With all of the talk about the United States and Canada – for good reason, obviously – the Japan-France semifinal, a pretty darn good game of its own, got a little lost in these parts. But from the better late than never department, for consistency and posterity, and in leading into both the gold and bronze medal games on Thursday, I figured I’d give you a quick recap. It was honestly a fairly dreadful first half, but it certainly sprung to life in the second. In the end, Japan – as it seems like they’ve done 421 times in the last year or so, did just enough, which they’ll hope to do one more time Thursday:
Perhaps one of my best coaching moves ever was a complete fluke, really. The summer months are technically a time for a break, but youth soccer takes few breaks these days, so of course a summer league was hastily organized. The games were glorified pickup, with a ref in the middle.
The parent organizers usually coach the teams so I went to watch one of my players to see how she was doing. Of course, parents always know what’s best in soccer coaching, so this dad thought his daughter (not the same player) was the best attacking midfielder and stuck her there accordingly, which was a little frustrating because I was hoping to see my player in her natural midfield position, the one she would play for my team.
The parent stuck my player at striker. Striker? Whatever. But then – keeping in mind my team had only managed 26 goals in 18 games the season before – a funny thing happened. She scored. Then she scored again. She finished with four goals the first game, a hat trick in another I watched.
Six months later, she had the school single-season scoring record and the team erased just about every mark in the books on the way to its first league championship ever.
I’m sure John Herdman’s thought processes behind his tactical decisions are a little more complicated for Canada these days, but you never know. The Canadians were a team that I quite frankly thought was decent, but going to come up a little bit short at these Olympics after a somewhat disastrous 2011 World Cup. I went to Gillette Stadium to see Canada take on Brazil in March, and although Canada got a 2-1 win on two Christine Sinclair goals, my assessment on the Canadians was the same as I had since the World Cup (the Brazil stuff is a little telling, too), and probably all the way back to the 2007 World Cup, to be honest (although you may remember that the Canadians took the U.S. to extra time in the 2008 Olympics):
(For those that were here during last year’s World Cup, first of all, thank you. Second, we’re going to tweak the format slightly because there were so many games in just one day. So instead of one post, you’ll get six. The longest will be the United States games, we’re going to assume you watched that one, so it won’t have a recap, just Things We Learned. The other games will give a quick recap and just a couple of Things We Learned. As with the World Cup, hopefully this will be a little bit of an interactive discussion. Within reason, of course. So without further ado:)
After the United States got all the momentum against France today, Brandi Chastain talked for a good minute about the mental side of the game and how the Americans had such an edge because they had been there before and that’s the way they played. To be honest, it was more than a little pretentious, especially if you weren’t American (alas, I’m sure most of her audience was). After all, the Japanese had made the U.S. look pretty ordinary at times in the World Cup final, and the French had plenty of the play in their Cup semifinal defeat.
But when you looked at the body language of the two teams today in the second half, it was really hard to argue with her. France – winners of 17 straight games and apparently ready to take over the women’s soccer world – looked physically and mentally spent. The U.S. looked neither. And when the States finally went ahead, there didn’t seem to be any way the French were coming back.
It’s always hard to pinpoint how much the “mental game” means. Obviously, if I show up with a team like Colombia and my mental game is perfect, I’m still going to need a lot of luck to even stay in the game, let alone get a result. But when a team like the U.S., which has won all but one gold medal that’s been offered at the Olympics in women’s soccer, dispatches of what still might be the best team technically in the world with relative ease after going down two goals in the first 20 minutes, it makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Here’s what we learned from the U.S. and France in Day 1:
1) Alex Morgan is legit
I mean we knew that already, but with all the talk of how she looks and what kind of bikinis she wears in photoshoots, she’s at least one of the best strikers in the world right now. The way she times her runs, her speed, and her ability to finish give the U.S. somewhat of an added dimension they didn’t have last year (when Morgan was mostly a super sub). Combined with Abby Wambach, it’s hard to argue Pia Sundhage’s move back to a 4-4-2.
2) It’s hard to see the U.S. not scoring goals
Lauren Cheney didn’t do a heck of a lot today, but you saw glimpses, and then you throw in Megan Rapinoe, Wambach, and Morgan, is anyone really going to be able to keep them quiet for 90 minutes? Even if you sit back, it seems like it’s only going to be a matter of time before a Rapinoe cross finds Wambach’s head (and what a header today for the first goal). If you try to press, Morgan will get behind you at some point. The only thing that may slow them down is the lack of outside backs getting forward (especially Amy LePeilbet), but they may not need it.
Was it already more than a year ago that we watched in delight as the United States women’s soccer team pulled off a comeback for the ages against Brazil, and then in horror as Japan did the same just a week later to capture an unexpected (and its first) World Cup.
Of course, it’s a little hard to be horrified when speaking of Japan, what a great story and a class act in a country that was not far removed from a devastating tsunami.
For whatever reason, the United States has continued to just about own the Olympic tournament, even if they haven’t won a World Cup since 1999, the U.S. has won every gold medal but one (2000) the Olympics have had to offer, posting a dominant 18-2-3 all-time mark.
Both losses at the Olympics came to Norway, including the opener of the 2008 Games in Beijing, but the Norwegians are nowhere to be found in Britain, and they’re not alone. The entertaining cast of 16 characters we had last summer in Germany has been cut to 12 for London (of course, most soccer matches won’t be in London, but I digress), and sadly we’ll be missing the Germans themselves, the aforementioned Norwegians, up-and-coming Australia, and African sides Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, neither of whom embarrassed themselves in Germany (Nigeria, especially, they beat Canada, and gave France fits).
But even without those teams, when it comes to the medal rounds, there are plenty of nominees to dethrone the Americans, starting with World Champion Japan. If you’re like me, you forgot (at least a little), but the Japanese were beginning to knock on the door way back in China four years ago. A new coach named Norio Sasaki had them playing decent soccer, but they were derailed twice by those darn Americans, 1-0 in the group stage and 4-2 in the semifinals after grabbing an early lead (Japan also played the U.S. tough in the 2004 quarterfinals, losing 2-1 on an Abby Wambach goal).
Then, of course, there are the French, who on paper, might be the favorites, running roughshod over just about everyone (including Japan) in friendlies, and seemingly just getting better since last summer, where they were pretty darn good. They haven’t knocked off the United States yet, but that didn’t stop Japan last year, did it?
Those seem to be the three heavy favorites. Great Britain, as the hosts, could be a factor, but I find it somewhat amazing that countries scour the world for players that will be eligible to play for them, and then Scotland and England can barely get along to combine to make a team for the Olympics, for crying out loud. But I don’t live there, so who am I to talk?
Sweden can’t be counted out, Brazil has Marta, and Canada has Christine Sinclair. So, really, if all goes according to plan, the entire knockout stage will be to eliminate one of: New Zealand, Cameroon, Colombia, South Africa, or North Korea.
So much for drama there, huh?
But I’ve been invited (as far as you know) back to the AWK Summer Timeshare, so here I am. The place looks a little different, but I’m happy to be here. Coverage will be a little tougher at the Olympics than it was at the World Cup. As Hope Solo has told us (and some others), there is plenty of other action going on around England, which means that all 12 teams will play on the same day in all three group match days. But we’ll do our best.
And have fun doing it.
A few times after the completion of games of the recent men’s Euros, Michael Cox of the fantastic Zonal Marking website simply said, “Small margins.” Like Spain beating Portugal in penalty kicks, for instance. With the real start of the tournament not until the quarterfinals, a team getting some breaks for three straight games may be able to beat the odds and take home an unlikely gold medal. But, as the Spain men have proven repeatedly, maybe not.
Here are my quick predictions:
A few months ago, Richard Farley (who does an excellent job over at Foxsoccer.com, where you can find the suddenly ubiquitous Jenna as well) and I started to predict what was going to happen in the Women’s World Cup.
I had just seen the U.S. get taken apart by England (at least in the first half) in a friendly, saw England had a relatively easy group, and told Richard that England might be able to make it all the way to the finals to face Germany.
(I was never sold on Brazil for reasons that I don’t have time to get into here, but they had to do with disorganization in the federation, etc.)
Richard countered with France. Typical Farley, I thought, pick an obscure squad that no one else was going to look at. France wasn’t going to touch Germany, and had CONCACAF champion Canada in their group. There was no way.
Of course, truth be told, although I don’t like to admit it publicly, Richard is usually correct in these arguments.
And, another truth be told, I hadn’t really done any research on the subject (which is probably why Richard is usually right most of the time, shocking how that works). The more I looked at France, the more I was impressed. There were some curious results (like losing to Holland in the Cyprus Cup in the spring), sure, but it was most certainly a program on its way up.
After going to the finals of the UEFA Champions League in 2010 with a good chunk of the French national team, Lyon won it in 2011 impressively over German opposition (Turbine Potsdam), and by wiping out England’s best team – Arsenal – in the semifinals.
The French women’s league is probably the third best league in the world. Montpellier, which went to the Champions League quarterfinals in 2010, finished fourth domestically – even with French goal scoring machine Marie-Laure Delie leading the way – and didn’t even qualify for the Champions League last year.
You add in a veteran coach in Bruno Bini, a supportive federation, and the World Cup right next door, and you’ve got yourselves a sleeper.
If France finished second behind Germany, it would likely get England in the quarterfinals, and France could take them, which would likely get them Brazil in the semis. And so, I picked a France-Germany final (yea, I had the U.S. losing to Germany in the semis. Sorry.)
And so, here we are, the United States and France in the semifinals. Perhaps we shouldn’t be that surprised. And we certainly shouldn’t think this will be an easy game for the U.S.
Here are the five things to look for in Wednesday’s semifinal (11:30 a.m., ESPN):
If you’re like me (honestly, hopefully you’re not) and you grew up playing soccer in the United States 20 years ago, you probably played most of the time with a sweeper.
The person behind the back line was essential to a good defense, they were often the team’s best athlete, covered for mistakes that the rest of the defense played, and told the rest of the team where to go.
It was just how you played. Through high school, our teams played in a 4-4-2 with a sweeper, and so did almost everyone else.
(I don’t have time for it here, but you’d be amazed how much of an English flavor there is in U.S. development. We had an English coach, and there were more than a few others around at a time where not many people other than at the highest levels were very versed on the intricacies of soccer.)
About this time (the mid 90s), the sweeper was slowly disappearing from games at the highest level. By the turn of the century, it was just about extinct. Coincidentally, it also happened to be the time when I started coaching soccer. As you might have guessed, my teams most definitely played a 4-4-2 with a sweeper.
But I also began to watch more and more soccer, at least what was available. It’s easy to forget that a decade ago, there wasn’t much soccer on the tube, some MLS, some internationals. As a coach, you start to look at the games a little differently.
Where was the sweeper?
There was no sweeper.
As I started coaching varsity high school and higher level youth games, some teams I played against didn’t have a sweeper, either. I noticed that most of the coaches that didn’t use a sweeper were pretty organized, and people that had played the game on a higher level than I had.
And so in 2003, I set out to learn as much about playing a flat back as I could. My teams have never played with a sweeper since.
(Ironically, for this discussion, this was also the time where I made the switch from coaching predominantly boys teams to predominantly girls teams.)
I’ve come to see how much better the flat back works, especially when trying to teach how to play team defense and how to read the game. Sadly (at least for me), I still play against teams with sweepers all the time, more so on the high school level where the coaches often aren’t experienced or – like me – just played with a sweeper when they were younger and don’t really watch much of the game.
One exception (the only one I had seen over the past few years) was the Nigerian women’s team, who actually did pretty well with the sweeper in 2007, although it often looked chaotic to say the least. You could see the sweeper running in circles last November when Nigeria was bludgeoned by Germany 8-0 in a friendly.
But when Nigeria opened the World Cup two weeks ago, much to my delight, the sweeper was gone, and I remarked “it was, by a pretty wide margin, the most organized display ever by an African side at the Women’s World Cup.”
Nigeria lost that game to France 1-0, but gave up only two goals in three games. If they weren’t in a group with France, Germany, and Canada, they may very well be still with us this weekend.
But just when the sweeper was about to be pronounced dead and Franz Beckenbauer was being found to speak at its funeral, the Brazil women’s team took the field against Australia. The lineup was announced as a 3-4-3, which got my attention, Kleiton Lima was really going to open things up with a formidable trio of Rosana, Cristiane, and – of course – Marta leading the line.
Something looked strange, and about 10 minutes in, Australia played a through ball wide, and Daiane came across from a deep position to win it.
“Boy, they’re playing deep,” I thought.
A few minutes later, it happened again, and the light bulb went off in Julie Foudy’s head at about the same time it did mine.
Daiane was playing as a sweeper and Erika and Aline were marking the two Australian forwards.
Cancel that call to Mr. Beckenbauer, please.
Foudy, like me, has been apoplectic about Brazil’s sweeper system. Just like I see in my games, their defense looks disjointed and completely vulnerable to switches of the field.
But the ultimate proof is in the pudding and the scorelines, and there is only one team that has yet to concede a goal, and that, folks, is Brazil.
Is Kleiton Lima a genius? Has he started a sweeper revolution? Or is it just that he has some of the best players in the world, and he could send them out there without any organization at all, and they still might win.
Unfortunately, my coaching career has also taught me that the teams that have the best players usually win, regardless of set up and anything else a coach can do in a short period of time.
So will the United States be unceremoniously dumped in the quarterfinals. By rival Brazil. Using a sweeper? Oh, the humanity. Everything I believe in rests on this game.
I fear the worst, but like Foudy, I think eventually the sweeper system is going to break down. It might as well be Sunday.
Here are 5 things to look for in Sunday morning’s epic clash between Brazil and the United States:
1) Lima’s tactics seem odd even with a sweeper
It is a 3-4-3, but the front three doesn’t seem to pressure all that much, allowing opponents to keep the ball in their half. When they have pressured, they’ve caused a couple of mistakes, but the only thing I can think is that Lima is afraid that his team isn’t fit enough to run for 90 minutes, particularly if it’s a hot day.
Also, I guess he figures his team is set up to counter well, so if they do get the ball they can come at opponents with their front three, with Maurine and Fabiana joining them.
The problem I’ve seen (and Brazil has scored only once in the first half, and that was a controversial goal against Norway) is that Brazil’s formation has turned into a 5-2-3 at times, which makes it very tough for them to get forward. To take advantage of this, the U.S. will need its central midfielders to play well and will need to get someone (Heather O’Reilly?) to run at Brazilian defenders in wide areas. But we’ll see.
2) There’s some history there
It seems everyone (me included) remembers the 2007 embarrassment more than any other, but the U.S. – minus Abby Wambach – came back and knocked off Brazil for the gold medal at the 2008 Olympics back in China on Carli Lloyd’s overtime goal. Jacqueline Purdy of ESPN (whom most of you at this site know) had this excellent piece on the rest of the history between the two teams, and why it’s likely the best rivalry in women’s soccer.
3) The 2008 team has some names you’ll recognize, but some differences, too
There were two major factors why the U.S. was able to prevail three years ago. One is in No. 4, but the other was the aforementioned fitness. If you remember, Brazil got very tired at the end of regulation and it only got worse in extra time.
The U.S. back four will feature only one of the four that played in 2008, Christie Rampone. The other three were Heather Mitts and Lori Chalupny (boy, did the U.S. miss her against Sweden. While the media has generally done a decent job, the fact that the Chalupny story hasn’t been more reported is very, very surprising) on the outside and Kate Markgraf joining Rampone in the middle. So things have changed in the back more than you’d think. The only difference in the midfield was Lindsay Tarpley starting at left mid, but Lauren Cheney did come on in the 71st minute at that spot, and played a part in the winning goal. Many people (me included) forget that.
With Wambach out, it was Angela Hucles who led the U.S. in scoring at the Olympics.
Statistically, Brazil outshot the U.S. 15-10, but had a 15-3 edge in corners, which is a bit scary, even if it was three years ago.
4) Hope Solo may be the biggest advantage the U.S. has
As you probably know by now, I’m not Solo’s biggest fan off the field, but on the field she’s the best goalkeeper in the world, and – if this World Cup is any indication – it’s not real close.
She can’t be faulted for either Swedish goal (although she did not come out on an early breakaway when she probably should have), and has looked confident for the most part, at least more confident than Andreia at the other end. It wouldn’t be shocking if a goalkeeper mistake was the difference.
5) So what lineup for Pia Sundhage?
Really, your guess is as good as mine. There are so many questions. Here are the definite starters: Wambach, Cheney, Rampone, Krieger, Lloyd, Solo.
That’s all, folks.
So there are five positions that we probably won’t know until Sunday morning, also scary.
O’Reilly will start if healthy at right mid, and if she’s not, I expect it to be Megan Rapinoe, I don’t think Sundhage would go to Kelly O’Hara to start.
In looking at lineups from the last few years, an interesting one was May of last year, when the U.S. crushed Germany 4-0 in Cleveland. The center back pairing that day was Amy LePeilbet and Rachel Buehler, with Ali Kreiger (Heather Mitts played the first half) and Stephanie Cox on the outside. Does Sundhage drop Buehler, put LePeilbet in the middle, with either Cox or Mitts (who we haven’t seen yet) on the left? Not out of realm of possibility.
I really think Lori Lindsey starts for Boxx in midfield, and I think that’s the right decision, although my dream is still a 4-3-3.
Which puts us at forward. I thought Amy Rodriguez had a good first half (and she nearly scored), but she was replaced for Alex Morgan. I really can’t see Morgan starting, but I’m not sure what Rodriguez’s confidence is right now. But if there’s someone that can move around and drag Brazil’s marking defenders all over the field, I’m sure it’s got to be Rodriguez.
So if it’s me (and you forced me to go 4-4-2):
Unfortunately, as I said, is just may come down to the fact that Brazil has better attacking players. But they did in 2008, too, and don’t underestimate how important the goalkeeper will be in this matchup. It may not be pretty, but I think the U.S. can get this done with superior aerial ability and a chance to wear down Brazil as the game goes on.
I hope I’m not out on a wing and a prayer.
Prediction: United States 2-1 (aet)
Elsewhere (times EDT):
England vs. France, Noon
This will probably come down to whether France can handle the pressure. Most of these players have played in the Champions League, but this is another level of pressure in front of the whole world (sadly, the whole world isn’t watching the women’s Champions League yet).
I think Bruno Bini tried some things against Germany, like starting Wendie Renard for instance, that just didn’t work. Marie-Laure Delie is for real, and I think she’ll prove that again, no matter how good England looked against Japan.
Prediction: France 3-1
Germany vs. Japan, 2:45 p.m.
Japan has very skilled players and I would like to pick them, but I think this is probably the worst team they could have drawn, and not just because they’re the hosts.
Germany will surely impose itself physically on this game, and I’m not sure the Japanese will have an answer. But give Japan too many set pieces near their goal, and the Germans will be asking for big trouble.
Prediction: Germany 2-0
Sweden vs. Australia, 7 a.m.
To best describe Australia, I have to go back to the Bad News Bears when the hated Yankees begrudgingly gave the Bears a little respect, “We still don’t think you’re all that good a baseball team, but you got guts. All of ya.”
Australia’s got guts, all of them, whomever Tom Sermanni throws out there. And it might be enough to get the Aussies to a surprise semifinal.
Prediction: 1-1 (Australia advances in penalties)
Jenna and the finest women’s soccer website on the planet has been nice enough to ask me to add my two cents (or $2) on the Women’s World Cup. I spend most of my time writing on MLS and the men’s game, but I am a big fan of the women’s game. In my coaching career, I’m primarily a girls coach these days, and it’s always nice for them to have someone to look up to. Sadly, some of the youngsters I coach were barely born in 1999, and obviously have no recollection of that wonderful summer.
However, they can look on their televisions (hopefully they will) and see sell-out crowds in Germany and a country head over heels for the women’s game.
Here’s how I described what I did last year for the men’s World Cup:
“I’m going to try every day of the World Cup for a little different kind of analysis, entitled What We Learned. We won’t go too deep into tactics, and it may not even be terribly cohesive, but they are things we learned during the day’s action, and maybe some things to think about going forward.”
The tactics were so interesting today that they do get a couple of mentions, but without further ado, 10 things we learned in Day 1 of Germany 2011.
1) Nigeria put together, by a pretty wide margin, the most organized effort of an African side in Women’s World Cup history
The Nigerian women have always been known to me as the “Last of the Mohicans” (a fine movie, by the way) because they were still playing a sweeper long after it was seemingly extinct at the world level (and some levels below).
As late as last November, on a grainy Zapruder-like film, it seemed as if Nigeria was playing a sweeper in a 8-0 thrashing (5-0 at half) at the hands of Germany.
But there was no sweeper today. They knew they had a speed advantage, closed down the middle of field, played an organized high line, and were somewhat unlucky to leave with nothing.
Kate Markgraf (who I thought did a good job, too) insinuated that it may not have been Ngozi Uche but her assistants who were the tactical people, but it was refreshing to see some organization out of an obviously talented side.
If Desire Oparanozie finishes a 25th-minute breakaway in which France keeper Berangere Sapowicz seemed to get her angles all wrong, who knows?
It is somewhat unfortunate that Nigeria is stuck in Group A, though.
2) France has skill, but do they have athleticism?
France was able to knock the ball around, but there were a few times where they just couldn’t keep up physically, and that could be scary for them going forward. Camile Abily, Elise Bussaglia, and Sandrine Soubeyrand (who was subbed off at halftime by Bruno Bini) in the midfield, especially, looked like they were completely frustrated by the buzzing Nigerians. Are the Nigerians athletic enough to give the Germans and Canadians the same problems, or is France just slow? I guess we’ll find out together. Elodie Thomis came off the bench to solve that problem in the 57th minute, and we’ll see if maybe Bini goes to her to start in the pivotal Canada match.
3) Louisa Necib taketh and Louisa Necib giveth away
Whenever you hear “the female Zidane”, obviously you get excited, and it didn’t take her long to show off her skill. But as the game progressed, like some of her teammates (see No. 2), she looked a little slow and made some poor decisions on the ball. That’s the difference between a good player and a great player, especially a midfielder, and she did make a great pass to send Marie-Laure Delie in late in the game. So, although I wasn’t overly impressed, it’s only the first game, I guess.
4) Marie-Laure Delie might be the real deal because….
By halftime, I was underwhelmed. But when her moment came in the 56th minute, she checked back, made a fine pass to start the movement, and then was at the right place at the right time to finish it seconds later. Getting 22 goals in 21 caps is no fluke.
5) Ian Holloway would be proud of Carolina Morace
Like Holloway at underdog Blackpool, Morace decided if she was going to go down today to heavily favored Germany, she was going to go down attacking, and we the viewing public thank her profusely. Morace had the “Santa Clara 4-3-3” that Jerry Smith made popular in the college ranks, but most teams today play with two holding midfielders (as Germany did). Morace started with Melissa Tancredi and Janelle Filigno not in a defending 4-5-1, but a straight attacking 4-3-3, Kaylyn Kyle as a box-to-box midfielder. Down two goals, Morace threw Kelly Parker in for Kyle to make it a more attacking formation. It put Sophie Schmidt (who I thought did her best) in a tough spot as the lone defensive midfielder, and it created some holes, but it was fun to watch, and Canada nearly pulled it off? Does Morace do it against France, or against Nigeria, who may use the lack of people back to counter them successfully?
6) Ah, those outside backs
Lots of youth coaches try to hide their weakest players at outside back, but as the U.S. men’s team learned Saturday night against Mexico, at high levels, you’d better have capable people in those spots. Unfortunately for Canada, Marie-Eve Nault had a disastrous first half. Thirty seconds before the first goal, she was beaten badly and Kerstin Garefrekes nearly scored. Then, fellow outside back Rhian Wilkinson switched off, Babett Peter was able to deliver a nice cross, and Garefrekes was able to outjump Nault for the first goal. On the second goal, Nault was woefully late coming forward, and then got subbed out at halftime, although her replacement – Robin Gayle – was caught stepping late just as Nault was in the 66th minute, only to have Garefrekes have one of the worst misses you’ll ever see. So some work for Canada to do there, but some of that is the attacking formation with no real midfielders to track back.
In the other game, by the way, Nigeria had a big injury in right back Faith Ikidi. Sub Josephine Chukwunonge didn’t look nearly as comfortable.
For France, right back seems an odd position for 6-foot-1 Wendie Renard, as – although obviously a target at the other end on set pieces – she looked vulnerable defending, eventually leaving with an injury in the 69th minute.
7) Goalkeeping will be an issue
One of the reasons I like Markgraf is because she is frank, she said that female goalkeeping is not as good as male goalkeeping, and the reason why Germany and the U.S. have to be favorites is because they have the best keepers.
For all of Hope Solo’s immaturity and questionable comments off the field, you don’t get much argument that she’s the best goalie in the world, and when you see keepers flap at crosses in the France-Nigeria game, I think it could be a deciding factor.
For Canada, Nault held Celia Okoyino Da Mbabi onside, but where was Erin McLeod? When she finally came into the picture, she was in her goal and had no shot at a save. If you’re going to play that high a line, your keeper has to play with you and hopefully cut off a ball like that.
8) These teams had a long time to work on set pieces
The coach in me was stopping the tape every set piece to write down some of the creativity these teams were using. You can tell they’ve been in camp for a while.
It started just two minutes in when when Necib hit an overlapping player. A few minutes later, Gaetane Thiney hit a post on a well-worked front-post corner, and Canada had all sorts of tricks up their sleeves.
Of course, as Julie Foudy correctly pointed out, what was the one that actually resulted in a goal? Christine Sinclair (who was fantastic and scary for Canada today) walked up the ball and pounding it home with a great, but fairly straightforward, free kick.
9) Germany has an embarrassment of riches
Silvia Neid’s three subs were Alexandra Popp, Inka Grings, and Fatmine Bajramaj in that order, three players that would likely be starting for any other team in the tournament, and that includes the U.S. We’ll have to see how Neid handles Popp, she doesn’t want to overwhelm Popp, but she’s too good to be on the bench.
10) Thankfully less riff-raff then in the men’s game
After watching a month of the Gold Cup with players rolling around on the ground to embellish, getting in the officials’ faces over and over, and all kinds of gamesmanship, there was none of that today. In fact, we almost escaped the entire day – with all four teams playing aggressive, but clean soccer. In fact, we almost escaped the day without a single card (there were none in the France-Nigeria match), but Germany got two in the final 10 minutes of the second match (Simone Laudehr and Annike Krahn). Hopefully, it continues.