OT: Aussies Cheeky Bunch or Sore Losers

[meyers7]

It never ceases to amaze me how world soccer can move in a technical/tactical direction that seems superior to the US strategy, while we still rely (in this case) on superior fitness to win games.

Having said that I will readily admit I don't follow World Cup soccer nearly as much as other sports so I'm curious - is the US really behind other teams in their tactics, or are we pretty much on par with where soccer strategies have gone in the past several years? In the past were we just not talented enough? In games I've seen, men especially, it's pretty clear the US strategy is to try to strike fast with a lob to a streaking offensive player, while other teams rely on passing and execution to score goals.

There are a lot (a lot) of articles, papers, etc on this subject. The USA has gotten much better technically over the years, but is still quite a ways behind tactically. Lots of theories out there.

Kids don't get the same coaching as they do in other countries. - a lot of kids when very young are coached by they moms/dads who never played the game. In other countries the dad's at least (probably not so much the mom's) played their whole life.

Pick up - here kids play pickup basketball, used to play pickup baseball. Kids played against older kids all the time. Here, everything is structured. Kids only play the hour practice and on Sat when they have a game. (more when they get older of course) In other countries they play all day, every day.

Other sports - here many of the best athletes play basketball, football, lacrosse, baseball (well not baseball), etc. Other countries don't have that many options.

All of this is getting better, but the USA is really decades behind. We were not in the WC (men) from 1950 til 1990. 4 decades lost in the wilderness. And then in 1990/1994 we were pretty much using college players. Not too many pros.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I'm not sure why you guys are not able to comprehend this

My fav along these lines is: "Okay, listen up ... again!"

 

[Nuyoika]

Again, I'm not sure why you guys are not able to comprehend this. You see it all the time with UCONN women. Some teams (not very many) can play with UCONN for awhile, but eventually their fitness takes over. It's much more decisive in soccer because you just can't sub when people get tired.

I'm not arguing that fact. The problem lies with using that as a reason to lose. These women are professionals. The game is 90 minutes. If fitness is a problem for you, you will continually lose to teams you deem not up to your skill level. The Aussies allowed pride to get in the way of that fact that no matter how technical you are, if you are wheezing in the defensive half of the pitch, the team with the discipline to prepare for a 90 minute game will win. I just find it funny they felt they were the "smarter" team. Smarter soccer teams plan on running. It's kind of fundamental to the game. Just sayin....

 

[arch]

Pick up - here kids play pickup basketball, used to play pickup baseball. Kids played against older kids all the time. Here, everything is structured. Kids only play the hour practice and on Sat when they have a game. (more when they get older of course) In other countries they play all day, every day.

And yet we out condition them?

They have better coaches, play more etc etc yet we have many stars (Rapinoe, Solo, Morgan, Wambach)?

Points made are probably more relatable to men's game.

The USA women win............a lot.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Bill Paracells said: 'you are what your record says you are". The game result should tell you who outplayed who. Unless this concept of outplaying an opponent is unique to soccer I don't understand how Aussies outplayed the US.

Teams often outplay their opponent in soccer and don't win. The U.S. was tied by Iceland in a major tournament this year. Does that mean Iceland played the U.S. evenly? In any event, Australia clearly outplayed the U.S. by a wide margin in the first half but only had a 1-1 result for that half. It could have easily been a 2-goal margin for the Aussies - which would have made it very difficult for the U.S.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Again, I'm not sure why you guys are not able to comprehend this. You see it all the time with UCONN women. Some teams (not very many) can play with UCONN for awhile, but eventually their fitness takes over. It's much more decisive in soccer because you just can't sub when people get tired.

True, but the fitness became a much bigger issue when the U.S. went ahead and Australia had to chase. Had the Aussies had the lead they deserved to have at the half, then the U.S. would have been the team doing the chasing and the fitness difference might not have loomed as large.

 

[Nuyoika]

Teams often outplay their opponent in soccer and don't win. The U.S. was tied by Iceland in a major tournament this year. Does that mean Iceland played the U.S. evenly? In any event, Australia clearly outplayed the U.S. by a wide margin in the first half but only had a 1-1 result for that half. It could have easily been a 2-goal margin for the Aussies - which would have made it very difficult for the U.S.

Given this logic you would see a lot more games in international soccer that look competitive. I haven't seen it. It's the same old teams all the time. The Iceland comment for me is a yes. If you tie you tie. I don't live in the gray area where I can explain away certain things. I firmly believe results are a side effect of actions. As far as the "easily" portion of your post I have to disagree, mainly for the fact that Solo is difficult to score against, no matter how fast, technical, or tactical you are. I can't stand those corny "we deserved" statements. Let's instead talk about what you EARNED. If more people said I earned instead of I deserve, you wouldn't even see lame articles like this one by Australia out there.

 

[CocoHusky]

Teams often outplay their opponent in soccer and don't win. The U.S. was tied by Iceland in a major tournament this year. Does that mean Iceland played the U.S. evenly? In any event, Australia clearly outplayed the U.S. by a wide margin in the first half but only had a 1-1 result for that half. It could have easily been a 2-goal margin for the Aussies - which would have made it very difficult for the U.S.

Meyers already said this is unique to soccer- I still disagree. You say: "It could have easily been a 2-goal margin for the Aussies" but it wasn't mainly because Hope played her behind off. Hope wears a US uniform. Hope's play should be counted in the decision of who had the better half or game. So yes, the U.S. was tied by Iceland both teams played evenly. When you have to look at other stats like shots on goal or time of possession to determine which team played better you are reaching for something to feel good about IMO- which I'm OK with at halftime only. But when the game is over the scoreboard should tell you everything you need to know about the better team.

 

[Nuyoika]

Meyers already said this is unique to soccer- I still disagree. You say: "It could have easily been a 2-goal margin for the Aussies" but it wasn't mainly because Hope played her behind off. Hope wears a US uniform. Hope's play should be counted in the decision of who had the better half or game. So yes, the U.S. was tied by Iceland both teams played evenly. When you have to look at other stats like shots on goal or time of possession to determine which team played better you are reaching for something to feel good about IMO- which I'm OK with at halftime only. But when the game is over the scoreboard should tell you everything you need to know about the better team.

Those were the words I was looking for.

 

[Orangutan]

Meyers already said this is unique to soccer- I still disagree. You say: "It could have easily been a 2-goal margin for the Aussies" but it wasn't mainly because Hope played her behind off. Hope wears a US uniform. Hope's play should be counted in the decision of who had the better half or game. So yes, the U.S. was tied by Iceland both teams played evenly. When you have to look at other stats like shots on goal or time of possession to determine which team played better you are reaching for something to feel good about IMO- which I'm OK with at halftime only. But when the game is over the scoreboard should tell you everything you need to know about the better team.

In the words of Jose Mourinho: "I ask myself if in the future, when I am a granddad and I am at home with my grandsons, and maybe the future of football is a beautiful green grass carpet without goals.

"And in that beautiful grass pitch the team with more ball possession wins the game. Because everybody says 'oh, my team plays fantastically well, we had great ball possession. 'Good.' Oh, we build very well.' Good.

"For me, I am very simple in my analysis. Football is about putting the ball in the net of your opponent and stopping your opponent."

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Meyers already said this is unique to soccer- I still disagree. You say: "It could have easily been a 2-goal margin for the Aussies" but it wasn't mainly because Hope played her behind off. Hope wears a US uniform. Hope's play should be counted in the decision of who had the better half or game. So yes, the U.S. was tied by Iceland both teams played evenly. When you have to look at other stats like shots on goal or time of possession to determine which team played better you are reaching for something to feel good about IMO- which I'm OK with at halftime only. But when the game is over the scoreboard should tell you everything you need to know about the better team.

To paraphrase a gracious Geno: "We beat a really, really good team - a great team....but for just this [90] minutes, we were better."

 

[ThisJustIn]

You win with whatever tools you have... and you use the needed tactics to win (see the Cavs). Megan basically said they played like crap, so I'm intrigued to see how the team responds next game.

 

[meyers7]

And yet we out condition them?

They have better coaches, play more etc etc yet we have many stars (Rapinoe, Solo, Morgan, Wambach)?

Points made are probably more relatable to men's game.

The USA women win..a lot.

Very true. The women are ahead mainly because the USA put the resources into the women's program (for many years). Many other countries really don't give a damn about their women's team. Teams where countries have put resources into their women's teams (or the country has more respect for women athletes) are right on the USA's heels and ahead in some instances.

 

[meyers7]

True, but the fitness became a much bigger issue when the U.S. went ahead and Australia had to chase. Had the Aussies had the lead they deserved to have at the half, then the U.S. would have been the team doing the chasing and the fitness difference might not have loomed as large.

Very true.

 

[meyers7]

Given this logic you would see a lot more games in international soccer that look competitive. I haven't seen it.

Then you're not watching much.

As far as the "easily" portion of your post I have to disagree, mainly for the fact that Solo is difficult to score against, no matter how fast, technical, or tactical you are.

True she is very good (the best), but that effort was Howardish. If she'd had a normal game, we'd have been down a couple goals. And that's what I've been saying here, Solo had a great game, Rapinoe a great game, the rest of the team, not so much. It's like KML going off 10-10 from the 3 while everyone else shoots 25%. Great, we win, but if we continue to play like that and expect KML to bail us out by going 10-10 every game, we're gonna be in trouble.

 

[meyers7]

You win with whatever tools you have... and you use the needed tactics to win (see the Cavs). Megan basically said they played like crap, so I'm intrigued to see how the team responds next game.

Me too. I hope they play much better.

 

[Nuyoika]

Then you're not watching much.


True she is very good (the best), but that effort was Howardish. If she'd had a normal game, we'd have been down a couple goals. And that's what I've been saying here, Solo had a great game, Rapinoe a great game, the rest of the team, not so much. It's like KML going off 10-10 from the 3 while everyone else shoots 25%. Great, we win, but if we continue to play like that and expect KML to bail us out by going 10-10 every game, we're gonna be in trouble.

That's understandable. I certainly would expect better for us next time out. I love Wambach as a tried and true Western New Yorker should and although UConn WBB is my first love, I hold soccer close to my heart. Frankly, as effective as she can be at times as a whole she limits our options on offense. We are certainly getting better with having players like Tobin and Rapinoe but we need a few others to elevate their game. Jill Ellis and her tinkering does drive me nuts. I think you'd actually see Abby score more goals if she was a second half player. At this stage in her career she could be deadly as a last 30 minutes of the game type sub when the other teams exhausted and you bring Abby off the bench to finish them off.

 

[meyers7]

That's understandable. I certainly would expect better for us next time out. I love Wambach as a tried and true Western New Yorker should and although UConn WBB is my first love, I hold soccer close to my heart. Frankly, as effective as she can be at times as a whole she limits our options on offense. We are certainly getting better with having players like Tobin and Rapinoe but we need a few others to elevate their game. Jill Ellis and her tinkering does drive me nuts. I think you'd actually see Abby score more goals if she was a second half player. At this stage in her career she could be deadly as a last 30 minutes of the game type sub when the other teams exhausted and you bring Abby off the bench to finish them off.

Agreed. I'd like to see Brian and Heath get starts while Press moves up top. Sit Wambach and either Cheney (er Holiday, always forget) or Lloyd.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I think we have kicked this one around pretty thoroughly. Forget the curlish aussies - the better team does not always win of course. The closest analogue I see is another low scoring game - hockey. A hot goalie, a freakish richocet off a defender, a broken stick at an inopportune moment on defense... stuff happens.

 

[Nuyoika]

Agreed. I'd like to see Brian and Heath get starts while Press moves up top. Sit Wambach and either Cheney (er Holiday, always forget) or Lloyd.

I also think you could have A-Rod and Leroux start. For a number of reasons I think that could be pure magic. There are some really good options but Abby is a specific type of player, that's not going to change they just need to figure out how to use her more wisely and sometimes that may mean that she doesn't get the start.