The US women have been tough to watch. Great individual athletes that lack tactical & technical qulaities compared to the Euro teams + Japan. There is a reason why I pulled my DD out of girls ECNL after witnessing 1st year of 11v11 across the country and I'm so happy in making this decision. Any girl playing ECNL that aspires to play in Europe in the future will fall behind in this current youth system. Mark my words...
WWC 2023
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Many of us see what you're describing.
As more and more of the bigger international clubs bring on womens teams + start training them like they do for men the USWNT won't stand a chance and it all starts at the ECNL (and GA to a lesser extent) level.
We're producing individual (not team oriented) players that resort to speed power and aggression (not skill and team possession) when pressed.
Mystery Train
GOLD
The ECNL is built to supply college soccer programs and college soccer is not a good comp or prep for international professional soccer. I feel like college sports are a poor development system for most sports that aren't American football.
Where else is she gonna play? Coaches don't believe in your kid unless they're ECNL. We already know ECNL isn't developing a good portion of the girls... they inherit them as a launching pad to P5 conferences.
GA and the Transfer Portal are gaining ground on ECNL for players on the top teams.
Not that it really matters though college soccer is the problem not the solution.
What are your thoughts on the transfer portal? To me it looks like total chaos but I don't have firsthand experience with it.
I mean it's not just ECNL....it's all if it. You might see a team here and there that is clearly well coached, but these teams are rare. But yeah, there's a reason concussion rates are higher on the girls side. Also too many coaches focused on results -- they will do anything to be on the positive side of the table. It's not good.
It all depends on the player but for my DD it’s a high level boy’s mls next team that trains under a European system like an Ajax Dutch system. Given that the goal is to play pro in Europe in the future.
I agree with the chaos statement.
It all depends on the goals of the Coach and the Athletics Department at the College. Is the team, coach, and department playing to win? Some are some aren't. Is the college playing in a highly competitive league? Some are some aren't. Unfortunately, colleges aren't professional teams and motivation can come in many forms. Maybe the motivation is to keep the parent happy that just donated a new gym for the school. Maybe the school of Mathematics and Sciences needs to expand + the only place available is the soccer fields. If the soccer team isn't winning + doesn't have student engagement / attendance + if they don't start winning soon they'll be playing/practicing 3 miles off campus in a local park.
Whatever the motivation if there's pressure to win in the short term and the current players aren't working out coaches have 2 options, freshman recruits, and transfer portal players. Freshman recruits are a crapshoot outside of 10ish clubs (who everyone is recruiting). Transfer Portal players are older, more mature, and a known commodity.
Which would you choose (in the short term) if your job was on the line? All untested freshman? All older Transfer Portal players? Or, a mix of both + see how things turn out when you get them on the field together. Most people would choose to bring on a mix of both to see what's possible.
BTW while everything above is true about College Athletics it's also 100% the reason the USWNT is having problems. In other countries talent goes to Academies from age 16ish on + coaches work on all aspects of the game with players. Those that show promise move on everyone else gets dumped. Over time this type of environment will identify more talent + train them to a higher level (at a younger age) than any college in the US can.
Code
GOLD
Just want to chim in as an Independent on this woke idea. "Woke" is/was slang for wake up; used to get liberals motivated into the political sphere more than a decade ago. Actually, "Woke" as a slang word is already out of date. Using Woke in language today, would be like using the term Groovy in the early 80's. You missed the moment. But to my point. The Conservatives new campaign strategy/slogan is the "Wake Up" campaign. I find it sadly ironic Aand comical that the Conservatives are literally attempting to get there base "Woke" for the next election cycle.
Code
GOLD
I don't know that is necessarily the youthful players on the team that are struggling?
Code
GOLD
Agree. We need to separate sports from education.
If a voter can't see what a dirty, worthless piece of shit Joe Biden is, there's no amount of waking up possible. What's more disturbing is the Dems no longer have a decent candidate. At least not one I've seen. Tulsi Gabbard needed some maturing but they chased her away.
Good stuff. My kid really liked ASU but I don't believe Graham knows there are American players to draw from. The record suggests your point.
I see you just joined us in February. But, please keep the politics in the other thread. Thanks.
Thought this was a good tactical breakdown in the Athletic
The United States women’s national team will head into its World Cup round of 16 game against Sweden with a majority of its fanbase doubting the team for perhaps the first time in their history. During the U.S.’s last group-stage match, a 0-0 draw against Portugal, they turned in the ugliest and sloppiest performance of the Vlatko Andonovski era, prompting questions about whether the team has what it takes to win a World Cup knockout stage game.
Criticism of Andonovski and his team are warranted after they failed to beat first-time qualifiers Portugal, but it’s worth pointing out that this game was very close to going a lot differently.
If Alex Morgan heads in the cross that Rose Lavelle delivered a couple inches away from perfect, only 18 seconds into the match, or if the U.S. scores any of their 17 relatively high-quality shots — good for 2.13 expected goals — we are probably not having an exhaustive conversation about everything wrong with their coach and tactics. A game with this shot profile is one the USWNT wins more often than not.
The U.S. had six shots inside the box and seven of 0.1 xG or better. The things that happened in between those shots were ugly and difficult to watch, but the USWNT did, ultimately, get enough high-quality shots to win the game.
It’s probably good for the team’s long-term prospects that none of those shots resulted in a goal, though. Instead of having a 2-0 win to paper over all of the cracks in the U.S.’s tactical setup, all of those cracks were clear for everyone to see in a 0-0 draw, in which the Americans were an inch from elimination.
The U.S. cannot hide behind a positive result. They do not get to say “this is fine” while their world burns down around them. They have been forced to acknowledge that they are not currently good enough to win the World Cup, and must improve in almost every aspect of their game in order to reach their objective. They might not get better in time to defeat Sweden in the round of 16, but now they at least know that they have to.
Or they should, at least. Andonovski sounded pretty defiant in the post-match press conference, stating, “we have to stick to our principles, we have to stick to our game model, and we have to stick to our philosophy.” What does that mean?
What the USWNT’s attack is supposed to look like
I’ve spent three years not liking the way the U.S. is playing, giving Andonovski the benefit of the doubt because he is a qualified coach who has won NWSL championships, and giving games a second look to see if I missed anything. This game had fewer positives to find on second look than any other one I can remember, but you could at least see what his team was trying to accomplish on this third-minute move, probably the best of the game.
Julie Ertz starts the attack with an excellent outlet ball to Crystal Dunn, who runs into wide space that’s available due to Portugal’s narrow 4-4-2 diamond formation.
Sophia Smith gets into a good position to receive a pass ahead of Dunn, who finds her with an early ball, getting Smith isolated in a one-on-one in a lot of space against Portugal left back Ana Borges. This is the kind of situation the U.S. would like to find Smith in frequently, and she makes a good decision to cut inside, then try a diagonal ball toward the top of the box.
Smith’s ball isn’t great, but the U.S. attackers are in good positions to keep Portugal under pressure, compete for the second ball after Smith’s diagonal pass is intercepted, and continue the attack with a numerical advantage on the right side. They’re able to work it to Lynn Williams, who beats her defender and squares to the top of the six-yard box for Alex Morgan.
Portugal defender Diana Gomes does a solid job of reacting and putting Morgan off balance just enough to alter the shot and prevent a goal. But this was a good move resulting in a high-quality chance, and if the U.S. were able to do this repeatedly, they’d have won the game.
What’s actually happening 95% of the time they have the ball
Unfortunately for the U.S., Portugal settled into their shape and started defending much better around the 10-minute mark. From then on, the U.S. looked sloppy, and struggled with their passing.
Midfield shape and movement is the most glaring issue with the U.S. at the moment. The team is regularly taking up a stance I’ll call the “Prayer Circle Formation,” in which everyone’s occupying a space on the perimeter of the pitch and no one’s in the middle. Intelligent and technically adept players who regularly show the ability to combine in tight spaces at the club level are being made to appear inept, as they look up for passing options and find no one.
Also, this is exactly what happened when the USWNT lost to Canada in the Olympics in 2021. The Prayer Circle has to be considered a feature, not a bug, of Andonovsi’s tactics at this point. He wants to create overloads in wide areas and get numbers into the box so badly that he is willing to sacrifice having a midfield to do so. Personally, I think this sucks and leads to very bad soccer.
There are — and I swear to god I am not exaggerating one bit — at least 15 instances of the Prayer Circle popping up in the Portugal match, but we’re going to stick to three examples.
During the English-language broadcast of the game, Fox analyst Alexi Lalas lobbed a harsh criticism at Crystal Dunn, stating that she looked like she’d never played soccer before. I would like to know where Dunn is supposed to pass the ball in this instance.
Dunn chose a lofted pass over the top of the defense toward Lindsey Horan, who was making a vertical run in the channel between the right center back and right fullback.
Here’s another move where the U.S. tries to build down its left flank through Dunn, who is then tasked with advancing the ball to… who, exactly?
Horan is lagging back on this play while Lavelle stays in the right half space, neither winger cuts inside, and Morgan tries to stretch the back line. Dunn is left with only one passing option: Smith on the left side. Because Portugal knows that Dunn only has one passing option, they can cheat to their right and set up to trap her against the sideline.
Holding midfielder Andi Sullivan has also caught a lot of criticism for her lack of contribution to build-up play and inability to play passes quickly. I am not going to argue that Sullivan has played well during this World Cup, but I would like to know what quick and/or progressive pass she is supposed to play here.
Horan is not offering herself as an option and Lavelle is literally out of frame. This is another instance of the two more advanced central midfielders trying to make a run into the box during early build-up. This isn’t a bad thing; it’s great to have midfielders who are a threat to make runs into the box and score goals. But Horan and Lavelle regularly made this run at the exact same time, meaning neither of them was making themselves a passing option in midfield.
This was the most recognizable repeated pattern of play for the U.S. in this game: Dunn, Sullivan or Emily Fox gets on the ball roughly 60 yards from goal. Horan and/or Lavelle (usually “and”) make a vertical run toward the box. The player on the ball thinks Portugal has the run covered, so they don’t try to play in their midfielder, and look for their second option.
There is no second option. The central midfielders have run forward, and no one from the front line is moving into midfield to replace them. The ball-carrier’s only options are to play long or backwards.
The USWNT has faced constant criticism for not playing fast enough, and I’m not sure how they’re meant to do that without hoofing it long up the pitch. The players are having to stop to think because there aren’t available teammates to pass to. Teams that play fast with short passes on the ground are able to do so because their teammates make themselves available for passes. This problem does not originate with the player on the ball, but with the players off the ball.
I
The United States women’s national team will head into its World Cup round of 16 game against Sweden with a majority of its fanbase doubting the team for perhaps the first time in their history. During the U.S.’s last group-stage match, a 0-0 draw against Portugal, they turned in the ugliest and sloppiest performance of the Vlatko Andonovski era, prompting questions about whether the team has what it takes to win a World Cup knockout stage game.
Criticism of Andonovski and his team are warranted after they failed to beat first-time qualifiers Portugal, but it’s worth pointing out that this game was very close to going a lot differently.
If Alex Morgan heads in the cross that Rose Lavelle delivered a couple inches away from perfect, only 18 seconds into the match, or if the U.S. scores any of their 17 relatively high-quality shots — good for 2.13 expected goals — we are probably not having an exhaustive conversation about everything wrong with their coach and tactics. A game with this shot profile is one the USWNT wins more often than not.
The U.S. had six shots inside the box and seven of 0.1 xG or better. The things that happened in between those shots were ugly and difficult to watch, but the USWNT did, ultimately, get enough high-quality shots to win the game.
It’s probably good for the team’s long-term prospects that none of those shots resulted in a goal, though. Instead of having a 2-0 win to paper over all of the cracks in the U.S.’s tactical setup, all of those cracks were clear for everyone to see in a 0-0 draw, in which the Americans were an inch from elimination.
The U.S. cannot hide behind a positive result. They do not get to say “this is fine” while their world burns down around them. They have been forced to acknowledge that they are not currently good enough to win the World Cup, and must improve in almost every aspect of their game in order to reach their objective. They might not get better in time to defeat Sweden in the round of 16, but now they at least know that they have to.
Or they should, at least. Andonovski sounded pretty defiant in the post-match press conference, stating, “we have to stick to our principles, we have to stick to our game model, and we have to stick to our philosophy.” What does that mean?
What the USWNT’s attack is supposed to look like
I’ve spent three years not liking the way the U.S. is playing, giving Andonovski the benefit of the doubt because he is a qualified coach who has won NWSL championships, and giving games a second look to see if I missed anything. This game had fewer positives to find on second look than any other one I can remember, but you could at least see what his team was trying to accomplish on this third-minute move, probably the best of the game.
Julie Ertz starts the attack with an excellent outlet ball to Crystal Dunn, who runs into wide space that’s available due to Portugal’s narrow 4-4-2 diamond formation.
Sophia Smith gets into a good position to receive a pass ahead of Dunn, who finds her with an early ball, getting Smith isolated in a one-on-one in a lot of space against Portugal left back Ana Borges. This is the kind of situation the U.S. would like to find Smith in frequently, and she makes a good decision to cut inside, then try a diagonal ball toward the top of the box.
Smith’s ball isn’t great, but the U.S. attackers are in good positions to keep Portugal under pressure, compete for the second ball after Smith’s diagonal pass is intercepted, and continue the attack with a numerical advantage on the right side. They’re able to work it to Lynn Williams, who beats her defender and squares to the top of the six-yard box for Alex Morgan.
Portugal defender Diana Gomes does a solid job of reacting and putting Morgan off balance just enough to alter the shot and prevent a goal. But this was a good move resulting in a high-quality chance, and if the U.S. were able to do this repeatedly, they’d have won the game.
What’s actually happening 95% of the time they have the ball
Unfortunately for the U.S., Portugal settled into their shape and started defending much better around the 10-minute mark. From then on, the U.S. looked sloppy, and struggled with their passing.
Midfield shape and movement is the most glaring issue with the U.S. at the moment. The team is regularly taking up a stance I’ll call the “Prayer Circle Formation,” in which everyone’s occupying a space on the perimeter of the pitch and no one’s in the middle. Intelligent and technically adept players who regularly show the ability to combine in tight spaces at the club level are being made to appear inept, as they look up for passing options and find no one.
Also, this is exactly what happened when the USWNT lost to Canada in the Olympics in 2021. The Prayer Circle has to be considered a feature, not a bug, of Andonovsi’s tactics at this point. He wants to create overloads in wide areas and get numbers into the box so badly that he is willing to sacrifice having a midfield to do so. Personally, I think this sucks and leads to very bad soccer.
There are — and I swear to god I am not exaggerating one bit — at least 15 instances of the Prayer Circle popping up in the Portugal match, but we’re going to stick to three examples.
During the English-language broadcast of the game, Fox analyst Alexi Lalas lobbed a harsh criticism at Crystal Dunn, stating that she looked like she’d never played soccer before. I would like to know where Dunn is supposed to pass the ball in this instance.
Dunn chose a lofted pass over the top of the defense toward Lindsey Horan, who was making a vertical run in the channel between the right center back and right fullback.
Here’s another move where the U.S. tries to build down its left flank through Dunn, who is then tasked with advancing the ball to… who, exactly?
Horan is lagging back on this play while Lavelle stays in the right half space, neither winger cuts inside, and Morgan tries to stretch the back line. Dunn is left with only one passing option: Smith on the left side. Because Portugal knows that Dunn only has one passing option, they can cheat to their right and set up to trap her against the sideline.
Holding midfielder Andi Sullivan has also caught a lot of criticism for her lack of contribution to build-up play and inability to play passes quickly. I am not going to argue that Sullivan has played well during this World Cup, but I would like to know what quick and/or progressive pass she is supposed to play here.
Horan is not offering herself as an option and Lavelle is literally out of frame. This is another instance of the two more advanced central midfielders trying to make a run into the box during early build-up. This isn’t a bad thing; it’s great to have midfielders who are a threat to make runs into the box and score goals. But Horan and Lavelle regularly made this run at the exact same time, meaning neither of them was making themselves a passing option in midfield.
This was the most recognizable repeated pattern of play for the U.S. in this game: Dunn, Sullivan or Emily Fox gets on the ball roughly 60 yards from goal. Horan and/or Lavelle (usually “and”) make a vertical run toward the box. The player on the ball thinks Portugal has the run covered, so they don’t try to play in their midfielder, and look for their second option.
There is no second option. The central midfielders have run forward, and no one from the front line is moving into midfield to replace them. The ball-carrier’s only options are to play long or backwards.
The USWNT has faced constant criticism for not playing fast enough, and I’m not sure how they’re meant to do that without hoofing it long up the pitch. The players are having to stop to think because there aren’t available teammates to pass to. Teams that play fast with short passes on the ground are able to do so because their teammates make themselves available for passes. This problem does not originate with the player on the ball, but with the players off the ball.
I
I hate the left side bias
The USWNT’s build-up leans extremely heavily to its left side. Dunn had a team-leading 72 touches in the match, while Fox, her counterpart on the right side, had just 42. The desire to build through Dunn makes sense — she’s a technically adept central midfielder being tasked with playing left back, and she has a lot of existing chemistry with Horan, the left-sided central midfielder. Using the skills of those players to beat the first line of pressure and advance the ball into midfield makes sense.
But then they don’t go anywhere. They just keep advancing the ball down the left by passing to Smith, or a run by Morgan or Horan toward that side of the pitch.
The USWNT’s inability or unwillingness to work the ball into midfield or play a switch to the right side after early build-up makes them predictable and easy to defend against. It also means fewer touches and less time on the ball for Lavelle, the team’s most impactful creative playmaker. I would try to engineer a system that gets Lavelle on the ball as often as possible instead.
Directness is fine but this is a little extreme
I like watching teams that play forward early. There’s such a thing as pointless circular passing, and Japan’s demolition of Spain is an excellent example of why possession and high passing percentages don’t necessarily mean you’re the better team. But you need the ability to keep the ball situationally, and the USWNT extremely does not have that at the moment.
As Carr points out down the thread a bit, 2.6 passes per sequence is average for an NWSL match, and the USWNT has not hit that number once in its three group games. They’re just going for the home run ball over the top constantly.
Andonovski alluded to this being a genuine tactic in the post-match press conference. When he was asked about his team’s low pass completion percentage, he said, “If we have a lower pass completion (percentage), it could be because of the technique of the pass, or the area where the pass was attempted.” In other words: We were trying low percentage, high risk passes on purpose.
Horan and Lavelle finished the game with 63% and 57% passing accuracy respectively, which looks pretty bad on the surface, but I don’t think it’s the problem. Asking your best passers to play lots of high-risk passes in the hopes that they hit one and unlock the defense is a legit tactic, and in this particular instance, one that came off… OK? Horan created two chances with 0.24 expected assists, and Lavelle had three with 0.64 xA.
Where the problems arise is that the way Horan and Lavelle have been asked to play, where they’re either passing or running at the box all the time and rarely supporting others, makes life pretty much impossible for everyone else on the pitch when they have the ball. You can really see the problem in the forwards’ passing stats: Smith and Morgan completed just two passes each in the final third, and Williams completed zero.
What’s the solution?
I don’t think this team can learn how to play nice combinations in midfield and attack in a balanced fashion right now. If they haven’t fixed those problems in the two years since the Olympics, I’m not sure how they’re meant to fix them in five days. I don’t think that a formation change or swapping out personnel fixes these problems. Andonovski’s USWNT does not have the foundational building blocks in place to dominate midfield and play good passing soccer.
The solution, sadly, is “what they’re doing, but better.” Defend and play fast, direct counter-attacks. Get Sophia Smith, Trinity Rodman and Lynn Williams on the pitch at the same time and run them onto the ball over and over and over again while most of the team sits deep in shape. With apologies to Alex Morgan, who could be an excellent deep-lying forward in a team that worked combinations through the center, this is not her team.
I am not a “get back to what made the USWNT great” ideologue. I hope that the program aspires to develop a more modern passing approach in the future, but those aspirations will not help them win a game against Sweden, right now. I believe the players are capable of executing a more technical and stylish style of soccer, but I do not believe they’re capable of it this month, under this coach.
Despite all the negativity, the players’ individual talents are still good enough to carry the USWNT to a win over anyone. In their worst attacking performance in recent memory, they put up 17 shots and 2.13 xG, because the players are good enough to create chances even when they’re confused and the tactics don’t make any sense.
This team is not well coached, and they stink to watch, but they can still win the World Cup.
The USWNT’s build-up leans extremely heavily to its left side. Dunn had a team-leading 72 touches in the match, while Fox, her counterpart on the right side, had just 42. The desire to build through Dunn makes sense — she’s a technically adept central midfielder being tasked with playing left back, and she has a lot of existing chemistry with Horan, the left-sided central midfielder. Using the skills of those players to beat the first line of pressure and advance the ball into midfield makes sense.
But then they don’t go anywhere. They just keep advancing the ball down the left by passing to Smith, or a run by Morgan or Horan toward that side of the pitch.
The USWNT’s inability or unwillingness to work the ball into midfield or play a switch to the right side after early build-up makes them predictable and easy to defend against. It also means fewer touches and less time on the ball for Lavelle, the team’s most impactful creative playmaker. I would try to engineer a system that gets Lavelle on the ball as often as possible instead.
Directness is fine but this is a little extreme
I like watching teams that play forward early. There’s such a thing as pointless circular passing, and Japan’s demolition of Spain is an excellent example of why possession and high passing percentages don’t necessarily mean you’re the better team. But you need the ability to keep the ball situationally, and the USWNT extremely does not have that at the moment.
As Carr points out down the thread a bit, 2.6 passes per sequence is average for an NWSL match, and the USWNT has not hit that number once in its three group games. They’re just going for the home run ball over the top constantly.
Andonovski alluded to this being a genuine tactic in the post-match press conference. When he was asked about his team’s low pass completion percentage, he said, “If we have a lower pass completion (percentage), it could be because of the technique of the pass, or the area where the pass was attempted.” In other words: We were trying low percentage, high risk passes on purpose.
Horan and Lavelle finished the game with 63% and 57% passing accuracy respectively, which looks pretty bad on the surface, but I don’t think it’s the problem. Asking your best passers to play lots of high-risk passes in the hopes that they hit one and unlock the defense is a legit tactic, and in this particular instance, one that came off… OK? Horan created two chances with 0.24 expected assists, and Lavelle had three with 0.64 xA.
Where the problems arise is that the way Horan and Lavelle have been asked to play, where they’re either passing or running at the box all the time and rarely supporting others, makes life pretty much impossible for everyone else on the pitch when they have the ball. You can really see the problem in the forwards’ passing stats: Smith and Morgan completed just two passes each in the final third, and Williams completed zero.
What’s the solution?
I don’t think this team can learn how to play nice combinations in midfield and attack in a balanced fashion right now. If they haven’t fixed those problems in the two years since the Olympics, I’m not sure how they’re meant to fix them in five days. I don’t think that a formation change or swapping out personnel fixes these problems. Andonovski’s USWNT does not have the foundational building blocks in place to dominate midfield and play good passing soccer.
The solution, sadly, is “what they’re doing, but better.” Defend and play fast, direct counter-attacks. Get Sophia Smith, Trinity Rodman and Lynn Williams on the pitch at the same time and run them onto the ball over and over and over again while most of the team sits deep in shape. With apologies to Alex Morgan, who could be an excellent deep-lying forward in a team that worked combinations through the center, this is not her team.
I am not a “get back to what made the USWNT great” ideologue. I hope that the program aspires to develop a more modern passing approach in the future, but those aspirations will not help them win a game against Sweden, right now. I believe the players are capable of executing a more technical and stylish style of soccer, but I do not believe they’re capable of it this month, under this coach.
Despite all the negativity, the players’ individual talents are still good enough to carry the USWNT to a win over anyone. In their worst attacking performance in recent memory, they put up 17 shots and 2.13 xG, because the players are good enough to create chances even when they’re confused and the tactics don’t make any sense.
This team is not well coached, and they stink to watch, but they can still win the World Cup.
Really intersting read. I found the scenario's with Dunn and Sullivan interesting on their passing options. Though the answer the author should have found is to restart the process and not force it. Simply passing the ball back or to a different side to make the defense shift creates other options instead of making a forced pass that leads to a loss of possession. Especially as the author also points out no one is making off the ball runs everyone is stagnant. I see this alot in girls/womens soccer here at the club/college/pro level. BTW-I find Dunn's passing effienceny poor. I'd like to see her numbers in this area. I also agree that VA may not be the right coach. He's been exposed like never before.I hate the left side bias
The USWNT’s build-up leans extremely heavily to its left side. Dunn had a team-leading 72 touches in the match, while Fox, her counterpart on the right side, had just 42. The desire to build through Dunn makes sense — she’s a technically adept central midfielder being tasked with playing left back, and she has a lot of existing chemistry with Horan, the left-sided central midfielder. Using the skills of those players to beat the first line of pressure and advance the ball into midfield makes sense.
But then they don’t go anywhere. They just keep advancing the ball down the left by passing to Smith, or a run by Morgan or Horan toward that side of the pitch.
The USWNT’s inability or unwillingness to work the ball into midfield or play a switch to the right side after early build-up makes them predictable and easy to defend against. It also means fewer touches and less time on the ball for Lavelle, the team’s most impactful creative playmaker. I would try to engineer a system that gets Lavelle on the ball as often as possible instead.
Directness is fine but this is a little extreme
I like watching teams that play forward early. There’s such a thing as pointless circular passing, and Japan’s demolition of Spain is an excellent example of why possession and high passing percentages don’t necessarily mean you’re the better team. But you need the ability to keep the ball situationally, and the USWNT extremely does not have that at the moment.
As Carr points out down the thread a bit, 2.6 passes per sequence is average for an NWSL match, and the USWNT has not hit that number once in its three group games. They’re just going for the home run ball over the top constantly.
Andonovski alluded to this being a genuine tactic in the post-match press conference. When he was asked about his team’s low pass completion percentage, he said, “If we have a lower pass completion (percentage), it could be because of the technique of the pass, or the area where the pass was attempted.” In other words: We were trying low percentage, high risk passes on purpose.
Horan and Lavelle finished the game with 63% and 57% passing accuracy respectively, which looks pretty bad on the surface, but I don’t think it’s the problem. Asking your best passers to play lots of high-risk passes in the hopes that they hit one and unlock the defense is a legit tactic, and in this particular instance, one that came off… OK? Horan created two chances with 0.24 expected assists, and Lavelle had three with 0.64 xA.
Where the problems arise is that the way Horan and Lavelle have been asked to play, where they’re either passing or running at the box all the time and rarely supporting others, makes life pretty much impossible for everyone else on the pitch when they have the ball. You can really see the problem in the forwards’ passing stats: Smith and Morgan completed just two passes each in the final third, and Williams completed zero.
What’s the solution?
I don’t think this team can learn how to play nice combinations in midfield and attack in a balanced fashion right now. If they haven’t fixed those problems in the two years since the Olympics, I’m not sure how they’re meant to fix them in five days. I don’t think that a formation change or swapping out personnel fixes these problems. Andonovski’s USWNT does not have the foundational building blocks in place to dominate midfield and play good passing soccer.
The solution, sadly, is “what they’re doing, but better.” Defend and play fast, direct counter-attacks. Get Sophia Smith, Trinity Rodman and Lynn Williams on the pitch at the same time and run them onto the ball over and over and over again while most of the team sits deep in shape. With apologies to Alex Morgan, who could be an excellent deep-lying forward in a team that worked combinations through the center, this is not her team.
I am not a “get back to what made the USWNT great” ideologue. I hope that the program aspires to develop a more modern passing approach in the future, but those aspirations will not help them win a game against Sweden, right now. I believe the players are capable of executing a more technical and stylish style of soccer, but I do not believe they’re capable of it this month, under this coach.
Despite all the negativity, the players’ individual talents are still good enough to carry the USWNT to a win over anyone. In their worst attacking performance in recent memory, they put up 17 shots and 2.13 xG, because the players are good enough to create chances even when they’re confused and the tactics don’t make any sense.
This team is not well coached, and they stink to watch, but they can still win the World Cup.
I liked the analysis , I thought it tended to absolve the players and place the blame squarely on coaching /tatics . I tend to see that a lot with people who cover the USWNT, failure to really criticize the players
maybe the tatics and coaching are shit , but players still need to execute
I don’t think their inability to break down low blocks that opponents tend to play against them is anything new , it’s been going on for at least the last year
I continue to maintain they really miss Swanson, she is the one player that can kinda just make shit happen with the ball.
Her speed , skill, creativity , and ability to take players on is really missed
Many of the players fore sure have not executed. This team and its roster selections by VA are also stagnant. It needs a revamp that should have happened 1 or 2 ago. Agree, Swanson found her form and was exceling. I also think Suarbraun, Macario and even Mewis are missed for the depth off the bench that obviously VA does not have right now with this team.
It's a bit hard to leave the politics out of this when you see the National Anthem playing and only 3-4 players with their hands over their heart.
If you can't sing..no big deal. I don't even care whether or not you mouth the words. But I do expect all of them to stand there with their right
hand over their heart. Do you recall EVER as you were growing up not doing that when you were in school? I don't. It's only been in the last few years with all this "Woke" BS. And Rapinoe has been center-stage for the USWNT in promoting this. Finally somebody said enough is enough and you do not get to kneel. If you can't show some patriotism for the country you are representing..maybe you shouldn't be there.
And yes..I agree with everyone here that they are playing like crap. Carli Lloyd called them out. What better person than someone who's been there and done that and has first-hand experience with the majority of these players. To call it "noise"...it's not some commentator who played years and years ago with no real pulse on the current squad. It's coming from someone who just recently left that locker room. They are trying to survive the current situation based on past performances and how they think everyone should look at them because of that. It's not going to work.