At the Women’s World Cup, a New Leader Inspires a New Attitude for the U.S.

As I mentioned to another commenter below, you are aware that Lloyd has *played* 200 times for the USWNT, right?

The US will have two advantages against Germany. One is that the German's played a marathon of a game on a very hot field. They'll likely come in heavy legged.

The second is that their four midfielders (three starters and primary substitute) already have a yellow card hovering over their heads. That means that they will be worried about picking up their second and being DQ'd for the Final. By attacking these players the US will have a chance to draw a yellow. Each time makes the coach and other players more cautious.

Gerrell, in response to your making a similar comment in another place on this train, the cautions to ALL players are erased after the QF, so only an expulsion from the semifinal (2 yellows or a straight red) could suspend a player from the final (or the third place match).
The Germans were more physically tested, to be sure, but it's speculation to think it will have a major effect with three days off between matches. That Maroszan's availability is in question is another story.

Yellow cards were erased after the quarters.

You're correct but in the past Wambach was a scorer and a leader. Now she seems to be well past her prime and will surely be relegated to sub status. The real leaders will do so by their work and performance on the field, not with their statements to the press or their off the cuff remarks on hot mikes laced with profanity.

@ Voila — It depends on chemistry: on teammates’ esteem for and trust of the individual exhorting them, on the individual’s judgment of the situation and of her team’s frame of mind, and many other factors. Someone who’s always talking •may• become tiresome to teammates. On the other hand, a judiciously timed interjection can help charge up a team.

I strongly suspect that, after all these years, Wambach has a much better measure of this team than does any of us in this forum. I also suspect that if Wambach’s teammates in general viewed her in ways that affirmed your dismissive take on her, it would have become well known long before this.

— Brian

I too have played a lot of competitive team sports, and I believe the players on this team have far too much respect and friendship for Abby to cop an attitude like yours.

@ Artist — I’ve been able to watch all the matches, including those the U.S. •isn’t• playing in. The analysts (a multi-national crew) at Fox’s World Cup broadcast center in Vancouver spend lots of time talking about teams •other• than the U.S. The World Cup pages at the Fox Sports web site have extensive information about all the teams, and many articles and videos featuring teams and players other than those of the U.S.

The Times, here, has had numerous articles on not-the-U.S. teams. (I wish the Times had a page devoted to group standings, the brackets, and lists of scores, as it did during the men’s World Cup, for easy reference — but that’s a different issue. (I know the “Schedule and Results” box on the main Sports page has a “World Cup” tab, but that’s paltry, and it doesn’t appear on the Times’s “Soccer” sub-page.))

So, I don’t know how it is you’re having trouble “learn[ing] anything about the other teams,” but I’m encountering plenty of information about quite a few different teams at the World Cup — and I don’t consider myself extraordinarily resourceful.

And if the broadcasts on Fox Sports seen in the U.S., tend to focus on the U.S. — well, what do you expect? The U.S. •is• the home team here. What do you think broadcasts in Japan, England, and Germany sound like — let alone in all the other countries competing in the tournament?

By the way, I, too, am disappointed France is out so early. But they showed themselves the exit, as much as anyone else did.

— Brian

FKA - you have to realize, the US public is in about 2nd grade vis-à-vis its soccer (a football is oblong) sophistication while you're in college.
We don't know much about our own team, let alone the opposition. So basics (get the ball; kick into goal) are about all we can handle.

It'll take time. Maybe in 50 years we'll be able to ...

Nah! It'll never happen.

Brian it’s a good thing you don’t consider yourself particularly resrsourceful, because your attention to detail is lacking. For one thing I never said that I’m having a hard time learning anything about the other teams. I said it’s a shame that I have to follow the foreign press in order to do so. From the context of my comments, it should be clear that my gripe was about the Times’ coverage, but thanks for pointing out to me that there’s a whole lot of internet out there. Wasn’t really my point, but thanks.

As for the coverage in other countries... have you ever been in another country during the World Cup... any of them? I have, two others, and it’s nothing like you suggest, the interest is on the overall quality of the competition. During games in Germany in 2006 for instance, there was heightened interest in the German team’s games, but the competion were treated more as co-participants rather than the soccer equivalent of the Washington Generals. You should try visiting England during the Cup, it would provide you a much better basis for speaking.

As for France, sure they didn’t take full advantage of their opportunities, but the handball call to gift Germany the penalty was an absolute farce of officiating. I’m not sure what else the defender could have done, extending her leg instinctively caused the arm to go out to counter balance. She tried to keep it to her side and behind her, but could do nothing about a ball traveling at speed from 5 feet away.

You are aware that Lloyd has played for the USWNT 200 times, right?

Sure and how many of those 200 matches also featured a team focused around Rapinoe, Wambach and Morgan? I think that was Ella's larger point. Interesting decisions ahead for JE!

It's confusing with all those other World Cups going on.

@ Ryan — Liz simply may not have seen that the men’s Rugby World Cup doesn’t begin till September . . . so no overlap!

— Brian

@ Frank — The outcome was not “remarkably different” if one looks at the scoreline, I guess. But if one watched the game, it was pretty hard to miss that the U.S. team looked a lot different than it had in the previous three games — and not just different faces, but a vastly different dynamic in its play.

— Brian

@ Roy — Solo has indeed been solid. But we have to admit, since the first half of the first game, against Australia, she has not been tested a lot. We are obliged to understand the string of shutouts as a team effort — a skilled and resolute back line making sure Solo has had little need to touch anything, and her totally professional and focused handling of whatever does get through to her. This, of course, strongly implies that Solo and the back line are communicating with great efficiency, and that Solo is organizing the defense with intelligence and discipline.

— Brian

Also indicative of the manifest limitations of the last three opponents.

Solo has indeed been spectacular in some of the earlier games, but vs China she wasn't challenged. Most of the game was played on the Chinese end of the field and they weren't able to mount any serious challenges. Regardless the close score, the US dominated possession and controlled the game.

@ John — Presumably, a designation determined empirically: whichever player has the greatest number of, or most lucrative, commercial endorsement contracts. Of course, one player may well be most “sponsor-friendly” by both measures.

— Brian

Pretty, energetic, camera-ready, no arrests... Oh, and talented helps, too.

Seems clear from here. Alex Morgan is the one the sponsors are leaning on the hardest during these Women's World Cup games.

I agree 100% about Julie Johnston. She was the stand out player of the game.

Can't really say it much better than this.

I agree, but I think Lloyd's passing accuracy improved in the China game -- still not consistent enough, but much better. The big difference was to see so much more movement off the ball. Meanwhile, the German offense sputtered against France, so suddenly the US and Germany look more evenly matched. Germany won't be helped by the injury to their no. 10, Marozsan. That's too bad; she's always interesting to watch.

Once again, I am in full agreement. Johnston's their best player, not only for her defense but also her contributions to the offense. She is the best reader of the game and seems to show up in the right places at the right times. Afain, your reference to Beckenbauer is appropriate. One could also mention Ruud Krol when he moved over to sweeper in the 78 WC.

These women play an incredible game of fast-moving, aggressive soccer. They train hard, and they play to win. Many of them have dedicated years to acquiring and polishing their skills, and whether they play on grass or artificial turf makes little difference to their desire to go out and do their very best to win.

That said, I very much doubt you would call the members of the men's team "boys", as it is considered extremely denigrating to do so for any number of reasons. Well, the same is true of calling adult women "girls". It is offensive, derogatory, and needs to stop.