[BostonCard]

Women's world cup kicks off tomorrow.  Here's a preview of sorts:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why...se-second/

Lots of familiar names, both with direct and indirect Stanford connections.

https://www.ussoccer.com/players

BC

[BostonCard]

Women's world cup kicks off tomorrow.  Here's a preview of sorts:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why...se-second/

Lots of familiar names, both with direct and indirect Stanford connections.

https://www.ussoccer.com/players

BC

[ColoradoTree]

Kelley O'Hara ('10), Christen Press ('11), and Tierna Davidson (class of '20, but will need to come back to finish) are the direct connections, and Santa Clara Bronco Julie Ertz is married to our own Zach Ertz ('14), but I might be missing some other indirect connections.  

Andi Sullivan and Jane Campbell missed out on the roster this time around, unfortunately, but it's not hard to imagine them back in the picture with strong NWSL performances this year. Crystal Dunn channeled her disappointment over being left off the 2015 USWNT roster into a NWSL MVP season and she's been a mainstay for the past three years. 

FYI, Stanford's 3 players on the USWNT roster are tied with UVA for second behind UNC:

UNC - 5 (Dunn, Harris, Heath, Long, McDonald)
Stanford - 3 (Davidson, O'Hara, Press)
UVA - 3 (Brian, Sauerbrunn, Sonnett)
Penn State - 2 (Krieger, Naeher)
UCLA - 2 (Dahlkemper, Mewis)
Cal - 1 (Morgan)
Oklahoma State - 1 (Franch)
Portland - 1 (Rapinoe)
Rutgers - 1 (Lloyd)
Santa Clara - 1 (Ertz)
Wisconsin - 1 (Lavelle)

Horan and Pugh never played college soccer (I'm not counting Pugh for UCLA because she enrolled early and spent just one quarter there, but never played in a game before deciding to enter the NWSL draft, where she was the no-doubt #1 overall pick). Horan was the trailblazer in that regard, opting to play professionally in France over enrolling at UNC. Hard to say it's been a bad decision, since she's 25 and already on 68 caps in an extremely crowded American midfield. Same for Pugh, who's only 21 and has an insane 53 caps already. 

And as a reminder, Davidson had become the first-choice center back alongside Sauerbrunn before she got hurt playing for Stanford last fall (as a junior), and she has since been displaced by Dahlkemper. Of course, there's no guarantee Davidson doesn't get injured professionally if she'd left after her sophomore season, but there's a bit of a Bryce Love situation there, as if she'd gone pro earlier and avoided injury (I know, I know, a very big if), it's extremely likely that she'd still be in the starting lineup for the USWNT right now rather than coming off the bench.

[ColoradoTree]

Kelley O'Hara ('10), Christen Press ('11), and Tierna Davidson (class of '20, but will need to come back to finish) are the direct connections, and Santa Clara Bronco Julie Ertz is married to our own Zach Ertz ('14), but I might be missing some other indirect connections.  

Andi Sullivan and Jane Campbell missed out on the roster this time around, unfortunately, but it's not hard to imagine them back in the picture with strong NWSL performances this year. Crystal Dunn channeled her disappointment over being left off the 2015 USWNT roster into a NWSL MVP season and she's been a mainstay for the past three years. 

FYI, Stanford's 3 players on the USWNT roster are tied with UVA for second behind UNC:

UNC - 5 (Dunn, Harris, Heath, Long, McDonald)
Stanford - 3 (Davidson, O'Hara, Press)
UVA - 3 (Brian, Sauerbrunn, Sonnett)
Penn State - 2 (Krieger, Naeher)
UCLA - 2 (Dahlkemper, Mewis)
Cal - 1 (Morgan)
Oklahoma State - 1 (Franch)
Portland - 1 (Rapinoe)
Rutgers - 1 (Lloyd)
Santa Clara - 1 (Ertz)
Wisconsin - 1 (Lavelle)

Horan and Pugh never played college soccer (I'm not counting Pugh for UCLA because she enrolled early and spent just one quarter there, but never played in a game before deciding to enter the NWSL draft, where she was the no-doubt #1 overall pick). Horan was the trailblazer in that regard, opting to play professionally in France over enrolling at UNC. Hard to say it's been a bad decision, since she's 25 and already on 68 caps in an extremely crowded American midfield. Same for Pugh, who's only 21 and has an insane 53 caps already. 

And as a reminder, Davidson had become the first-choice center back alongside Sauerbrunn before she got hurt playing for Stanford last fall (as a junior), and she has since been displaced by Dahlkemper. Of course, there's no guarantee Davidson doesn't get injured professionally if she'd left after her sophomore season, but there's a bit of a Bryce Love situation there, as if she'd gone pro earlier and avoided injury (I know, I know, a very big if), it's extremely likely that she'd still be in the starting lineup for the USWNT right now rather than coming off the bench.

[BobK]

Ali RILEY
Overview
NZL
7
ALI RILEY
NEW ZEALAND
Defender
AGE
31
HEIGHT
162.0 CM
DATE OF BIRTH
30 OCTOBER 1987

[BobK]

Ali RILEY
Overview
NZL
7
ALI RILEY
NEW ZEALAND
Defender
AGE
31
HEIGHT
162.0 CM
DATE OF BIRTH
30 OCTOBER 1987

[ColoradoTree]

Ali RILEY
Overview
NZL
7
ALI RILEY
NEW ZEALAND
Defender
AGE
31
HEIGHT
162.0 CM
DATE OF BIRTH
30 OCTOBER 1987

Oh, of course. I just figured BC meant USWNT players. Ali Riley is one of the world's best outside backs and has been for years. I honestly think she would have figured in the USWNT's plans if she hadn't started playing for New Zealand so young. Born in California, but with a Kiwi for a father, she starting playing for the NZ senior team while still at Stanford. When the USWNT started having its woes at outside back (ultimately converting O'Hara from forward for the last World Cup, and converting Dunn from forward for this one to join her), I bet Jill Ellis was frustrated that the best American natural outside back played for New Zealand!

[ColoradoTree]

Ali RILEY
Overview
NZL
7
ALI RILEY
NEW ZEALAND
Defender
AGE
31
HEIGHT
162.0 CM
DATE OF BIRTH
30 OCTOBER 1987

Oh, of course. I just figured BC meant USWNT players. Ali Riley is one of the world's best outside backs and has been for years. I honestly think she would have figured in the USWNT's plans if she hadn't started playing for New Zealand so young. Born in California, but with a Kiwi for a father, she starting playing for the NZ senior team while still at Stanford. When the USWNT started having its woes at outside back (ultimately converting O'Hara from forward for the last World Cup, and converting Dunn from forward for this one to join her), I bet Jill Ellis was frustrated that the best American natural outside back played for New Zealand!

[BostonCard]

The USWNT won its first game, against Thailand, 13-0.  Alex Morgan had 5(!) goals.

The pile-on has generated some controversy.

https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/disguste...1jngomdk5c

I have no problem trying to score late in the game, but I kind of agree that after a certain point, a more subdued celebration after a goal might be warranted.

BC

[BostonCard]

The USWNT won its first game, against Thailand, 13-0.  Alex Morgan had 5(!) goals.

The pile-on has generated some controversy.

https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/disguste...1jngomdk5c

I have no problem trying to score late in the game, but I kind of agree that after a certain point, a more subdued celebration after a goal might be warranted.

BC

[oldalum]

Using goal differential as tiebreaker forces teams like the U.S. to score as many goals as possible. In youth tournaments, to discourage piling on, the goal differential that counts is capped at a specific number, but then you have to have some other way to break ties.

[oldalum]

Using goal differential as tiebreaker forces teams like the U.S. to score as many goals as possible. In youth tournaments, to discourage piling on, the goal differential that counts is capped at a specific number, but then you have to have some other way to break ties.

[BostonCard]

Using goal differential as tiebreaker forces teams like the U.S. to score as many goals as possible. In youth tournaments, to discourage piling on, the goal differential that counts is capped at a specific number, but then you have to have some other way to break ties.

13 goals is a world cup record; I don't think we are going to have a problem with goal differential, if that ever even became a tiebreaker.  But again, I'm ok with scoring as many goals as possible (it's not our job to stop us, it's Thailand's job to stop us), but I do think that after, maybe the fifth goal, then just celebrate with an understated high five instead of something more in your face.

BC

[BostonCard]

Using goal differential as tiebreaker forces teams like the U.S. to score as many goals as possible. In youth tournaments, to discourage piling on, the goal differential that counts is capped at a specific number, but then you have to have some other way to break ties.

13 goals is a world cup record; I don't think we are going to have a problem with goal differential, if that ever even became a tiebreaker.  But again, I'm ok with scoring as many goals as possible (it's not our job to stop us, it's Thailand's job to stop us), but I do think that after, maybe the fifth goal, then just celebrate with an understated high five instead of something more in your face.

BC

[82lsju]

and Thailand has experience with high scoring games having won two games in pool play in the 2015 AFF tournament by large margins (10-1 over Indonesia and 12-0 over Laos)

[82lsju]

and Thailand has experience with high scoring games having won two games in pool play in the 2015 AFF tournament by large margins (10-1 over Indonesia and 12-0 over Laos)

[Farm93]

and Thailand has experience with high scoring games having won two games in pool play in the 2015 AFF tournament by large margins (10-1 over Indonesia and 12-0 over Laos)

The OFC has a wide range of talent levels across the national federations.   That forces teams to run up the score because it is likely top teams will enjoy a few massive wins that may play a role in goal differential tiebreakers.  So big wins and big losses are more common than in UEFA or CONMEBOL.

The France, Germany and Canada could all beat that Thailand team by 10 or more goals.   As the outcome was not unexpected the excessive celebrations after goal 6 or 7 were in bad taste.   Scoring, especially in game 1, needs to continue, but they could have done it with a lot more class.  

I expect many in the stands that are not USA citizens will now be quick to cheer against them in the upcoming games.   Sure hope they are prepared to hear lots of whistling for the rest of this tournament.

[Farm93]

and Thailand has experience with high scoring games having won two games in pool play in the 2015 AFF tournament by large margins (10-1 over Indonesia and 12-0 over Laos)

The OFC has a wide range of talent levels across the national federations.   That forces teams to run up the score because it is likely top teams will enjoy a few massive wins that may play a role in goal differential tiebreakers.  So big wins and big losses are more common than in UEFA or CONMEBOL.

The France, Germany and Canada could all beat that Thailand team by 10 or more goals.   As the outcome was not unexpected the excessive celebrations after goal 6 or 7 were in bad taste.   Scoring, especially in game 1, needs to continue, but they could have done it with a lot more class.  

I expect many in the stands that are not USA citizens will now be quick to cheer against them in the upcoming games.   Sure hope they are prepared to hear lots of whistling for the rest of this tournament.

[oldalum]

13 goals is a world cup record; I don't think we are going to have a problem with goal differential, if that ever even became a tiebreaker. 

I agree with everyone on the celebrations. But goal differential is another matter. The tiebreaker would come into play if Sweden and we both win our first two matches (likely) and we end up tying Sweden in our match against them, which is entirely possible given we lost to them last time we played them (the infamous Hope Solo "cowards" match). So if we stop at, say, 8 goals vs. Thailand, which seems reasonable, who is to say Sweden can't score 9 on them -- or whatever they need to in order to score one more than us overall (they will know somewhat the number they have to beat, but not our score against Chile). So, given the stakes, our incentive is to run up the score as high as possible.

[oldalum]

13 goals is a world cup record; I don't think we are going to have a problem with goal differential, if that ever even became a tiebreaker. 

I agree with everyone on the celebrations. But goal differential is another matter. The tiebreaker would come into play if Sweden and we both win our first two matches (likely) and we end up tying Sweden in our match against them, which is entirely possible given we lost to them last time we played them (the infamous Hope Solo "cowards" match). So if we stop at, say, 8 goals vs. Thailand, which seems reasonable, who is to say Sweden can't score 9 on them -- or whatever they need to in order to score one more than us overall (they will know somewhat the number they have to beat, but not our score against Chile). So, given the stakes, our incentive is to run up the score as high as possible.

[BostonCard]

13 goals is a world cup record; I don't think we are going to have a problem with goal differential, if that ever even became a tiebreaker. 

I agree with everyone on the celebrations. But goal differential is another matter. The tiebreaker would come into play if Sweden and we both win our first two matches (likely) and we end up tying Sweden in our match against them, which is entirely possible given we lost to them last time we played them (the infamous Hope Solo "cowards" match). So if we stop at, say, 8 goals vs. Thailand, which seems reasonable, who is to say Sweden can't score 9 on them -- or whatever they need to in order to score one more than us overall (they will know somewhat the number they have to beat, but not our score against Chile). So, given the stakes, our incentive is to run up the score as high as possible.

I don't disagree, and I wasn't advocating taking our foot off the gas (except maybe to rest and or protect certain key starters from injury).  But while they are not mutually exclusive, I think the marginal effort is better spent worrying about scoring the second or third goal against Sweden than it is scoring the 12th or 13th against Thailand.

Your position is a reasonable, but a low probability event.  Right now fivethirtyeight gives the US a 22% chance of drawing against Sweden (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201...s/matches/).  It doesn't give the breakdown of goal differential of the Sweden/Thailand match-up, but Sweden's probability of winning outright is 87%, the chance that it can score at least 12 goals (assuming that the US only beats Chile 1-0) is in the far tail end of the distribution.  My guess is that we would have been more than fine stopping at 8 goals.

BC

[BostonCard]

13 goals is a world cup record; I don't think we are going to have a problem with goal differential, if that ever even became a tiebreaker. 

I agree with everyone on the celebrations. But goal differential is another matter. The tiebreaker would come into play if Sweden and we both win our first two matches (likely) and we end up tying Sweden in our match against them, which is entirely possible given we lost to them last time we played them (the infamous Hope Solo "cowards" match). So if we stop at, say, 8 goals vs. Thailand, which seems reasonable, who is to say Sweden can't score 9 on them -- or whatever they need to in order to score one more than us overall (they will know somewhat the number they have to beat, but not our score against Chile). So, given the stakes, our incentive is to run up the score as high as possible.

I don't disagree, and I wasn't advocating taking our foot off the gas (except maybe to rest and or protect certain key starters from injury).  But while they are not mutually exclusive, I think the marginal effort is better spent worrying about scoring the second or third goal against Sweden than it is scoring the 12th or 13th against Thailand.

Your position is a reasonable, but a low probability event.  Right now fivethirtyeight gives the US a 22% chance of drawing against Sweden (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201...s/matches/).  It doesn't give the breakdown of goal differential of the Sweden/Thailand match-up, but Sweden's probability of winning outright is 87%, the chance that it can score at least 12 goals (assuming that the US only beats Chile 1-0) is in the far tail end of the distribution.  My guess is that we would have been more than fine stopping at 8 goals.

BC

[ColoradoTree]

First off, the goals and the celebrations are different things. It's your job to score as many goals as you can, as long as goal differential is used as a tiebreaker. What if you just start kicking the ball around after 7 goals, but Sweden scores 8 against Thailand and they are in position to win the group with a draw against the US? (Especially after Sweden completely parked the bus in their end against the USWNT in the 2016 Olympics, it strikes me as the prudent thing to do to assume Sweden will play similarly and you may have trouble breaking them down for a goal, meaning you need the better goal differential to take the group.) I have absolutely no problem with the scoreline. What happens if you play keep-a-way most of the second half and then you struggle regaining your edge against Chile? In a tournament setting like this, I think it's dangerous to give anything less than 100%. We have to keep pushing and working on things, or we don't get any better for when it matters in the knockout stages. 

I think we need to take individual circumstances into account as well when we're talking about celebrations. When Mallory Pugh scored the team's 11th goal, it was her first career World Cup goal. Should she be denied a celebration of that? It was also the first World Cup match--and first World Cup goals--for Rose Lavelle (2nd and 7th goals), Sam Mewis (4th and 6th goals), and Lindsey Horan (3rd goal). They all deserve to have their accomplishments celebrated. And when Alex Morgan scored the game's 12th goal, it was also her 5th of the match, tying the record. That's pretty cool, too! (And it was a team record as well, as the previous WC record was an 11-0 German win.)

Ultimately, I suppose there's a case to be made that Carli Lloyd shouldn't have celebrated much when she scored the team's 13th goal, but she also set a record by scoring in her 5th straight World Cup match (now extended to 6th straight after the Chile win). But I just can't bring myself to be too outraged about it.  What got less attention than the kerfuffle over the celebrations is that our players comforted the Thai players after the game, and the Thai coaches and players said they had no problem with either the scoreline or the USWNT's celebrations. 

The women's game is full of disparity. You have well-funded competitive teams at the top, and teams getting little to no support from their national federations at the bottom. I think there's an argument to be made that in beating the crap out of weaker teams, you're helping the women's game overall, by forcing other countries to spend more on their women's teams to be competitive. 

If FIFA allowed more than 3 subs, we would have used them. (I think FIFA should consider allowing an additional 3 subs to make it like a friendly once a team is up by a certain number of goals and the match is no longer in doubt.) And as it stands now, Sweden no longer has an incentive to hunker down and play exclusively in their own zone--they need a win to take the group, while a draw is good enough for us.

---

At the time of the match, I was a little confused by Jill Ellis's choices on subs against Thailand--subbing on three forwards rather than resting O'Hara (who has struggled with injury) or getting some of the other World Cup rookies some time. But by the end of the Chile match, every field player on the roster had made it into a game. And given that we often play Press-Lloyd-Pugh as a hockey-style second line, it makes sense to get them in and try and keep them sharp in working together. 

The Thailand scoreline gave Ellis lots of flexibility for the Chile match, and she used it, with 7 lineup changes. (Welcome rest for O'Hara, too.) That match should have been even more lopsided than it was, but Chile might have the world's best goalkeeper, and Christen Press in particular had to be stunned some of her excellent efforts didn't find the back of the net. 

And as Alyssa Naeher's howler against Chile proved (thankfully and correctly, the goal was ruled offside), we don't exactly have Solo or Scurry in net, so this is a team that is going to need to outscore people rather than relying on some key saves. We need all of our forwards sharp and feeling like they can all score when they need to. 

Against Sweden, it'll be interesting to see the tactics. We'll come out firing, of course, but will Sweden try to win the group? Or will they be content with second place, sitting back for a draw and attacking mostly on the counter? The group winner gets a likely date with host France in the quarterfinals, so I could see Sweden being content with a, say, Netherlands-Germany-Canada path to the final rather than Spain-France-England.

[ColoradoTree]

First off, the goals and the celebrations are different things. It's your job to score as many goals as you can, as long as goal differential is used as a tiebreaker. What if you just start kicking the ball around after 7 goals, but Sweden scores 8 against Thailand and they are in position to win the group with a draw against the US? (Especially after Sweden completely parked the bus in their end against the USWNT in the 2016 Olympics, it strikes me as the prudent thing to do to assume Sweden will play similarly and you may have trouble breaking them down for a goal, meaning you need the better goal differential to take the group.) I have absolutely no problem with the scoreline. What happens if you play keep-a-way most of the second half and then you struggle regaining your edge against Chile? In a tournament setting like this, I think it's dangerous to give anything less than 100%. We have to keep pushing and working on things, or we don't get any better for when it matters in the knockout stages. 

I think we need to take individual circumstances into account as well when we're talking about celebrations. When Mallory Pugh scored the team's 11th goal, it was her first career World Cup goal. Should she be denied a celebration of that? It was also the first World Cup match--and first World Cup goals--for Rose Lavelle (2nd and 7th goals), Sam Mewis (4th and 6th goals), and Lindsey Horan (3rd goal). They all deserve to have their accomplishments celebrated. And when Alex Morgan scored the game's 12th goal, it was also her 5th of the match, tying the record. That's pretty cool, too! (And it was a team record as well, as the previous WC record was an 11-0 German win.)

Ultimately, I suppose there's a case to be made that Carli Lloyd shouldn't have celebrated much when she scored the team's 13th goal, but she also set a record by scoring in her 5th straight World Cup match (now extended to 6th straight after the Chile win). But I just can't bring myself to be too outraged about it.  What got less attention than the kerfuffle over the celebrations is that our players comforted the Thai players after the game, and the Thai coaches and players said they had no problem with either the scoreline or the USWNT's celebrations. 

The women's game is full of disparity. You have well-funded competitive teams at the top, and teams getting little to no support from their national federations at the bottom. I think there's an argument to be made that in beating the crap out of weaker teams, you're helping the women's game overall, by forcing other countries to spend more on their women's teams to be competitive. 

If FIFA allowed more than 3 subs, we would have used them. (I think FIFA should consider allowing an additional 3 subs to make it like a friendly once a team is up by a certain number of goals and the match is no longer in doubt.) And as it stands now, Sweden no longer has an incentive to hunker down and play exclusively in their own zone--they need a win to take the group, while a draw is good enough for us.

---

At the time of the match, I was a little confused by Jill Ellis's choices on subs against Thailand--subbing on three forwards rather than resting O'Hara (who has struggled with injury) or getting some of the other World Cup rookies some time. But by the end of the Chile match, every field player on the roster had made it into a game. And given that we often play Press-Lloyd-Pugh as a hockey-style second line, it makes sense to get them in and try and keep them sharp in working together. 

The Thailand scoreline gave Ellis lots of flexibility for the Chile match, and she used it, with 7 lineup changes. (Welcome rest for O'Hara, too.) That match should have been even more lopsided than it was, but Chile might have the world's best goalkeeper, and Christen Press in particular had to be stunned some of her excellent efforts didn't find the back of the net. 

And as Alyssa Naeher's howler against Chile proved (thankfully and correctly, the goal was ruled offside), we don't exactly have Solo or Scurry in net, so this is a team that is going to need to outscore people rather than relying on some key saves. We need all of our forwards sharp and feeling like they can all score when they need to. 

Against Sweden, it'll be interesting to see the tactics. We'll come out firing, of course, but will Sweden try to win the group? Or will they be content with second place, sitting back for a draw and attacking mostly on the counter? The group winner gets a likely date with host France in the quarterfinals, so I could see Sweden being content with a, say, Netherlands-Germany-Canada path to the final rather than Spain-France-England.

[BostonCard]

So, uh, ok the 13th goal did wind up being superfluous, as the US gets its revenge on Sweden to make goal differential irrelevant.  Congrats to the USWNT who moves onto the knockout round.

BC

[BostonCard]

So, uh, ok the 13th goal did wind up being superfluous, as the US gets its revenge on Sweden to make goal differential irrelevant.  Congrats to the USWNT who moves onto the knockout round.

BC

[ColoradoTree]

So, uh, ok the 13th goal did wind up being superfluous, as the US gets its revenge on Sweden to make goal differential irrelevant.  Congrats to the USWNT who moves onto the knockout round.

BC

Only needing a draw to win the group (because of better goal differential) was useful, though. It allowed us to ease up just a bit in the second half, knowing we could concede two goals and still win the group. But yes, the 13th goal stopped mattering as soon as Sweden only managed 5 against Thailand in the second game. You can't know that in advance, of course. 

It looks like Sweden made some lineup changes against us, suggesting the coach was somewhat content to finish in second place and thus avoid playing France. I'm not sure that playing #5 Canada and then #2 Germany is any more desirable than playing #13 Spain and then #4 France, even with the match being played in France, but that's what some were suggesting we do to avoid France. Sweden kept coming forward, of course, so even if the Swedish coaches wanted to avoid France until the final, the players on the field didn't get that memo.

Spain is a good, technically sound team, but they've had trouble finishing and converting possession into goals. This one feels like a 2-0 U.S. win where we have the bulk of possession, but where Spain stays sufficiently organized that we struggle to convert our possession into more goals. (We beat them 1-0 in Spain back in a January friendly.) But our defense will be tested more than they have been so far, and even Sweden wasn't as good technically in the midfield as Spain is. 

In the leadup to the World Cup, Spain has lost a couple of close matches to good teams (1-0 to us, 2-1 to #3 England), tied a couple of other excellent teams (0-0 vs. #5 Canada, 1-1 vs. #7 Japan), and beaten some good teams (2-0 vs. #8 the Netherlands, 2-1 over #10 Brazil). On the outlier ends of the spectrum, they beat #46 Cameroon 4-0 and lost 0-3 to #28 Poland. Bottom line: we'll have to work very hard to break them down. This is the kind of match where we'll benefit greatly from Jill Ellis's tactical shift after the 2016 Olympics to emphasize technical skill and ball movement in midfield rather than the brute force approach we sometimes used to have out there. Having Rose Lavelle directing traffic rather than Carli Lloyd means a much more efficient and dangerous attack overall. (This isn't a diss to Lloyd, either. She's just more of a natural goalscorer and center forward, and she was being asked to be a center/attacking midfielder. She's a power forward, not a point guard, and Lavelle is as good a point guard as there is right now.)

[ColoradoTree]

So, uh, ok the 13th goal did wind up being superfluous, as the US gets its revenge on Sweden to make goal differential irrelevant.  Congrats to the USWNT who moves onto the knockout round.

BC

Only needing a draw to win the group (because of better goal differential) was useful, though. It allowed us to ease up just a bit in the second half, knowing we could concede two goals and still win the group. But yes, the 13th goal stopped mattering as soon as Sweden only managed 5 against Thailand in the second game. You can't know that in advance, of course. 

It looks like Sweden made some lineup changes against us, suggesting the coach was somewhat content to finish in second place and thus avoid playing France. I'm not sure that playing #5 Canada and then #2 Germany is any more desirable than playing #13 Spain and then #4 France, even with the match being played in France, but that's what some were suggesting we do to avoid France. Sweden kept coming forward, of course, so even if the Swedish coaches wanted to avoid France until the final, the players on the field didn't get that memo.

Spain is a good, technically sound team, but they've had trouble finishing and converting possession into goals. This one feels like a 2-0 U.S. win where we have the bulk of possession, but where Spain stays sufficiently organized that we struggle to convert our possession into more goals. (We beat them 1-0 in Spain back in a January friendly.) But our defense will be tested more than they have been so far, and even Sweden wasn't as good technically in the midfield as Spain is. 

In the leadup to the World Cup, Spain has lost a couple of close matches to good teams (1-0 to us, 2-1 to #3 England), tied a couple of other excellent teams (0-0 vs. #5 Canada, 1-1 vs. #7 Japan), and beaten some good teams (2-0 vs. #8 the Netherlands, 2-1 over #10 Brazil). On the outlier ends of the spectrum, they beat #46 Cameroon 4-0 and lost 0-3 to #28 Poland. Bottom line: we'll have to work very hard to break them down. This is the kind of match where we'll benefit greatly from Jill Ellis's tactical shift after the 2016 Olympics to emphasize technical skill and ball movement in midfield rather than the brute force approach we sometimes used to have out there. Having Rose Lavelle directing traffic rather than Carli Lloyd means a much more efficient and dangerous attack overall. (This isn't a diss to Lloyd, either. She's just more of a natural goalscorer and center forward, and she was being asked to be a center/attacking midfielder. She's a power forward, not a point guard, and Lavelle is as good a point guard as there is right now.)

[BostonCard]

the 13th goal stopped mattering as soon as Chile only managed 5 against Thailand in the second game

"Chile" was supposed to have been "Sweden" right?

BC

[BostonCard]

the 13th goal stopped mattering as soon as Chile only managed 5 against Thailand in the second game

"Chile" was supposed to have been "Sweden" right?

BC

[BostonCard]

I was wondering why Macario didnt get a shot at the team.  Found the answer here...

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article...o-stanford

While currently working with an immigration lawyer to obtain U.S. citizenship, Macario, 19, would even then not be eligible to play for the U.S. in international competition until she turns 23, barring a successful appeal of FIFA's residency requirement for naturalized citizens.

BC

[BostonCard]

I was wondering why Macario didnt get a shot at the team.  Found the answer here...

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article...o-stanford

While currently working with an immigration lawyer to obtain U.S. citizenship, Macario, 19, would even then not be eligible to play for the U.S. in international competition until she turns 23, barring a successful appeal of FIFA's residency requirement for naturalized citizens.

BC

[ColoradoTree]

the 13th goal stopped mattering as soon as Chile only managed 5 against Thailand in the second game

"Chile" was supposed to have been "Sweden" right?

BC

Indeed--fixed!

[ColoradoTree]

the 13th goal stopped mattering as soon as Chile only managed 5 against Thailand in the second game

"Chile" was supposed to have been "Sweden" right?

BC

Indeed--fixed!

[BostonCard]

At halftime, we are currently in a 1-1 draw against Spain.  Sure hope we didn't use our entire allocation of goals for the tournament against Thailand.

BC

[BostonCard]

At halftime, we are currently in a 1-1 draw against Spain.  Sure hope we didn't use our entire allocation of goals for the tournament against Thailand.

BC

[BostonCard]

2-1 US on a penalty kick at the 76th minute; her second PK goal of the game.

BC

---

2-1 US on a penalty kick at the 76th minute; her second PK goal of the game.

BC

2 - 1 final.

BC

[BostonCard]

2-1 US on a penalty kick at the 76th minute; her second PK goal of the game.

BC

---

2-1 US on a penalty kick at the 76th minute; her second PK goal of the game.

BC

2 - 1 final.

BC

[ColoradoTree]

The second penalty was a bit soft, to be sure, but it was still a foul--cleats on Lavelle's calf. I don't think it affected Lavelle much, and I wouldn't have been outraged had it gone uncalled, but when you make high challenges like that, you're running the risk that you make studs-up contact and force the referee's hand. 

O'Hara played very well, I thought. Not a lot of action, as Spain preferred to attack down their right side (which looked like the correct call, as Dunn was inconsistent), and on attack, the ball kept getting funneled to our left flank, where Rapinoe lost the ball far too much, but when Spain's attack came Kelley's way, she snuffed it out. (And she put one on a tee for Ertz, too, but Ertz sent it well over the bar.) To round out the Stanford report, Press came on with just a few minutes to go and didn't get a chance to do much, while Davidson stayed on the bench (after Dunn kept getting beaten, I wondered whether we might see Davidson come in and shore things up, especially after the US went up 2-1, but it was not to be). 

After a brutal decision by Naeher led to the Spanish goal, I thought Naeher settled down nicely. Oddly enough, she seems better at the difficult stuff (clearing the ball on corners and dangerous crosses) than the easy stuff (deciding where to distribute the ball). But Rapinoe wasn't sharp (the fact that she converted both penalties shouldn't cloud the fact that she was very much off her game today), and neither was Dunn in defense on that left side. Morgan had a rough game, though I put much of that to how cynically Spain played. So many fouls that went uncalled, including some that really should have been yellows. Morgan was on the ground for much of that game. It sure seemed like Spain made a conscious effort to deny Heath as much possession as possible, seemingly leaving the left side a bit more open. Smart of them, if true, especially after it was Heath who earned the first penalty (which was less controversial than the second). Lavelle was great. Mewis played well, but we'll see Horan back in the lineup for the next match, I would think. (Horan has a yellow, so I'm guessing the thought was they didn't want to risk Horan picking up another yellow and being suspended for the France match.)

They'll have to be better on Friday against France, but I think they will be. I'm glad they got tested, and I'm glad Naeher got into the rhythm of the match after that early miscue. Survive and advance!

[ColoradoTree]

The second penalty was a bit soft, to be sure, but it was still a foul--cleats on Lavelle's calf. I don't think it affected Lavelle much, and I wouldn't have been outraged had it gone uncalled, but when you make high challenges like that, you're running the risk that you make studs-up contact and force the referee's hand. 

O'Hara played very well, I thought. Not a lot of action, as Spain preferred to attack down their right side (which looked like the correct call, as Dunn was inconsistent), and on attack, the ball kept getting funneled to our left flank, where Rapinoe lost the ball far too much, but when Spain's attack came Kelley's way, she snuffed it out. (And she put one on a tee for Ertz, too, but Ertz sent it well over the bar.) To round out the Stanford report, Press came on with just a few minutes to go and didn't get a chance to do much, while Davidson stayed on the bench (after Dunn kept getting beaten, I wondered whether we might see Davidson come in and shore things up, especially after the US went up 2-1, but it was not to be). 

After a brutal decision by Naeher led to the Spanish goal, I thought Naeher settled down nicely. Oddly enough, she seems better at the difficult stuff (clearing the ball on corners and dangerous crosses) than the easy stuff (deciding where to distribute the ball). But Rapinoe wasn't sharp (the fact that she converted both penalties shouldn't cloud the fact that she was very much off her game today), and neither was Dunn in defense on that left side. Morgan had a rough game, though I put much of that to how cynically Spain played. So many fouls that went uncalled, including some that really should have been yellows. Morgan was on the ground for much of that game. It sure seemed like Spain made a conscious effort to deny Heath as much possession as possible, seemingly leaving the left side a bit more open. Smart of them, if true, especially after it was Heath who earned the first penalty (which was less controversial than the second). Lavelle was great. Mewis played well, but we'll see Horan back in the lineup for the next match, I would think. (Horan has a yellow, so I'm guessing the thought was they didn't want to risk Horan picking up another yellow and being suspended for the France match.)

They'll have to be better on Friday against France, but I think they will be. I'm glad they got tested, and I'm glad Naeher got into the rhythm of the match after that early miscue. Survive and advance!