]

I've been fascinated by Brazilian soccer since I was a kid. How the game got so big there. There are many great books written about the football culture there. Also I enjoyed watching the Brazilian first division back in the 90s and 00s since it was great soccer relatively in our timezone.

You are right that if other countries take it seriously they can surpass the US in skill. Japan was really terrible prior to 2011. I believe they only got out of the Group stage in 1 of the first 5 World Cups. That stunning win over Germany in 2011 changed everything. China and North Korea were way ahead of them at some point. France and England are scary. The professional league structures there are really strong. If the EPL teams put more money into their women's teams, look out. The Women's FA Cup Final will be played at Wembley for the first time in August.

I mention Brazil again as they had one of the best players in the World, Marta and got nothing out of it. Many girls want to be Marta but they have nowhere to play. When Brazil got knocked out of the World Cup last week, nobody even Brazil even knew there were playing.

[DC47]

I knew Brazil was a burning house on the men's side. But hadn't thought much about the women's. Brazil is a country with a huge population, and people who know something about soccer. I wonder if the restraining factor there is the attitude towards young women playing the sport? Could Marta have ignited a generation that is just not old enough yet?

Regarding Japan, I was told by a British coach in the Coerver organization (a particular Dutch style of soccer training) that some time ago (20 years?) the Japanese government decided that soccer was a sport that the Japanese could excel in despite their small stature. They hired Coerver to do a lot of youth soccer training for the whole country. I don't know if it was both genders. Hence you see a Japanese women's team that is good at what Coerver teaches. They have a high degree of focus on ball skills in tight spaces. I don't know if some version of this story is true. But it fits what I see on the field, and it fits Japan's ability to determine from the top down how some aspect of their society will operate.

[DaveInSeattle]

Could you expand on the US youth problems? Since this game is over.

The US formula at the highest level is based on their typical advantage in speed, size and strength. They have a great keeper. They are highly defensive in positioning and player choice, and offensively they emphasize direct play (that is, kick and chase).

This will work pretty well as long as they have a great keeper, and the rest of the world doesn't catch up with female participation in soccer (which will close the physical gap). I don't think this lasts much longer. It's telling that Japan, with far fewer girls playing soccer and a trivial soccer tradition, is now the equal of the USA team.

On the youth level, the sport is fundamentally dysfunctional for two basic reasons. First, parents and players don't know the game. So they judge whether player development is happening based on win-loss records and the level of the league the kids play in. Second, many club teams and all higher-level coaches are for-profit operations. The way to advance both organizational and personal interests is to win games. The most reliable way to do this is to play bigger, faster, stronger players (even if this is temporary, due to variations physical development) and to employ defensive formations and player selection, and emphasize direct play on offense. A secondary emphasis is on set plays, corner kicks in particular. This is an obvious area of advantage to the bigger, stronger athletes.

The result is that players who, when an age cohort is physically mature, would be top-flight due to their potential skill level tend not to get the best development opportunities. So they don't become top-flight players, as they would in a different environment. American teams select from the result of this process. This reinforces the desirability of playing defensive soccer with kick-and-chase being the dominant offensive philosophy.

Today's game will serve to set back US youth soccer on the female side (the male side has the same problem). Those who gain advantage from the current way that youth soccer and the national teams are run (that is, the establishment at every level of US soccer) will use it as an example of how the American approach, as described above, is superior. Those who don't understand the game very well will say the same. Because, after all, look at the results. And anyone who listens to the mind-numbingly stupid game call on Fox will only believe more.

But that's not how I see the first half of this game. The Japanese, even though they have had to change their personnel and tactics due to being so far down, are playing better soccer.

The Americans had enormous good fortune that led to their goals. A very bad play by a defender who couldn't hit a header. A very bad play by the goaltender (who may have been too far forward due to changing their tactics as they were so far behind). A couple lucky bounces in 'the mixer' in front of the goal, plus stronger/bigger players, on a corner and a close-in free kick. Quality American goals? Zero. Which is typical for them against decent competition.

The American goals couldn't exemplify better the American approach. It's not good soccer. It's a good outcome, based on luck, a couple bad Japanese plays, and physical superiority. These things are a part of soccer. But the American approach is based on them being far more significant than they should be. By 'should be' I mean two things. First, this approach is not good soccer as it is traditionally understood. It is not 'the beautiful game.' But second, it is not a sustainable way to win at soccer. It only works when you have physical superiority and a great keeper. If feminism continues to advance around the globe, I think it's predictable that other countries will have increasingly high percentages of girls playing soccer. They will predictably place greater emphasis on building strength and speed. The American advantage will shrink. As it has been in recent years.

The decision-makers in American soccer, from the local level to the national level, will not understand this. Success blinds them. As it always does. The few who do understand this will be outnumbered and silenced if they do not play ball with the dominant establishment. Or they will simply decide that the failure of the American approach will happen slowly enough that their careers in soccer will be done by that time. They will try to milk the declining situation for all they can get from it. As is almost always the case in any business. And of course, soccer is absolutely and without question a business for everyone involved.

Wait....you're trolling, right?

[tennbengal]

Thread ruined.

[rass]

Meghan Klingenberg is sneaky-cute.

I went back to quote where I already said this in the group stage and realized it must have only been in texts. But yes, especially when not playing. Has a little Tegan in her. Or Sara. The cuter one if there is cuter one.

A couple of cute shots of her here.

h/t ex-Swamper Grant Wahl

[Nonlinear FC]

As I said on Facebook, I liked the match-up against Japan and was confident we'd win. Obviously, no one expected that level of dominance.

The transformation of this team over the course of the tournament was remarkable and I'm struggling to find a precedent to compare it to. After the group stages, I didn't think there was any way this team got deeper than the quarters. After the China game, I felt a lot better, then after the Germany game...

I have a lot of respect for Japan, but when we took Germany out of their game for long stretches, I thought we'd be able to disrupt the midfield yesterday and we'd certainly have a huge advantage on set pieces. Our physical style works well... if you put your foot on the pedal and press press press.

I'll leave the discussion as to why this team is bad for soccer for another time...

[joeyclams]

DC: Back to the style of play debate it reminds me a lot of Brazil. ...

Interesting. How have you come to know so much about Brazilian football?

I think there are many paths that lead to failure in developing soccer players who play the game with an emphasis on skill and attacking. The fundamental one is that soccer is a game where you can do well if you are bigger, faster, stronger and more aggressive than the other team. So selecting players for playing time and higher-level teams (the first creates a bias for the second) will get a coach a long way if winning games is the primary way he is evaluated. This is the most reliable path to success for coaches and thus for players.

If a team is at a physical disadvantage, it takes a considerable advantage in individual skill and ability to possess the ball in order to win. That take time to develop. But that's what coaches in America don't have. They get a contract from parents for a maximum of 10 months of play. And in reality, players can defect after the first five months or so (playing as guests or training elsewhere). So a coach who loses by playing players with more skill potential over players who are physically advantaged right now, and by playing possessions soccer rather than having players kick it forward (and away from their own goal) as a first option, is a coach who will rather quickly lose his best players. This is career suicide, so it doesn't happen very often.

The unfortunate result is that when players reach physical maturity, the ones who were selected due to early development are no longer so physically advantaged, and many of the ones who could have been high-skill players didn't get good development or are out of the sport. My guess, having seen many US women players up to the age of U20, including many D1 recruits is that the current team has only 2 to 4 of the players in the top 20 in America in terms of skill level. Perhaps 0 to 2 of those who would have been in the top 20 if they had been given proper selection and development as teens, rather than being passed over for those who developed earlier.

This is devastating to the development of high-level soccer team. Perhaps half of the attacking players who should have been on this team -- if they were going to try to play skillful attacking soccer -- are not on it. Yes, they still managed to win the World Cup. But it was a close call, due to some fortunate refereeing mistakes in the Germany game and some astonishing luck in the final. They were further lucky not to draw France. Other countries are closing the gap. Columbia, China, and England in particular.

America is a strong team as soccer is played currently on the woman's side. I think they'd win half the time if this year's World Cup was played over and over again, so that luck was evened out.

But the situation of 2015 is not static. The clock is ticking. Teams that have a skill and possession strategy advantage will routinely beat those with only a modest physical advantage, unless some factor aids the latter (e.g., loose refereeing, playing fields).

I think this is the fate that awaits America if countries other than Japan can get it right with youth development that focuses on skills and possession strategy at the same time that feminism produces a boost in female participation (boosting the talent pool), as Title IX (among other things) did in the USA in recent decades.

I think this will happen. It happened, from bare metal, in Japan. It's simply not that hard to get the skill and possession thing right. It takes some time, coaching talent, and player talent. There are scattered youth teams in the USA that do this, because there are special circumstances that support it. I know of a U14 boys team from LA that recently played evenly with the Barcelona academy A team in a Spanish tournament; the American team played with more skill and possession. I think there will be countries that will get this right. America's success in the current mode makes me think the odds don't favor our country being one of the first.

Man, you're trying way to hard. To say that the US benefited from a 'couple lucky bounces' is pretty cynical. Those plays were rehearsed and carried out to perfection, especially the first. The second got the ball in the box and caused confusion which is an essential part of set pieces. put the ball in the box and good things may happen. It wasn't luck. in fact, the team you are holding up as the future of women's soccer was only in the final because of a huge piece of luck. and, they were played off the park by England, so i'm not really sure what the hell you are talking about.

Watch that game again if you have to and you'll see that some of the best players on the pitch for the US were in their early 20's and play the game on the ground, with great technical ability. The US is on it's way to combine it's edge in athleticism with improved technical ability. They showed that against Germany.

Man, people really think way to hard about a game.

[Sabo]

Here's the link everyone's waiting for ... Andres Cantor's calls for the five U.S. goals.

[howard]

Man, people really think way to hard about a game.

isn't that why we are here? that and cynicism.

[DaveInSeattle]

The transformation of this team over the course of the tournament was remarkable and I'm struggling to find a precedent to compare it to. After the group stages, I didn't think there was any way this team got deeper than the quarters. After the China game, I felt a lot better, then after the Germany game...

I thought the China game was an eye-opener. I don't know if the Rapinoe/Holiday suspensions forced Ellis' hand, but it seemed like sub-ing in Brian and Rodriguez really changed how they played the game, but that high pressure completely rattled China, and then they continued with that strategy in the Semi's and the Finals.

[Nonlinear FC]

The transformation of this team over the course of the tournament was remarkable and I'm struggling to find a precedent to compare it to. After the group stages, I didn't think there was any way this team got deeper than the quarters. After the China game, I felt a lot better, then after the Germany game...

I thought the China game was an eye-opener. I don't know if the Rapinoe/Holiday suspensions forced Ellis' hand, but it seemed like sub-ing in Brian and Rodriguez really changed how they played the game, but that high pressure completely rattled China, and then they continued with that strategy in the Semi's and the Finals.

Shitty punctuation on my part, now that I read that again.

Yeah, we talked about it here after China... I'm still not sure if Ellis had some sort of strategy for the group stage that she was then going to switch up when we entered knockout stage. I sorta feel like that's giving her too much credit, frankly. But the important piece in all of this is that Wambach wasn't on a suspension, that was a very deliberate shift in tactics that wasn't forced on Ellis - she deserves the credit for putting in Rodriquez and for having the guts to put Brian in there instead of Boxx.

And she absolutely deserves credit for (finally) pushing Lloyd into the false 9 spot to tear shit up the last 3 games. Morgan may not have scored, but her runs and the danger she presented allowed Carli tons of freedom to roam around the box. That is very different than a 442 where 90 percent of the offense was sling it out to Rapinoe, slam it into Wambach.

[DC47]

[snip] America is a strong team as soccer is played currently on the woman's side. I think they'd win half the time if this year's World Cup was played over and over again, so that luck was evened out.

But the situation of 2015 is not static. The clock is ticking. Teams that have a skill and possession strategy advantage will routinely beat those with only a modest physical advantage, unless some factor aids the latter (e.g., loose refereeing, playing fields).

I think this is the fate that awaits America if countries other than Japan can get it right with youth development that focuses on skills and possession strategy at the same time that feminism produces a boost in female participation (boosting the talent pool), as Title IX (among other things) did in the USA in recent decades.

I think this will happen. It happened, from bare metal, in Japan. It's simply not that hard to get the skill and possession thing right. It takes some time, coaching talent, and player talent. There are scattered youth teams in the USA that do this, because there are special circumstances that support it. I know of a U14 boys team from LA that recently played evenly with the Barcelona academy A team in a Spanish tournament; the American team played with more skill and possession. I think there will be countries that will get this right. America's success in the current mode makes me think the odds don't favor our country being one of the first.

Man, you're trying way to hard. To say that the US benefited from a 'couple lucky bounces' is pretty cynical. Those plays were rehearsed and carried out to perfection, especially the first. The second got the ball in the box and caused confusion which is an essential part of set pieces. put the ball in the box and good things may happen. It wasn't luck.

It is beyond obvious that luck was involved in the set-piece goals. Balls being shot between the legs of defenders, bounces that land right on a charging attackers foot -- this involves significant chance. This happens only in a very small fraction of set-pieces, even for teams that have big physical advantages, as USA did yesterday. Anything that is rarely done is by definition fortunate. Skill is also involved. But to do these things several times in the first few minutes, which makes it impossible for the Japanese team to play their possession game for the rest of the contest, is well beyond merely a bit fortunate. If you played this game 100 times, nothing like this would ever happen again.

in fact, the team you are holding up as the future of women's soccer was only in the final because of a huge piece of luck. and, they were played off the park by England, so i'm not really sure what the hell you are talking about.

Japan had some mild luck against England, Germany had some mild luck against France, and USA had moderate luck against Germany (e.g., likely red card not given). Luck is a part of the game. Mild forms of luck are But there are degrees of chance evident in every contest. I've rarely seen a luckier team than the USA women in the fist half. I'll add that they were lucky that FIFA disdains the women's game to the extent that they played the finals at a game time where the sun would be in one keepers eyes in the first half; this was compounded by the American luck in winning the toss. Hence Lloyd's score from mid-field.

Note by the way that even though the Japanese women had to modify their strategy to play some long-ball in hopes of getting errors from the American defenders, they outscored the USA 2-1 after the sequence of lucky plays I pointed to.

Watch that game again if you have to and you'll see that some of the best players on the pitch for the US were in their early 20's and play the game on the ground, with great technical ability. The US is on it's way to combine it's edge in athleticism with improved technical ability. They showed that against Germany.

Who are the top American players? I'd say three stood out. Solo, Lloyd, and Rapinoe. Their ages at the end of this month are 34, 33, and 30. That is quite old in terms of soccer. The latter two will be ancient at the next World Cup for attacking players who rely on their legs. Morgan is seen by some as the hidden talent at this Cup, due to her injury (but note that Japan played without one starter). She has good technique but is very much a speed player, who will be 30 at the next WC. That's old for her style.

USA does have some younger players with decent technical ability. However, other teams do too. And my argument above is that the obvious physical advantages of the USA women are being moderated as more women play soccer in other countries, and as strength and conditioning take on more importance there.

The American women are going to have to get more technical and play with more possession if they want to remain a top team in an era where other countries improve their physical attributes, and work on their own technical and possession.

Man, people really think way to hard about a game.

We all come at a game from our own perspectives. In any sport, even when I am emotionally attached to a team, I want to see the game played well. In the case of soccer, going back to the 70s I have been a player, coach, parent of a player, and consultant to a professional team. So obviously I think about something beyond the scoreboard when I watch a game. I happen to think that soccer in America is highly dysfunctional, from top to bottom, and I have years of observations to support my belief. So it saddens me to see a game that is so unlike a good game of soccer being played on a big stage. Just as the terminal Brazil game featuring pathetic soccer on the big stage of the semi's in the last men's WC saddened me (but for the part about Brazil being humiliated which I hope will help Brazil recover from its dysfunction). But I am doubly saddened by the women's final as I believe that this will entrench the USA even more in the emphasis on defense and physical attributes, over technique and possession attacking.

Those who are strong USA partisans, or who believe that scoring on set-pieces, defensive errors, and mid-field lobs represent the essence of the game of soccer and involve minimal luck, are of course free to replay yesterday's game in their minds as a triumph for the country and all that is good about the game.

[P.D.X.]

The first goal was a pretty obviously planned play – 1st runner goes early and clears space for the second runner for the low-driven ball. That's not blind luck, that's good execution.

[DC47]

Of course it was planned. U14 teams run the same play. And at every level, it works only rarely. When it does, considerable luck is involved. When the ball is in the mixer, this is a simple fact.

This does not mean that skill is entirely uninvolved. Or that the Americans don't do this well. It is, and they do.

But the first four American goals had an unusual degree of chance on their side. And they were on plays that most soccer fans would not consider at the core of the game.

Consider this -- what would the game score have been if only goals in the run of play, excluding lobs into the sun, had counted?

It seems to me to be an odd belief that the USA 'dominated' if they could not even win the run of play, even after the Japanese were forced to revert to playing more of the American-style long-ball after falling so far behind.

Soccer outcomes are now more than ever (due to the lamentable era of defense-first tactics) a game of chance. The women's final was chance to the highest degree I've seen in professional soccer. But this itself is not the thing that bothers me most. That was just a spoiled soccer game.

The thing that bothers me, as an American with a long-time involvement in soccer is that the outcome -- a seemingly dominant USA team -- hides what I see as the reality. That is, an American soccer system that is deeply dysfunctional and headed too slowly (if at all, given the hiring of Ellis as coach) in the right direction. What I saw in this WC is the American's falling back into the pack due to their inability to focus on the essential things that make soccer a great game, and what makes teams able to succeed at the highest level. That's technique (skill) and possession attacking. All aspects of the game are important, but these two are taking a back-seat in America. Our imbalance prevents the game from reaching it's full potential, at both the highest level all the way to the youth ranks. As someone who loves the game, that saddens me. From my point of view, an American team winning a big tournament pales in comparison.

[BSF21]

Trying to read this as a guy who doesn't watch much soccer, but from what I'm gathering, DC and a few others are upset because the overall style of the game has shifted from intricate passing plays to a bit more "dump and chase". I don't understand why this is bad for the game. It's exciting as a novice fan to see this (I think partly because I come from a background of watching a LOT of hockey), because it's a way to get the game into an offensive mode. I really enjoyed watching those plays develop, not only from the US but from a lot of teams in this tournament. If I were coaching and I had anyone with explosive speed on the outside, I'd be drawing that up all day. To criticize that seem to be like marginalizing Dez Bryant for deep routes and long TDs because it's a lot harder to make catches over the middle like Wes Welker. Who cares how they do it if they're playing to their strengths?

The points about the maginalization of the women's game seem to be fair. I did wonder about why they were playing a WC final game on the West Coast in the afternoon at an open top stadium. Now I'm not sure if that had something to do with Lloyd's midfield strike (I saw a goaltender playing up too far and then stumbling while backpedaling, didn't look like she had trouble picking the ball up to me), but it was still strange to see.

Any game with an active object in play is going to have it's funky bounces and luck, but I think you're too quick to credit luck in these situations. The 3rd goal for the US was a terrible misplay by Japan in letting the ball go straight up inside the box. I guess you can call it luck, but the US player still had to make a great strike on the ball and you have to factor in that if your Japan you can't let that happen. I thought the first set play goal was brilliant. Again. I haven't watched a lot of soccer in my life but 99% of the times I've watched Megan Rapinoe take a corner, she booms a cross along and they run for the back post. I think the US just fooled the pants off of Japan on that play.

Anywho. Just my .02. I'm enjoying the conversation.

[P.D.X.]

Of course it was planned. U14 teams run the same play. And at every level, it works only rarely. When it does, considerable luck is involved. When the ball is in the mixer, this is a simple fact.

You discount all the tactics that resulted in those set pieces that resulted in goals. Those set-pieces were earned, not just granted out of nowhere. Apply pressure and shit happens.

[Giff]

Apply pressure and shit happens.

Good for soccer. Bad for anal sex.

[rass]

Defensive catcher.
Good for baseball. Bad for anal sex.

Backdoor cut
Good for basketball. Bad for anal sex.

Blocking tight end.
Good for football. Bad for anal sex.

[The Sybian]

The first goal was a pretty obviously planned play – 1st runner goes early and clears space for the second runner for the low-driven ball. That's not blind luck, that's good execution.

Absolutely. Zero luck involved, unless you considerate it luck that Lloyd beat her marker to the ball. The second goal was a bit of luck as the ball was bouncing around, but Lloyd made her luck by reading the game better than her marker and out working her to get to the ball first. Knowing where to be and getting there before the defense is a skill. Sure, the ball doesn't get through in those situations often, but being ready and beating the defense to the ball and finishing when the ball does get there is skill, and a lack of skill on the part of the defense. Lloyd's shot from midfield was skill. She had the awareness to see the goalie out of position and made a great play to keep the shot on frame. Even if the sun was a factor, then you could say luck causes every single factor of every sport. Hit a homerun? Luck, because the pitch was hitable. Catch a touchdown? Luck, because the DB was slower to react, or the nose tackle was .001 seconds slow off the line. Set plays aren't luck if the foul is earned. Get yourself in a dangerous position to score and the opponent takes you down, then score on the free kick, that doesn't make your performance any less dominant or less impressive. You earned the opportunity. Just because set plays don't work most of the, it isn't luck when it does. If you earn 10 corners to the other teams 1, you are outplaying them, and greatly increase your chances of scoring on a corner. Scoring on a corner doesn't necessarily mean you played worse than if you scored during the run of play.

The ball skills, technical ability and level of play on the Women's team is a tremendous improvement from 1999. They aren't as dominant as other countries started investing money and resources into developing their Women's programs, and it's becoming socially acceptable for women to play, so South American and European teams are becoming competitive.

I see your point on players who physically develop faster getting pushed to a higher level early. Look at Freddie Adu. He was the fastest and strongest player anywhere at 14 yo, and could sort of hang with professionals at 16, but he already peaked. Lot of other players ended up having a much higher ceiling, and many were probably not given the coaching and opportunity to reach their potential. Youth programs are moving towards a greater focus on ball skills and playing smaller sided games to give kids more time on the ball. There is just no way to weed out the early developers who will be great from the ones who peak early, or identify the late bloomers who will take off.

Lloyd