Couldn't have been. They did not play very well. Got completely overrun in the midfield during the first half. Luckily Han's sister kept us in the game until the Aussies tired. They need to improve a lot of the French and Japanese will rip us to shreds.Hoping you are referring to the on field performance.
Couldn't have been. They did not play very well. Got completely overrun in the midfield during the first half. Luckily Han's sister kept us in the game until the Aussies tired. They need to improve a lot of the French and Japanese will rip us to shreds.
Teams are always a little off in the first game.
Wambach is really rusty.
Oh and Australia is pissed. This article is delusional.
http://www.footballaustralia.com.au...-4-things-we-learnt/5zhe8bs8l5v91qy1k44rpoc3e
1: The USA, well, they just aren’t that good
The US certainly like to talk a good game. The reality is they play a fairly rudimentary, bog-standard 4-4-2, were short of ideas going forward and outmanoeuvred tactically. ‘Play it long and look for the head of Wambach’ seems the default game-plan for a team stuck in the past.
World football has moved, in case Jill Ellis hasn’t noticed. US were outplayed by a better, smarter footballing side – who were also without two certain starters in Polkinghorne and keeper Williams – before the Aussies ran out of gas.
US relied on the individual brilliance of Megan Rapinoe to win them this game. And Hope Solo in the US goal saved the Americans on numerous occasions in front of a vocal ‘home’ crowd in Canada. If it wasn’t for this world-class keeper, this could’ve been a different result.
Read more at http://www.footballaustralia.com.au...5zhe8bs8l5v91qy1k44rpoc3e#fcJpaHDW1M7rObsH.99
The only thing of significance I learnt from this article is that "learnt" is actually a word. Lol @ aussie journos
So, no excuses. For more than a few too many Aussies, that's SNAFU.Teams are always a little off in the first game. Oh and Australia is pissed.
That's pretty damn accurate. Not sure about "aren't", but definitely "weren't".1: The USA, well, they just aren’t that good
The US certainly like to talk a good game. The reality is they play a fairly rudimentary, bog-standard 4-4-2, were short of ideas going forward and outmanoeuvred tactically. ‘Play it long and look for the head of Wambach’ seems the default game-plan for a team stuck in the past.
World football has moved, in case Jill Ellis hasn’t noticed. US were outplayed by a better, smarter footballing side – who were also without two certain starters in Polkinghorne and keeper Williams – before the Aussies ran out of gas.
US relied on the individual brilliance of Megan Rapinoe to win them this game. And Hope Solo in the US goal saved the Americans on numerous occasions in front of a vocal ‘home’ crowd in Canada. If it wasn’t for this world-class keeper, this could’ve been a different result.
That's pretty damn accurate. Not sure about "aren't", but definitely "weren't".
USA had Rapinoe and Solo and was better conditioned. Other than that, Aussies were better.
Rapinoe is my favorite WNT player, so I was fine with last night.I have trouble rooting for them because they are starting Solo, can't stand that woman.
Truth is truth.Aussie FA on the Lincoln Assasination: "Proud day for the President's plucky security detail, they just came up a little bit short".
Teams are always a little off in the first game.
Wambach is really rusty.
Oh and Australia is pissed. This article is delusional.
http://www.footballaustralia.com.au...-4-things-we-learnt/5zhe8bs8l5v91qy1k44rpoc3e
It's really pretty simple. And accurate. And good commentary. The differences in fitness is huge between a lot of the teams. And is/can be very crucial in who wins. It's not so much being able to play 90 minutes at a competitive level, it's being able to play 90 minutes at the level of your opponent. All the teams are fit, some are just fitter. Being able to take it up a notch, or maintain the intensity later in the game can be the difference between winning and losing.I never understood the comment about not being able to play all 90 minutes competitively when critiquing teams. My wife was sitting and watching some of the Japan-Swiss game with me last night after the US game. She played and still plays soccer. The commentator said that the Swiss are a good team but didn't think they could play all 90 minutes competitively. My wife blurts out, "It's your job to play soccer. How can you NOT play 90 minutes hard when this is what you do??" I had to agree. What kind of commentary is that?
It's really pretty simple. And accurate. And good commentary. The differences in fitness is huge between a lot of the teams. And is/can be very crucial in who wins. It's not so much being able to play 90 minutes at a competitive level, it's being able to play 90 minutes at the level of your opponent. All the teams are fit, some are just fitter. Being able to take it up a notch, or maintain the intensity later in the game can be the difference between winning and losing.
Take the USA-Australia game. The Aussies were able to use a high press and completely dominate the USA early in the game. However, as the game wore on, they backed off the pressure (couldn't maintain it), and the USA took control of the game. But while the Aussies could match USA's fitness, they outplayed the USA. It was the USA's fitness (not necessarily soccer skills) that won them the game. That and of course some individual brilliance from Rapinoe and Solo.
When the USA goes up against some of the more fitter teams, they may have trouble.
It's a good thing U.S. midfielder Carli Lloyd has, as she said, gone "off the grid" for the entire month of the Women's World Cup. If Lloyd was reading newspapers or scrolling the Internet or clicking through Twitter, she might come across a mind-rattling comment made by her former United States women's national team coach.
"Carli Lloyd was a challenge to coach, by the way. When she felt that we had faith in her, she could be one of the best players,'' Pia Sundhage was quoted as saying in a story published Wednesday by The New York Times. "But if she began to question that faith, she could be one of the worst,'' Sundhage said, adding for extra emphasis: "It was so delicate, so, so delicate.''
For Sundhage, the "singing" coach now at the helm for her native Sweden, it's clear that the tune she's dialed up for Lloyd and the Americans is John Lennon's "Mind Games.''
I hope Lloyd drops 40 on Sweden...oh wait, wrong sport...but you get the gist.Well, it sounds like Pia Sundhage is trying to pull a Geno.