Speaking of early retirements from international play, even more surprising than the possible farewell of Heather O’Reilly at 30, is the announced retirement of Lauren Holiday at only 27 (she turns 28 this fall). I’ve read she wants to place more focus on her family; that’s understandable, but it still seems quite early. And, for all of the U.S.’s depth, she’ll leave a considerable space to fill.
By the way, a number of commentators, even during the course of the final on Sunday, noted that Lloyd’s hat trick was the first in a senior World Cup final since Geoff Hurst’s for England against W. Germany in 1966. (And, as Paul (BT) has observed here, Lloyd finished hers in the regular 90 (indeed, with 74 minutes to spare!), instead of the full 120 that Sir Geoff required for his. Moreover, of course, no one doubts that •all• Lloyd’s scoring shots went all the way over the goal line!)
But I’m baffled that no one has mentioned how Holiday’s spectacular volleyed 14th-minute goal (the winner, it turned out) recalls another player’s goal from that 1966 final. When I saw her shot off that high popped-up deflection in the area:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwwgZvCBAc&t=0m7s
I immediately thought she was splendidly channeling Martin Peters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9tMoeU_Bc0&t=87m51s
and even doing his electrifying 78th-minute goal a bit better — she was three or four yards further out, and she struck the ball as it fell from an even more lofty height.
— Brian
By the way, a number of commentators, even during the course of the final on Sunday, noted that Lloyd’s hat trick was the first in a senior World Cup final since Geoff Hurst’s for England against W. Germany in 1966. (And, as Paul (BT) has observed here, Lloyd finished hers in the regular 90 (indeed, with 74 minutes to spare!), instead of the full 120 that Sir Geoff required for his. Moreover, of course, no one doubts that •all• Lloyd’s scoring shots went all the way over the goal line!)
But I’m baffled that no one has mentioned how Holiday’s spectacular volleyed 14th-minute goal (the winner, it turned out) recalls another player’s goal from that 1966 final. When I saw her shot off that high popped-up deflection in the area:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwwgZvCBAc&t=0m7s
I immediately thought she was splendidly channeling Martin Peters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9tMoeU_Bc0&t=87m51s
and even doing his electrifying 78th-minute goal a bit better — she was three or four yards further out, and she struck the ball as it fell from an even more lofty height.
— Brian
1
Brian - Lauren has achieved everything in the sport, also shes a nba balla wife. Time to take a break and enjoy some time with her family!
Again, congratulation USWNT.
I do not think Wamback and Rampone will be back next year for the olympic. They have won it many times. For footballers, men or women, winning the FIFA World Cup matters much more than the olympic.
The USWNT still wins in female football because they have:
-- athleticism -- Speed -- strength.
They are little bit ahead over the competitors on those aspect. Only very few team, like Germany can match them.
This year, they have a very good defense too. Its in their credits.
And the others team still struggle to adjust the american style: direct and opportunism.
If you look back the last month tournament, most of the USWNT goals come from set pieces or rebond. And even some american fans are not very pleased the way their team play football. They criticized
their team because of the luck of chemistry and fluidity in the midfield.
Many people love the way Japan, France even Germany.
But the USWNT still rely on their athleticism, speed and strength. And those serve them very well.
Will the USWNT change their style (direct, athleticism, and speed ) ?
i dont think so. If you look back at the match US vs Germany in FIFA 2003WC semi-final, it should be the turning point, but its not. In 2015, we have less long ball than 2003 but still, last sunday against Japan there were 4 or 5 worthless long balls.
Its good to see many styles in women football. I love the way China, Colombia and Netherlands play. And i hope the future of female football will be bright.
I do not think Wamback and Rampone will be back next year for the olympic. They have won it many times. For footballers, men or women, winning the FIFA World Cup matters much more than the olympic.
The USWNT still wins in female football because they have:
-- athleticism -- Speed -- strength.
They are little bit ahead over the competitors on those aspect. Only very few team, like Germany can match them.
This year, they have a very good defense too. Its in their credits.
And the others team still struggle to adjust the american style: direct and opportunism.
If you look back the last month tournament, most of the USWNT goals come from set pieces or rebond. And even some american fans are not very pleased the way their team play football. They criticized
their team because of the luck of chemistry and fluidity in the midfield.
Many people love the way Japan, France even Germany.
But the USWNT still rely on their athleticism, speed and strength. And those serve them very well.
Will the USWNT change their style (direct, athleticism, and speed ) ?
i dont think so. If you look back at the match US vs Germany in FIFA 2003WC semi-final, it should be the turning point, but its not. In 2015, we have less long ball than 2003 but still, last sunday against Japan there were 4 or 5 worthless long balls.
Its good to see many styles in women football. I love the way China, Colombia and Netherlands play. And i hope the future of female football will be bright.
@ KotoKoto — To some degree, you’re correct in saying that winning the World Cup matters more to both men’s and women’s teams than does winning the Olympic gold medal. But that’s substantially •more• true for the men than for the women. The men’s Olympic soccer competition is essentially a U-23 tournament, and while success in the Olympics is a source of pride, it doesn’t come close in prestige and importance to the World Cup, or even to regional senior championships, such as the UEFA European Championship, and the Copa América.
Women’s Olympic soccer, in contrast, is a senior tournament, and is second in prestige and importance — a close second — only to the World Cup. The qualifying national teams send their top squads to the Olympics, and the outcome frames the national bragging rights over the three years till the next World Cup.
— Brian
Women’s Olympic soccer, in contrast, is a senior tournament, and is second in prestige and importance — a close second — only to the World Cup. The qualifying national teams send their top squads to the Olympics, and the outcome frames the national bragging rights over the three years till the next World Cup.
— Brian
2
"Fair pay" and "Equal pay" are not necessarily the same thing. Players in the English Premier League make more than their counterparts in the top Swiss or Dutch League because the EPL has better players, a bigger audience and as a result has a higher value and creates much more income. You can't demand "equal pay" when you don't create equal value. It's not a gender equality issue so much as an economic one. What you ought to demand is proportionality of payments. So whatever percentage of the money brought in by a World Cup goes to bonuses for the men's teams the same proportion of what the Women's WC brings in should go to the women's teams. Individual players will, of course, be rewarded by sponsors and by their clubs according to their perceived value and the negotiating prowess of their agents...just like the men.
5
The years of dedication of the members of USWNT in order to individually attain the mental and physical capacity to be able to perform at such a very high level together with these women’s strong support of each other implicit in their total commitment to their team is remarkable. And, although Jill Ellis was indeed fortunate to have been given the opportunity to serve as their coach IMHO Ellis’s service was also outstanding. It is my impression that Ellis had a highly developed strategy for the USWNT in place before Day 1 of the WWC that encompassed all seven games. My perception of the shadows of this strategy suggests that it was an adaptive extension of the game-strategy often employed between two high-level teams that are meeting for the first time. IMHO, the good fortune that these women presented to Ellis was skillfully returned to them. Congrats to players and staff [all] of the USWNT!
1
Jill Ellis seems to be a very knowledgeable coach for the U.S soccer team. She is very thoughtful of who to choose when adding players to the roster. Her focus is on helping the girls reach their soccer goals. Best of luck on your next game!
1
best teams were 1.) united states 2.) france 3.) england 4.) japan 5.) germany….not necessarily in that order….i also think 16 teams r plenty…no need to watch teams lose 10-0…just to boring….
@ John — I can’t agree about the size of the field; expanding the tournament to 24 teams is important to the growth of the game and of opportunities for women in the sport worldwide. I hope we can see the field expanded to 32 nations in France 2019, or by the 2023 tournament (bidding for ’23 has not officially opened, but Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Thailand have all indicated an interest in submitting bids).
Some of the weaker teams in larger fields will get walloped the first time or two around. (That still happens, occasionally, in the men’s World Cup.) But they simply can’t become competitive at that level without direct experience of the intensity, skill, and speed that play at the top tier requires.
And, in addition, because larger fields will increase the opportunities to make the showcase tournament, that will push national federations that have not previously made the development of women’s soccer a priority, to take it more seriously. In that way, too, larger tournament fields will help cultivate the growth of women’s soccer worldwide.
— Brian
Some of the weaker teams in larger fields will get walloped the first time or two around. (That still happens, occasionally, in the men’s World Cup.) But they simply can’t become competitive at that level without direct experience of the intensity, skill, and speed that play at the top tier requires.
And, in addition, because larger fields will increase the opportunities to make the showcase tournament, that will push national federations that have not previously made the development of women’s soccer a priority, to take it more seriously. In that way, too, larger tournament fields will help cultivate the growth of women’s soccer worldwide.
— Brian
3
Tired of this breathless, chauvinistic coverage. I failed to notice one story about the Japanese team or one of its players. After all, they were the defending champs. They now are the second best team in the world, right? Watching women's quarter final tennis from England right now. There is coverage of all the players.
7
@ jay65 — If you “failed to notice one story about the Japanese team or one of its players” (in the Times, presumably), well, the failure is yours. I’ve seen numerous Times articles in its World Cup coverage that focused on Japan and its players. A quick review of the Times’s content online picks up quite a few articles; these are just a few examples:
http://tinyurl.com/obpa7z2
http://tinyurl.com/ogrdtqq
http://tinyurl.com/ovazxxe
http://tinyurl.com/ndzthsy
http://tinyurl.com/o9d98dl
Note that those are just some of what was printed in the past week alone; even •before• the tournament started, the Times had articles on Japan’s team and on individual Japanese players.
I yield to no one in my readiness to call out and scorn jingoism. But you don’t have a case here. Whatever faults the Times’s coverage may have, the accusation of chauvinism is laughable. Sure, the Times is covering this story pretty intently — and when a national team has won a world championship, what paper in any other country would be •more• restrained and sober? Enjoying the moment hardly qualifies as arrogant triumphalism — except for people who already have a chip on their shoulder about the country that’s celebrating.
— Brian
http://tinyurl.com/obpa7z2
http://tinyurl.com/ogrdtqq
http://tinyurl.com/ovazxxe
http://tinyurl.com/ndzthsy
http://tinyurl.com/o9d98dl
Note that those are just some of what was printed in the past week alone; even •before• the tournament started, the Times had articles on Japan’s team and on individual Japanese players.
I yield to no one in my readiness to call out and scorn jingoism. But you don’t have a case here. Whatever faults the Times’s coverage may have, the accusation of chauvinism is laughable. Sure, the Times is covering this story pretty intently — and when a national team has won a world championship, what paper in any other country would be •more• restrained and sober? Enjoying the moment hardly qualifies as arrogant triumphalism — except for people who already have a chip on their shoulder about the country that’s celebrating.
— Brian
4
I don't think "chauvinistic" is the word you're looking for. Do you mean "nationalistic"? Why do you expect articles about the team that lost, in a newspaper of the nation that won? How many articles are there in Japanese news outlets about the US other than a quick congratulations?
The US women's victory was a spectacle for the ages, siezing the game in the first 15 minutes and keeping it under their control all the way to the Gold Medal. In soccer, I've never seen anything quite like it.
That said, this game wasn't a blow-out. I was mightily impressed by the Japanese side. With their grit, precision and excellent team play after their initial melt-down, they refused to quit despite the near-inevitability of the final outcome. It was plain to see why Japan made it to the championship match. Good for them!
Bravo to Team USA. They did the nation proud, irrespective of gender -- as a disciplined, determined, skilled and gritty TEAM.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
That said, this game wasn't a blow-out. I was mightily impressed by the Japanese side. With their grit, precision and excellent team play after their initial melt-down, they refused to quit despite the near-inevitability of the final outcome. It was plain to see why Japan made it to the championship match. Good for them!
Bravo to Team USA. They did the nation proud, irrespective of gender -- as a disciplined, determined, skilled and gritty TEAM.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
I will quote Abby Wambach on this “There’s something new that’s happening here — the next generation. It’s something I’m really proud of. It doesn’t just happen overnight. It’s a culture I hope continues in our national team program.”
I am not so sure the choices are going to be that tough. They do need to be correct.
I am not so sure the choices are going to be that tough. They do need to be correct.
1
Congrats to the USA team. The fact remains that the intensity, speed, strength of the Men's game is far greater. Most elite level men's high school teams would beat even the top women's teams. It's just nature. Viewership will always be higher for the Men's WC and so will investment. It's more exciting to watch and the competition is alot greater. It just is what it is.
Definitely men are bigger, stronger, and faster. But if games are only exciting when they feature the biggest, strongest, and fastest players, does that mean you never watch men's NCAA basketball?
3
Women soccer is not well respected by other countries thus not too many players, commitment, etc. That's why salaries are low and America wins so easily.
2
And why is this comment relevant to this particular article?
1
That certainly sounds like sour grapes! What the USA doesn't have is the skill academies and depth of football culture that all of the top football nations in the world have. The club system in Europe is way beyond the sophistication of the club level in the USA. In the USA we have public high school soccer coached by "teacher" coaches, who don't some close to the skill levels of the European private club coaches.
So we win with speed, power, determination and more so than anything, teamwork, even though the skill level of woman's football is quite astounding. So Rudolf, the German's loss comes down to arrogance on the part of the German team. They simply didn't have the speed and teamwork to deal with the USA, let alone England. Maybe next year since you now know Germany should rank about #5 in the world.
So we win with speed, power, determination and more so than anything, teamwork, even though the skill level of woman's football is quite astounding. So Rudolf, the German's loss comes down to arrogance on the part of the German team. They simply didn't have the speed and teamwork to deal with the USA, let alone England. Maybe next year since you now know Germany should rank about #5 in the world.
Yet, Sweden, England, Finland and Japan have leagues that are arguably more organized and lucrative than the current league in the U.S.
1
What a fantastic team! As the father of an 11 year old daughter, it is so important to me that Abby has strong and honorable role models to inspire her. The U.S. Women's soccer team provides such a model. Thank you team!
21
Man, Carli is right. we are not the most technically savvy team, w/the exception of players like Morgan Brian, Tobin Heath, and Megan Rapinoe, players who will get less credit than the likes of Lloyd, Abby, and Hope, but who, to the trained soccer eye, are the real deal. Yet, through athleticism, fitness, and determination, we find a way to win. What a sight it will be to witness a team where all of those factors converge. Until then, our formula is working. Winners!
18
I'm wondering why the author put 30 year old O'Reilly in the same group as Boxx/Rampone/Wambach.
Lloyd is older at age 33 and Rapinoe is the same age at age 30 but they are expected to both appear at Olympics.
Lloyd is older at age 33 and Rapinoe is the same age at age 30 but they are expected to both appear at Olympics.
6
The difference is O'Reilly is no longer the starter that she was at the last world cup. There is a big difference between keeping a veteran who can start and play the full 90 like Carli and a veteran who is a bench player for a limited (18) spot roster at the Olympics.
Future Head Coach of the USWNT = Abby Wambach.
12
Assistant Head Coach of the USWNT = Carly Lloyd
1
No. As long as Wambach continues to support the sordid legacy of Dan "Call Me Daddy" Borislow, she has no place in player development.
2
"But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near..."
Andrew Marvell
Time's winged chariot hurrying near..."
Andrew Marvell
22
First, congratulations to the U.S. team. What an impressive performance! Regarding the decisions that must be made, I suppose it's an enviable position to he in, having such a large group of talented players from which to choose. I was astonished by the depth of the bench on the U.S. team, but it sounds as though even some very good players didn't make the cut. I wish the team much success in the future. I think you've picked up quite a few fans during the World Cup!
23
Happens to every WC team
The USA women, while winning, took home just one-forth the earnings that the USA men "earned" for their first round loss.
That is by FIFA decree, whose corruption is thereby compounded by unconscionable, contemptible male chauvinism.
ENOUGH.
Equality must be established immediately.
And, never again must any match be played on anything but real grass.
That is by FIFA decree, whose corruption is thereby compounded by unconscionable, contemptible male chauvinism.
ENOUGH.
Equality must be established immediately.
And, never again must any match be played on anything but real grass.
107
I enjoyed the women's event more than the men's. The men had 3.2 billion viewers worldwide. The women was nowhere near that, although the U.S. viewership was excellent. It is easy to say equality must be established. You still have to follow the money ( if you can find it with FIFA).
12
That is very nice and all, but the level of play and popularity of each are nowhere near equal. You cannot expect the women's WC champion to receive the same kind of money when their tournament doesn't even draw 1/4 of the men's WC total viewership. The artificial grass issue should be resolved, but as far as money, it makes perfect sense (and it's even fair from a marketing point of view) that the men's WC winners receive a lot more money than the women's.
6
Equal pay would be great but unfortunately c. may be a long time away. I read somewhere that a professional woman soccer player makes 3% of what their male counterpart makes. 3%!!!!! If the argument is based on revenue and viewership, how did these ladies, who shattered viewer records, make $2M in prize money when the German men made $35M for winning? I am so proud of these players for their dedication despite how little they are compensated.
23
Well, the corruption scandal did create one of the best visuals of the tournament: the •absence• of Sepp Blatter from the podium at the awards ceremony immediately after the final. Seldom has there been a more compelling demonstration of the esthetic virtues of Negative Space; of how true it can be that Less is More (and that “nothing at all” can be the best?!) . . . ah, one could go on, but restraint in the indulgence of pleasures is another virtue one must respect, I suppose.
I’m just hoping that, on •this• point, we truly can look forward to a repeat non-performance in Rio.
— Brian