U.S. Women's Soccer CBA Negotations Take an Interesting Turn

We awoke this morning to the news that the U.S. Women's National Team has parted ways with its chief negotiator, Rich Nichols, three days before its collective bargaining agreement with the U.S. Soccer Federation is set to expire.

Why and why now are relevant questions unanswered by the Women's Player's Association in its terse announcement, which merely says that Nichols will "no longer serve" as counsel to the Association, says that it is "focused on" productive conversations with U.S. Soccer regarding "our future" and looks forward to the upcoming NWSL season and an international women's tournament next March.

That immediate future will apparently proceed under the current CBA, which expires Saturday. Neither side has given the required 60-day notice of termination of that agreement,  after which either a work stoppage or a lock-out would be permitted.

Nichols has been a ferocious advocate for the women's team in negotiations with the Federation and by all appearances was the driving force in the wage discrimination complaint of five prominent players filed with the EEOC earlier this year, the defense of the Federation's suit that sought to impose the terms of an earlier CBA which forbid the players from striking before the Olympics this year (in which the Federation succeeded), and presumably in the players' public relations onslaught regarding their demands for "equal pay."

While meddling politicians and vacuous media outlets have taken up the women's team's call, as I and others have explained in the past, equal pay in the context of national soccer teams is not as simple as paying everyone the same salary or bonus or even paying equal amounts to the teams as a whole. And the EEOC complaint could, in fact, simply lead to further pay disparities in the women's professional game or the death of the women's professional league in the U.S. 

It seems likely that during negotiations (or perhaps because of the absence of negotiations) regarding a new CBA the players reached the conclusion that Nichol's approach was counterproductive to striking a bargain. Nichols has certainly raised the bar for the next counsel in terms of his zealous advocacy of the women's professional game, but perhaps a skillful negotiator and someone more willing to compromise is needed to bring the two sides together.

Certainly there's been nothing said publicly to-date by the Federation or its President Sunil Gulati to suggest that the Federation is not interested in trying to reach an agreement that does not compensate the national team players at a rate commensurate with their male counterparts, keeping in mind the revenue that each team has generated on a historical basis and U.S. Soccer's financial support for the NWSL.

Oh, but wait. There is one women's national team member who has cried foul, complaining that the Federation is "putting pressure" on the women to strike a deal. Anyone care to guess who that player might be?

Equal rights champion Hope Solo at her arraignment on
domestic violence charges (photo from washingtonpost.com)

That's right, Hope Solo. In a blog post yesterday Solo expounded on her self-proclaimed role as a champion for equal pay and takes a shot at the Federation and Gulati for "putting pressure on the players" and "trying to divide and conquer us."

To which I say: go figure. One side of a negotiation is trying to use leverage against the other? Say it ain't so, Solo! I suppose the EEOC complaint and the players' implicit threat of a strike prior to the Olympics (which caused the Federation's ultimately successful lawsuit) were not leverage, or attempts by the players to put pressure on the Federation to strike a deal?

Posturing aside, one has to wonder if the timing of Solo's post isn't an indication that she is not on-board with her fellow team members and litigants regarding Nichol's approach and was her (indirect) protest against his dismissal. In other words, Hope is the true champion of women's rights and the others are not. Certainly wouldn't be the first time that she willingly distanced herself from the common good.

This and That

As occasionally happens, life and work have gotten in the way of writing several planned posts. Here are a few short takes on things happening or that have happened recently in soccer:

1.  U.S. Men Are Thrashed by a South American Opponent (Again).

Was it great that the U.S. made the semi-finals of the Copa America? Yes. Should we have expected any better than 4-0 against Argentina in the semis? Well ...

Yes and no. The U.S. has played well in the knock-out rounds of some tournaments (while rarely winning). Outplaying (really, they outplayed them!) Germany in the 2002 World Cup only to be denied a shot at the semis by a missed handball that rivaled Maradona's; the second dos a cero win over Mexico in the round of 16 in the same 2002 World Cup; even the 2-1 after extra time loss to Belgium in the round of 16 in the 2014 World Cup in which the U.S. had every chance to extend the match to penalties until Wondo missed the sitter that allowed Landon Donovan fans everywhere to say "I told you so."

But there was a theme to all of those games. And it was that the U.S. was not playing a South American opponent in any of them. For some reason, in games that matter (or any match against the top teams from CONMEBOL really) the U.S. wilts. Against what are generally recognized today as the top three teams in South America (Argentina, Brazil, and Columbia) the U.S. is a disastrous 6-26-7 all-time.

No doubt the U.S. was hurt by the absences of Jermaine Jones, Alejandro Bedoya, and Bobby Wood against Argentina. But they were behind almost from the start thanks to Lionel Messi and never looked up to the task. U.S. Soccer in general and Jurgen Klinsmann in particular have to figure out how to stay in games early and win matches early, late, or any time in-between, against South American opposition if they ever hope to make the semis of a modern World Cup.

2.  The U.S. Women Tune-Up for the Olympics, with Middling Results.

The U.S. Women's Team has not been particularly scintillating in its warm-up matches for the Olympics, drawing a match and winning one against Japan (a team which, like the U.S., is regrouping or reloading as the case may be) and then beating South Africa 1-0 before thumping Costa Rica 4-0 in the final tune-up last Friday.  After last year's World Cup, however, far be it from me to question coach Jill Ellis's preparation of her squad leading into a major tournament.

With the Olympic soccer rosters limited to 18 players and a schedule of three group stage matches crammed into six days, with the quarters, semis, and finals jammed into the next week, versatility of players and coaches to adapt to fatigue, injuries, and suspensions will be at a premium. Which makes the inclusion of Megan Rapinoe, who has not played since tearing her ACL last December, in the final roster all the more curious.

The Women are in a tough group, with World number three France, Columbia, and New Zealand. But with only 12 teams in the mix, any group was going to have some difficult opposition (although, not surprisingly, hosts Brazil drew by far the easiest of the three).  The U.S. should make it out of the group, but it could be very important that they do so as the top seed as far as the strength of their quarterfinal opponent goes.

Regardless of the ultimate result, it will be exciting to see how well new star Crystal Dunn (who scored the only goal against South Africa and tallied again against Costa Rica) and starlet Mallory Pugh will fare in their first international tournaments for the senior team.

Dunn against Costa Rica (photo from newsday.com)

3.  Portugal, Sans Ronaldo, Wins the European Title.

So much for my wish that Cristiano Ronaldo would eat some crow during the 2016 UEFA Championship. The only saving grace was that he was injured during Portugal's win in the Final against France and spent most of the match on the sidelines (a little cruel, I know -- I wasn't hoping that it was a debilitating injury -- which it apparently wasn't).

I wasn't as upset about the fact that Portugal won (although France winning on home soil after all it's been through in the past year would have been nice), but the way that it accomplished the task. As mad as I get at South American teams for their diving, faked injuries, and time wasting, at least, on some level I feel as though they truly believe that it's just part of the game. The Portuguese, on the other hand, are so cynical in the way that the go about it that it's infuriating. 

After all of their disappointments at the international level, I suppose Portugal was due a few breaks in its favor.  And it got them through squandered opportunities by a French team that seemed, frankly, overwhelmed by the moment and one well placed strike by Eder that barely eluded French keeper Hugo Lloris, who seemed slightly out of position on the shot.

So a tournament that began with promise ended with a whimper (as did, to be fair, the Copa America) and Portugal got its trophy. And the beautiful game took a blow.

Killing The Goose?

"We are the best in the world" said Hope Solo in announcing her support for the EEOC complaint filed by her and four other members of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team this past week against the U.S. Soccer Federation.

Setting aside concerns that Solo provided bulletin board material for 15 other national teams (and that she would have the temerity to bite the hand that not only fed her but provided support when she faced a domestic violence charge  (yes, I just linked to a People Magazine article) that could have ended her World Cup hopes, if not her career, last year), while Solo's statement is completely defensible given that the team is the reigning World Cup and Olympic champion, it does not conclusively prove the players' case.

Too easy, I know (photo from businessinsider.com)

By now my support of women's sports in general and soccer in particular should be well-established. I believe in level playing fields (and similarly surfaced playing fields) for men and women.

But equal opportunity does not necessarily mean equal pay.

While I am all for the women receiving pay commensurate with their work and the money that they generate for U.S. Soccer (and with their male counterparts if they are entitled to it) I'm not sure that this lawsuit is the best way to try to accomplish that. In fact, a victory for them could actually be detrimental to many of their professional soccer playing peers who are good, but not good enough to play for the national team.

The men's team and the women's team are governed by separate collective bargaining agreements, under which the men are paid substantially more for performances in international matches. Important, lawyer-type note: just because you're subject to a collective bargaining agreement does not mean that you are prohibited from bringing an equal pay claim. According to one article, when playing in an international friendly, the men can earn as much as $17,635 in bonus money for a win, $8,125 for a tie, and $5000 for a loss.  The women, meanwhile, receive a $1,350 bonus for winning a friendly, nothing if they tie or lose.

But the ways in which the men's team and the women's team members are compensated are hardly apples to apples. The men are paid strictly on a bonus system while the women are paid salaries and receive benefits more akin to those of traditional employees - severance pay and "various types of insurance" - that the men are not.  And they are also paid salaries as National Women's Soccer League players, which is where the crux of the problem, and the danger in the players' suit, lies.

U.S. Soccer, with some help from the Canadian and Mexican federations, helped start and is presumably helping keep the NWSL financially afloat. It doesn't take a photographic memory to recall the fate of the two U.S. women's professional leagues that preceded the NWSL (but it may to name them), both of which succumbed to a combination of poor management and, frankly, lack of interest in non-World Cup and Olympic seasons. It appears that the players' suit does not take into account the money that U.S. Soccer has spent to start and sustain the NWSL. [In my original post, I surmised here that the federations pay the salaries of non-federation players in the NWSL. After further investigation, I don't believe that to be the case. While information regarding NWSL individual players' salaries is not disseminated, it appears that the league pays non-federation players, while the federations only pay those of "allocated players" from one of the three participating federations. Nonetheless, the suggestion that U.S. Soccer pays the salaries of the highest-paid players in the league appears to be correct.]

The league has benefited those players, who would not otherwise have an opportunity to play professional soccer, by both giving them that chance and proving that they are worthy of consideration for the national team. Crystal Dunn, for example, was the last player cut from last year's World Cup team, but proved her mettle by being the leading scorer in the league last season. Restored to the roster, she scored five goals against Puerto Rico in the Olympic qualifying tournament and appears to be poised to play a significant role for the team in Rio.

Setting aside U.S. Soccer's apparently well-taken position that the players and their attorneys cooked the books by focusing on income from last year (when the women won the World Cup in Canada and embarked on an extended victory tour), its claim that the men's team's games over which it has control (i.e., non-World Cup games) have audiences double those of the women, and that U.S. Soccer has been at the forefront, world-wide, of commitment both to the women's game and to cajoling or compelling FIFA to support women's soccer and women in positions of power within FIFA, there's a more fundamental concern that I have with the players' complaint and the future of women's soccer in the U.S.

Where is the money to come from to pay the players if they succeed?

Unless U.S. Soccer adopts FIFA's more ... creative ways of generating income, the funds to pay a large increase in player compensation may well result in a reduction of its financial commitment  to the NWSL. And while the national team players may or may not care, that would be detrimental to the long-term health of women's professional soccer in the U.S., and perhaps to the national team as well. 

This may all be much ado about next-to-nothing. The Soccer America article suggests that the true motive for the EEOC complaint may be simply to gain leverage in the players' on-going negotiations with U.S. Soccer over a new collective bargaining agreement, particularly in light of U.S. Soccer's filing of its own complaint in February, in which it seeks court confirmation that the current collective bargaining agreement runs through the end of 2016 (fearing, presumably, a work stoppage by the players shortly before or during the Olympics).

But if it is not, if the players pursue their complaint beyond the Olympics or the (hopeful) signing of a new collective bargaining agreement, then I fear for the future of women's professional soccer in the U.S. That may or may not be of concern to Solo and her fellow litigants. But it should be to the rest of us.

Same Song, Different Verse

So much for transition.

The U.S. Women steamrolled through the CONCACAF Olympic qualifying tournament with relative ease, beating Canada, again, 2-0 in the final with both nations already through to the Olympics in Rio later this year. Assuming, of course, that any female athlete will actually go to Rio with Olympic caliber mosquitoes buzzing around loaded with the Zika virus.

Gone from the lineup that romped over Japan in last year's World Cup final were Lauren Holiday (retired), Megan Rapine (injured), Ali Krieger, and Abby Wambach (retired - although she did not start against Japan). Kelly O'Hara, who was a reserve outside midfielder for the World Cup team, took Krieger's place on the backline, Lindsey Horan slid into midfield, and 17 year-old sensation Mallory Pugh took the third starting spot for the final.

Canada's coach John Herdman (who was quoted after the match as saying "[t]o be honest, I didn't think the U.S. troubled us massively .. They were doable tonight, and we missed a great chance on home soil" ) was apparently the only person in Houston or watching on t.v. that didn't think the Americans dominated the match. The U.S. outshot Canada 11-2, extending their unbeaten streak against our not-so-friendly neighbors to the North to 32 games. 

The only statistic that the Canadians led was fouls (16-14) although that admittedly should have been more one-sided had the Mexican referee (right, Mexican ref in a U.S. soccer title game -- makes sense CONCACAF) felt any compulsion to be the least bit consistent. For example, Carli Lloyd was called for a foul in the first half for leg-whipping a Canadian player. Fair enough. Then in the second half, Lloyd is leg-whipped in the Canadian penalty box and ... Lloyd is called for a foul.

Canada was a power in women's soccer for a brief shining period of time when Christine Sinclair was in her prime. But that time has now passed, and the Canadians have no major trophies to show for it. The stunning comeback by the Americans in the semifinal of the London Olympic tournament was the closest the Canadians will probably get anytime soon (it was so, so close) and probably still sticks in Herdman's craw.

Side note that I don't think I've shared before: C and I actually watched that game, or at least the second half and extra time, in the bar of a golf course in Canmore, Alberta. I went nuts when Wambach's penalty tied the match, then completely bonkers when Alex Morgan's header won it at the death. C felt compelled to advise everyone in attendance that I was a women's soccer coach in the U.S., hoping to save me from a lynching. It worked.

But I digress. This team is different than last year's, with Horan and Morgan Brian (awarded the Golden Ball as best player of the tournament) bossing the midfield and Alex Morgan, Pugh, Crystal Dunn (the Golden Boot winner for most goals of the tournament), and Christen Press providing scoring options. Tobin Heath performed her technical magic on the wing, but this team (possibly because of Rapinoe's absence) relied on width more from Meghan Klingenberg and O'Hara bombing up the wings from their outside back positions than from outside mids, with Heath often tucking inside, where she was when she scored the second fabulous goal against Canada to seal the game.

For me the most exciting part of the tournament, and the U.S.'s performance, was Pugh. Still a high school senior, she became the youngest women in U.S. Women's National Team history to play in an Olympic qualifier. And she was anything but a novelty act. Fast, lively, inventive, she did not appear the least bit awed by the situation. Listed as 5' 4"(perhaps standing on concrete with her cleats on), she struck me as (dare I say it?) a female Messi. She can be that good.

Mallory Pugh (photo from bleacher report.com)

And if she is, John Herdman better get used to coming up second best for a long time to come.

Two Seminal Moments

A lot has already been written about the Women's World Cup Final.  And there were many, many occasions worthy of reflection.

But, for me, the Final, and really the whole tournament, can be summed up in two stunning moments. Both took place in the first 16 minutes of the game in which the U.S. thrashed Japan 5-2 in the most comprehensive and mind boggling domination of any opponent in a World Cup Final.

The first was Carli Lloyd's first goal on a set piece in the third minute (I know, I probably don't have to tell you which goal was which). That goal was the final nail in the coffin of my and everyone else's criticisms of Jill Ellis as a coach. It was the perfect call at the perfect time and it worked to perfection as well.

It was also a little bit of deja vu for me, as it was very reminiscent of a corner that University High pulled off against my Charleston Catholic team several years back (immediately after which one of our defenders exclaimed: "Wow! That was sweet!"). That the University team was trained by the fellow coach that I most admired perhaps colors my appreciation for Ellis' decision. Or informs it.

For most of the pre-match hype commentators had been pointing to the superior height of the Americans and the importance of it capitalizing on that advantage on set pieces.

So what does Ellis do? Have the team spend a lot of time practicing set pieces played on the ground not in the air. On the corner Lloyd, the U.S.'s best offensive header of the ball, started her run at least 25 yards from goal, arriving in the 18 yard box as Megan Rapinoe took the kick, and steaming toward the penalty spot well ahead of her defender.

To be sure, the play needed the perfect ball by Rapinoe, a largely uncongested area in front of the keeper, and a deft touch (outside of the left foot) by Lloyd to succeed. But the area in which the ball was played was uncontested because of the attention being paid to Julie Johnston at the near post, because of Japan's overwhelming concern to guard against headers off of set pieces.

All credit to Ellis for seeing the possibilities in playing completely against form in making that call. Whether the other adjustments that she made during the tournament were fortuitous or planned (inserting Morgan Brian in the line-up due to Lauren Holiday's suspension, moving to a 4-5-1 formation -- stop insisting it's a 4-3-3 Tony DiCicco it's not! -- when Holiday was eligible again) really isn't important to me. What is that she was willing to adapt and learn. That's every bit as important for coaches as for players and the fact that she was willing to change and experiment on the biggest of stages is admirable.

And oh by the way, if you don't think that was the plan, the Americans' second set piece, won by Tobin Heath with some fine work down the right flank, resulted in a second free kick by Holiday (yeah, I was wrong about her too) played on the ground to Johnston, whose wonderful back-heel pass left Lloyd again in front of goal with the ball at her feet.

Random thought: did you notice the calls for a foul from Alex Morgan and Johnston on the second goal? I missed it while watching live, but it's clear that a Japanese player (number 19, Saori Ariyoshi) handled the ball after Johnston's flick on. If the referee saw it and didn't stop play, kudos to her. If she missed it, then it was a foreshadowing of a non-call in the second half when she missed almost the identical play.

The second seminal moment was Lloyd's third goal in 15 minutes, the one that secured the game, her hat trick, and her legacy. That audacious chip may some day be a more iconic moment in women's soccer than Brandi Chastain's penalty kick in 1999 (except for that whole Chastain taking off her shirt thing).

Everyone was still buzzing about Holiday's goal when Lloyd won the ball in midfield off of the Japanese kickoff and then suddenly it was, "Wait. What? Did that just happen?" for about 20 million people.

I saw this comment somewhere on-line after the Final, which is kind of tired but so appropriate here: "It's Carli Lloyd's world and we're just living in it."  She was a beast, she was in the zone, she put the team on her shoulders, choose whatever cliché you want. They all fit.

It took guts for Lloyd to step up and take the penalty kicks against Columbia and Germany. But it took great vision, presence, and a lot of chutzpah to even think to attempt that 60 yard chip. In the Final of the World Cup. The fact that she even thought to try it is astonishing -- particularly against a team that is renowned for its discipline. The fact that it actually went in? Inconceivable.

But it had to go in. Because really, her story, the team's story, our story, this story couldn't have ended any other way.

(photo from bbc.co.uk)

Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here

Yes, the U.S. dominated top ranked (for now) Germany in defeating it 2-0 in the World Cup semifinal.

Yes, Japan looked pedestrian, and more than a little lucky, in downing England 2-1 in the other semifinal.

Yes, the U.S. seems to be peaking, as coach Jill Ellis has repeatedly said was the goal, at the right time.

But don't forget 2011.

After Abby Wambach's goal at the death against Brazil in the quarterfinals in 2011 eventually led to an American win on penalty kicks, the U.S. cruised 3-1 over France in the semis. It appeared that the U.S. was truly a team of destiny.

But then it lost to Japan 3-1 in the Final in penalty kicks. After extra time ended with a dramatic Japanese goal by eventual Golden Boot winner Homare Sawa. And, perhaps even more egregious, it squandered a seemingly safe 1-0 lead with nine minutes left in regulation after some Keystone Cops defending that allowed Japan to equalize when it had barely threatened the entire game.

While the U.S. defense is much stouter this time around, surely 2011 was a lesson that the Japanese are every bit as tough and resilient as are the Americans. And Japan is not without skill - its players may be the most technically adept of any at the tournament.

I've witnessed some crazy talk on Fox Sports over the last few days. 3-0 U.S. seems to be a standard prediction. Is that within the realm of possibility? Yes. Is it likely given what we know about Japan and the way it's played the last five years? No. Is it likely given the Americans' continuing inability to score in the run-of-play (two goals in the three elimination matches in this tournament)? No.

A friend suggested after the Germany game that he and I needed to continue to trash-talk the U.S. (and particularly its coach) since it seemed to result in better and better performances. And while I'm certainly prepared to do whatever I can to help the cause, Jill Ellis says she doesn't read the papers or on-line articles so I'm not sure it will make any difference other than pure superstition (to which I am admittedly not immune).

It seems that every elimination game has had at least one penalty kick. And my fear is that, as technical as the Japanese are, they won't give one away.

But they did against England. 

And they just may again tomorrow.

Has she got one more in her? (photo from kansascity.com)

Mostly Right

Here's what I was wrong about in my last post:

1. The U.S. will inevitably lose to Germany.

The Yanks have a chance if they play as well, and play mostly the same players, as they did against China (sorry Kelley O'Hara, you were good, but you're the odd woman out as way has to be made for Megan Rapinoe). Not saying we'll win. Just no longer saying we're sure to lose.

2. Amy Rodriguez (her energy and defending from the front were exactly what the U.S. needed).

3. Assuming Canada had what it took to get past England.

Here's what I was right about in my last post:

1. Lauren Holiday.

2. Abby Wambach.

3. Carli Lloyd.

(photo from usatoday.com)

4. Germany (barely).

5. Japan.

6. Canada.

Things I meant to say and didn't:

1. In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. defense is really, really good. Can you win a World Cup with a great defense and a so-so offense? Undoubtedly. Since the first half against Australia, Hope Solo hasn't had to do much of anything in goal. That's how good Ali Krieger, Meghan Klingenberg (my personal favorite among the defenders), Julie Johnston, and Becky Sauerbrunn have been.

Yet to be determined:

1. Whether Jill Ellis has the guts to sit Wambach and Holiday against Germany. Remember my comment about how Michael Bradley is more at-ease in an attacking role when he knows Kyle Beckerman has his back? Same for Lloyd and Morgan Brian, who has improved by leaps-and-bounds since her first appearance in this Cup. And Wambach, a legendary competitor, simply hasn't got what it takes for 90 minutes of World Cup play.

This will be fun.

Survive and Advance

How many times have you read those words in the past two weeks? In a tournament it does not matter how you win, or how good you look while winning, only that you do, we keep hearing. Survive and advance.

That's exactly what the U.S. Women's National team has done so far in the World Cup. It's also about the nicest thing that anyone has to say about its performance to-date.

And it's also why it's taken me so long to finish this post. There's something about this team (and has been for a while) that leaves me unconvinced that it will end up with a third star.

There were those shaky moments against Sweden and Australia. If not for a saving header by the shortest player on the field (Meghan Klingenberg) the U.S. would have lost to Sweden and its former coach, Pia Sundhage. And Hope Solo, not weighed down by off-the-field baggage, kept the Yanks in the match with several first half saves against the Matildas that only Solo can make.

The match with Columbia took on an edge thanks mostly to perceived slights of the American players asserted by Colombian forward Lady Andrade. Andrade's comments were curious given that publicly the U.S. players said all the right things about respecting every opponent in the knock-out stage and Columbia's shocking 2-0 upset of France in group play, not to mention that one would think that she would not want to draw attention to herself given that the last time that the two teams met she punched Abby Wambach in the face and was suspended for two games as a result.

But whatever statement the Americans might have made on the field in response was buried under another avalanche of offensive mediocrity. No matter what combination of forwards coach Jill Ellis has tried between Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan, Kristen Press, Amy Rodriguez, and Sydney Leroux, the result has been depressingly consistent - few chances, fewer shots on goal, and, since the Australia match, three goals in three games.

As a coach it always frustrated me when the press and other coaches focused on who was scoring goals, not how they were put in the position to score them. And, while Morgan has been rusty, Wambach not one but two steps slow, and Press, Rodriguez and Leroux largely ineffective, I suspect that the real root of the problem is the service that they're receiving from the midfield, specifically center mids Carli Lloyd and Lauren Holiday.

I've expressed before my fondness for Lloyd's game and my frustration with Holiday's. We may see if the U.S. is better off with Lloyd playing the more offensive ("number 10") role for the women on Friday against China, a game for which both Holiday and Megan Rapinoe are suspended. It's easy to forget now, but Lloyd did score the game winning goals in both the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Gold Medal matches.

Lloyd celebrates one of her two goals against Japan in the
2012 Olympic Gold Medal match (photo from pennlive.com)

But the problem may not be of either Lloyd's or Holiday's making - they may simply be playing the way that Ellis has instructed them to. Long balls forward and depending on set pieces is not interesting to watch and definitely not the way to play if you're playing from behind, which the U.S. has yet to be in the World Cup, fortunately.

If you want to watch how the game should be played, play hooky or DVR the Friday afternoon match between Germany and France. Notwithstanding Les Bleues' inexplicable loss to Columbia, these two teams are not only the most exciting in this year's World Cup, but also clearly the best to this point. The way that they move without the ball and play give-and-goes is a thing of beauty, and sorely lacking in the Americans' play.

The winner of that match will play the U.S.-China victor in the semi-finals. And, while I expect that the U.S. will squeak past China, I don't hold out much hope for it against whichever team survives the Germany-France match (and, really, when Germany and France meet in any competition, can you ever bet against the Germans?).

On the other side of the bracket, if it's possible Canada has been even less impressive and more predictable than the U.S. It will likely have its first real test against Japan in the semis. And will lose.

So, an all-Axis power World Cup Final anyone? 2-0 Germany in the final over Japan. And perhaps a victory for those who play the game the way it's supposed to be played.

Then Again ...

Did I overreact to the result of a friendly?

Perhaps.

But examples of equal overreaction to the U.S. Women's win in the finals of the Algarve Cup abound as well.

Yes, the U.S. was missing Hope Solo and Megan Rapinoe and Sydney Leroux in its 2-0 loss in a friendly last month. But Rapinoe and Leroux made mere cameo appearance in its 2-0 win over France in the Algarve Cup final last week. Meanwhile, the French were missing five of their starters in the match in Portugal who had featured in the earlier game in Lorient (including both starting center backs, playmaker Louisa Nacib, and Elodie Thomis who torched the American defense repeatedly in their first meeting of the year).

What can we learn from the second match? First, as hard as it may be to admit, the team needs Solo. She is athletic and commanding in the box. She made a good save on the late penalty kick, but more importantly her presence seems to calm all of the U.S. defenders. And that unit also seems better equipped to handle fast, skilled players with Julie Johnston partnering with Becky Sauerbrunn in central defense.

Second, the team has a new star in Christen Press. While she may not have been able to shred France's Wendie Renard and Laura Georges the way she did their substitutes in the Final in Portugal, she is a dynamic player whose individual skill on the ball is going to be needed if Jill Ellis' team continues to play balls over the top to its forwards (whoever they will end up being between Alex Morgan, Amy Rodriquez, Abby Wambach, Sydney Leroux, and Press) rather than possession soccer.

Press at the Algarve Cup (photo from usatoday.com)

Which brings me to third, why I'm not sold on the team yet. It probably has more to do with the type of soccer that I like to watch than it does whether I believe the U.S. will win the Women's World Cup in Canada. It seems that Ellis is intent on playing with no true attacking wing midfielders, putting Press and Carli Lloyd out wide and letting Lauren Holiday (of whom everyone but me seems enamored as a playmaker) and Morgan Brian run the center of midfield.

Moving Press and Lloyd "out wide" means that they rarely play as out-and-out wingers, but more like additional center-mids, which is fine if you want to control possession and play a small-pass game. Which, puzzlingly, the U.S. has not done in any of the matches that it's played in that alignment. I've long expressed my admiration for the skills of Rapinoe and Tobin Heath, who excel at wing play (although Heath, like Press, is more adept at challenging players from the wing and cutting inside than Rapinoe, who sends in crosses with the best of them). If Ellis continues to use Press and Lloyd at outside mid, then the U.S. attack will be less varied, more predictable, and not nearly as entertaining as when Rapinoe and Heath play.

I don't expect that the exhibitions that the U.S. has scheduled over the next three months will tell us much about how the U.S. will fair in Canada. But they will very likely confirm what Ellis' plans are for the formation they will use and the players that she is counting to prove that Portugal, not Lorient, was the bell weather of what their chances of success are.

Rudderless

rud·der·less

ˈrədərləs/

adjective

adjective: rudderless

1. lacking a rudder.

   • lacking a clear sense of one's aims or principles.

     "today's leadership is rudderless"

Rudderless.

That's the one word that kept creeping into my mind, over and over again, as I watched another U.S. National Soccer team, this time the women, be outclassed and outworked.

Yes, we lost 2-0 to a very good French national team that has beaten Germany and Brazil in the past few months.

Yes, the U.S. was without some of its key players as Megan Rapinoe, Christine Rampone, Hope Solo, and Sydney Leroux didn't dress for the match and the first three didn't even make the trip for the friendlies with France and England.

Yes, the rest of the world is catching us along with the other members of the formerly exclusive club of countries that can contend for the women's World Cup.

All the more reason to need, to have to rely on and have confidence in, your coach. And in my opinion the game against the French demonstrated that the team appears to be a rudderless ship.

When, just seven months ago, U.S. Soccer decided to unceremoniously dump national team coach Tom Sermanni I wrote that the candidates to replace him were uninspiring and that, if the powers-that-be had concluded that they had made the wrong decision in hiring Sermanni, they did not have the luxury of making a second mistake in choosing his replacement with the World Cup a year away. 

One of those candidates, Jill Ellis, was chosen as the temporary and then permanent replacement for Sermanni. Ellis was born in England and her father John was a soccer coach as well. After playing for William & Mary, Ellis embarked on a coaching career in college that culminated at UCLA, where the program made eight NCAA Final Fours in her 12 years as coach. She then moved to U.S. Soccer on a full-time basis in 2011. Ellis was the temporary head coach for the team when Pia Sundhage departed in 2012 as well.

Ellis may be a fine coach. She may have the ear of her players. She may be a good organizer. She may be a good practice coach.

But she's never won anything. 

A couple of Nordic Cups, whatever that is. But no NCAA titles (in eight visits). No U-20 World Cups (the team that she coached in 2010 didn't make the semi-finals). 

When it mattered, when it came time to play the game that was the difference between finishing second or third or fourth best or hoisting the trophy in triumph, her teams always came up short. And, while sports are a perfect venue for second chances and new opportunities, nothing that has occurred since Ellis took permanent control of arguably the most prominent women's national sports team in the World indicates that things will be different this time around.

Strategically, the handling of the team, and its goalkeeper/diva Hope Solo in particular, has been troubling. While Ellis was quoted in the New York Times yesterday as saying "for every player, you have to have a Plan B" there was clearly no Plan B for the U.S. at the position that has always been one of the biggest strengths of its men's and women's teams (keeper, not diva). Julie Foudy pointed out as much in ESPNW the day before Ellis' comment was published, and I submit that I did the same over two years ago.

Tactically, the Americans were always "on the back foot," as Ian Darke likes to say, against the French. Second best in effort and ideas. Reduced by bad passes in the mid-field to booting it forward and hoping for the best. Unable, even, to take advantage of a huge potential break when the referee gifted them a penalty for a foul that both wasn't a foul and wasn't in the penalty box, only for Abby Wambach to hit a weak penalty kick that was easily saved. The midfield chased the game, with Lauren Holiday practically invisible unless she was passing to the team in the blue shirts (and, in case you didn't watch, the U.S. wore white).

I understand, and often state, that too much shouldn't be read into friendly matches. But this was one that the U.S. was apparently pointing to. Yes, Ellis wants to review her options in game situations for the World Cup. And it was encouraging to see Alex Morgan put in a full 90 minutes in her return from injury.

Morgan's presence (although not necessarily her play) was one
of the few bright spots against France. (photo from ussoccer.com)

But the lack of ideas and skill and just plain work (excepting the always solid Carli Lloyd and Tobin Heath) transcend the issue of whether this was "just a friendly." Foudy made the comment shortly after Wambach entered the game that you could sense a lift in the other U.S. players' emotions when she was on the field. But neither they, nor Ellis, should have to rely on a simple tactical change to inject energy or ingenuity into the game. And, even if it works, you can only go to that particular well so many times before it becomes routine and by definition unremarkable.

The U.S. plays England in that next friendly on Friday. After that comes the Algarve Cup, the tournament that was presumably Sermanni's undoing when the U.S. finished seventh out of eight teams a year ago. We'd better hope that Ellis has figured some things out between now and then. Because, much like Solo, I doubt that there's a "Plan B" when it comes to who will coach our national team at the World Cup in June.

Two Not So Fitting Farewells - Part One

You could take two recent decisions involving the U.S. Men's and Women's national teams as good signs. As indications that we are big time now, that we make heartless decisions based on what we think is best for our programs, nothing more and nothing less.

Or you could see it as the passing of an era, from a time when our national soccer teams, perhaps to a fault, recognized past service or gave longer leash to a coach because it was the right thing, even if it wasn't necessarily in the best interests of the team (Briana Scurry starting in the 2007 World Cup semifinals instead of Hope Solo comes to mind, but perhaps then-coach Greg Ryan would disagree, since the fallout from that determination cost him his job).

The first decision involved the "shocking" dismissal last month of Women's head coach Tom Sermanni. Unlike Pia Sundhage's last game, there was no celebration after Sermanni's last match as coach, in which the U.S. beat China 3-0. In fact, other than Sunil Gulati and perhaps handful of others, no one knew that it was Sermanni's last match.

That victory came on the heels of a disappointing performance by the squad in the Algrave Cup, an annual women's tournament held in Portugal. The U.S. drew with eventual runners-up Japan in their first group match before losing to Sweden 1-0 and to Denmark by a shocking 5-3 score. Sweden is now coached by Sundhage, adding insult to the injury of a seventh place finish.

Sermanni coaching during the match vs. Japan at the Algrave
Cup. The team's performance at the tournament was at least a
part of his undoing. (photo from soccerblog.dallasnews.com)

While the team's performance in Portugal was admittedly underwhelming, it did not seem to be sufficient justification for a change. The termination came as a shock to Sermanni who is universally beloved by his players and seemingly deserved better, or, at the least, some notice that a change was being considered.

In the aftermath of the firing, pundits offered varying theories on the reasons for and the timing of Sermanni's departure. With CONCACAF Wold Cup qualifying set to take place in October for the 2015 Women's World Cup to be held in Canada, time is short for another coach to impose his or her vision on the team.

Gulati denied that a player revolt provoked Sermanni's dismissal, but it's hard to believe that the veterans of the squad were happy with Sermanni's habit of thrusting players new to the national team into starting spots (and, in particular, leaving Abby Wambach on the bench for the entire match against Japan and for all but five minutes against Denmark). Gulati did admit in his press conference that he gained information from "people in and around the team" that played a role in the decision, along with an assessment of "where the team's going and heading," and the performance in Portugal.

It's inconceivable that the decision was made with anything other than the best of intentions - clearly, Gulati and others in the U.S. Soccer brain trust thought the team was headed in the wrong direction (or, more likely, in no particular direction). With a qualification tournament upcoming that was nearly the team's undoing four years ago (remember the loss to Mexico? the play-off matches against Italy?) surely part of what played into Sermanni's firing was that if a change had to be made, it had to be made soon.

So, Sermanni wasn't the answer. Fair enough. But who is? The anticipation was that a new coach would be named by early May, but it's nearly the middle of the month and still no new coach. The list of candidates, frankly, isn't that inspiring (although Sundhage's former assistant, Tony Gustavsson, is an intriguing option). And time is growing short.

One thing is certain: if we are in a new, cold world of soccer with our women's national team, the choice this time had better be the right one. Or heads other than just the next coach's ought to roll.

The Water's Fine

U.S. Soccer ran an on-line "tournament bracket" asking fans to choose their "best moment" of the first 100 years of soccer in the States.

While admittedly the results were overly-weighted to recent events (the Men's team's third place finish in the 1930 World Cup - it's best ever - only made the third round), the fans seemingly tended to voting for "best moments" (as the competition suggested) rather than team achievements.

I voted in most of the rounds, but it wasn't until after I cast my vote in the finals that I realized that both finalist moments were ones about which I had previously written posts.

In fact, they were posts with a similar theme, and were similarly … well, gushy about soccer in general and the men's and women's teams in particular.

The winner? Abby Wambach's goal at the death in the 2011 Women's World Cup quarterfinal against Brazil to send the match into overtime. It was that goal that I waxed poetic about in a post that was based on the theme that began with the other finalist, which was ...

Landon Donovan's goal, also at the death, against Algeria in the 2010 Men's World Cup which sent the U.S. into the round of 16, and soccer fans across the States into a frenzy not seen before for any soccer match of any kind. That post, too, was based on the wisdom of Delmar in Oh Brother Where Art Thou? and his invitation to partake of the waters of salvation.

Did Wambach and Donovan redeem soccer in the U.S.? Well, in retrospect, perhaps not completely. After all, the men lost their next game to Ghana in 2010 and the women lost in the World Cup final to Japan later in that tournament.

Wambach's perfect header.

But they certainly excited more people than just me about our national teams and soccer in general. And arguably set the stage for the women's 2012 Olympic triumph and the men's resurgence under Jurgen Klinsmann. I can still remember going crazy in my family room, with my son and a co-worker who had ditched work to watch the game.  It was kind of like this:

And their reemergence in the poll allows me to say, one more time, "C'mon in, the water's fine."

Looking Back

I've been stuck in a rut with writing my next post for over a month now. 

I started one about Ryan Braun's half-hearted explanation/apology and how it reflected what a bully he is, particularly with regard to the sample collector, Dino Laurenzi, Jr., about whom and his suspected biases he went on at great length in his "I'm innocent" press conference in 2012, but who only merited the following in his admission of guilt: "I sincerely apologize to everybody involved in the arbitration process, including the collector, Dino Laurenzi, Jr." when Braun finally fessed up and admitted to cheating this summer.

But I have grown bored with Braun and his ego-centric behavior, and, frankly, bored with my loathing of him.

I began another post about my prediction at the start of the year that this was a seminal year for the status of soccer in the U.S., from the Men's National Team, which was largely in turmoil and not playing particularly well at the time, to the Women's National Team which was trying to adjust to Life With(out) Pia, to the new women's league and where each was at now. But work and vacation got in the way, and I decided to wait until after the U.S. v. Mexico matches (the women this week, the men next week) to proclaim my current judgment on those issues. (But here's a teaser - Sydney Leroux is good.)

The third one that I started and never finished is the one I regret the most not completing. It celebrated the achievements of two friends, one a coach, the other a golfer. The coach achieved this June what he had long deserved - the right to call himself a State Championship coach. I considered him one of my closest coaching colleagues at Charleston Catholic, and I intended to recognize his achievement, not just in winning a championship (finally), but in always doing things the right way as well as his success in mentoring several generations of athletes, which far outweighs anything he or they will ever accomplish on the field.

Catholic players celebrate their state championship
(photo from WVMetroNews).

The other friend is a far better golfer than me, but had never had a hole-in-one (although he did have a double eagle - an "albatross" - which is a far more difficult and rare achievement) before making his first ace late this year. I would have held him up as use an example of how good things come to those who wait.

But that post, too, went unpublished as it seemed that timeliness was important and ultimately unachievable.

Then today I had an epiphany of sorts as I listened to an NPR interview with Trent Reznor and realized that I am closing in on the 100th post of this blog that began with a whimper more than three years ago.

Reznor spoke in the interview of the changes in his perspective and his music; from the angry but "meticulous" noise of Nine Inch Nails to that of his new album which is much more melodic and at times downright mainstream. He also talked about writing about what he's feeling, what he believes in, and how he wants his music to sound at any particular time. And about trying not to care about what his fans (or former fans) may think.

I appreciate what Reznor is saying. When I first decided to write a blog, I admit it was largely self-promotion (or "business development" as lawyers like to say). I did, though, have enough self-awareness to realize that if I started another employment or internet law blog I'd soon lose interest and hate the idea, the writing, and the idea of writing.

Where I differ with Reznor is that I do care about whether anyone reads my posts and what they think about them. Unlike Reznor, I'm hardly a recognized member of this particular community. And just as importantly because it would be pure narcissism to write and not care whether my readers enjoy, or at least give thought to, what I write.

So, no retrospective as we near another landmark (the two I did near the first and second anniversaries of this blog are among the least read of all my posts -- I'm a little slow but I come around eventually). But an acknowledgement that I've found topics that have kept my interest for almost 100 times now and the hope that occasionally they've done the same for you.

Now if you'll excuse my I've got a black t-shirt to put on and some NIN to listen to ...

The Year of Ascendance or Disaster?

An important year awaits U.S. soccer, both on the men's and women's sides.

The women will face the year adjusting to a new coach as Tom Sermanni officially takes over from Pia Sundhage, now in charge of the national team in her native Sweden. While the team has understandably expressed excitement at the prospect of having a new coach with new ideas after five successful years under Sundhage (understandable because, well, if they're going to play, they're going to play for Sermanni), several key players are aging at positions that usually expose age (everywhere but keeper, really).

On the professional front of the women's game, the National Soccer League is set to begin play in April. The league announced this past week the allocation of National Team players from the U.S., Mexico, and Canada to the eight franchises, which include essentially are four teams from the former WPS (Boston, "Sky Blue", based in the New York City area, Western New York (Rochester), and Chicago) and four new clubs and cities (Seattle, Portland, Kansas City, and Washington D.C., which had a team for two years before it was moved to Florida).

The players were allocated with the help of a panel of experts, presumably to assure parity. Some effort appears to have been made to allocate American players close to home as well (for example, Hope Solo and Megan Rapinoe to Seattle, and Abby Wambach to Rochester).

While I don't profess to be familiar with any of the Mexican or many of the Canadian players, at first glance the Portland club, with Tobin Heath, Alex Morgan, and Christine Sinclair from Canada look to have the makings of a powerful offense.

Presumably, as much interest will be focused on the business model of the new league as it tries to succeed where two of its sisters recently failed. Smaller, and in some instances shifting, venues and subsidies from the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican national teams may at least provide a tourniquet for the financial bleeding that is bound to occur with any fledgling professional league.

Meanwhile, on the men's side the National Team faces the final round of qualifying ("The Hex") for the 2014 World's Cup. Who will be in the starting 11 against Honduras on February 6 is anyone's guess, including, more likely than not, head coach Jurgen Klinsmann's. Keeper Tim Howard is a lock. Michael Bradley and Clint Dempsey are certainties, barring injury. But even where they will play is not clear. Bradley could play holding midfield, or as an offensive mid. Dempsey could play out wide in a 4-3-3, as a withdrawn forward, or up front (although he does not seem to be preferred by club or country as an out-and-out striker).

Michael Bradley is one of the few certainties in the U.S. lineup.

The big questions are who will make up what was an inconsistent defense and who will play up front and in what configuration. Is it time to replace Steve Cherundolo and Carlos Bocanegra in back? Will Herculez Gomez, Jozy Altidore, Juan Agudelo, Eddie Johnson, or Chris Wondoloski play up front and alone or with a partner?

Whatever the line-up, the results have to be sufficient to qualify for the 2014 World Cup.  There is no doubt that soccer's popularity is on the rise in the U.S. But in the women's game, the interest has been limited, to this point, to the national team.

By the same token, the rise in popularity on the men's side has largely been concentrated on the European professional leagues, particularly the English Premier League. And while it's encouraging that there are more broadcasts of soccer than ever, and that results even occasionally creep into smaller newspapers, it doesn't do a lot to grow the professional game in the States.

In order for that to happen, soccer fans have to take more of an interest in MLS, either by attending or just by raising the t.v. ratings. And that's most likely to happen if the men's team, stocked primarily with MLS players, qualifies for its seventh consecutive World Cup. Failure to qualify will not only be a blow to the growth of the game here, but also to U.S. Soccer, which invested its future (not to mention a lot of cash) in the talismanic Klinsmann.

I may be a Pollyanna, but I think Klinsmann will figure it out and the U.S. will qualify either first or second in the group. And the star of the team will not be Dempsey or Altidore or Landon Donovan. It will be the former coach's son - Bradley.

Learning to Live with It

If you follow women's soccer, or the tabloids, you've probably heard about Hope Solo's drunken bachelorette/bachelor party/melee, followed by her appearance at a hearing on domestic battery charges that she brought against her fiancee (now husband), a former NFL player with an impressive history of run-ins with the law including DUI, possession with intent to distribute, and, most disturbingly, sexual assault.

Various folks have weighed in on what should or should not be off limits with regard to Solo and what appear to be some questionable life choices (not that that should be particularly shocking given her public declarations in the past). But my take is a little different. It's about the choices that coaches and teams are sometimes forced to make.

Coaches are fond of saying that they have one set of rules that applies to all players. But they know, and the players know, that that's not always the case.

At any level, coaches have to make adjustments and even exceptions for exceptional players. And they have to depend on the players to understand that it's for the good of the team that they do so, even if  the players that exceptions are made for aren't "team players."

After watching the U.S. Women's team in the Olympics, reading Solo's controversial comments regarding Brandi Chastain's commentary and the lack of public support that she received for those comments from her teammates and coaches, and then watch the last two friendlies that the team played against the Republic of Ireland, I wonder how much tongue biting and eye rolling goes on inside the team when Solo opens her mouth. Because two things are clear: first, Solo, true to her name, is not a team player; and, second, the team really, really needs her.

Um, that look pretty much says it all.

Admittedly, it may not be fair to evaluate based on two halves of two friendlies, but Solo's backup, Nicole Barnhart, looked very shaky in her two appearances. While her decision-making would undoubtedly benefit from more game time, she looked indecisive on crosses and balls in the box.

Keepers are like left-handed pitchers in baseball -- they're often viewed as the odd-balls, marching to the beat of a different drummer (no doubt in part because they are the only players allowed to use their hands). But that doesn't mean they can't or don't have to be good teammates.

It will be interesting to see how the new head coach of the National Team, Tom Sermanni, deals with Solo. Perhaps, like Pia Sundhage before him, he will decide that regardless of the distractions, it's best for the team that he tolerate them as best as he and the team can. But we should also probably hope (pun intended) that somewhere in the program a replacement is being groomed.

A Fitting Farewell

Pia Sundhage's final match as the U.S. Women's soccer coach had all the right elements to encapsulate her nearly five years in charge. An early deficit, some dodgy defending, lots of goals, and in the end, a victory as the Americans beat Australia 6-2.

It's easy to forget that when Sundhage took over the team it was in complete disarray. The women had finished third in the World Cup in 2007, a result with which most countries (Canada comes to mind) would be ecstatic, but which was disappointing for the Americans in part because it constituted the second straight World Cup that they had failed to win, but mostly because of the way it had happened.

Then-coach Greg Ryan benched keeper Hope Solo in favor of long-time starter Brianna Scurry for the semi-final match against Brazil, which the U.S. promptly and embarrassingly lost 4-0. After the game, Solo publicly blasted Ryan for the decision (where have we heard that since?), splitting the team into two camps.

Alex Morgan, one of the fast, skilled young players
that Sundhage included in the U.S. Women's National team.

While the team regrouped to defeat Norway in the consolation game, the damage had been done. Ryan was dismissed and U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati eventually named Sundhage, the first non-American to hold the job, in his place.

Nine months later, the U.S. Women won the Gold Medal at the Beijing Olympics. Sundhage found a winning formula, based primarily on Abby Wambach and Solo, and stuck with it.

While the play wasn't always pretty, and there were some rough stretches (particularly during World Cup qualifying, when the U.S. lost to Mexico and had to defeat Italy in home-and-home matches to squeak into the Finals) the team began to play exciting, attractive soccer. Sure, there were more bumps along the way - especially the World Cup Final against Japan when the Americans twice surrendered leads and their slow defenders (yes, Hope, slow defenders) were exposed.

But two matches in particular, the World Cup quarterfinal against Brazil in 2011 and the Olympic semifinal against Canada this summer, were two of the most compelling soccer matches, men's or women's, I've ever watched. And Sundhage should also be credited for bringing youth into the team, Megan Rapinoe, Alex Morgan, and Sydney Leroux being the best examples of quality players who blossomed under Sundhage's leadership.

Perhaps most importantly, Sundhage clearly enjoys coaching and imparts that joy to her players. Undoubtedly she worked them hard. But she has a whimsical side that occasionally causes her to dance or break into song.

Whoever replaces Sundhage will have big shoes to fill, and will inherit a team with high expectations for the next World Cup, to be held in Canada in 2015. He or she may well bring the Cup back across the border. But I doubt that whoever it is will do so with as much panache as Sundhage brought to our team.