[ColoradoTree]

The Olympic roster is out, and it's heavy on experience and light on new players. (That's to be expected with the smaller 18-player rosters compared to the normal 23-player rosters.)

Goalkeepers (2): Alyssa Naeher, Adrianna Franch
Defenders (6): Kelley O'Hara, Abby Dahlkemper, Becky Sauerbrunn, Crystal Dunn, Tierna Davidson, Emily Sonnett
Midfielders (5): Julie Ertz, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Sam Mewis, Kristie Mewis
Forwards (5): Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Christen Press, Tobin Heath

Alternates (4): Jane Campbell (GK), Casey Krueger (DF), Catarina Macario (MF), Lynn Williams (F)

The alternates travel and train with the squad but aren't Olympians, which stinks. (Unless they replace someone on the roster, of course.) 

Quick reaction: this is basically the expected roster, assuming Heath and Ertz are healthy and ready to go, and all reports say they're either healthy now or will be match-fit by the time they'll head to Japan. Heath was basically healthy the last camp but was left off the matchday rosters so as not to rush her back, but Ertz was a bit behind her. She's effectively irreplaceable in that defensive mid position, though, so if she's healthy, we're bringing her. If Ertz can't go in Japan, then we'd either see Sonnett slide up to play the 6 with Krueger (nee Short) joining the roster, or we'd see Horan slide back and Macario joining the roster.  

Davidson and Sonnett both have the flexibility to play center back or outside back, so that's crucial for such a small roster, and Sonnett did well in limited time at the 6, too. Krueger being an alternate seems basically like injury insurance for O'Hara, as she's an outside back only. Krueger being there and Midge Purce not being there, even as an alternate, is something of a shock, but it's also safe--she's a pure defender, and she's only playing if one of your other defenders is injured. Purce is the more exciting option due to her attacking capabilities, but she's still a converted forward like O'Hara and Dunn, so I see the logic in bringing a more experienced defender as a backup. And speaking of O'Hara and Dunn, their own positional flexibility (being able to play as wingers, too, in case calamity strikes during a game) makes their inclusion even more obvious. 

Kristie Mewis making the team shouldn't be a surprise to anyone watching the USWNT the last several months--she basically just made it impossible to leave her off. So good on the ball, distributing well, and finishing her chances. Nice to see her back in the mix after she was frozen out several years ago under Jill Ellis. Given her age, this is likely her only major international tournament, but she's ready and experienced now, and Macario could use just a little bit more seasoning at the top level before you bring her along in a smaller roster. (If this were a 23-player roster, Macario would obviously be there, and she might even get more minutes than Kristie Mewis, but with limited numbers, who's ready now to change the game in 20 minutes? Mewis over Macario right now is a fair choice, even if it'll be Macario in the mix moving forward.)

The forward group definitely has a "one last time" feel to it. Very experienced, with no younger players to be worked into the mix. That said, Lloyd and Rapinoe are still producing on the field, so I don't see how you leave them off. Lloyd shouldn't be starting, but as a super-sub for the last 20 minutes when we need a goal? Sure, that works. 

Even the alternates are safe options, which I suppose shouldn't be surprising for a head coach at his first major international tournament. Williams is a proven NWSL scorer, Krueger is 30, and Campbell has long been in the GK mix. Macario is the only player whose inclusion checks the "developmental" box as well as the "can do the job when called upon" box. 

So, ultimately just three Cardinal players (O'Hara, Press, and Davidson), with two more (Campbell and Macario) as alternates.

[ColoradoTree]

The Olympic roster is out, and it's heavy on experience and light on new players. (That's to be expected with the smaller 18-player rosters compared to the normal 23-player rosters.)

Goalkeepers (2): Alyssa Naeher, Adrianna Franch
Defenders (6): Kelley O'Hara, Abby Dahlkemper, Becky Sauerbrunn, Crystal Dunn, Tierna Davidson, Emily Sonnett
Midfielders (5): Julie Ertz, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Sam Mewis, Kristie Mewis
Forwards (5): Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Christen Press, Tobin Heath

Alternates (4): Jane Campbell (GK), Casey Krueger (DF), Catarina Macario (MF), Lynn Williams (F)

The alternates travel and train with the squad but aren't Olympians, which stinks. (Unless they replace someone on the roster, of course.) 

Quick reaction: this is basically the expected roster, assuming Heath and Ertz are healthy and ready to go, and all reports say they're either healthy now or will be match-fit by the time they'll head to Japan. Heath was basically healthy the last camp but was left off the matchday rosters so as not to rush her back, but Ertz was a bit behind her. She's effectively irreplaceable in that defensive mid position, though, so if she's healthy, we're bringing her. If Ertz can't go in Japan, then we'd either see Sonnett slide up to play the 6 with Krueger (nee Short) joining the roster, or we'd see Horan slide back and Macario joining the roster.  

Davidson and Sonnett both have the flexibility to play center back or outside back, so that's crucial for such a small roster, and Sonnett did well in limited time at the 6, too. Krueger being an alternate seems basically like injury insurance for O'Hara, as she's an outside back only. Krueger being there and Midge Purce not being there, even as an alternate, is something of a shock, but it's also safe--she's a pure defender, and she's only playing if one of your other defenders is injured. Purce is the more exciting option due to her attacking capabilities, but she's still a converted forward like O'Hara and Dunn, so I see the logic in bringing a more experienced defender as a backup. And speaking of O'Hara and Dunn, their own positional flexibility (being able to play as wingers, too, in case calamity strikes during a game) makes their inclusion even more obvious. 

Kristie Mewis making the team shouldn't be a surprise to anyone watching the USWNT the last several months--she basically just made it impossible to leave her off. So good on the ball, distributing well, and finishing her chances. Nice to see her back in the mix after she was frozen out several years ago under Jill Ellis. Given her age, this is likely her only major international tournament, but she's ready and experienced now, and Macario could use just a little bit more seasoning at the top level before you bring her along in a smaller roster. (If this were a 23-player roster, Macario would obviously be there, and she might even get more minutes than Kristie Mewis, but with limited numbers, who's ready now to change the game in 20 minutes? Mewis over Macario right now is a fair choice, even if it'll be Macario in the mix moving forward.)

The forward group definitely has a "one last time" feel to it. Very experienced, with no younger players to be worked into the mix. That said, Lloyd and Rapinoe are still producing on the field, so I don't see how you leave them off. Lloyd shouldn't be starting, but as a super-sub for the last 20 minutes when we need a goal? Sure, that works. 

Even the alternates are safe options, which I suppose shouldn't be surprising for a head coach at his first major international tournament. Williams is a proven NWSL scorer, Krueger is 30, and Campbell has long been in the GK mix. Macario is the only player whose inclusion checks the "developmental" box as well as the "can do the job when called upon" box. 

So, ultimately just three Cardinal players (O'Hara, Press, and Davidson), with two more (Campbell and Macario) as alternates.

[ColoradoTree]

Personally, I would've liked some more developmental players on this team. The roster is undeniably old (especially the forward group), and with Heath's minutes to be limited early, we're asking a lot of that group on a shorter turnaround than we'd get in the World Cup. And the fourth team in our group is #22 New Zealand, which doesn't give us the same sort of break that the top teams in the other two groups will have (#37 Chile and #104 Zambia). But at the same time, you haven't seen the sort of dips in performance from Lloyd or Rapinoe that would justify leaving them off in favor of Williams or Smith. Nor have Williams or Smith had the kind of performances that demand inclusion. 

Here's the group schedule:

July 21 vs. Sweden
July 24 vs. New Zealand
July 27 vs. Australia

Then the quarterfinals are July 30 (if we finish top of group, the likely opponent is Japan), the semis August 2 (likely against Great Britain), and the Bronze/Gold matches on August 5/6 (probably against either the Netherlands or Brazil). 

Our group is plainly the hardest, and it wouldn't be a major tournament without Sweden dogging our heels. But there's not a lot of opportunity for rest, but at the same time, you have to get three points out of that New Zealand match, so you can't take your foot off the gas there, either. Ideally, you score a couple of early goals against New Zealand and you do some halftime substitutions to hold onto those three points while giving your starting forwards (which I'm assuming will be Morgan, Press, and Rapinoe) a break, unless you start Lloyd that game for more planned rest.

[ColoradoTree]

Personally, I would've liked some more developmental players on this team. The roster is undeniably old (especially the forward group), and with Heath's minutes to be limited early, we're asking a lot of that group on a shorter turnaround than we'd get in the World Cup. And the fourth team in our group is #22 New Zealand, which doesn't give us the same sort of break that the top teams in the other two groups will have (#37 Chile and #104 Zambia). But at the same time, you haven't seen the sort of dips in performance from Lloyd or Rapinoe that would justify leaving them off in favor of Williams or Smith. Nor have Williams or Smith had the kind of performances that demand inclusion. 

Here's the group schedule:

July 21 vs. Sweden
July 24 vs. New Zealand
July 27 vs. Australia

Then the quarterfinals are July 30 (if we finish top of group, the likely opponent is Japan), the semis August 2 (likely against Great Britain), and the Bronze/Gold matches on August 5/6 (probably against either the Netherlands or Brazil). 

Our group is plainly the hardest, and it wouldn't be a major tournament without Sweden dogging our heels. But there's not a lot of opportunity for rest, but at the same time, you have to get three points out of that New Zealand match, so you can't take your foot off the gas there, either. Ideally, you score a couple of early goals against New Zealand and you do some halftime substitutions to hold onto those three points while giving your starting forwards (which I'm assuming will be Morgan, Press, and Rapinoe) a break, unless you start Lloyd that game for more planned rest.

[DC 86]

Average age of the roster: 30.8

[DC 86]

Average age of the roster: 30.8

[ColoradoTree]

Average age of the roster: 30.8

Even the relatively inexperienced (internationally speaking) backups are old! Franch is 30. Kristie Mewis is 30. Casey Krueger is 30. Lynn Williams is 28. 

But yeah, you have to think this is probably the last major tournament for Lloyd (39 as of the Olympics) at a minimum, and the clock is ticking loudly for Sauerbrunn (36) and Rapinoe (36), too. In two years at the 2023 World Cup, Lloyd will be 41, Sauerbrunn and Rapinoe will be 38, Heath and Naeher will be 35, O'Hara will turn 35 during that tournament, Press and Morgan will be 34, etc. Maybe Sauerbrunn is still there, but it's hard to imagine that Rapinoe will be. 

Some of those forwards will still be on the 2023 roster, sure, but so will an infusion of younger talent like Macario and Smith.

[ColoradoTree]

Average age of the roster: 30.8

Even the relatively inexperienced (internationally speaking) backups are old! Franch is 30. Kristie Mewis is 30. Casey Krueger is 30. Lynn Williams is 28. 

But yeah, you have to think this is probably the last major tournament for Lloyd (39 as of the Olympics) at a minimum, and the clock is ticking loudly for Sauerbrunn (36) and Rapinoe (36), too. In two years at the 2023 World Cup, Lloyd will be 41, Sauerbrunn and Rapinoe will be 38, Heath and Naeher will be 35, O'Hara will turn 35 during that tournament, Press and Morgan will be 34, etc. Maybe Sauerbrunn is still there, but it's hard to imagine that Rapinoe will be. 

Some of those forwards will still be on the 2023 roster, sure, but so will an infusion of younger talent like Macario and Smith.

[ColoradoTree]

You may see "unattached" next to Christen Press and Tobin Heath and wonder why that is--the short answer is they were playing for Manchester United, but that season has ended, and with it, their one-year deals. 

With the Olympics coming up and being committed to the USWNT for now, there's no real need to have a club contract in place for the time being. One big reason why they might not want that is that new NWSL team Racing Louisville selected both players' NWSL rights several months ago in the expansion draft. Neither Heath nor Press seems overly keen on playing for Louisville (it's something of an open secret that Heath and Press are a couple, though they've never publicly confirmed it, as far as I know; they live in Portland in the NWSL offseason, and Heath has played for the Portland Thorns since the NWSL started, while Press has bounced around and not been shy about saying that she doesn't want to play for particular teams). They'll play when they want to, and for whatever team they want to. Louisville knew drafting their rights was a big risk when they did it, but they have the rights, so there will have to be a deal worked out if Press and Heath are to play this fall.

[ColoradoTree]

You may see "unattached" next to Christen Press and Tobin Heath and wonder why that is--the short answer is they were playing for Manchester United, but that season has ended, and with it, their one-year deals. 

With the Olympics coming up and being committed to the USWNT for now, there's no real need to have a club contract in place for the time being. One big reason why they might not want that is that new NWSL team Racing Louisville selected both players' NWSL rights several months ago in the expansion draft. Neither Heath nor Press seems overly keen on playing for Louisville (it's something of an open secret that Heath and Press are a couple, though they've never publicly confirmed it, as far as I know; they live in Portland in the NWSL offseason, and Heath has played for the Portland Thorns since the NWSL started, while Press has bounced around and not been shy about saying that she doesn't want to play for particular teams). They'll play when they want to, and for whatever team they want to. Louisville knew drafting their rights was a big risk when they did it, but they have the rights, so there will have to be a deal worked out if Press and Heath are to play this fall.

[BostonCard]

Would they be willing to go to LA in the next expansion draft?

BC

[BostonCard]

Would they be willing to go to LA in the next expansion draft?

BC

[ColoradoTree]

Would they be willing to go to LA in the next expansion draft?

BC

I think they'd love to go to LA in the next expansion draft, but Louisville would have to leave those rights unprotected, and then San Diego would have to pass on one of them for both to end up in LA. Seems more likely that they engineer a trade to the same team this fall, or failing that, to LA after the expansion draft.

[ColoradoTree]

Would they be willing to go to LA in the next expansion draft?

BC

I think they'd love to go to LA in the next expansion draft, but Louisville would have to leave those rights unprotected, and then San Diego would have to pass on one of them for both to end up in LA. Seems more likely that they engineer a trade to the same team this fall, or failing that, to LA after the expansion draft.

[BostonCard]

LA and San Diego are close enough that they could take that.  And if they refuse to play for Louisville, I wonder if Louiville will just leave them unprotected.

BC

[BostonCard]

LA and San Diego are close enough that they could take that.  And if they refuse to play for Louisville, I wonder if Louiville will just leave them unprotected.

BC

[ColoradoTree]

It looks like for this year and this year only, the rosters will now be 22 rather than 18. The details haven't been finalized yet, but for now, it looks like the 4 alternates for each team are now considered part of the full squad, though only 18 are available for any given match. That said, I also saw some confusing language from FIFA that suggested they were simply making alternates available for gameday selection:

“The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has made official a more flexible approach towards the participation of the alternate athletes in the Olympic Football Tournaments Tokyo 2020. As a result, the Participating Member Associations will be entitled to reconstitute their teams ahead of every match,” FIFA said in a statement to The Associated Press.

“The number of athletes on the start list will therefore remain at 18, but teams will now have the total of 22 players (18 Athletes + 4 Alternate Athletes) to select their team from for every match. The IOC has also remarked that this is an exception for the Tokyo 2020 Games and does not create a precedent for future Olympic Games,” the statement said.

That might mean they're not part of the full roster, in which case a player might not be considered an Olympian (or get a medal with the team) unless they actually get on the field, sort of like how swimmers in the relay prelims get the medals their teammates earn in the final. 

This is useful, and with such a compressed schedule, I would now fully expect to see Macario on the field in Tokyo, most likely in that second group game against New Zealand. Campbell still won't see the field in case of injury, but Williams will get used to give our aging forward corps some rest. The expansion makes Krueger's inclusion stand out all the more, since it was Margaret Purce getting time at outside back to spell O'Hara and Dunn, not Krueger. As a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency option, Krueger makes sense for if either Dunn or O'Hara is severely injured and you need a reliable defensive backup for whoever starts in their place (likely Sonnett). But with a larger roster and more flexibility, I would think Purce is the obvious choice. Think it's too late to make any changes, though, so Krueger will probably make the roster for that second group to give O'Hara's legs some rest. Of course, the second game is when we'd see old friends and teammates O'Hara and Ali Riley go head to head, and that would be popcorn-worthy. 

[ColoradoTree]

It looks like for this year and this year only, the rosters will now be 22 rather than 18. The details haven't been finalized yet, but for now, it looks like the 4 alternates for each team are now considered part of the full squad, though only 18 are available for any given match. That said, I also saw some confusing language from FIFA that suggested they were simply making alternates available for gameday selection:

“The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has made official a more flexible approach towards the participation of the alternate athletes in the Olympic Football Tournaments Tokyo 2020. As a result, the Participating Member Associations will be entitled to reconstitute their teams ahead of every match,” FIFA said in a statement to The Associated Press.

“The number of athletes on the start list will therefore remain at 18, but teams will now have the total of 22 players (18 Athletes + 4 Alternate Athletes) to select their team from for every match. The IOC has also remarked that this is an exception for the Tokyo 2020 Games and does not create a precedent for future Olympic Games,” the statement said.

That might mean they're not part of the full roster, in which case a player might not be considered an Olympian (or get a medal with the team) unless they actually get on the field, sort of like how swimmers in the relay prelims get the medals their teammates earn in the final. 

This is useful, and with such a compressed schedule, I would now fully expect to see Macario on the field in Tokyo, most likely in that second group game against New Zealand. Campbell still won't see the field in case of injury, but Williams will get used to give our aging forward corps some rest. The expansion makes Krueger's inclusion stand out all the more, since it was Margaret Purce getting time at outside back to spell O'Hara and Dunn, not Krueger. As a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency option, Krueger makes sense for if either Dunn or O'Hara is severely injured and you need a reliable defensive backup for whoever starts in their place (likely Sonnett). But with a larger roster and more flexibility, I would think Purce is the obvious choice. Think it's too late to make any changes, though, so Krueger will probably make the roster for that second group to give O'Hara's legs some rest. Of course, the second game is when we'd see old friends and teammates O'Hara and Ali Riley go head to head, and that would be popcorn-worthy. 

[M T]

There are 3 reasons why the best swimmers aren't on the relays for prelims:
  1) The best swimmers are more rested/prepared for the finals if they don't swim the prelims.
  2) More swimmers get to earn higher spots (often medals for the USA) by swimming relays in the morning.
  3) Sometimes, multiple swimmers may be competing for the 4th spot on the relays in the finals.  Whoever is best in the prelims may be chosen to swim the relay in the finals.
Actually, I guess there's a fourth
  4) The best swimmers may have other swims near the time of the prelims.

I presume for some of the soccer matches, the US are overwhelming favorites.  I'd think all the older team members would be rested in those games, to avoid an injury and just to keep them fresher.  Wouldn't the coach try to get all the alternates into one game each?

I would have thought for a team sport, team members would get medals even if they never entered a game.  But, I can see not giving a medal for an alternate if they never were on a game's roster.

As I've said on the WWP thread, the Olympics has an 11-member roster for any WP game, but the team has 2 alternates that I expect they'll rotate into the roster for at least one game.  (WP has 7 athletes in the pool (6 field + goalie), so that leaves only 4 on the bench for any game. If one of those were a goalie, that only leaves 3 field players on the bench.  Players foul out from WP (for 3 major fouls) about as often as basketball players foul out.  I could see a physical game might leave a team playing short-handed.  If I were an opponent of the US, I'd be planning on doing just that.)

(I'm not assuming that the USA will get a medal, but am hoping they will.)

[M T]

There are 3 reasons why the best swimmers aren't on the relays for prelims:
  1) The best swimmers are more rested/prepared for the finals if they don't swim the prelims.
  2) More swimmers get to earn higher spots (often medals for the USA) by swimming relays in the morning.
  3) Sometimes, multiple swimmers may be competing for the 4th spot on the relays in the finals.  Whoever is best in the prelims may be chosen to swim the relay in the finals.
Actually, I guess there's a fourth
  4) The best swimmers may have other swims near the time of the prelims.

I presume for some of the soccer matches, the US are overwhelming favorites.  I'd think all the older team members would be rested in those games, to avoid an injury and just to keep them fresher.  Wouldn't the coach try to get all the alternates into one game each?

I would have thought for a team sport, team members would get medals even if they never entered a game.  But, I can see not giving a medal for an alternate if they never were on a game's roster.

As I've said on the WWP thread, the Olympics has an 11-member roster for any WP game, but the team has 2 alternates that I expect they'll rotate into the roster for at least one game.  (WP has 7 athletes in the pool (6 field + goalie), so that leaves only 4 on the bench for any game. If one of those were a goalie, that only leaves 3 field players on the bench.  Players foul out from WP (for 3 major fouls) about as often as basketball players foul out.  I could see a physical game might leave a team playing short-handed.  If I were an opponent of the US, I'd be planning on doing just that.)

(I'm not assuming that the USA will get a medal, but am hoping they will.)

[ColoradoTree]

I presume for some of the soccer matches, the US are overwhelming favorites.  I'd think all the older team members would be rested in those games, to avoid an injury and just to keep them fresher.  Wouldn't the coach try to get all the alternates into one game each?

I would have thought for a team sport, team members would get medals even if they never entered a game.  But, I can see not giving a medal for an alternate if they never were on a game's roster.

As I've said on the WWP thread, the Olympics has an 11-member roster for any WP game, but the team has 2 alternates that I expect they'll rotate into the roster for at least one game.  (WP has 7 athletes in the pool (6 field + goalie), so that leaves only 4 on the bench for any game. If one of those were a goalie, that only leaves 3 field players on the bench.  Players foul out from WP (for 3 major fouls) about as often as basketball players foul out.  I could see a physical game might leave a team playing short-handed.  If I were an opponent of the US, I'd be planning on doing just that.)

(I'm not assuming that the USA will get a medal, but am hoping they will.)

I think the difficulty with a low-scoring sport like soccer is that the better team often controls play but the scoreline doesn't fully reflect that dominance. So, the risk of not having your best options available for any particular match is pretty high. With just three group games and then the knockout round, deciding which game you take your foot off the gas is a tough one. The US is the favorite, but you rarely see thrashings in soccer, and getting full points from each match will be crucial. Anyway, here's the schedule:

7/21: #1 USA vs. #5 Sweden
7/24: #1 USA vs. #22 New Zealand
7/27: #1 USA vs. #9 Australia

Then, if we win the group, this is how the knockout stage likely sets up if we win out:

7/30: Quarterfinal vs. #10 Japan
8/2: Semifinal vs. Great Britain (basically #6 England)
8/6: Gold Medal vs. winner of #4 Netherlands vs. #7 Brazil

(Because UEFA used how far teams reached at the last World Cup as Olympic qualification, an unlucky draw there was really damaging here, and #2 Germany and #3 France are thus not in the Olympic tournament.)

Anyway, if we beat Sweden, that gives us an opportunity to rest a couple starters against New Zealand. Anyone with even a slightly tweaked hamstring sits that one out. But that's unlikely to include a goalkeeper, so Campbell stays an alternate while Macario/Krueger/Williams each dress for that match. If we win that match and advancement looks pretty safe, then we can rest a couple other players for the Australia match. But it all hinges on taking all three points from the Sweden match. If we don't, then you need two wins from the other two matches to feel safe, so you can't engage in strategic rest at that point. And in such a short tournament, if I'm the coach, the only goalkeeper who sees the field is my starter. Absent injury, you won't even see Franch, let alone Campbell. So, I don't think Vlatko will try and work in each of the alternates--he'll try and put the best 18 together for each match and then swap out for rest as necessary. 

And for team sports, yeah, everyone on the roster gets a medal even if they don't appear in a game. But alternates don't usually get medals, and what hasn't been made clear is whether the four alternates are considered to now be "on the roster" or just available to be added for a particular game with fewer complications. For practical and team management purposes, they're on the roster, and it seems like most of the press accounts of the change have focused on that. But given how important the title Olympian is and how important an Olympic medal is, I'm curious if all 22 get that title as of this moment. Do they get the official Olympic Team USA swag? Do they get to march in the Opening Ceremonies? Do they get to stay at the Olympic Village? (Alternates don't, except in very rare cases.) Being an Olympic alternate is a heartbreaking thing for many--so close, yet so far.

We drew the best "worst" team--New Zealand is organized and defends very well, relying on counterattacks rather than a possession-based style. They lose a lot of one-goal games that way, but they rarely get blown out. (No team has scored more than 2 goals against them in the past three World Cups, and the eventual runner-up Netherlands eked out a 1-0 win over them in 2019; we beat them just 2-0 at the Rio Olympics)  If we'd drawn Zambia, then sure, get all the alternates on the field in that game. But you can't take New Zealand too lightly or you'll be going home with a scoreless draw.

[ColoradoTree]

I presume for some of the soccer matches, the US are overwhelming favorites.  I'd think all the older team members would be rested in those games, to avoid an injury and just to keep them fresher.  Wouldn't the coach try to get all the alternates into one game each?

I would have thought for a team sport, team members would get medals even if they never entered a game.  But, I can see not giving a medal for an alternate if they never were on a game's roster.

As I've said on the WWP thread, the Olympics has an 11-member roster for any WP game, but the team has 2 alternates that I expect they'll rotate into the roster for at least one game.  (WP has 7 athletes in the pool (6 field + goalie), so that leaves only 4 on the bench for any game. If one of those were a goalie, that only leaves 3 field players on the bench.  Players foul out from WP (for 3 major fouls) about as often as basketball players foul out.  I could see a physical game might leave a team playing short-handed.  If I were an opponent of the US, I'd be planning on doing just that.)

(I'm not assuming that the USA will get a medal, but am hoping they will.)

I think the difficulty with a low-scoring sport like soccer is that the better team often controls play but the scoreline doesn't fully reflect that dominance. So, the risk of not having your best options available for any particular match is pretty high. With just three group games and then the knockout round, deciding which game you take your foot off the gas is a tough one. The US is the favorite, but you rarely see thrashings in soccer, and getting full points from each match will be crucial. Anyway, here's the schedule:

7/21: #1 USA vs. #5 Sweden
7/24: #1 USA vs. #22 New Zealand
7/27: #1 USA vs. #9 Australia

Then, if we win the group, this is how the knockout stage likely sets up if we win out:

7/30: Quarterfinal vs. #10 Japan
8/2: Semifinal vs. Great Britain (basically #6 England)
8/6: Gold Medal vs. winner of #4 Netherlands vs. #7 Brazil

(Because UEFA used how far teams reached at the last World Cup as Olympic qualification, an unlucky draw there was really damaging here, and #2 Germany and #3 France are thus not in the Olympic tournament.)

Anyway, if we beat Sweden, that gives us an opportunity to rest a couple starters against New Zealand. Anyone with even a slightly tweaked hamstring sits that one out. But that's unlikely to include a goalkeeper, so Campbell stays an alternate while Macario/Krueger/Williams each dress for that match. If we win that match and advancement looks pretty safe, then we can rest a couple other players for the Australia match. But it all hinges on taking all three points from the Sweden match. If we don't, then you need two wins from the other two matches to feel safe, so you can't engage in strategic rest at that point. And in such a short tournament, if I'm the coach, the only goalkeeper who sees the field is my starter. Absent injury, you won't even see Franch, let alone Campbell. So, I don't think Vlatko will try and work in each of the alternates--he'll try and put the best 18 together for each match and then swap out for rest as necessary. 

And for team sports, yeah, everyone on the roster gets a medal even if they don't appear in a game. But alternates don't usually get medals, and what hasn't been made clear is whether the four alternates are considered to now be "on the roster" or just available to be added for a particular game with fewer complications. For practical and team management purposes, they're on the roster, and it seems like most of the press accounts of the change have focused on that. But given how important the title Olympian is and how important an Olympic medal is, I'm curious if all 22 get that title as of this moment. Do they get the official Olympic Team USA swag? Do they get to march in the Opening Ceremonies? Do they get to stay at the Olympic Village? (Alternates don't, except in very rare cases.) Being an Olympic alternate is a heartbreaking thing for many--so close, yet so far.

We drew the best "worst" team--New Zealand is organized and defends very well, relying on counterattacks rather than a possession-based style. They lose a lot of one-goal games that way, but they rarely get blown out. (No team has scored more than 2 goals against them in the past three World Cups, and the eventual runner-up Netherlands eked out a 1-0 win over them in 2019; we beat them just 2-0 at the Rio Olympics)  If we'd drawn Zambia, then sure, get all the alternates on the field in that game. But you can't take New Zealand too lightly or you'll be going home with a scoreless draw.

[teejers1]

The Olympic roster is out, and it's heavy on experience and light on new players. (That's to be expected with the smaller 18-player rosters compared to the normal 23-player rosters.)

Goalkeepers (2): Alyssa Naeher, Adrianna Franch
Defenders (6): Kelley O'Hara, Abby Dahlkemper, Becky Sauerbrunn, Crystal Dunn, Tierna Davidson, Emily Sonnett
Midfielders (5): Julie Ertz, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Sam Mewis, Kristie Mewis
Forwards (5): Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Christen Press, Tobin Heath

Alternates (4): Jane Campbell (GK), Casey Krueger (DF), Catarina Macario (MF), Lynn Williams (F)

The alternates travel and train with the squad but aren't Olympians, which stinks. (Unless they replace someone on the roster, of course.) 

So, ultimately just three Cardinal players (O'Hara, Press, and Davidson), with two more (Campbell and Macario) as alternates.

Any chance Rapinoe gets bounced from the team due to her allegedly racist tweet from 2010?  (I mean, Rachel Nichols lost her job for an allegedly racist tweet . . .).  
And ftr, I do not support the cancel/you-must-lose-job culture . . . usually an apology will suffice, where it is owed.  
But in this day and age, maybe this provides mechanism to elevate Macario or Campbell to full roster status.

[teejers1]

The Olympic roster is out, and it's heavy on experience and light on new players. (That's to be expected with the smaller 18-player rosters compared to the normal 23-player rosters.)

Goalkeepers (2): Alyssa Naeher, Adrianna Franch
Defenders (6): Kelley O'Hara, Abby Dahlkemper, Becky Sauerbrunn, Crystal Dunn, Tierna Davidson, Emily Sonnett
Midfielders (5): Julie Ertz, Lindsey Horan, Rose Lavelle, Sam Mewis, Kristie Mewis
Forwards (5): Alex Morgan, Carli Lloyd, Megan Rapinoe, Christen Press, Tobin Heath

Alternates (4): Jane Campbell (GK), Casey Krueger (DF), Catarina Macario (MF), Lynn Williams (F)

The alternates travel and train with the squad but aren't Olympians, which stinks. (Unless they replace someone on the roster, of course.) 

So, ultimately just three Cardinal players (O'Hara, Press, and Davidson), with two more (Campbell and Macario) as alternates.

Any chance Rapinoe gets bounced from the team due to her allegedly racist tweet from 2010?  (I mean, Rachel Nichols lost her job for an allegedly racist tweet . . .).  
And ftr, I do not support the cancel/you-must-lose-job culture . . . usually an apology will suffice, where it is owed.  
But in this day and age, maybe this provides mechanism to elevate Macario or Campbell to full roster status.

[DC 86]

Any chance Rapinoe gets bounced from the team due to her allegedly racist tweet from 2010?  (I mean, Rachel Nichols lost her job for an allegedly racist tweet . . .).  
And ftr, I do not support the cancel/you-must-lose-job culture . . . usually an apology will suffice, where it is owed.  
But in this day and age, maybe this provides mechanism to elevate Macario or Campbell to full roster status.

1. The official press releases about the expansion state that the number of players on each roster have been increased from 18 to 22 players, implying that all 22 players now have the same status. Each match will have an 18 player team sheet, which is a different issue.

2. In case I am wrong about #1 (above) it's too late to replace players on the roster other than for a verified injury.

3. In case I am wrong about #2 (above) Jane Campbell is a goalkeeper so she would not be a replacement for an outfield player.

It's probably a moot point anyway, and I am pretty sure about #1 and #2, but there you have it.

[DC 86]

Any chance Rapinoe gets bounced from the team due to her allegedly racist tweet from 2010?  (I mean, Rachel Nichols lost her job for an allegedly racist tweet . . .).  
And ftr, I do not support the cancel/you-must-lose-job culture . . . usually an apology will suffice, where it is owed.  
But in this day and age, maybe this provides mechanism to elevate Macario or Campbell to full roster status.

1. The official press releases about the expansion state that the number of players on each roster have been increased from 18 to 22 players, implying that all 22 players now have the same status. Each match will have an 18 player team sheet, which is a different issue.

2. In case I am wrong about #1 (above) it's too late to replace players on the roster other than for a verified injury.

3. In case I am wrong about #2 (above) Jane Campbell is a goalkeeper so she would not be a replacement for an outfield player.

It's probably a moot point anyway, and I am pretty sure about #1 and #2, but there you have it.

[BostonCard]

Had to do a bit of a search to find the offending tweet (which is still up, BTW):

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNKemp/status/1410569096870125571?s=20[/tweet]

Without commenting on whether she should get bounced from the team due to the allegedly racist tweet, given how such small waves this thread made (most of the tweets about her were birthday wishes), I don't think she will get bounced from the team.

BC

[BostonCard]

Had to do a bit of a search to find the offending tweet (which is still up, BTW):

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNKemp/status/1410569096870125571?s=20[/tweet]

Without commenting on whether she should get bounced from the team due to the allegedly racist tweet, given how such small waves this thread made (most of the tweets about her were birthday wishes), I don't think she will get bounced from the team.

BC

[ColoradoTree]

1. The official press releases about the expansion state that the number of players on each roster have been increased from 18 to 22 players, implying that all 22 players now have the same status. Each match will have an 18 player team sheet, which is a different issue.

That's what I'm saying, though--the only official statement I've seen on this from either FIFA or the IOC only said that all four alternates would be available for selection for any match and the 18-player matchday roster could be reconstituted before each match. From that narrow statement, press accounts have inferred something broader--i.e., that the four alternates are all part of the full roster now. Because those accounts are taking a step that the FIFA statement doesn't require, I want to see some sort of official statement resolving that ambiguity. It's not a meaningful difference for how Vlatko prepares the team for each match, but it could affect matchday roster construction if Vlatko also has the desire to get the four alternates onto at least one matchday roster (or get on the field) to formally make them Olympians and medal-eligible, or if they already have that status. It's a meaningful difference for those four players' status--particularly Jane Campbell, the least likely of the four alternates to see the field. 

Basically, the story played out like this: (1) a round of stories based on sources saying the IOC was going to allow roster expansion to 22 for this year's Olympics; (2) the FIFA statement saying coaches could select the 18-player matchday roster from the 18 players on the roster as well as the 4 alternates; and (3) another round of stories on the FIFA statement concluding, "yep, 22-player rosters it is!" Because (1) and (3) don't necessarily follow from (2), I remain curious. Having 22-player full rosters here is the sensible and simplest thing to do, but it would be very much on brand for the IOC to choose the weird, byzantine approach of "alternates, now just more available to you" rather than just saying "expanded rosters to 22."

Apologies for being pedantic here, but heck, if we can't be pedantic about sports on this board, then who even are we?

[ColoradoTree]

1. The official press releases about the expansion state that the number of players on each roster have been increased from 18 to 22 players, implying that all 22 players now have the same status. Each match will have an 18 player team sheet, which is a different issue.

That's what I'm saying, though--the only official statement I've seen on this from either FIFA or the IOC only said that all four alternates would be available for selection for any match and the 18-player matchday roster could be reconstituted before each match. From that narrow statement, press accounts have inferred something broader--i.e., that the four alternates are all part of the full roster now. Because those accounts are taking a step that the FIFA statement doesn't require, I want to see some sort of official statement resolving that ambiguity. It's not a meaningful difference for how Vlatko prepares the team for each match, but it could affect matchday roster construction if Vlatko also has the desire to get the four alternates onto at least one matchday roster (or get on the field) to formally make them Olympians and medal-eligible, or if they already have that status. It's a meaningful difference for those four players' status--particularly Jane Campbell, the least likely of the four alternates to see the field. 

Basically, the story played out like this: (1) a round of stories based on sources saying the IOC was going to allow roster expansion to 22 for this year's Olympics; (2) the FIFA statement saying coaches could select the 18-player matchday roster from the 18 players on the roster as well as the 4 alternates; and (3) another round of stories on the FIFA statement concluding, "yep, 22-player rosters it is!" Because (1) and (3) don't necessarily follow from (2), I remain curious. Having 22-player full rosters here is the sensible and simplest thing to do, but it would be very much on brand for the IOC to choose the weird, byzantine approach of "alternates, now just more available to you" rather than just saying "expanded rosters to 22."

Apologies for being pedantic here, but heck, if we can't be pedantic about sports on this board, then who even are we?

[DC 86]

1. The official press releases about the expansion state that the number of players on each roster have been increased from 18 to 22 players, implying that all 22 players now have the same status. Each match will have an 18 player team sheet, which is a different issue.

That's what I'm saying, though--the only official statement I've seen on this from either FIFA or the IOC only said that all four alternates would be available for selection for any match and the 18-player matchday roster could be reconstituted before each match. From that narrow statement, press accounts have inferred something broader--i.e., that the four alternates are all part of the full roster now. Because those accounts are taking a step that the FIFA statement doesn't require, I want to see some sort of official statement resolving that ambiguity. It's not a meaningful difference for how Vlatko prepares the team for each match, but it could affect matchday roster construction if Vlatko also has the desire to get the four alternates onto at least one matchday roster (or get on the field) to formally make them Olympians and medal-eligible, or if they already have that status. It's a meaningful difference for those four players' status--particularly Jane Campbell, the least likely of the four alternates to see the field. 

Basically, the story played out like this: (1) a round of stories based on sources saying the IOC was going to allow roster expansion to 22 for this year's Olympics; (2) the FIFA statement saying coaches could select the 18-player matchday roster from the 18 players on the roster as well as the 4 alternates; and (3) another round of stories on the FIFA statement concluding, "yep, 22-player rosters it is!" Because (1) and (3) don't necessarily follow from (2), I remain curious. Having 22-player full rosters here is the sensible and simplest thing to do, but it would be very much on brand for the IOC to choose the weird, byzantine approach of "alternates, now just more available to you" rather than just saying "expanded rosters to 22."

Apologies for being pedantic here, but heck, if we can't be pedantic about sports on this board, then who even are we?

You are correct, ColoradoTree, and I appreciate the further elaboration. It indeed is very FIFA-esque to leave a certain amount of ambiguity. However it seems impossible that the Olympics themselves wouldn't award a medal to someone who took part in one of the matches. To that end, as you pointed out, only Jane Campbell is likely to be affected by the nuances of this situation. I am confident that Vladko will play the three outfield alternates at some point even if medals aren't an issue, for the sake of squad rotation as well as morale.

[DC 86]

1. The official press releases about the expansion state that the number of players on each roster have been increased from 18 to 22 players, implying that all 22 players now have the same status. Each match will have an 18 player team sheet, which is a different issue.

That's what I'm saying, though--the only official statement I've seen on this from either FIFA or the IOC only said that all four alternates would be available for selection for any match and the 18-player matchday roster could be reconstituted before each match. From that narrow statement, press accounts have inferred something broader--i.e., that the four alternates are all part of the full roster now. Because those accounts are taking a step that the FIFA statement doesn't require, I want to see some sort of official statement resolving that ambiguity. It's not a meaningful difference for how Vlatko prepares the team for each match, but it could affect matchday roster construction if Vlatko also has the desire to get the four alternates onto at least one matchday roster (or get on the field) to formally make them Olympians and medal-eligible, or if they already have that status. It's a meaningful difference for those four players' status--particularly Jane Campbell, the least likely of the four alternates to see the field. 

Basically, the story played out like this: (1) a round of stories based on sources saying the IOC was going to allow roster expansion to 22 for this year's Olympics; (2) the FIFA statement saying coaches could select the 18-player matchday roster from the 18 players on the roster as well as the 4 alternates; and (3) another round of stories on the FIFA statement concluding, "yep, 22-player rosters it is!" Because (1) and (3) don't necessarily follow from (2), I remain curious. Having 22-player full rosters here is the sensible and simplest thing to do, but it would be very much on brand for the IOC to choose the weird, byzantine approach of "alternates, now just more available to you" rather than just saying "expanded rosters to 22."

Apologies for being pedantic here, but heck, if we can't be pedantic about sports on this board, then who even are we?

You are correct, ColoradoTree, and I appreciate the further elaboration. It indeed is very FIFA-esque to leave a certain amount of ambiguity. However it seems impossible that the Olympics themselves wouldn't award a medal to someone who took part in one of the matches. To that end, as you pointed out, only Jane Campbell is likely to be affected by the nuances of this situation. I am confident that Vladko will play the three outfield alternates at some point even if medals aren't an issue, for the sake of squad rotation as well as morale.

[teejers1]

1. The official press releases about the expansion state that the number of players on each roster have been increased from 18 to 22 players, implying that all 22 players now have the same status. Each match will have an 18 player team sheet, which is a different issue.

That's what I'm saying, though--the only official statement I've seen on this from either FIFA or the IOC only said that all four alternates would be available for selection for any match and the 18-player matchday roster could be reconstituted before each match. From that narrow statement, press accounts have inferred something broader--i.e., that the four alternates are all part of the full roster now. Because those accounts are taking a step that the FIFA statement doesn't require, I want to see some sort of official statement resolving that ambiguity. It's not a meaningful difference for how Vlatko prepares the team for each match, but it could affect matchday roster construction if Vlatko also has the desire to get the four alternates onto at least one matchday roster (or get on the field) to formally make them Olympians and medal-eligible, or if they already have that status. It's a meaningful difference for those four players' status--particularly Jane Campbell, the least likely of the four alternates to see the field. 

Basically, the story played out like this: (1) a round of stories based on sources saying the IOC was going to allow roster expansion to 22 for this year's Olympics; (2) the FIFA statement saying coaches could select the 18-player matchday roster from the 18 players on the roster as well as the 4 alternates; and (3) another round of stories on the FIFA statement concluding, "yep, 22-player rosters it is!" Because (1) and (3) don't necessarily follow from (2), I remain curious. Having 22-player full rosters here is the sensible and simplest thing to do, but it would be very much on brand for the IOC to choose the weird, byzantine approach of "alternates, now just more available to you" rather than just saying "expanded rosters to 22."

Apologies for being pedantic here, but heck, if we can't be pedantic about sports on this board, then who even are we?

You are correct, ColoradoTree, and I appreciate the further elaboration. It indeed is very FIFA-esque to leave a certain amount of ambiguity. However it seems impossible that the Olympics themselves wouldn't award a medal to someone who took part in one of the matches. To that end, as you pointed out, only Jane Campbell is likely to be affected by the nuances of this situation. I am confident that Vladko will play the three outfield alternates at some point even if medals aren't an issue, for the sake of squad rotation as well as morale.

What are the substitution rules in Olympics?  I admit to only knowing that in Euro league, it was traditionally limited to 3 subs/match, which I believe was expanded due to Covid.

Is the "alternate/roster expansion" for Olympics due at all to Covid-related concerns, or just a stand-alone decision to expand all rosters?

[teejers1]

1. The official press releases about the expansion state that the number of players on each roster have been increased from 18 to 22 players, implying that all 22 players now have the same status. Each match will have an 18 player team sheet, which is a different issue.

That's what I'm saying, though--the only official statement I've seen on this from either FIFA or the IOC only said that all four alternates would be available for selection for any match and the 18-player matchday roster could be reconstituted before each match. From that narrow statement, press accounts have inferred something broader--i.e., that the four alternates are all part of the full roster now. Because those accounts are taking a step that the FIFA statement doesn't require, I want to see some sort of official statement resolving that ambiguity. It's not a meaningful difference for how Vlatko prepares the team for each match, but it could affect matchday roster construction if Vlatko also has the desire to get the four alternates onto at least one matchday roster (or get on the field) to formally make them Olympians and medal-eligible, or if they already have that status. It's a meaningful difference for those four players' status--particularly Jane Campbell, the least likely of the four alternates to see the field. 

Basically, the story played out like this: (1) a round of stories based on sources saying the IOC was going to allow roster expansion to 22 for this year's Olympics; (2) the FIFA statement saying coaches could select the 18-player matchday roster from the 18 players on the roster as well as the 4 alternates; and (3) another round of stories on the FIFA statement concluding, "yep, 22-player rosters it is!" Because (1) and (3) don't necessarily follow from (2), I remain curious. Having 22-player full rosters here is the sensible and simplest thing to do, but it would be very much on brand for the IOC to choose the weird, byzantine approach of "alternates, now just more available to you" rather than just saying "expanded rosters to 22."

Apologies for being pedantic here, but heck, if we can't be pedantic about sports on this board, then who even are we?

You are correct, ColoradoTree, and I appreciate the further elaboration. It indeed is very FIFA-esque to leave a certain amount of ambiguity. However it seems impossible that the Olympics themselves wouldn't award a medal to someone who took part in one of the matches. To that end, as you pointed out, only Jane Campbell is likely to be affected by the nuances of this situation. I am confident that Vladko will play the three outfield alternates at some point even if medals aren't an issue, for the sake of squad rotation as well as morale.

What are the substitution rules in Olympics?  I admit to only knowing that in Euro league, it was traditionally limited to 3 subs/match, which I believe was expanded due to Covid.

Is the "alternate/roster expansion" for Olympics due at all to Covid-related concerns, or just a stand-alone decision to expand all rosters?

[ColoradoTree]

What are the substitution rules in Olympics?  I admit to only knowing that in Euro league, it was traditionally limited to 3 subs/match, which I believe was expanded due to Covid.

Is the "alternate/roster expansion" for Olympics due at all to Covid-related concerns, or just a stand-alone decision to expand all rosters?

I'm pretty sure they're sticking with three substitutions for each game. But you're right, that 3-sub limitation has been expanded elsewhere, but apparently not here--at least not yet. (There was some talk about the 5-sub temporary rule being incorporated in Tokyo, but I haven't seen any official confirmation of that.)

The proponents of the expansion used covid as their primary argument, yes. With the risks one positive case could have for ruling out other players for the tournament, at least temporarily, proponents argued greater flexibility was needed for this tournament, just like how the teams playing in the European championships bumped up from 23 to 26 this year. FIFA has stressed this is a one-time change and we should expect a return to 18-player rosters in 2024, but with 23 being the norm for all other major tournaments, it's never been clear why 18 is some magic number (probably something about the honor of being an Olympian, and only those who will be playing should merit the title, or some such). Just have it be 23 across the board and be done with it.

[ColoradoTree]

What are the substitution rules in Olympics?  I admit to only knowing that in Euro league, it was traditionally limited to 3 subs/match, which I believe was expanded due to Covid.

Is the "alternate/roster expansion" for Olympics due at all to Covid-related concerns, or just a stand-alone decision to expand all rosters?

I'm pretty sure they're sticking with three substitutions for each game. But you're right, that 3-sub limitation has been expanded elsewhere, but apparently not here--at least not yet. (There was some talk about the 5-sub temporary rule being incorporated in Tokyo, but I haven't seen any official confirmation of that.)

The proponents of the expansion used covid as their primary argument, yes. With the risks one positive case could have for ruling out other players for the tournament, at least temporarily, proponents argued greater flexibility was needed for this tournament, just like how the teams playing in the European championships bumped up from 23 to 26 this year. FIFA has stressed this is a one-time change and we should expect a return to 18-player rosters in 2024, but with 23 being the norm for all other major tournaments, it's never been clear why 18 is some magic number (probably something about the honor of being an Olympian, and only those who will be playing should merit the title, or some such). Just have it be 23 across the board and be done with it.

[DC 86]

What are the substitution rules in Olympics?  I admit to only knowing that in Euro league, it was traditionally limited to 3 subs/match, which I believe was expanded due to Covid.

Is the "alternate/roster expansion" for Olympics due at all to Covid-related concerns, or just a stand-alone decision to expand all rosters?

I'm pretty sure they're sticking with three substitutions for each game.

Three substitutions, but a fourth substitution permitted during extra time.

[DC 86]

What are the substitution rules in Olympics?  I admit to only knowing that in Euro league, it was traditionally limited to 3 subs/match, which I believe was expanded due to Covid.

Is the "alternate/roster expansion" for Olympics due at all to Covid-related concerns, or just a stand-alone decision to expand all rosters?

I'm pretty sure they're sticking with three substitutions for each game.

Three substitutions, but a fourth substitution permitted during extra time.

[ColoradoTree]

https://www.teamusa.org/tokyo-2020-olymp...a/athletes

Per the above, Campbell and Macario are not on the official Team USA roster of Olympians. And this notes the specific difference we've been discussing--are they now Olympians or did FIFA/IOC simply make using an alternate easier? This seems to confirm it's the latter:

The USOPC announced a team of 613 athletes on Tuesday, the most in Olympic history outside of host nations.

The roster is 627 athletes if including all of the athletes who can be substituted for strategic purposes during several team events, though it’s possible some of those athletes will not be used in competition. 

https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2021/07/1...ter-tokyo/

We haven't yet been told what that means for their eligibility for medals (and they'd be unlikely to walk in the Opening Ceremonies anyway, since they're in an outlying area), and whether they need to be on a 18-player matchday roster to become an Olympian, or whether they actually need to get on the field. As of right now, if Tierna Davidson never sets foot on the field, she gets a medal if the team wins one. But we haven't been told what Macario/Campbell need to do to earn a spot. 

Especially with Ertz limited, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Macario on most of the gameday rosters. (And another reason why I'm surprised Purce didn't make the roster--she can back up at outside back and at forward in case calamity strikes--a perfect 

This is also interesting against the backdrop of how other teams have announced their rosters. Many didn't announce until the change was made--some of those put out 18-player rosters with 4 alternates, while others put out 22-player rosters. But 4 of those 22 don't yet get the title of Olympian, apparently. 

From a competition perspective, it's the same thing--Macario is just as available as an option to Vlatko as Davidson is. But it sure seems like a miserly way to treat players in terms of the honor of being an Olympian. 

[ColoradoTree]

https://www.teamusa.org/tokyo-2020-olymp...a/athletes

Per the above, Campbell and Macario are not on the official Team USA roster of Olympians. And this notes the specific difference we've been discussing--are they now Olympians or did FIFA/IOC simply make using an alternate easier? This seems to confirm it's the latter:

The USOPC announced a team of 613 athletes on Tuesday, the most in Olympic history outside of host nations.

The roster is 627 athletes if including all of the athletes who can be substituted for strategic purposes during several team events, though it’s possible some of those athletes will not be used in competition. 

https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2021/07/1...ter-tokyo/

We haven't yet been told what that means for their eligibility for medals (and they'd be unlikely to walk in the Opening Ceremonies anyway, since they're in an outlying area), and whether they need to be on a 18-player matchday roster to become an Olympian, or whether they actually need to get on the field. As of right now, if Tierna Davidson never sets foot on the field, she gets a medal if the team wins one. But we haven't been told what Macario/Campbell need to do to earn a spot. 

Especially with Ertz limited, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Macario on most of the gameday rosters. (And another reason why I'm surprised Purce didn't make the roster--she can back up at outside back and at forward in case calamity strikes--a perfect 

This is also interesting against the backdrop of how other teams have announced their rosters. Many didn't announce until the change was made--some of those put out 18-player rosters with 4 alternates, while others put out 22-player rosters. But 4 of those 22 don't yet get the title of Olympian, apparently. 

From a competition perspective, it's the same thing--Macario is just as available as an option to Vlatko as Davidson is. But it sure seems like a miserly way to treat players in terms of the honor of being an Olympian.