Neil W. Blackmon
It’s been a week since the US Women’s National Team tumbled out of the 2016 Rio Olympics without a medal, losing a quarterfinal match on penalties to Sweden. The quarterfinal exit was the earliest exit for a US women’s team in a major tournament (Olympics or World Cup) and has spawned a collective discussion that is sweeping in range. Some have focused more narrowly on the failure of the moment, questioning whether the US simply lost its edge, and noting the historic implication of a US team failing to medal. Others have taken a more panoramic view of the program as a whole, with an eye to what comes next in the 34 months between now and the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup. Others suggested the need for wholesale development and tactical changes, while others wrote the result off to an outlier, a simple bit of bad luck.
The immediate impulse of fans and writers alike was to claim the Brazilian games (the US women never actually got to Rio) as a site of spectacular failure. The sky was falling and a wholesale referendum of all things from the manager to the merits of FIFA Women’s World Player of the Year Carli Lloyd’s position in the team was necessary.
That a US loss, sealed after Christen Press’s penalty sailed dreadfully high and wide and Hope Solo’s stall tactics proved futile in thwarting the final Sweden penalty, generated such a visceral, painful and emotive response from so many is both a testament to how high the bar is set for the US Women’s national team and the meaningful impact and audience the team commands at home.
The US losing matters, in part because it happens so rarely, but also because victories aren’t just taken for granted, they are quite often not good enough or attractive enough or dominant enough. Fans and even some well-regarded writers covering the US women, like the male counterparts in the host nation of Brazil, suffer winning. There is an argument to be made that for some fans or writers, a US loss comes with a jolt or level of jouissance, or even pained enjoyment, because the long-standing criticisms are vindicated with US defeat.
This pained enjoyment is evident both in the rash criticisms of Alex Morgan, the reasoned criticisms of Carli Lloyd and in the empirical but gendered criticisms of Hope Solo after the match (more below).
With that foundation and a belief that the panoramic view is , here are five TYAC thoughts on the Rio 2016 elimination and the state and future of the program moving forward.
The US defeat in Brazil marked the first defeat for the USWNT under Jill Ellis.
The Sky Isn’t Falling
Technically speaking, the US Women’s National Team has still not lost a tournament match under Jill Ellis. They were unbeaten at the Algarve Cup in 2015, the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2015, the 2016 She Believes Cup, and 2016 CONCACAF qualifying until they were eliminated on penalties at the 2016 Olympics following a draw with Sweden.
The USWNT entered the Olympic games having played 19 competitive matches under Ellis. They spent six minutes of those matches behind (against Germany, at the She Believes Cup). That’s a staggering figure, especially for a side that some believe is losing its mental edge.
During the span, the Americans drew only four matches: against Iceland at the 2015 Algarve Cup, Sweden at the 2015 World Cup, and against Colombia and Sweden at the Olympics. The Americans won the remainder of their matches. Further, regardless of your view of the FIFA rankings (a far more problematic assessment of quality in the men’s game), the US collected seven wins over Top 10 sides in that span: Germany (2x), France (2x), Australia, England and Japan.
Not making semifinals is a failure, but #USWNT record in 2016 is 16-0-3. The sky isn't falling. https://t.co/ycZsJprPqU
— John D. Halloran (@JohnDHalloran) August 15, 2016
So a bit of levity seems warranted.
The debate about what the USWNT can do better moving forward is a debate that is self-reflexive in terms of framing: the question isn’t whether the USWNT can remain elite, it is whether the US can continue to excel and meet the lofty standards it has set for itself. That’s fair to do, but not fair to forget.
Japan’s failure to qualify for the 2016 Olympics demonstrates that the US aren’t the only country subject to closing talent and quality margins.
Yes, the US margin for error is smaller. The world is getting better. But that just made this run more impressive.
There’s a misplaced uniqueness to the way we talk about the “world catching up” to the United States in the women’s game. The reality is that the women’s game worldwide is improving, and the margins for everyone- not simply the world champion US- is smaller.
There’s no better example of this than Japan, who the US played in the last three major international finals prior to the Brazil Olympic tournament. Japan failed to qualify for the Olympics, ousted by a resurgent China and an athletic, attacking Australia side. The failure stunned Japanese legend Homare Sawa, but perhaps it shouldn’t.
The rest of the world has, and continues to, improve. The chic debate in women’s soccer circles- a favorite of American journalists especially- tends to revolve around which nation will knock the US off their pedestal? It is always framed as a question of inevitability.
We’re still waiting.
France may play the world’s most attractive soccer- though in Brazil they again failed to produce anything with it but oohs and aahs.
Brazil still don’t defend, and will play for bronze, not gold, because of it. But they’ve long had the world’s most breathtaking futbolista and the crowds I saw in Manaus demonstrate the women’s game inspires passion in that country.
And for this author, at least, one of the defining images of the Olympic games will be the child in Manaus who crossed Neymar Jr off his Seleção shirt and wrote in “Marta” in permanent marker.
Uma imagem vale mais que mil palavras! (Foto: @prodoutor) #saineymarENTRAMARTA pic.twitter.com/K9Ucl9AXtv
— Hᴇssɪᴏɴ Dᴀʏᴀɴ (@hessiondayan) August 8, 2016
England are well-coached and organized but were absent from this tournament, lack scoring punch against elite opposition and finished last at the She Believes Cup.
Germany will play for gold and ought to win, and are probably the team closest to the US at present on the mountaintop. After losing to the US in Canada, the side suffered growing pains following a sequence of international retirements, including the brilliant playmaker Célia Šašić. They have replaced her by committee- a testament to their program’s resilience and depth. And yet it is the US, not the Germans, who are World Champions, and the US have defeated- and largely dominated- the Germans in the last two competitive games.
One could go on down the line but the fundamentally important point is that there are more quality women’s footballing nations at present, and sides like Canada, Sweden, Colombia and others are all capable of setting up a smart tactical plan, executing it and challenging the US on any given day. Led by arguably the best women’s coach in the world in Pia Sundhage, that’s precisely what Sweden did last week.
There’s a longstanding argument that the US traditionally has had both the elite athleticism and the one or two overwhelming technical talents to overcome adversity or teams with more advanced tactical systems. This narrative has kernels of truth but it’s sometimes mutated into a flawed idea that the Americans survive largely on this alone. They don’t.
It’s worth remembering that the Americans beat France in this tournament, largely because they had the quality to take their chances and the quality- from Hope Solo, who wasn’t beat near post like her counterpart Sarah Bouhaddi- to thwart the better chances their opponent generated in the run of play.
The US also likely would have weathered the group stage without conceding a goal were it not for Solo’s uncharacteristic errors in the final group stage match against Colombia. For a team that hasn’t really settled on fullback options since the World Cup, and one that was playing Allie Long, an international tournament newcomer, as a number six half the tournament, that’s pretty good.
The technical brilliance is still there. Becky Sauerbrunn is the best pure technical defender in the world. Morgan Brian is a classic technical mid that rivals any young player in the world and has over 50 caps at the ripe age of 23. Mallory Pugh- only seventeeen- may be the most talented technical attacking player the country has ever produced. So the US still have the players to fashion the necessary moments of brilliance.
Meanwhile, too little has been made of the fact the US have fought through their own wave of international retirements: Lauren Holiday, Lori Chalupny, Christie Rampone, Shannon Boxx and the incomparable Abby Wambach have all walked away since the US won in Canada. So the Americans have had their own turnover. And they still haven’t “lost” a competitive match.
No, The US Don’t Win “In Spite Of” Jill Ellis
The argument against the manager who has yet to lose a competitive match as manager of the USWNT goes something like this:
“Jill Ellis isn’t a savvy tactician. The US were bad in the group stages of the World Cup in Canada and Ellis only inserted Morgan Brian into the lineup out of necessity after Lauren Holiday was suspended for card accumulation. The Americans were fortunate against China in the knockout stages and rode a hot player to the title. It wasn’t really anything Ellis did. Further, Ellis has kept the player pool too small, hasn’t brought in enough available creative players who can bolster the team in scoring from the run of play, and she is too reliant on an aging Carli Lloyd and a not-as-good up top by herself Alex Morgan in big games. She’s just so rigid and the US win in spite of her.”
Accepting that Ellis should certainly be criticized for her choices in the US loss last Friday to Sweden, there is little merit to the remainder of the criticism, and not just because Ellis has a long term deal from the USSF that will likely keep her in place through the 2019 World Cup.
The claim that Ellis shouldn’t receive credit for a World Cup win where the US never trailed and didn’t need to be consistently bailed out by an in her prime Abby Wambach (see, Pia, 2011) taxes the credulity of the credulous. And no matter what you think of her odd and seemingly ill-informed use of Lauren Holiday, she’s not the first US manager to commit that sin, only the last.
Ellis also deserves- and doesn’t get enough- credit for finding the right combination in the back of defense to fix a defense that was leaking goals in the end of the Tom Sermanni regime.
This isn’t an indictment of Sermanni, who told me in February 2014 he felt his biggest challenge ahead of the World Cup in Canada was going to be finding out who to play around Becky Sauerbrunn. Sermanni knew what the Americans biggest problem was; Ellis fixed it. That she chose to be somewhat more negative tactically and fashioned the attack around an aging center half can be (and was ad nauseam) questioned, but it also should at least be reasonably put forward that most managers with a player as historically dominant as Abby Wambach might have done the same.
In the end, it was the ability of the US to not concede goals that kept the team in the tournament in Canada long enough for Carli Lloyd to figure out a way for the US to score goals, and Ellis was an immense part of that succcess.
The tactical rigidity criticism is a fascinating one too. Let’s explore it below.
The US miss the talismanic Lauren Holiday. Figuring out how to replace her continues to be complicated.
The US have 34 months to figure out how to be better at scoring in the run of play. That’s an immense amount of time given the talent at the team’s disposal.
Jill Ellis spent the last year rejecting tactical rigidity, instead trying to instill in the US a system that helps them diagnose and attack defenses more fluidly and create more chances in the run of play. Gone was the staid 4-4-2 and in was a more fluid, nuanced 4-3-3, focused on playing the ball more on the ground, with fullbacks that attack at will, natural, speedy wingers and a technical center forward in Alex Morgan. At times, the results were breathtaking.
Ellis, long a proponent of attacking soccer, also tasked her number 8- often converted forward Lindsey Horan- with getting further forward, to increase pressure on the overlap. This was a move that left the US vulnerable to the counterattack, but Ellis gambled that her CBs, Julie Johnston and Becky Sauerbrunn, would be up for the task. That they weren’t once in the match against Sweden shouldn’t negate the quality of the notion.
And herein lies the rub. At the center of things since Canada has been Carli Lloyd, who spent the better part of a year lined up above the other two midfielders as a playmaking number ten. This creates two dilemmas:
First, while Lloyd is one of the greatest ever at reading a game, identifying space, and poaching goals, she is turnover prone and despite her incredible fitness, offers little defensively beyond back to goal pressure.
This isn’t a problem if Morgan Brian and whoever plays with her can control the ball. It is when they can’t, because the US needs plenty of the ball for Lloyd to roam around, find space and poach. Here’s a tweet that sums that up, more or less.
Carli: Y'all take care of possession & such
Others: What will you be in charge of?
Carli: Making America Great Again https://t.co/LqaMh3H581— Charles Olney (@dr_olney) August 12, 2016
The setup may also be why the U.S. continues to rely on building play down the flanks, albeit in a more aggressive manner than before.
Problem number two is that Alex Morgan isn’t best suited as a lone center forward.
There’s a debate, to some extent, about the range of Morgan’s quality. In truth, that’s weird.
Morgan doesn’t have glaring weaknesses. She’s technically strong, makes intelligent runs off the ball, diversifies her shot placement, can hold the ball up, outrun a defender and muscle one back shoulder if need be. But she’s always- always- been better with help- whether it be withdrawn off Abby Wambach or paired with a player off who she can make any number of diagonal runs, which has produced her best moments in Orlando for her club this season.
How to fix this?
First, the US need to possess the ball better in the center of the park. We’ll call this the “We Miss Lauren Holiday” problem. Ellis saw it coming- telling TYAC in November following her retirement that replacing Holiday’s midfield production “will be a source and subject of sleepless nights.”
It’s probably worse now.
There are a couple of solutions, and both involve decreasing Carli Lloyd’s role.
The good news is that the US doesn’t have to do this immediately. You can slowly phase out the reigning world player of the year’s position as focal point while still emphasizing her role in the team both as a leader and perhaps the most tremendous poaching option off a bench the world’s ever seen.
The first idea is just to move Lloyd to forward altogether.
It buys time from placing her on the bench and allows the US to explore a variety of options underneath, whether it is Lindsey Horan or Mallory Pugh or Crystal Dunn moved central and high. The US will still have Christen Press as an option off the bench too, and younger players, like Ashley Sanchez and Savannah Jordan, soon to enter the fold.
The second idea is to maintain the status quo with one adjustment: insist that Morgan Brian play the Holiday role. As terrific as Brian was in Canada as the shielder, the US simply lack the technical quality ahead of her in the center of the park to continue to utilize her off the ball. When Brian dropped deeper, the US had less issues getting the ball from the CBs through the DM to the top off the park. If you utilize Brian centrally as an 8 with Pugh/Lloyd ahead and a DM (Allie Long? Julie Johnston?) behind, you are making sure the play is cycled through a tempo-setting mid with the chops to keep possession. And you begin to make the move now, before Brian hits what will be a prodigious prime.
Finally, there will be turnover in the next three years. One area to start is in goal, and now is almost always a good time to do what must be done eventually.
For all Hope Solo’s flaws, she has not shown signs of decline on the soccer field. Until this Olympic games. Yes, Solo’s heroism against France featured a save or two mere mortals can’t make. But Solo committed not one but two howlers to draw the Colombia match and wasn’t up to the task when called on against Sweden last week. She has been appeared reluctant to dive since her 2013 shoulder surgery, and seemed, for the first time, to shy away from contact in the scrum at the Olympics, failing to win several balls she should have easily punched away against New Zealand, France and Colombia.
Solo’s primary backups aren’t spring chickens: Ashlyn Harris, who plays in Orlando in the NWSL, is 30 now and may never get her first team shot. Alyssa Naeher, who Jill Ellis chose to back Solo up in Brazil, is 28 and will be 30 before the US play a qualifying match for 2019.
Ellis has been reluctant to move away from the old guard, integrating only a handful of new players into the team despite a lengthy “Victory” tour last autumn. She can and should be more liberal now- and to her credit, she told TYAC last month she “will certainly begin to evaluate a great number of players the US were waiting to look at until after the Olympics.”
Among those players should be U20 and Western New York Flash keeper Katelyn Rowland, Stanford keeper Jane Campbell, University of Florida goalkeeper Kaylan Marckese and, when she returns from a knee injury, Boston Breakers goalkeeper Abby Smith.
Solo, who will be 38 by the next World Cup, did herself no favors with her postgame remarks about Sweden playing like “cowards.” I’m less sympathetic to the argument that she is a problem in the locker room or needs to be dismissed. As Charles Boehm has written, those criticisms are too often gendered and flawed. But what happens on the field is different– and if Solo can’t consistently impact winning- she should be replaced.
There will be turnover elsewhere too- Carli Lloyd, Ali Krieger, Becky Sauerbrunn and Megan Rapinoe will all be in their mid-30s by the next World Cup, with Lloyd 37. The US have transitioned from one era to another before- and the net result: four World Cups between world titles- had high water marks but was hardly seamless. Rio shows this one won’t be either.
The US was playing for peerless history in Brazil, having already completed the Olympic gold and World Cup double with gold in London in 2012 and the World Cup title in 2015. No one had ever sandwiched a World Cup title between repeat Olympic golds. The US fell short, of course.
The road back begins now.
Neil W Blackmon is Co-Founder of The Yanks Are Coming. Follow him on Twitter @nwblackmon. Email him at nwblackmon@gmail.com.