Getting ready for the 2024 Olympics

You're bowing out of the conversation because your position is indefensible. You said divestment took a long time." According to wikipedia "critical mass" wrt US divestment started in 1984. Apartheid ended. in 1991.

Mexican fans screaming "F@@@@@@G!" in the US is our problem.

It's insane to me that you're fighting this losing argument simply to advocate for Mexico to be able to play friendlies in the US, to fund it's homophobic fed. That's crazy to me.

 

I was working on a South African Divestment project in the winter of 1969-70...

And no, it is not our problem; not unless we have to arrest them. And then, really, it is a consular problem.

Who's advocating anything about Mexico? I'm just arguing that accusing the fed of hypocrisy over it is pretzel logic. Your aggressiveness here is kind of feral IMO. You seem to want a fight, and really I have no interest in giving you one. Maybe you can find a Mexican somewheres...

 

Well, the divestment reached "critical mass" in the 80's. Took 7 years to change apartheid. Not letting Mex play friendlies in the US would have an immediate impact. 5 year ban on friendlies in the US when the cheer is done. bang bang.

No one is talking about arresting anyone. Talk about trolling.

Just not sanctioning Mexico for friendlies in the US. And, for damn sure not scheduling them. And, yes, continuing to do so, while selling Pride jerseys at a huge mark up is hypocrisy.

 

That would hurt MLS/SUM, who make the money for El Tri friendlies in the US. As we've seen recently with the US Open Cup kerfuffle, if USSF were to take a stand that isn't saying "how high" when MLS asks them to jump, most likely, CONCACAF would lean on them heavily, since SUM also is partnered with CONCACAF.

 

1) MLS and SUM don't have an overt relationship. In theory, SUM has no leverage over MLS. If SUM does, get it on the table. Call their hand and show that they (SUM) are the homophobe supporters.

2) Re the money, that's called selling out, right? Hypocrisy?

 

I mean, that's kind of like saying the USWNT and the USWNT Players Union don't have an overt relationship....

https://socceresq.wordpress.com/2019/11/05/a-look-at-the-mls-constitution-part-ii-sum-it-up/

(i) Purpose: In 2002, Major League Soccer owners formed Soccer United Marketing, LLC for the purpose of increasing the commercial value of soccer in North America. All Team Operators own an equal share of SUM.

But we're also digressing from "WNT preparations for the Olympics".

I'd like to see Albert on the team if the LQBTQ+ members of the team are comfortable with her being on the field with them. She's 20 and has time to grow through exposure to the world.

 

MLS and SUM no longer have a contract. There is no relationship. But, if there was, put it on SUM. Say SUM is making us schedule the homophobes! But, they aren't, there's no current business relationship.

 

SUM and USSF no longer have a contract. SUM & MLS are one and the same, by design.

 

I misspoke sum and the Fed no longer have a contract

 

Ugh, I hate to answer this because it will take this forum down a political path it is not designed for. If your issue is social agenda then the list of countries that need banning from US sports participation is WAAAAY greater than just Mexico. Don't even get started on nations that flat out kill homosexuals and then the likes of Russia, China, Myimar, ... the list is massive. May as well keep our athletes out of the Olympics, World Cup, etc..

 

Those countries aren't coming into our country and shouting F@@@@@@G!

And, LGBTQ+ rights are a central point of advocacy for the Fed. The Fed isn't taking a tand on the Rohingya (not that we've ever scheduled Burma - I think it's back to going by Burma).

But, ya, don't schedule countries that don't respect LGBTQ rights, inclusive of those that kill them, if you think that will help. The impact on all of those countries will be negligible. Exept for one. Mex. They get a ton of their Feds revenue playing matches in the US. We are enabling their homophobic fanbase. Other countries you listed, not so much.

 

I understand your position.

 

These send-off matches show no real ambition. Mexico could be a good game if they bring their A-game, and Costa Rica is decent enough to discourage the US from developing bad habits. However, these teams aren't anywhere near the level of the teams the US will need to beat in France.

Although, it's not like Germany is playing France and England for their send-offs, so maybe it will be fine.

 

I look at these matches for what they are, warm ups. Get cohesion set up, get chemistry rolling, get a feel for the new coaches sideline changes on the fly, just prior to the big tournament. A dress rehearsal so to speak.

 

US possibly making the same mistake by playing all their games at home. Still impressive that so far this year they’ve won all their games vs Olympic bound NT’s(Brazil, Canada, Colombia), but the two matches with Canada were technically an draw with the US giving up the last goal in both of them(thus nullifying that our more depth on bench should be one of our strongest virtues). Got to wonder how all those games would have gone if played away or on neutral ground?—-though winning both PK shootout’s could come in handy in the playoff portion of the Olympics

and also confusing is Emma Hayes, Chelsea coaching as she preferred bunker tactics vs Barca’s high powered offense/tiki tacca short passing game. . Will she make the USWNT play this kind of style?/are we even capable of even capable of this kind of close, cramped version of soccer?

and if anybody didn’t know, Hayes did this last Saturday. bombed out of the Champions Lesgue though to be fair, Barca were heavy favorites

 

If any coach treats national team soccer the same way they treat club soccer then they are stupid. Hayes is NOT stupid. I expect we know nothing about how she will treat coaching the USA except for what we can glean from the things we have seen that her assistants do in other matches and that is, at best, an incomplete picture.

I did watch the match mentioned and, for me, it looked nothing like I would ever expect USA to look regardless of the opponent or conditions or health of any players.
If she is to be a good national team coach or a bad one we have no way of knowing or even making a good guess based on how her club teams play. Club does not equate directly to national team in any reasonable way.
I sometimes wonder if recruiting national team coaches from the ranks of club coaches is a good idea. I wonder if we could not get better results recruiting from college ranks. Coaching a college team closer resembles national team gig than club. The limited access and limited practice time and short schedule are a lot closer to national team problems than the steady contact and large amount of practice time that is faced in club play.

All that is to say that we cannot know much of anything about how Hayes' coaching of the USA until she actually coaches the USA.

 

Interesting take. Had not considered that angle.

 

well it’s going to be thr first time Hayes ever coached an national team, so you still feel she will change her tried & tested tactics after coaching Chelsea for over an decade to a radical different way?
She played pretty much the same type of rectangular shape, defensive vs Arsenal & Man City, two teams she was favorite to beat. Maybe coaching from afar by Hayes, the US all of a sudden switched into bunker mode by around the 80th minute vs Japan & Canada(mirroring as of late her Chelsea squad)—-the one big difference might be is Hayes likes to play with an 3 CB back, in an way it gives the FB’s more agility to either stay on defense or go on the attack depending which way the game goes —-but that would not be an good fit at all for the US at all sine our best strength is our wingers, 1v1 attacking style—last thing we need is our FB’s to get in their way. Though to be fair, attacking & overlapping FB’s is an big deal to the rest of the world, just not the best fit for us
and then as well on an 3-CB format, one of them need to have to the capability to go on the attack—right now don’t think we got anybody on our roster that can do that

 

@FanOfFutbol if you saw the Barca/Chelsea match, obviously Hayes decided to bunker despite that massive home crowd. Pretty much in the first leg as well(but at least she won that game)—the one big difference was striker. Ramirez, was injured for the 2nd game & Macario taking her place had nowhere near the speed that Ramirez had in the first game(to be able to cover the distance from the low lying defensive block that Hayes had set up for her team)
Ramirez speed in that 1st game was clocked just above 31km—2nd only to Chawinga(PSG) in the Champions League semifinals. Do we have anybody that can match at least the 31km speed on our US roster? I would think only Rodman, but then she would have to be changed into our lead( possibly only striker) to make it work in Hayes current system

PS anybody knows or got an link that can display the top speed’s of players in the NWSL?

 

Three or four years ago Lynn Williams was possibly the fastest women's soccer player in the world -- but I haven't seen her display that kind of speed recently. Alyssa Thompson, possibly on the national team in the future, is a successful sprinter.

I've seen surveys that rate Ali Krieger or Denise O'Sullivan as the fastest players -- but I've never seen anything with my eyes that makes me believe that.

 

If she does with the national team as she has done with club teams she would expose herself as being stupid. She does not give any other indication of stupidity. coaching club soccer bears almost no relationship to coaching international soccer except they play the same sport with mostly the same rules.
I will wait until she shows some pattern with the USA's national team before I really judge her and, even then, she gets a period where the only thing that really matters is that development progresses.
Her choices for formations are similarly unknown until she actually coaches the national team and she must try some things before settling into a style. (Unless she gets extremely lucky and is perfect the first time.) My hope is that she is flexible enough to adjust on the fly and she does not select many players that are only one dimensional and force a style if they are playing.
I hope she develops to be at least as good a coach for the national team as she has been in club soccer. The jury is still out on how she will coach the national team. In fact the first few matches and even the first tournament will not give enough info for us to be sure about but we will get an idea as to how she will adjust on the fly. She cannot learn enough about the team from just a few matches as, if she is any good, she will make adjustments to both players and formation, as needed.
After the Olympics we may have enough info to make good judgements but we may not.
Be aware we could go three and out at the Olympics and she still could end up as a great national team coach or we could win the Olympics and she could end up as a horrible national team coach. It takes at least nine months for an international team coach to get comfortable with a new team and i will give her that long before judging her except that if I see what I think are mistakes I will say so.
Another attribute that national team coaches must have is a thick skin but most make the mistake of trying to defend poor choices. I hope the when she makes mistakes, as she inevitably will, she acknowledges them and takes steps to correct the problem rather than going into denial and insisting that the system should have worked and blame the players. We have more than enough stupid coaching on the men's side. We do not need more foolishness, as we have had, on the women's side recently. The men are plenty good enough at failing and the do not need stupidity reinforcement from the women.

 

Why USWNT's group-stage opponents Zambia could be barred from playing at Olympics
https://www.goal.com/en-us/lists/ex...-could-be-barred-olympics/blt6effa54227ec5d86

I do not know what this really means for the USA but it is interesting, I think.

Warning: The only way I can open that site "Goal.com" in Chrome is to open it in an incognito window. It just shows as a server error when I attempt to open "Goal.com" in any regular window.

 

Your having to use an incognito window seems fitting with your past.

 

I do not understand. Is that some kind of an attempt at a dig or an insult, somehow?