Some interesting commentary from the coaching forum:
Ryan has done a poor coaching job from the start of this tournament. The criticism has been going on for weeks. It isn't just the strange goalkeeper decision 24 hours prior to the semi-final. It is one poor decision after another:
* The squad as a whole was too slow. Except for O'Reilly and Chalupney, there just wasn't much speed in the starting team, and apparently very little on the bench other than Ellerston and Kai, and those two were hardly used. Against the faster opponents like North Korea and Brazil, the US was always chasing, while unable to create any separation when they did have the ball. Germany would have given the US the same problems.
* The long-ball style has been discussed constantly for weeks. It is 1-dimentional. The midfield was usually by-passed, which took a fine player like Chalupney out of much of the play, and relegated a promising young midfielder like Lloyd to the bench after the first couple of games. Skill midfielders like Wagner and Tarpley became wasted roster spots. Too much depended on getting the ball to Wombach, who is a really top-quality player but can't do it alone, especially with a toe injury.
* The subbing pattern was mystifying all tournament. Why bring along 21 players and leave so many on the bench? With so many games in such a short period of time, giving quality bench players some game time so that they remain match ready, and giving key starting players some rest so that they are not worn out, is basic coaching 101. The front three of Wombach, Lilly, and O'Reilly were worn down. Wombach was nursing a toe injury and would have benfited from some breaks once the US had secured comfortable leads in 2 of the games. The backs were worn down. Talented reserves like Tarpley, Wagner, Kai, and Ellerston were barely used or not used at all, even in the 3-0 win over England! Then, in today's semi-final, Ryan brings in DEFENSIVE subs in the 2nd half when trailing 0-2 and 0-3. Mindboggling.
* The whole Scurry/Solo keeper switch was insane. Solo has been the #1 all year. She had 300 shutout minutes at the Cup. Her ability to play the ball with her feet was useful. The team was finally developing some confidence after the 3-0 win over England. Why destroy all that with a keeper switch 24 hours before the semi-final. Nowhere in the world do coaches make such decisions (or survive afterwards). And to not have warned Solo weeks ago that this was possible is inexcusable. Supposedly Ryan and Scurry had discussed the idea, but not with Solo. Ryan over-thought this whole thing, and basically had the kind of coaching panic/meldown that Steve Sampson had with the men's team in 1998. Farcical.
The US needs a coaching change after the Sunday 3d Place match. Players with touch, skill, and speed need to be brought in. The U14 kick-ball/hustle style needs to be banished. Otherwise, the US will fall farther behind Germany and Brazil, and North Korea will pass us as well.
* The squad as a whole was too slow. Except for O'Reilly and Chalupney, there just wasn't much speed in the starting team, and apparently very little on the bench other than Ellerston and Kai, and those two were hardly used. Against the faster opponents like North Korea and Brazil, the US was always chasing, while unable to create any separation when they did have the ball. Germany would have given the US the same problems.
* The long-ball style has been discussed constantly for weeks. It is 1-dimentional. The midfield was usually by-passed, which took a fine player like Chalupney out of much of the play, and relegated a promising young midfielder like Lloyd to the bench after the first couple of games. Skill midfielders like Wagner and Tarpley became wasted roster spots. Too much depended on getting the ball to Wombach, who is a really top-quality player but can't do it alone, especially with a toe injury.
* The subbing pattern was mystifying all tournament. Why bring along 21 players and leave so many on the bench? With so many games in such a short period of time, giving quality bench players some game time so that they remain match ready, and giving key starting players some rest so that they are not worn out, is basic coaching 101. The front three of Wombach, Lilly, and O'Reilly were worn down. Wombach was nursing a toe injury and would have benfited from some breaks once the US had secured comfortable leads in 2 of the games. The backs were worn down. Talented reserves like Tarpley, Wagner, Kai, and Ellerston were barely used or not used at all, even in the 3-0 win over England! Then, in today's semi-final, Ryan brings in DEFENSIVE subs in the 2nd half when trailing 0-2 and 0-3. Mindboggling.
* The whole Scurry/Solo keeper switch was insane. Solo has been the #1 all year. She had 300 shutout minutes at the Cup. Her ability to play the ball with her feet was useful. The team was finally developing some confidence after the 3-0 win over England. Why destroy all that with a keeper switch 24 hours before the semi-final. Nowhere in the world do coaches make such decisions (or survive afterwards). And to not have warned Solo weeks ago that this was possible is inexcusable. Supposedly Ryan and Scurry had discussed the idea, but not with Solo. Ryan over-thought this whole thing, and basically had the kind of coaching panic/meldown that Steve Sampson had with the men's team in 1998. Farcical.
The US needs a coaching change after the Sunday 3d Place match. Players with touch, skill, and speed need to be brought in. The U14 kick-ball/hustle style needs to be banished. Otherwise, the US will fall farther behind Germany and Brazil, and North Korea will pass us as well.
Shannon Boxx was ejected in extra time at the end of the first half. At that point the US was down two goals. Brazil was dominating possession, indeed Marta's goal came from a combination of her skill (the US defenders were left with only attempts to hold her shorts to stop her) and poor defending of the near post by Scurry.
Second, the own goal by Osborne resulted from of a predisposition to clear the ball out of the box, rather than settle and control. She was under NO pressure. She could have settled and taken the ball to the outside and if needed then cleared. Instead, it was an attempt to head the ball out for what would have been a third corner by Brazil.
Third, the only midfield we had was a result of our midfield dispossessing the Brazilians and then going forward. When our defense gain possession we rarely played to the midfield. The result was a kick and a prayer, with the prayer rarely answered. We had a few quality shots, but much fewer than Brazil.
As a team that was to succeed off of restarts, we needed to be fouled in possession. Without possession we would have no restarts. Our limited possession resulted in fewer restarts (though the few we had were generally well taken) hence few opportunities.
Finally, the second half being down a player it was more essential we control possession and avoid fatigue from chasing the ball. The pressure expected from the top three became harder. If anything our inability to control possession became more critical and its absence more telling.
The flaws of the US style of play were aggravated by other poor coaching decisions, including the starting line up and the substitutions made. Still the facts highlight the problems in a one dimensional direct style of play.
As a final note, Ryan slammed the Chinese for their loss to Brazil with a more attractive style of play. With better players we lost in a more humiliating manner to Brazil. It would seem the Chinese had the better style of play, no? Or, at least the better coaching.
Second, the own goal by Osborne resulted from of a predisposition to clear the ball out of the box, rather than settle and control. She was under NO pressure. She could have settled and taken the ball to the outside and if needed then cleared. Instead, it was an attempt to head the ball out for what would have been a third corner by Brazil.
Third, the only midfield we had was a result of our midfield dispossessing the Brazilians and then going forward. When our defense gain possession we rarely played to the midfield. The result was a kick and a prayer, with the prayer rarely answered. We had a few quality shots, but much fewer than Brazil.
As a team that was to succeed off of restarts, we needed to be fouled in possession. Without possession we would have no restarts. Our limited possession resulted in fewer restarts (though the few we had were generally well taken) hence few opportunities.
Finally, the second half being down a player it was more essential we control possession and avoid fatigue from chasing the ball. The pressure expected from the top three became harder. If anything our inability to control possession became more critical and its absence more telling.
The flaws of the US style of play were aggravated by other poor coaching decisions, including the starting line up and the substitutions made. Still the facts highlight the problems in a one dimensional direct style of play.
As a final note, Ryan slammed the Chinese for their loss to Brazil with a more attractive style of play. With better players we lost in a more humiliating manner to Brazil. It would seem the Chinese had the better style of play, no? Or, at least the better coaching.
Comment