rob.notenboom Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 In the brief spell that Tanc had out there I think it looks like she is going to be the key going forward again like she was in the Olympics. Her and Sincy are always on the same page, link up very well and she will create space for Sincy because of this. Also, teams tend to forget about her. Tanc still needs to regain some touch, but I think we will see this partnership being really important in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter31555362348 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 So.... she was watching the ball... to make a play on it. Not so much. She was keeping an eye out as the play developed, not hypnotised by the ball. As the only player on the back line over the age of 19, she had responsibility for keeping things calm and cleaning up miscues throughout the game, which is not usually part of the fullback's job description. In this instance, Quinn made a decision to try for the header rather than tracking the ball down. Wilkinson was left to decide whether to hold position on the right or to move in and clean up a mistake by a younger player in the centre. I would guess that she figured that Quinn was going to miss the ball completely, which is almost what happened. As it turned out she and Quinn both misjudged it and Wilkinson would have been better off holding position, but dismissing it as ball watching is not really fair. Wilkinson provided width on attack, matched Leroux stride for stride all night (well, almost) and provided leadership on the back line that made the young players look better. Quinn is good and will get better, but at this level, a back line with three teenagers in it had better have somebody experienced back there with them who can pick them up when things get hairy, especially against the #1 team in the world. That was one of Wilkinson's jobs, and she did it well. You can be sure that Rebecca Quinn knows it. As I said, the ball that Quinn whiffed on was one of those in-between things that cause havoc when legs and heads are tired. With four experienced defenders who know each other on the pitch, it probably would not have ended up as it did. Wilkinson would have been sure enough of the centre backs that she would have stayed at home, and the ball would not likely have come anywhere near Leroux. That does not take anything away from the technical proficiency and maturity the teenagers all showed under a great deal of pressure from a very good side. I agree with others who have commented on the quality of the young players Herdman is getting into matches. Kadeisha Buchanan is going to be great. If Jesse Fleming keeps developing at the rate she's been going, she also could end up as a real star. She has great technical skills, remarkable intuition for one so young, and no fear at all as near as I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 As I said, the ball that Quinn whiffed on was one of those in-between things that cause havoc when legs and heads are tired. With four experienced defenders who know each other on the pitch, it probably would not have ended up as it did. Wilkinson would have been sure enough of the centre backs that she would have stayed at home, and the ball would not likely have come anywhere near Leroux. That does not take anything away from the technical proficiency and maturity the teenagers all showed under a great deal of pressure from a very good side. The ball was completely harmless, there wasn't an American within a country mile of it. It was a major league fail on Buchanan and Quinn for failing to communicate, which is the one of the most important elements of defending. Buchanan was impressive and is an obvious starter next year but being a great defender means a lot more than individual skill. Quinn, Yekka and Fleming are good prospects for 2019 but are not going to be at the level required next summer. I'd also disagree it was a very good side they were playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Shaman Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Well Vic, you sure have a way of letting the air out of the tires. Armchair critic with a glass half empty perspective. The American team is ALWAYS a good side, to say otherwise makes no sense at all. As far as the "limitations" of the teenage back line go, what the hell is your baseline expectation?? If it is higher then what their performance in real life was, I would have to say your perspective appears to match that of the two old curmudgeons in the balcony of the Muppet Show. Don't tell me that you are one of those people that pines longingly for players like Nault and Zurrer to get back in the line up. Mutters, shakes head, throws up hands and walks away.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.notenboom Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Gotta agree that Quinn and Buchanan screwed that one up. Buchanan should be calling Quinn off and making the relatively simple clearance. Wilkinson also began to pinch at a very unfortunate moment. Having said that, they dealt with the US attack rather admirably for their ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 The American team is ALWAYS a good side, to say otherwise makes no sense at all. I've followed them closely for 35 years and seen them play about 150 times, including at least a dozen live. Yourself? When they went winless in group in the Algrave were they a very good side? When they lost 3-5 to Denmark? They Americans have one gamebreaker and she's injured and are mired in internal politics and their lack of unity and synchronization on the field reflects it. I'm not really interested in getting drawn into the semantics of what "very good" means. You have your opinion, I have mine. No need to throw personal insults because someone disagrees. At least from my perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkomar Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 When you don't have possession, you need to mark somebody. "Ball watching" means you are watching the ball instead of the player you should be marking. When the USA scored, Wilkinson #7 lost the player she was marking and instead went towards the ball. Had she stayed with Leroux instead of going towards the ball, she almost certainly would have been able to prevent the goal. That is the definition of ball watching! This is not "dismissing" anything, it is simply stating the defensive error that was the primary cause of the goal. That doesn't mean that Wilkinson didn't do lots of other good work during the match! I would say that "ball-watching" means being a spectator rather than a player, or at the most just reacting to the play rather than initiating it. The fact that Wilkinson was moving to where she anticipated the ball to be going means that she wasn't just watching, she was being proactive. I don't blame her for not anticipating what turned out to be a lovely flick-on by Quinn. There were mistakes, but I wouldn't call "ball-watching" one of them, and they were the kind that can be easily fixed. I don't think we need to find a "goat" for that goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Suffice to say if you're counting on opportunities like THAT to score your goals you may be in trouble. Not to be diplomatic, cause Lord knows THAT goes against my nature, but I think everyone has something about right on that play. Some are being harsher than others, and some being more generous. To my mind anyway. I'm willing to blame Bad (or Good I guess) Luck as much as any of the individuals involved for either team. The fortunes of war. But maybe that's the defender in me offering an opinion. We've all be in that position where with a call from a team mate or no a cross or through ball into No-Man's-Land demands an instinctive response which sometimes makes matters worse. But like I began my writing with, if you're relying on a defender to unexpectedly flick on your crap cross for a snap-shot by the only attacking player up-field to score on, well, you've got troubles. And they're greater than the ones with the team with an average defender age of 19 1/4. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 When you don't have possession, you need to mark somebody. "Ball watching" means you are watching the ball instead of the player you should be marking. When the USA scored, Wilkinson #7 lost the player she was marking and instead went towards the ball. Had she stayed with Leroux instead of going towards the ball, she almost certainly would have been able to prevent the goal. That is the definition of ball watching! This is not "dismissing" anything, it is simply stating the defensive error that was the primary cause of the goal. That doesn't mean that Wilkinson didn't do lots of other good work during the match! Well said, that is exactly what it means. As a general rule when the other team is attacking, defenders should watch the man, not the ball. In this case, leaving one of the two most dangerous attackers from the U.S. unmarked, is asking for trouble. Also the goal area and its surroundings is the responsibility of the goalkeeper to direct traffic, take charge and often directing his/her defenders. Rhian Wilkinson did many things right, this one was not one of them. She also got on the way of Erin McLeod a couple of times I remember. Was she following McLeod's commands, I don't know, it just looked as both getting on each other's way. Buchanan was also guilty of getting on the way of McLeod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 And saying well Cheeta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Having said that, they dealt with the US attack rather admirably for their ages. I agree with you Rob. Like I said all three back there show great promise. Buchanan is a step ahead because of her pace and physicality and stunningly quick recovery time. She can get beat and be back on you in a stride or two. I have a fairly good grasp of the women's game and what it takes to win the World Cup. It takes a ruthless, organized, emotionally mature and serious defensive unit. There has never been a starting defender under 21 on a Women's World Cup winner. You see a lot of great young attackers in the NHL but you rarely see great young defenders, and when you do it's often an offensive attacking defender like Erik Karlsson. The same age pattern occurs in men's soccer. There are often good young defenders but the path to being a great defender is a longer journey than being a great attacker where pace and inborn ingenuity can take you a long way. Running the gauntlet and winning the World Cup means facing the Alex Morgan's, the Lotta Schelin's and the Alexandra Popp's of this world and taking them at full motivation and full force and sending them home with a frown on their face. That's a serious piece of business. Winning a World Cup has nothing to do with playing admirably for your age. Again, don't get me wrong. With an expected exception here and there I think they played really well and I'm really looking forward to seeing them in the U20 this summer. And hopefully one day packing a lunch back there and on a Women's World Cup podium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Shaman Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I've followed them closely for 35 years and seen them play about 150 times, including at least a dozen live. Yourself? These numbers that you throw out intrigue me. Considering that the first match that the USWNT ever played was at the Mundialito tournament on August 12, 1985 you really must have been in on the ground floor back then. Or is the 6 year discrepancy just a rounding error? The other part that intrigues me is that if you have really watched the team that many times, it seems like quite a bit for a neutral observer, even a very engaged one. I am left to wonder whether you are in fact American or at the very least a USWNT supporter rather than a supporter of Canada's national soccer teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Rounding and bad math, I know when I started following women's soccer. So, if you're stuck on numbers and not meaning, take my point at 29/35ths. LOL at the second. But enough about me, yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.