The Road to Germany: Women's World Cup: June 2011...

http://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/index.html

With the men's cup over with, it's time to talk about the Cup where the USA is actually a power. What's going to happen? Will the US win? Will Norway be a force? Will this be Brazil's year? Can Germany be a power at home...or have their players aged a bit?

I have some sour memories of watching Germany throttle the US in Portland in the semi-finals at PGE Park. Sinclair was playing for Canada which also made the semi-finals. It was the US vs. Germany and Canada vs. Switzerland... That one was painful to watch...

Hey, I have a friend in Bochum. Maybe time to plan a mega road trip.

USA!

USA!

Especially Stephanie and Megan!

(Just getting warmed up.)

That would be an amazing road trip. I'd like to see our team improve a bit over how they've looked in recent games and friendlies...

Did anyone else attend the World Cup at PGE in Portland a few years back?

No, but my family and I had the opportunity to see the USA vs Brazil at Spartan Stadium (San Jose St) during the ?? World Cup.

It was awesome.

Nice win by the women tonight in beating Sweden 3-0.

Megan scored the Game winner crashing far post and catching a Wambach shot rebound. Steph didn't play.
Pia took Megan out at the start of the second half to put Grandma in.

Wambach scored on two headers. I gotta say, though, there is an awful lot of dependence on Abby being in the middle for the header. Pretty one dimensional approach to an offensive scheme.

Geezaldinho wrote:I gotta say, though, there is an awful lot of dependence on Abby being in the middle for the header. Pretty one dimensional approach to an offensive scheme.

England was counting on Rooney. Brasil built its plan around Kaka. Just a couple examples of what only having Plan A will get you...

PurplePrideTrumpet wrote:

Geezaldinho wrote:I gotta say, though, there is an awful lot of dependence on Abby being in the middle for the header. Pretty one dimensional approach to an offensive scheme.

England was counting on Rooney. Brasil built its plan around Kaka. Just a couple examples of what only having Plan A will get you...

Those are really good points. If you only have one threat, it is much easier to shut you down.

However, I'm not sure that's the case. Both of the other forwards playing with Abby have been scoring, and Rodriguez should have had a goal in this game. I thought we possessed the ball well, especially in the first half. I was especially encouraged that we were passing the ball out of pressure in the defensive half and not just knocking out long balls, again especially in the first half. That was something the Spanish did extremely well in the World Cup. I may be wrong on this, but it seemed to me that the possession game suffered a little in the 2nd half when the older defenders were subbed in - those being the players who used to play the long ball all the time.

I thought Meghan looked good. She gave the ball away a few times, but I think she was the most creative player on the field, and she really closes down well on defense. I missed seeing Stephanie play. It has always been a mystery to me that she isn't a regular starter.

Hmmm...aren't they using a 2-4-4 with Abby and Amy Rodriguez at the top and two attacking midfielders on the outside? It seems like a pretty commonplace formation if you ask me. It's hard to complain about a 3-0 result...

Running 4 forwards would a be a pretty bold move... And not exactly conventional...

DTR, your post got me to thinking:

"Portland women's soccer is a great example of building a program their way over a long time. We will be like Portland. Getting it done in a way that fits us." - A really smart coach.

DaTruRochin wrote:Running 4 forwards would a be a pretty bold move... And not exactly conventional...

It was all the rage in England in the early 20th century. Actually, they usually had 5 up front.

DaTruRochin wrote:Running 4 forwards would a be a pretty bold move... And not exactly conventional...

Err...4-4-2 is conventional...only 2 forwards. Just attacking midfielders who can move up situationally...lots of teams do it now. My mistake, I wrote the formation backwards... in any case the forwards being Amy Rodriguez and Wambach.

I still love having 4 forwards though. The Brazil 4-2-4 is still my favorite formation of all time. You only see it in the little leagues these days though...

Is it just me or is A-Rod the stupidest soccer nickname ever? I can't stand it.

I believe it is cool enough for the baseball player.

But to use it for Amy Rod, I agree that it is ( one of the) stupidest nicknames that I've seen.

Another one that turns my stomach is "Zers", believe it or not for the Portland Trail Blazers basketball team.

Btw, welcome back, P. Nation. You went away there for awhile. Was it something I said?

PurplePrideTrumpet wrote:

DaTruRochin wrote:Running 4 forwards would a be a pretty bold move... And not exactly conventional...

It was all the rage in England in the early 20th century. Actually, they usually had 5 up front.

We had 5 when I was in college...

Oh, wait. We are talking nearly the same time span.

Argentina just tried it against Germany a couple weeks ago. I think they are reevaluating.

I think 5 forwards is more of a symptom to having really lazy midfielders than it is actually lining up that way... Haha and the Argentines demonstrated that pretty damn well...

Well they say Diego is more a man-manager than a tactician...

There's a good book on the evolution of tactics by Jonathan Wilson, Inverting the Pyramid. Maybe Diego only got through the first couple chapters before South Africa.

I'd say that Diego's trash talking was just as big or a bigger problem than formation and tactics. I don't see how or why you trash talk a team as good as Germany...or imply that they'll be an easier challenge for your team than Mexico (nothing against Mexico; they seem to be up and coming IMHO).
Ridiculous...

World Cup qualifiers mean that Sophie Schmidt will be gone in October. Someone else will have to step up for the WCC games in her absence.