Japan and Spain are by far my most fun teams to watch left in the tournament.

Coincidental that we looked far more dangerous with Lavelle out of the lineup? And this is an honest question, she was just the biggest change from the previous lineup that looked pretty unthreatening.

She was coming off an injury and was having her minutes limited. That's the only explanation I have.

I think it was the double pivot that helped us the most in that switch. It helped cover up Sullivan's deficiencies covering that much ground and keeping the back line and midfield connected.

For all the attention Ertz gets for her challenges and being physical in general its her positioning as the link between defense and offense that really sets her apart imo.

Lavelle played reckless and tried to score or make a big play every time she touched the ball but I don't think she was the reason we struggled.

I think the biggest issue was Rapinoe was the only attacker he brought that had different skillset. Morgan, Smith, Rodman and Thompson all play very similar style. Morgan really is the only one that can play with her back to goal.

Rapinoe was not good and really hasn't been good for a while now. Despite that, Vlatko didn't bring anyone else that plays differently in the attacking position.

100% agree with the criticism of coaching and roster makeup. It was pretty obvious that Vlat only trusted a small percentage of his non-starters. Which is a recipe for getting bounced from a tournament early.

People bemoaned Ertz' inclusion to the roster but she was dynamite all tournament.

Last match one of the Swedish attackers tried to body her and Ertz just stood her up and turned her, it was awesome. She was really solid in every game.

Same, that would be fun.

jeffk said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

Rapinoe only got limited minutes at the end of matches because we weren't scoring (and frankly, regardless of any personal feelings about her, we looked most dangerous when she was out there yesterday).

Who is out there that can put the ball in the net that is not getting a chance to show what they can do?

---

Man, I don't agree with that assessment of the game at all. We looked most dangerous when our starting attackers were fresh and also right after we subbed Williams on for Rodman. I saw a noticeable dropoff in our ability to get behind the defense once Rapinoe came on. Also her corners and free kicks were atrocious.

To your other question, Macario (assuming she ever fully recovers) is an incredible talent. I'm still somewhat mystified that Thompson got almost zero minutes meaningful this tournament. Also not having a full-strength Lavelle and then her missing the final game with cards was a huge blow. Michelle Cooper and Jaedyn Shaw are too young pros that could be solid prospects for the senior side at forward.

Edit because Thompson got like 30' as a late game sub.

---

I'll concede on your assessment on Rapinoe, that's a fair point.

But my primary point is that everyone was criticizing the "old guard" in the Olympics for hanging on too long....but they're out out the way and no one has filled in the void.

Maybe Macario is the solution, but she needs to get on the field....and it needs to be more than just her. This is a big problem for the USSF.


I do think the defense looked really good without Saurbraun. Girma played well, Fox played well, and Ertz showed she still has it.

Not playing Sophie Smith as our #9 hurt as well. She plays there for her club and plays the position really well. A major criticism of Vlat since his takeover has been the lack of dynamic or frankly organized attack. We saw it last Olympics and we saw this World Cup. For those who have followed this team a result like this isn't shocking.
It's a bummer though that in the US game the US was the better side for much of the game and lost while in the England game you could say England was the worse side and won.

Interesting way to represent graphically what a lot of us have mentioned already.

NEW: @kimischilling and I reflected on the #USWNT's World Cup showing and the preceding cycle to size up the Vlatko Andonovski era — and what should come next.

I will never be able to understand the squad management at play throughout these four games. https://t.co/46QM1Afu0o pic.twitter.com/yUYnqOU2wy

— Jeff Rueter (@jeffrueter) August 7, 2023

So a 15-player roster. Basically.

It still amazes me how relatively rare articles or analysis like this in the aftermath of Sweden is. If the USMNT had a similar performance, Berhalter would have gotten KILLED by virtually everyone. For some reason, it still seems like so many people are giving Vlatko a free pass and just killing the federation or the players. It's like "Vlatko was bad but the real problem was the players' selfishness or US soccer's unwillingness to integrate new players".

Or to put it another way, the most analogous moment for the men was failing to qualify for Russia. I do not remember Klinsmann or Arena getting the relative free pass that Vlatko seems to be getting by many. Back then, people rightly pointed out there were fundamental problems in player development, the talent pool, US Soccer, etc. but there seemed to be equal attention paid to the absurd horribleness of Klinsmann and Arena as managers. That doesn't seem to be happening to the same degree here.

You said it already, tactics don't matter in women's soccer.

I've seen a good number of pieces about his failings on blogs and podcasts and the smaller soccer shows on networks, but yeah, a large amount of conversation among American soccer pundits has focused on politics and social issues (really of just a couple of the players, much like here). I think they know what drives engagement and eyeballs and are just chasing that viewership.

US Soccer said they're "conducting a typical review" and looking for ways to improve for the better, so I expect we'll hear something in the coming months about his future. But I'm expecting them to bungle it if we're being honest.

I guess I'm just used to the men's side - the players develop with their clubs and then get called into the national team when in form and playing well. It seems like the expectation on the women's side is that the development only comes from playing with the national team.

The NWSL is 10ish years old (after an earlier period of what amounted to semi-pro leagues). While their have been professional teams in Europe for longer they too were inconsistent in their spread. Alex Morgan for example could very nearly buy a beer before she could, legit play professional soccer in the US.

Even now there are only 12 womens' teams in their premier league. Right now what sets Europe apart for the women is their academy systems.

There aren't really womens' academies tied to the NWSL teams with any consistency. The same problems that our men deal with (money grab youth system) is intensified by the fact that the women that are identified do not have the next level of academy to go to so stay in the money grab system that much longer.

It leads to monolithic clubs dominating cities and dictating league participation. How many girls are at Solar in Dallas or Lonestar in Austin? How many girls get locked into mid level teams where they are used to funnel cash to fund the higher teams vs say actually developing those players?

I think that is a serious headwind in identifying talent let alone actually developing it. I think its a huge problem for the men too, but they have so many more opportunities that it can help put a band aid on the issue.

Yeah, this mainly stems from the majority of women's professional leagues being a wreck until recently (and I'd argue that the NWSL is still a jalopy but there are some positive signs there).

Title IX helped motivate colleges to take over most of those upper level development tasks. Now that the Euros and a few other nations are starting to invest in women's professional leagues, that college-based system isn't enough to keep the US head and shoulders above the rest of the world.

Edit - yeah, what the sammich said too.

Quote:

---

Even now there are only 12 womens' teams in their premier league. Right now what sets Europe apart for the women is their academy systems.

---

This is the biggest reason why Europe has caught up and to a certain extent surpassed the US. All the womens team in English league have significant infrastructure (facilities, academy set up and developmental mindsets) advantages over the NWSL teams. Until we fix the academy/developmental setup in the US, we will continue to fall behind in technical ability and tactical sophistication.

ColoradoMooseHerd said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

jeffk said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

Rapinoe only got limited minutes at the end of matches because we weren't scoring (and frankly, regardless of any personal feelings about her, we looked most dangerous when she was out there yesterday).

Who is out there that can put the ball in the net that is not getting a chance to show what they can do?

---

Man, I don't agree with that assessment of the game at all. We looked most dangerous when our starting attackers were fresh and also right after we subbed Williams on for Rodman. I saw a noticeable dropoff in our ability to get behind the defense once Rapinoe came on. Also her corners and free kicks were atrocious.

To your other question, Macario (assuming she ever fully recovers) is an incredible talent. I'm still somewhat mystified that Thompson got almost zero minutes meaningful this tournament. Also not having a full-strength Lavelle and then her missing the final game with cards was a huge blow. Michelle Cooper and Jaedyn Shaw are too young pros that could be solid prospects for the senior side at forward.

Edit because Thompson got like 30' as a late game sub.

---

I'll concede on your assessment on Rapinoe, that's a fair point.

But my primary point is that everyone was criticizing the "old guard" in the Olympics for hanging on too long....but they're out out the way and no one has filled in the void.

Maybe Macario is the solution, but she needs to get on the field....and it needs to be more than just her. This is a big problem for the USSF.


I do think the defense looked really good without Saurbraun. Girma played well, Fox played well, and Ertz showed she still has it.

---

If they would have been developing players over the last four years, then we would not have to worry about a player filling a void this last year. Since we only focused on one group of players and allowed them to be the focus for so long we completely ignored a group of quality players.

Players like Ashley Hatch were never given a shot. Not a legit shot to succeed or develop. She would have been a good bridge player between the old guard and the young talent that needs more time.

Lindsay Horan could have used a few more strong personalities with her age and experience. I know there are others in the same range but like hatch many were never really given strong roles in the past that help develop them as leaders during the we believe cups or Olympics.

But this is in the past now. What is done is done. We now have to focus what is best for the future.

---

I know this has been discussed in the past, probably when the topic of revenue sharing with the Men's team started to gain steam. An underlying issue/problem that has exacerbated the current situation was the fact that the USWNT members were making their living off of the USWNT, as opposed to the Men's side where all the players earn their income playing for Club. It completely changes the dynamic and I would argue their motivations.

It has been likened to a Disney on Ice production, these friendlies and fluff tournaments like She Believes, where if the USWNT did not bring in the familiar faces, attendance would suffer, thereby impacting players' earnings. So, they used that excuse to keep rostering many of the core players which suppressed the next generation.

At the end of it all, there are a number of issues that led to this year's early exit (really can't discount injuries). Hopefully someone with some real soccer knowledge and insight to the USWNT will conduct a full post-mortem after the emotions have subsided and rational thought can prevail.

I know I'm in the minority here, but one of the reasons I was in favor of moving the women's team into a new pay arrangement is that I hoped it would encourage players to start looking at national team duty as a side-gig instead of their primary bread-winning job. (Which is why I think the men were largely fine with agreeing to share revenue from WCs.) I know the men and women are still not on precisely the same pay structure, but that's the way the ball is rolling currently.

Its access to quality training and matches in a reasonable way and a more holistic way to see more players playing each other across more teams. Its their ability to see more players playing more games against multiple levels of competition.

The clubs there make their money from selling players, here they make their money selling a dream that doesn't exist.

jeffk said:

---

I know I'm in the minority here, but one of the reasons I was in favor of moving the women's team into a new pay arrangement is that I hoped it would encourage players to start looking at national team duty as a side-gig instead of their primary bread-winning job. (Which is why I think the men were largely fine with agreeing to share revenue from WCs.) I know the men and women are still not on precisely the same pay structure, but that's the way the ball is rolling currently.

---

Until that happens, you'll have some of the same dynamics we've heard about with USWNT at play. Players want to protect their income and prolong their tenure on the team, sometimes to the detriment of the program.

Yeah, it's a first step that needed to happen imo though.

EDIT to add that the USSF needs to step up and decide that making money off aging stars isn't in the best interest of the domestic game as well. Players don't get to just hang around too long if you don't call them into camps and name them to rosters. It's weird to see some of that blamed on players consistently when they really have very little say in the matter.

akm91 said:

---

jeffk said:

---

I know I'm in the minority here, but one of the reasons I was in favor of moving the women's team into a new pay arrangement is that I hoped it would encourage players to start looking at national team duty as a side-gig instead of their primary bread-winning job. (Which is why I think the men were largely fine with agreeing to share revenue from WCs.) I know the men and women are still not on precisely the same pay structure, but that's the way the ball is rolling currently.

---

Until that happens, you'll have some of the same dynamics we've heard about with USWNT at play. Players want to protect their income and prolong their tenure on the team, sometimes to the detriment of the program.

---

I think that's a little unfair in that it's not a USWNT thing it's a professional athlete thing. There is the added component of the revenue impact being relatively much higher for a USWNT athlete than her male counter parts but what athlete doesn't want to prolong their tenure as long as they can?

I can count on one hand the number of professional athletes who leave when they are on top. 95% of the time they are extending their careers as long as possible even if it means playing at levels far below what they once achieved. Part of that is because they love to play but I think a bigger part is ego. The same drive and determination that made them great is also the thing that causes them to hang around too long. Part of it is making that money as long as they can (see Saudi Arabia).

I'm not saying you're doing this per se but it feels like the argument has been that the players are somehow forcing themselves onto the national team at the detriment of the USWNT. When actuality there are just doing what almost every elite professional athlete does in any sport, male or female...hang around too long because they don't fully acknowledge their loss of skill. The onus is on the federation or managers to properly assess them...like you would expect anywhere else.

You raise some good points… and ultimately it comes down to $$$ for all parties.

A team might keep a Brady/Lebron/Ronaldo past their prime due to ticket/jersey/marketing/etc. But when they reach a point where the player's diminished capacity is costing them games, they'll eventually make the choice to cut them loose. Good organizations do this quickly.

But the difference with USWNT is USSF nepotism pushes this decision point further down the road. And since USWNT is the "only show in town" so to speak, they're gonna get their money regardless of their bad choices. Real teams/owners won't tolerate it nearly as long.

Dre_00 said:

---

akm91 said:

---

jeffk said:

---

I know I'm in the minority here, but one of the reasons I was in favor of moving the women's team into a new pay arrangement is that I hoped it would encourage players to start looking at national team duty as a side-gig instead of their primary bread-winning job. (Which is why I think the men were largely fine with agreeing to share revenue from WCs.) I know the men and women are still not on precisely the same pay structure, but that's the way the ball is rolling currently.

---

Until that happens, you'll have some of the same dynamics we've heard about with USWNT at play. Players want to protect their income and prolong their tenure on the team, sometimes to the detriment of the program.

---

I think that's a little unfair in that it's not a USWNT thing it's a professional athlete thing. There is the added component of the revenue impact being relatively much higher for a USWNT athlete than her male counter parts but what athlete doesn't want to prolong their tenure as long as they can?

I can count on one hand the number of professional athletes who leave when they are on top. 95% of the time they are extending their careers as long as possible even if it means playing at levels far below what they once achieved. Part of that is because they love to play but I think a bigger part is ego. The same drive and determination that made them great is also the thing that causes them to hang around too long. Part of it is making that money as long as they can (see Saudi Arabia).

I'm not saying you're doing this per se but it feels like the argument has been that the players are somehow forcing themselves onto the national team at the detriment of the USWNT. When actuality there are just doing what almost every elite professional athlete does in any sport, male or female...hang around too long because they don't fully acknowledge their loss of skill. The onus is on the federation or managers to properly assess them...like you would expect anywhere else.

---

I think these aging players are on their representative committees that have historically voted to keep this pay structure. So it is on them for doing that in all negotiations the last 20 or so years.

However, I dont blame them either because I just dont really see a future where there is enough interest in a women's league for all of them to really get paid primarily from that league. I could be wrong, of course, and soccer is probably the sport most likely to succeed on the womens side in this respect.

jeffk said:

---

Yeah, this mainly stems from the majority of women's professional leagues being a wreck until recently (and I'd argue that the NWSL is still a jalopy but there are some positive signs there).

Title IX helped motivate colleges to take over most of those upper level development tasks. Now that the Euros and a few other nations are starting to invest in women's professional leagues, that college-based system isn't enough to keep the US head and shoulders above the rest of the world.

Edit - yeah, what the sammich said too.

---

What's interesting is look at the equivelent of the Womens' Champions League before 2010, it is a bunch of clubs most people have never heard of and no English team save Aresenal back in the day has won it.

Yeah, don't let the English blow smoke up your ass - they've largely only recently begun to care about the women's game.

We can dog on the soccer model in the US all we want but the main reason why our girls team is always athletic and fit has a lot to do with women's college soccer. Just really need to do a big investment into the technical side of the women's game.

KCup17 said:

---

We can dog on the soccer model in the US all we want but the main reason why our girls team is always athletic and fit has a lot to do with women's college soccer. Just really need to do a big investment into the technical side of the women's game.

---

The exact reason we were ahead of the other countries is the exact reason we're falling behind.