Carli Lloyd celebrates her goal against France Saturday night in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The US won, 1-0.
Neil W. Blackmon
The US earned six points in their opening two matches of the 2016 Olympic games, capped off with Saturday’s 1-0 victory over a terrific France side at the fabled Estadio Mineirão. Dating back to the beginning of last summer’s World Cup in Canada, the US women have notched shutouts in 14 of 17 competitive matches, and have trailed a total of six minutes. The span includes, of course, the World Cup final rout of Japan as well as multiple victories over global powers Germany and France. And yet it says something about both the USWNT’s talent and the external expectations placed upon this team that most talk after Saturday’s win over France in Belo Horizonte centered on what the US needed to do (not could do) better moving forward.
Coaches will tell you the focus on improvement is fine, and they’re right. Best can always be better. Even the greatest teams can improve. And to achieve an accomplishment that would be truly incomparable- Olympic gold followed by World Cup win followed by Olympic gold- the US may need to play better than it is playing at present. In fact, perhaps the focus on what the US can do better is both a nod to Americans greatness and a smart, tacit recognition that the US, once peerless in the woman’s game, now find themselves very much grinding and battling to maintain their chokehold on the mountaintop. But there’s also the reality that what the US is doing right now- playing no one but history- is as incredible as most any historic sporting accomplishment given how much the rest of the world has improved? It is harder to dominate now. The playing field is more level. And the US have trailed six minutes in seventeen competitive games.
A good-faith review of the Americans performance in Rio thus far must occupy the spaces between these lines, spaces that themselves operate against the backdrop of a game- international soccer- which is as results-oriented as any game in sport. Women’s international soccer, more than men’s, is almost entirely results-driven, as the debate around the USWNT’s CBA/MOU reminded or notified the public. The sample size of meaningful games is larger than the men’s, but there is a gulf-like difference, both financially and historically, between victory and failure. The US women function- and dominate- within that space.
Here’s what we’ve heard, what we can learn, and what we don’t know about the first two games of the USWNT’s Brazilian Olympics.
The US keep winning and shutting teams out, despite the critics.
What We’ve Heard/Premise: The US Defense has been stretched and the Americans are fortunate.
Critique: No one has scored and the US just weathered a match against a great team with an electric attack. The US did that without one of their best defensive players. And for all the criticism, the Americans have the best goalkeeper in the world and the best CB in the world. The notion you get “demerits” for that- or should be subjected to the “The US defense is more fragile than you think” arguments is a take you should only receive wearing oven mitts. Man it’s hot.
For all the chatter about chances conceded, the US have not allowed a goal in 180 minutes at the Rio Olympics. And grinding out a 1-0 against world number three France, regardless of the chance creation numbers, is impressive. That the Americans did it without Julie Johnston, the CB fixture who made the FIFA Technical Group’s All-World Cup team last summer in Canada, is tremendous.
There’s an undercurrent to this thread and it is an important part of the argument. The argument correctly identifies Ali Krieger as the most pure and proper fullback the US has, and then recognizes that her quality has diminished a bit since Canada. In 2016, Jill Ellis has preferred a different pair- Meghan Klingenberg and Kelley O’Hara, who are both better attacking players than Krieger by some measure. Klingenberg in particular, the argument goes, is a defensive liability. And if and when the US can’t control the ball in the middle of the field long enough to punish you with the Klingenberg overlap (Pugh/Dunn), then the US have too many “attack first” pieces doing the tough defending. If you have talented wingers and can pressure the US midfield into mistakes, you can punish the American flanks, the story goes. Yet the US are 180 into this tournament without being, well, punished.
Meghan Klingenberg, who doubles as a soothsayer, artfully explained part of how the US avoids the problem Friday, telling media in Belo Horizonte that the US trust Hope Solo to “make the big saves when we need her to. When shit hits the fan and we break down at the end, she makes big saves.”
Certainly, it helps to have the world’s best goalkeeper, which Solo is, as her six saves against France Saturday night reiterated (more in a moment). But another possibility- one overwhelmingly supported by metrics and heatmaps, is that Kling and O’Hara are fast enough to recover when they get way up the field and better defensively, despite criticism, than they are given credit for. And as long as they can slow an opponent in transition and complicate the process of getting the ball square to goal, they can trust Solo to make a save or centerbacks Julie Johnston, Whitney Engen and Becky Sauerbrunn to clean things up. We saw good and bad moments from Klingenberg Saturday. When she tried to anticipate a run or cut off a pass, the team was cut out, which led to a tremendous Marie Laure Delie chance in the 41st minute. But we also saw Klingenberg rely on her CB’s on several occasions Saturday, where she protected against the incut defensively, deciding that surrendering a cross at Broon or Engen was less dangerous than being turned and having to chase. That’s smart soccer.
Sauerbrunn, at least within soccer circles, is widely lauded as the world’s best defender, a player Carli Lloyd told me last month is maybe the “one US player that is indispensable.” Along with Solo, she has been the best American player at the Olympics through two games and her performance Saturday evening bore that out. One sequence in particular, in the 50th minute just before the US took the lead, tested all theories and criticisms of the US defense.
A long Klingenberg ball resulted in a turnover, and France quickly broke the other way with pace. Caught with a helper in a channel and 1 v 1, Sauerbrunn calmly used positioning to short-circuit the counterattack and force the French attacker wide, shielding long enough for help to arrive. It was the type of excruciatingly difficult play Sauerbrunn makes look simple, and the reason she has almost no technical counterpart in the world. That Wendie Renard, the France CB who was sensational Saturday evening, has drawn a comparison or two to Sauerbrunn is a testament to how splendid France are from a talent standpoint.
Premise/What We’ve Heard: Hope Solo saved the game Saturday night.
Critique: France’s goalkeeper, Sarah Bouhaddi, lost the game.
The US have Hope Solo. She did her job and was spectacular in the US win. Praise directed her way is warranted. And it is hard to imagine her making the type of error that Sarah Bouhaddi made on the US goal, where Bouhaddi made the grammar school fundamentals error of leaving entirely too much space on her near post to compensate for a potential cross. The rule is to protect the near post and trust your defense to handle secondary runners and crosses. Bouhaddi broke the rule, and Carli Lloyd scored.
GOAL USA! Carli Lloyd. 1-0 USWNT. #USAvFRA https://t.co/oLaZ6KV9DQ
— Ben Jata (@Ben_Jata) August 6, 2016
So yes, France have done a splendid job closing the gap on the United States. They are a technically stout side and can play breathtaking soccer. But the US did the little things better Saturday night, and won because of it.
Included for her versatility, Allie Long’s play Saturday as a number six was up and down.
Premise/What We’ve Heard: The US midfield struggled mightily Saturday night and must be better to win the gold.
Critique: This is true, mostly. And it is true and concerning in the sense that the US could play France, or a team of similar quality, again in the final. The US need to be better in the midfield and they can be better. Nonetheless, the Americans winning the game assures it will probably be the semifinal before they play an opposing midfield that imposing. And those extra matches could matter.
One problematic with Olympic rosters is that the 18 person size diminishes tactical flexibility. The irony of course is that a player like Allie Long becomes coveted with the smaller Olympic roster- her flexibility as either a six or traditional or attacking eight are an enormous asset. With Morgan Brian battling injuries in the tournament build-up, it appeared Ellis preferred Long as the six, with Lindsey Horan playing a forward-bombing eight. The move was one that left the US a bit vulnerable on the left to the counterattack, but with Becky Sauerbrunn the CB left in the space behind, it was a risk the US appeared ready to take. The question that lingered, however, was what shape the US would take when Brian returned.
With Ellis switching from a modified 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3, Brian originally took up a deep-lying playmaker role behind Horan and Lloyd. With her in the team and in form, the USWNT are extremely difficult to win possession from. But as questions about her top-level fitness linger, Ellis was forced to choose, and appears to have opted for Allie Long as the shielder, with Horan to the bench and Brian more forward. It’s an interesting decision, and one that hurt the US in the center Saturday night. As talented as France are in the middle of the park, the US were overrun at times Saturday evening, with Carli Lloyd too detached from Brian and Long and France thriving in the space in-between.
Further, the US were hurt in attack in this set-up as well, at times simply attempting to bypass the midfield altogether with long diagonals from fullbacks or Sauerbrunn. For all of Allie Long’s prodigious capabilities passing the ball, she’s not terribly comfortable on it, and seemed troubled by the frenetic tempo of a game at this level. Indeed, the US’s best attacking moments in the opening half came when Brian dropped deeper to receive the ball and played it forward. It was strange to see Long, who was splendid against New Zealand, earn WOTM honors in a game that seemed to lose her at times. And her struggles on the ball were compounded by her inability to mark (albeit against Wendie Renard) at times on set pieces. Both problems might call for a return to Brian deep, and Horan more forward.
I continue to believe that pushing Brian forward is a misallocation of resources. Get her on the ball as much as possible! #USAvFRA
— Charles Olney (@dr_olney) August 6, 2016
Yes, the US give up something tackle wise moving Brian back. But they also gain something distribution wise, settling a defense that for now at least is without its best CB distributor in Julie Johnston and needs more in the way of link-up play than crunching tackles.
Premise: Carli Lloyd is still doing the maddening Carli Lloyd things, like turning the ball over and making ridiculous challenges and…
Critique: Scoring the goals?
Carli Lloyd is 34. She’s in machine-like shape- a personal goal, she says. But she’s 34 and this is an age where in soccer, even more than in life, you are what you are. She’s not going to change. She shouldn’t have to change. She’s a scorer, a ball-winner, a leader and maybe the one player you’d think could rescue the US from doom if they needed to find something in the final ten minutes.
France was always going to be a tough game for her– as Stephanie Yang noted at Stars and Stripes FC in her match preview– with Lloyd the high point of a midfield three against France, the question was always going to be about how close she was to Alex Morgan and in turn, how removed she was from the US pair ahead of the back four. With Long struggling to distribute cleanly out of the back, and Brian reluctant to drop deep and help, Lloyd was lost for moments. But in the end, she was there, making a late run and scoring a winning goal, because that’s always been where’s she best. You live with the fact that she made a somewhat reckless challenge forty seconds after scoring the goal, and committed a simple passing turnover two minutes after it, because she does something that’s historically difficult to do in this wonderful game: score goals with regularity.
Debate: Mallory Pugh or Crystal Dunn?
Answer: Not sure. Hard to isolate these things in a vacuum, particularly when one performance is a respectable New Zealand side and one is an Olympic gold-medal worthy France team. Richard Farley explores the debate- without resounding conclusion because it really is a difficult call on little evidence- here.
Neil W Blackmon is Co-Founder of The Yanks Are Coming. Follow him on Twitter @nwblackmon.