Women's World Cup

[joeyclams]

[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.

Personally, I think the best US players were Lloyd (33), Brian (22), Saurbrunn (30), Klingenberg (27) and Heath (27). Johnston (23) has a huge future. Holliday (28) is a force. Leroux (25) is going to get her chance with Morgan (26) up top and the two of them are far from kick and runners. I think the future of the women's game is bright and with this win, who knows the type of player they will get in the future.

And those that are strong cynics can look at a team that came to play yesterday and took the game to a really good Japan team and see luck. I choose to think that teams that execute at set pieces, defend in numbers, combine up and coming talent with solid veterans and utilize great athletic and technical ability are the future of the game. I can also look at France and Colombia as teams that the US need to keep up with in terms of technical and tactical ability but aren't anywhere near ready to compete at the level of Germany, the US and Japan.

I find it quite illuminating that you choose to only see what the US team lacks instead of what it brings. Saying that Japan had some 'mild luck' in it's win v England is really a quite ridiculous statement. Getting played off the pitch for huge portions of the game and then winning on an own goal in the 92nd minute. I wouldn't say that's 'mild luck' and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone else that thinks that. Teams make their own luck. You put a ball in the box from a corner and good things happen, sure. But players have to be aware and put themselves in good positions to score goals. It's a part of the game that is planned and trained for.

Now, I'm not so blind that I can't see that the US has room for improvement and I know that the USSF is a bit antiquated. But I'm not willing to discount their achievement yesterday as down to luck or fortune. That's really disrespectful to the work and energy those women put in to be champions.

[DC47]

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?

I see your point from a hockey and especially American football fan. However, consider this modification to the latter analogy.

What if on every long pass in American football (AF), an incomplete pass resulted in a turnover rather than merely loss of down. That's more what soccer is like. Further, imagine that on a long pass only a couple players on each side are actually meaningfully involved in the play (that is, no pass rush or blocking). This modified version of the long bomb in football (my favorite play) would not be very interesting. It also wouldn't involve as much skill as other plays.

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.

I watched the slow-motion replay a few times, wondering what went wrong. I don't think the keeper was up too far. Her positioning is not unusual. She clearly hesitated as she went back, and also stumbled. This may have been simple error. However, she was staring right into a low sun. It's far more likely that she mis-judged the ball (and thus hesitated and then stumbled) due to limited visibility.

This can't be proven. However, even if it was simple error, scoring a goal like this only barely reflects the quality of the two teams, which is the heart of my argument.

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.

The bad header was exactly that. A clearing header that is executed properly by a player at that level roughly 95% of the time, that wasn't this time. Sun? No idea. But it was good fortune for the USA. And a fine finish. But the second cannot occur without the first.

The corner that you admire was well-played. But no Japanese player was fooled. That's as routine as a bomb in American football. The Japanese defenders were beaten on speed and strength, and the Americans had good luck on the bounce of the ball.

Just my 2 cents as well. I'm not claiming any privileged position for judging a game of soccer. The people in American flag body paint are welcome to their exultation. I'm explaining my point of view, which I realize will be deeply in the minority due to my history with the game and my general orientation. If you think this is bad, you should have heard my futile angst-ridden cries as a consultant in the American auto industry in the 80s. At least opining here I won't be fired due to my lack of appreciation of The American Way.

[joeyclams]

let me ask this question DC: do you think that lobs scored in professional games are all luck or just Lloyd's?

[Nonlinear FC]

gritting my teeth on this one.

[DC47]

Personally, I think the best US players were Lloyd (33), Brian (22), Saurbrunn (30), Klingenberg (27) and Heath (27). Johnston (23) has a huge future. Holliday (28) is a force. Leroux (25) is going to get her chance with Morgan (26) up top and the two of them are far from kick and runners. I think the future of the women's game is bright and with this win, who knows the type of player they will get in the future.

Seriously, Hope Solo (soon to be 34) is not a top player? I think many would accord her the #1 position in the history of women's soccer as a keeper. She'll be 38 if she's on the next USA World Cup team.

You've named five of the ten USA field players as 'best'. And left off Rapinoe (30). The first seems a bit indiscriminate, and the second seems to focus just on the past few games.

Morgan and Leroux (who has played less and less in recent years for USA) are not only speed players, but this is key to their games. Not many keep their legs to age 30. Morgan has had serious injuries already.

It seems to me that much of the future of the USA team in the World Cup is the players who are now on the U23 team. They are going to have to be good if you credit Solo (then age 38) for being essential to the defense-first strategy and grasp that the two top attacking players of the past two years (Lloyd and Rapinoe) are going to be gone or on the down side.

And those that are strong cynics can look at a team that came to play yesterday and took the game to a really good Japan team and see luck. I choose to think that teams that execute at set pieces, defend in numbers, combine up and coming talent with solid veterans and utilize great athletic and technical ability are the future of the game. I can also look at France and Colombia as teams that the US need to keep up with in terms of technical and tactical ability but aren't anywhere near ready to compete at the level of Germany, the US and Japan.

Check the recent French record. Many will say they out-played Germany last week as well.

Columbia obviously had good results. But in the time frame of 4 to 10 years other teams will likely emerge. Given their population and ability to shift resources to preferred sports, China is the clear sleeping dragon. What was the game score when they played the USA team?

I find it quite illuminating that you choose to only see what the US team lacks instead of what it brings. Saying that Japan had some 'mild luck' in it's win v England is really a quite ridiculous statement. Getting played off the pitch for huge portions of the game and then winning on an own goal in the 92nd minute. I wouldn't say that's 'mild luck' and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone else that thinks that. Teams make their own luck. You put a ball in the box from a corner and good things happen, sure. But players have to be aware and put themselves in good positions to score goals. It's a part of the game that is planned and trained for.

"Played off the pitch" is a very extreme statement that suggests a certain way of viewing a game. I don't share it. I think 'mild luck' would be a pretty reasonable statement for knowledgeable soccer people. And very few would believe that England would prevail over Japan in ten repetitions of a game at this time. That was simply a good day for England, and a bad day for Japan. It happens.

The idea that teams 'make their own luck' is another statement that indicates a point of view I don't share. I credit the USA fully with substantial advantages in strength, size and speed. All count at the max in set pieces. And their players finished well in the final game. But this does not mean that each of the goals was not aided by significant luck. Getting four goals like this in the beginning of the game is what makes this a 99th percentile 'luck' game in high level soccer.

Now, I'm not so blind that I can't see that the US has room for improvement and I know that the USSF is a bit antiquated. But I'm not willing to discount their achievement yesterday as down to luck or fortune. That's really disrespectful to the work and energy those women put in to be champions.

Please. Acknowledging that luck played a major role in the outcome of a single game is hardly unusual in a low-scoring game like soccer. Players grasp this. Suggesting it is in some way disrespectful combines a lack of understanding of the game, it's players, and even some jingoism.

I don't know how much you know about the USSF, but I wonder if you knew more you would have a stronger view than 'antiquated?' I've commented earlier on the dysfunctional aspects of the USA soccer development system. On a completely different front, I have been a bit surprised to note that even as the major FIFA players in the region of which America/USSF is a part have been arrested (e.g., the American Chuck Blazer, Warner) for extensive corruption, there has been so little public discussion of how the USSF turned a blind eye to what must have been completely obvious to FIFA insiders. Yes, a couple of months ago the USSF head publicly favored a candidate other than Blatter. But where was the USSF over the past 20 years as soccer in our hemisphere was turned into a cesspool of corruption?

On yet another issue, where was the USSF when the Women's WC was set up to be played on field surfaces and under sun conditions that would never have been acceptable for men?

The closest analogy I can come to the USSF is the SEC. Both favor the entrenched establishment to the extent of massive dysfunction and even harboring corruption.

[DC47]

let me ask this question DC: do you think that lobs scored in professional games are all luck or just Lloyd's?

Lobs in which a keeper stumbles and in which she is looking into a low sun involve considerable luck. They also require skill to see the attacking opportunity and to execute properly. Both were substantially involved.

A further point is that scoring on lobs has little (note I'm not saying 'nothing') to do with the core of what soccer is -- quality in the normal run of play.

Repeating my core point: scoring four quick goals on plays that involve considerable luck is exceptionally lucky. 'Four' is the key point. More than one is exceptional.

[Nonlinear FC]

DC - You do know a number of us are fully aware of the back-story and the state of US soccer, both MNT and WNT, going back to the 80s? Because, and I don't mean to cause offense, but the way you are making your points is coming off really... It's just not coming off very well to those of us that are equally as knowledgeable about not just the game, but the USSF and problems with the youth system.

I'm not gonna debate the game, because I just don't feel like it. I'm happy today and it is my opinion the best team in the tournament won yesterday. You, apparently disagree. I'm not moving you, and you're not moving me on that point.

[DC47]

I expressed my viewpoint, and responded directly to specific comments. In this dialogue it doesn't cross my mind to read the minds of others who are not commenting, or to be concerned about how I 'come off' to them.

I don't know how you and those you include in 'a number of us' view the topics you mentioned. I certainly don't assume agreement, as people who know quite a bit often disagree on these things. I'd be glad to hear other views, especially those that you say are knowledgeable. I've engaged in this ongoing discussion for decades now, with players and coaches from many countries, and this has shaped my viewpoint. I'm sure it will continue to be shaped.

[Nonlinear FC]

Sweet. Keep on truckin'.

[Rex]

Just wait till you guys see my hit piece on Baffert's work with American Pharoah

[DC47]

Can't wait to read it. That horse was okay, but he had a downhill lane. And now tens of thousands of foals are going to be ruined trying to replicate that way of galloping. Horses from Cameroon will no doubt dominate future triple crown races.

[joeyclams]

All i will say further on this topic is that luck certainly plays a part in games. All games. hell, landon's goal against Algeria in the WC was fucking lucky. however, he made his own luck by continuing his run into the box and being in the right position to score a goal. if DC is going to minimize the women's performance yesterday by saying it was lucky and that they weren't the best team, then i'm with nonlinear: it's pointless to continue the discussion. He obviously knows so much more about the game than me so what's the point.

[tennbengal]

Nope. Thread still ruined.

[howard]

I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, and learned a lot too.

[DC47]

All i will say further on this topic is that luck certainly plays a part in games. All games. hell, landon's goal against Algeria in the WC was fucking lucky. however, he made his own luck by continuing his run into the box and being in the right position to score a goal.

There was little luck on that play, and it was in the run of play, so it represents the primary form of soccer rather than the secondary (in my view) element of the game that are set pieces. It was also not influenced by field conditions that should not have been allowed to affect the game, as the sun did on the lob. Again, I recognize that luck plays a part in all soccer games. However, it's my opinion that four quick goals that each involved at least modest luck is extremely rare, and essentially wrecked the game as a contest of which team could play the best soccer on that day.

if DC is going to minimize the women's performance yesterday by saying it was lucky and that they weren't the best team,

I think it was a tremendously lucky game for the USA. The early good fortune for the USA changed the nature of the game by forcing the Japanese to play against their strength of possession soccer. So I'm left with no idea which were the better squad in the finals.

However, your second claim is not consistent with my view. Considering the form of all the top teams in the last couple weeks, I think the US team was very strong. I said earlier "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."

Do you really think this is down-playing the US team that came close to not making it through to the finals?

The FIFA rankings prior to the World Cup were Germany, USA, France, Japan. They were pretty close in points. I'd agree that these were the top teams in the World Cup, with little distance between them. I'd give the slight edge to the USA.

The big goal differential in the final? That's largely luck. This is a different question than how I rate the two teams right now.

then i'm with nonlinear: it's pointless to continue the discussion. He obviously knows so much more about the game than me so what's the point.

I'm always glad to have a back and forth about the game of soccer. It's entertaining and frequently educational. But to each their own as to what constitutes both of these things.

[Joe K]

I watch less soccer than almost everyone on this board, so everything I say in this post should be taken with a grain of salt. With that caveat, my reaction to DC's posts is that there is a fundamental underlying assumption that a possession-based offensive strategy is not only a more "skillful," but also a more entertaining style of play. And like BSF, I'm not sure I agree with that basic assumption. Earlier in this thread, DC pointed to the Spanish men's national team as an example of the possession-based style in international play. Even when they were the dominant team in the world, I really didn't find Spain to be particularly entertaining to watch. Looking at Spain's three big tourney wins (Euro 2008, WC 2010, Euro 2012), 7 of their 10 knockout-stage wins had scores of either 1-0 or 0-0. I really felt like their strategy in most games I watched them play was to get one goal and then play keep away for the remainder of the 90 minutes. While it may have taken "skill" to dominate possession to the degree that they did, I really didn't find that style of play to be entertaining.

Admittedly, Barcelona plays a possession-based style, and is the most entertaining team of this era, but how much of that is due to having a transcendent, once-in-a-lifetime talent in Messi? Also, could Barcelona be a higher-scoring, more entertaining team than Spain due to the fact that it's easier for a club team to perfect the possession-based style over the course of a full season, and difficult for a national team that plays together far less frequently to master it?

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?

I see your point from a hockey and especially American football fan. However, consider this modification to the latter analogy.

What if on every long pass in American football (AF), an incomplete pass resulted in a turnover rather than merely loss of down. That's more what soccer is like. Further, imagine that on a long pass only a couple players on each side are actually meaningfully involved in the play (that is, no pass rush or blocking). This modified version of the long bomb in football (my favorite play) would not be very interesting. It also wouldn't involve as much skill as other plays.

The modification of American football that DC described actually sounds a lot like the rules of ultimate frisbee, which is a sport I used to play competitively. At least when I played, the best ultimate frisbee teams did play a possession-based offense, and it would be stupid to just jack it deep against a really good team. But that's because at the highest levels, the best teams were able to convert a high percentage of their possessions into goals, even against really good defenders. Obviously, even with a great soccer team, that's not the case. Turning the ball on a long pass really doesn't put you at much of a disadvantage in soccer, since your opponent will rarely convert its ensuing possession into a goal. Given the low risk and potentially high reward, the long ball strategy in soccer seems to have a much better risk-reward balance than how DC described it with his modified American football strategy. Obviously, I won't disagree with anyone who says that they don't find that to be the most entertaining way to play, but to my novice eyes, it seems like a potentially sound strategy.

[DC47]

Those are interesting points. Regarding Barcelona, I believe I mentioned them only in the context of their boys U14 team, which is trained in the classic Barcelona possession style. I pointed out that a team from LA played them in a tournament and was at least as successful in an attacking possession style. This provides some evidence that in a special situation where a team is essentially shielded from the dysfunction that is endemic in US youth soccer, it is possible to teach a team a fluid, attacking possession style that is a great way to develop high-level soccer skill. For someone who has watched endless games of American kick-and-chase it is eye-opening to watch this on a field. I believe there is video on the web of this team.

In a hypothetical ideal soccer world, all American youth teams would play this way. Everyone would maximally develop their technical skills and possession tactics. This way players who don't happen to be early physical developers (sometimes merely on the older end of their age group) wouldn't be discarded early in the youth soccer process. The American team would end up with strong athletes who had stronger technical skill and could play soccer with more possession in the mix.

The Barcelona men's team is a very extreme case of a special form of possession soccer; so special that it has it's own nickname. I'm not suggesting this as a strategy for America's top adult teams.

What I suggest is that to excel in a world where America's physical advantage, especially on the women's side, is likely to diminish, it would be wise to focus on a strategy that was less defensive and involved more possession. That's two things, though they are related.

By 'focus' I don't mean never kick a long ball or never practice a set play. I mean moving the balance as to how you select players, train players, and play games towards the attacking and possession end of the spectrum. There are reasons to believe that teams that are roughly equal physically, the team that is better at these things will win more games. It is of course a matter of opinion that would take hours of discussion to defend. My view is that the current US womens team is far on the end of the scale towards an emphasis on defending and playing directly (i.e., long balls). I obviously believe there is a place for both on a team that plays high-level soccer.

[DC47]

Your analogy to ultimate frisbee is thought-provoking. I too played the sport. Back in the early days; my team was in the Midwest finals in 1977. My daughter played last spring. Ultimate is still a great sport.

Ironically, my '77 team was notorious for playing long. We had one guy with an astonishing arm. He was 6'7" and used his whole wingspan. But ultimately, teams with equal athleticism but better skill could beat us if we stuck with that approach. They simply played zone and dropped an extra defender back so that we were only rarely trying to bring down the frisbee one-one. Turnovers resulted.

In soccer it's even easier to defeat a long-ball offense. Teams typically play four defenders and one or two holding midfielders. Kicking long-balls into that group of defenders, with at most three attacking players down field means the numerical odds rarely are even. Teams will of course strategize against the long-ball to try to ensure this. And it's harder to control a forty-yard soccer boot than to catch with your hands the longest frisbee toss.

It is certainly the case that goals are rare in modern soccer. This is one reason why possession is important. It's hard to get quality scoring chances. Each one is vital. When you give away possession on a low-odds long-ball you give the other team a chance to create a scoring chance. If they're better at possession than you are at long-balling then they have the advantage. Possession tactics also wear out the defending team. With only three subs this is no small matter.

Even a possession-focused team will kick the ball long for tactical reasons. So I'm not suggesting it's never on. But being highly focused on long-ball play (aka countering) is not the optimal way to win soccer games if your team has the skills to emphasize possession play.

That's an important 'if'. My argument -- and it's a common one -- is that for the USA women to stay in the top rank, they have to develop players who have the technical skill to play possession soccer. Their physical advantages are likely to dissipate as women play more soccer globally. This was essentially the position of their former coach, Pia Sunhagen who had considerable success with the American team (two Olympic golds and losing the last World Cup on PKs).

Right now, they (like the men) are technically deficient. This is not an accident. The reasons are deeply entrenched in American soccer from the youth ranks to the highest level. As discussed above, they largely have to do with the nature of the sport as a business in the USA.

[howard]

In the late 70s I'd go out and watch the Santa Barbara Condors play ultimate. Those guys were amazing, would just play keep-away and dominate possession.

I am incapable of throwing a frisbee. Completely hopeless. I enjoyed playing, very cool sport, but I was strictly run deep and catch, and play aggressive defense.

[DC47]

I played pick-up ultimate in California as I didn't live near an organized team most of the time. A new thing to me was tournaments. I went to a couple, and was astonished. It was the early days of trick throwing. And frisbee dogs. There were exhibitions involving both.

Also 'Guts.' As I recall this was two boxes close together with a small number of players defending each box. The goal was to have the frisbee touch the ground in the other team's box. The game's name was well earned, as a standard play was to throw the disc as hard as you could at another player. I haven't seen this played in decades now.

And there was certainly Ultimate. I recall teams from Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara that could run rings around my pathetic former teams on the east coast and Ohio. Great skills, great athletes, but also offensive plays and fancy defenses. Extreme organization. I thought frisbee in California would be oh-so-mellow -- but no. They may have had long hair and tie-died headbands, but these guys were serious. I don't recall for certain, but they may have moved into a special formation when it was time to pass the joint around. And the strangest thing was -- they waited until after the game to do this.

[tennbengal]

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

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

No.

[tennbengal]

DC - You do know a number of us are fully aware of the back-story and the state of US soccer, both MNT and WNT, going back to the 80s? Because, and I don't mean to cause offense, but the way you are making your points is coming off really... It's just not coming off very well to those of us that are equally as knowledgeable about not just the game, but the USSF and problems with the youth system.

I'm not gonna debate the game, because I just don't feel like it. I'm happy today and it is my opinion the best team in the tournament won yesterday. You, apparently disagree. I'm not moving you, and you're not moving me on that point.

This.

[tennbengal]

All i will say further on this topic is that luck certainly plays a part in games. All games. hell, landon's goal against Algeria in the WC was fucking lucky. however, he made his own luck by continuing his run into the box and being in the right position to score a goal. if DC is going to minimize the women's performance yesterday by saying it was lucky and that they weren't the best team, then i'm with nonlinear: it's pointless to continue the discussion. He obviously knows so much more about the game than me so what's the point.

Yup.

[Ryan]

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

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

No.

Who are you to say what the sports-oriented blog will talk about?

[A_B]

The only thing that mattered was this:

https://vine.co/v/enWYqw6deEw

And the best players for the US in the world cup were Lloyd, the Backline, then put the rest in any order.

[tennbengal]

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

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

No.

Who are you to say what the sports-oriented blog will talk about?

Every so often I hit my cynicism quota. And then some.

[DaveInSeattle]

I respect your opinion DC, but there's no way you can dismiss the US's victory as "luck"....not when it was 5-2. That's just an old fashioned butt kicking.

And you can't just dismiss the Set Pieces. Yes, the US dominated on Set Pieces Sunday, but its not their fault that Japan sucked at defending them. Are they supposed to apologize for taking advantage of what they do well?

As for the "kick it deep" strategy, to my untrained eye it seemed to me that the USWNT started playing better when they went away from that (and when they benched Wambach).

As for playing Ultimate, I used to play at a pretty high level, and the best teams at that time (Death or Glory from Boston, New York New York, Double Happiness (San Francisco), and Windy City) all were able to play a possession game, working the field and making big swing passes to get the defense shifting. But they also always had a couple of tall fast guys who could bust deep for scores.

[tennbengal]

I respect your opinion DC, but there's no way you can dismiss the US's victory as "luck"....not when it was 5-2. That's just an old fashioned butt kicking.

And you can't just dismiss the Set Pieces. Yes, the US dominated on Set Pieces Sunday, but its not their fault that Japan sucked at defending them. Are they supposed to apologize for taking advantage of what they do well?

As for the "kick it deep" strategy, to my untrained eye it seemed to me that the USWNT started playing better when they went away from that (and when they benched Wambach).

As for playing Ultimate, I used to play at a pretty high level, and the best teams at that time (Death or Glory from Boston, New York New York, Double Happiness (San Francisco), and Windy City) all were able to play a possession game, working the field and making big swing passes to get the defense shifting. But they also always had a couple of tall fast guys who could bust deep for scores.

Yes.

[degenerasian]

I see both sides. The US win was not luck at all. The first goal was excellent. The 2nd maybe a little lucky. The 3rd was a Japanese mistake but the follow up shot Holliday was excellent. In the women's game, 9 out of 10 times that ball goes into row Z. And the 4th goal was just opportunistic seeing the keeper off her line.

I do enjoy defensive organization and thought the US back 4 and midfield were excellent. A bit lacking up front in most of the tournament due mostly to Morgan's injury and Wambach's age.

How did this US team compare to previous US Teams? Is there a type of player in the past that does not exist anymore?
Here are the lineups of the 4 US final appearances.

2015 (Champions)


2011 (Runner-Up)


1999 (Champions)
GK 1 Briana Scurry
DF 4 Carla Overbeck
DF 6 Brandi Chastain
DF 14 Joy Fawcett
DF 20 Kate Sobrero
MF 9 Mia Hamm
MF 10 Michelle Akers
MF 11 Julie Foudy
MF 13 Kristine Lilly
FW 12 Cindy Parlow
FW 16 Tiffeny Milbrett

1991 (Champions)

[wlu_lax6]

English FA has had a good time with their social media.
http://www.businessinsider.com/football ... eet-2015-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[degenerasian]

well they did want to come on their girls.

[wlu_lax6]

On the 1991 team I would have been wrong on my first 7 guess as to where Mia Hamm lined up.

[P.D.X.]

Anyone else notice the camera shot that followed Wambach to the stands but then cut away right as she began to kiss her wife? What did they expect?

[Nonlinear FC]

Anyone else notice the camera shot that followed Wambach to the stands but then cut away right as she began to kiss her wife? What did they expect?

Speaking of post game... How fucking stupid is it to have a bunch of waif fembots roll out with the medals like that?? I mean, at a bare minimum it should be a mix of hot guys and girls. But in general, it just looked absolutely ridiculous to me. Just have kids bring them out, or dispense with the bullshit and have falcons drop them out of the sky as God intended.

[The Sybian]

Anyone else notice the camera shot that followed Wambach to the stands but then cut away right as she began to kiss her wife? What did they expect?

I did, but I didn't give it much thought wrt to cutting away from a kiss. It looked like Wambach was going to pull her out of the stands head first, and I was wondering if she fell out of the stands.

[Shirley]

Anyone else notice the camera shot that followed Wambach to the stands but then cut away right as she began to kiss her wife? What did they expect?

Speaking of post game... How fucking stupid is it to have a bunch of waif fembots roll out with the medals like that?? I mean, at a bare minimum it should be a mix of hot guys and girls. But in general, it just looked absolutely ridiculous to me. Just have kids bring them out, or dispense with the bullshit and have falcons drop them out of the sky as God intended.

That parade of hotties pissed my wife right off.

[Ryan]

Just now finding out Lauren Holiday is married to Jrue Holiday. Those kids, if they choose to have them, will be good at things

[degenerasian]

It's always hotties giving out medals, usually Emirates Airline Flight Attendants. Problem must have been the revealing dress this time.

[The Sybian]

That parade of hotties pissed my wife right off.

I thought it was sexist at first, then figured most of the players would rather look at hot women anyways. My wife made a comment that Hope Solo is really pretty. I wanted to tell her she wouldn't say that if she saw Solo's octopus beak. (h/t to some guy replying to Hood* on FB).

[mister d]

There seems to be a major divide on Solo.