So, full disclosure, the US-Brazil game this past weekend was the first Women's World Cup game I've watched since 1999. In that time, the women's game has definitely made huge strides (mostly because there are more than 3 countries where women play soccer now...). The game has turned into a cause celebre. And there are a few reasons why that's justified:
1) The refs almost single-handedly jobbed the US: There were four potentially game-changing decisions in this game, and three went against the US. First was the penalty and red card Brazil got. While I don't think it was necessarily a dive, the challenge most likely wasn't a foul (it was shoulder-to-shoulder) and almost definitely wasn't worthy of a red card. But, no matter, karma won out and Hope Solo saved the ensuing penalty. But then came probably the worst of the calls-- Brazil was given a retake. Why? I have no idea. Solo definitely didn't come off her line (and even that's a call that refs normally let slide unless the keeper is a good yard or more off the line when the ball is shot), and the only possible encroachment came by about 3 inches at the top of the box. Encroachment on a soccer penalty is like a lane violation in basketball, but way more meaningful-- as a ref, you NEVER give it as a ref unless it's painfully obvious. Here, it was nothing close to that, and certainly didn't interfere with the penalty. The ref really hosed the US there. Then, on Brazil's go-ahead goal in extra time, the Brazilian who played the ball in was a good 6 inches offside. That's the kind of call that, unlike encroachment, you DO have to give precisely. Now, it was close enough that missing it wasn't the worst thing ever but, combined with the previous two goals, it amounted to a complete screwjob. The fourth was the retake on the US's first penalty, but 1) the Brazilian keeper was WAY off the line on that one, and 2) if the ref gave Brazil a retake for the almost non-existent encroachment during regular time, but not for the huge jump off the line here, the US squad would have rightfully rioted.
2) There was late-game drama: It's impossible to deny the excitement of a goal on the last attack. I was about to close the window on my laptop when I saw the ball go in the net (and made everyone in the coffee shop I was in look at me like a crazy person as I pumped my fist...). A 122nd-minute equalizing goal is more thrilling than just about anything in sports besides maybe a last possession game deciding situation in basketball (just because the odds are a little more even in that case). So it was definitely a thrill.
3) The Brazilian women were playing games: Now, I love soccer, but there's nothing more annoying about it than late-game "gamesmanship", and the Brazilian women were trying to pull every trick in the book in this one. They rolled around like they'd been shot, only to bounce right up once the stretchers came out for them. They took dives, hoping to frustrate the Americans. They kicked the ball away to waste more time. In short, they did their best to game the rules to keep the US from coming back, which made the equalizer all the more satisfying.
But, at the same time, I can't help but point out two things that the media just hasn't mentioned in the aftermath that take a bit of the shine off for me.
1) The final goal wasn't a moment of American brilliance-- it was a horrible mistake by the Brazilian defense and keeper: The cross that Abby Wambach headed home in the 122nd minute came from just inside the Brazilian half. There was a defender loosely marking Wambach, and the cross came maybe 2 yards from the goal. That's a routine play in soccer-- the keeper should be coming out, collecting the ball, and booting it upfield in one motion. At worst, if the keeper is shaky, maybe (s)he'll punch it away. Instead, the keeper horribly misjudged it, flailed at the 40-yard desperation cross, and gave Wambach a free header into the net. As soccer mistakes go, it was on par with England's unfortunately-named keeper David Seaman letting Ronaldinho's 45-yard cross/free kick sail behind him into the net at the 2002 World Cup. But unlike that case, in which it was pretty universally acknowledged that Seaman screwed up, here no one mentions that, really, the goal was about 95% the keeper's fault.
2) The US didn't play great: Let's be honest. While the Americans pulled out the result, and rightfully so based on the chances created, they were outplayed, for the most part. Brazil outpossessed us, was technically better, and had more ideas. The US has some talented players but, in all honesty, a tactical reset is probably necessary. Watching the US reminds me of watching old tapes of England's national teams from the 1980s: win the ball, play the ball wide to a winger, hope the winger can create space against her marker and launch a cross into the box, and hope the cross reaches the forehead of the siege tower up front to head on net. It's a predictable style that pretty much concedes that the central midfielders don't have the quality to possess the ball and create space. And the worst part is, I think the US's central midfielders ARE talented enough to do that, given the chance...
Now, I'm definitely all in for this next game, and I hope the US takes it to France and makes the final on Sunday, but I also hope their win against Brazil isn't taken as some kind of vindication of the ugly game the coach has the US women playing.
No comments:
Post a Comment