The U.S. women’s national team faced an unfamiliar position on Wednesday against the Netherlands, but was able to fight back and earn one point in its second Group E matchup.
Lindsey Horan’s second-half equalizer helped the USWNT earn a 1-1 draw vs. the Netherlands in Wellington at the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup. Despite falling behind after only 17 minutes, Vlatko Andonovski’s squad were able to remain unbeaten in group stage play.
Jill Roord propelled the Netherlands ahead 1-0 after 17 minutes thanks to a smooth finish past Alyssa Naeher. Lieke Martens and Victoria Pelova connected inside the USWNT’s half of the field before Pelova’s second pass attempt was confidently stroked home by Roord.
Trinity Rodman came close to tying things up off the restart, forcing Dutch goalkeeper Daphne van Domselaar into her first save of the night. Rodman’s looping effort forced Van Domselaar to scramble back to her net, but she was able to punch away the effort and keep the Netherlands in front.
Rose Lavelle came off the USWNT bench at halftime and played a crucial role in the Americans equalizing after the hour mark. Her cross towards the back post was headed home by Lindsey Horan to make it 1-1 with 30 minutes to play.
Alex Morgan, Rodman, and Sophia Smith all had good offensive opportunities later in the half to win the match but were unable to deliver for the USWNT. Morgan’s goal was wiped out due to offsides while Rodman and Smith both missed their chances in the final third.
The USWNT stays top of Group E with four points, leading the Dutch on goal differential.
Portugal will oppose the Americans on Tuesday in its final group stage match while the Netherlands face off with winless Vietnam on the same night.
oh, and did the Dutch goal remind of the Dutch goals vs. the USMNT? yes, unmarked weak side runner into open space in the box
Or course if Dunn doesn’t slip she’s in position to intercept. Girma immediately senses the danger and covers for Dunn. But Dunn still recovering from the slip can’t properly clear the ball. Horan is actually back and in good position but lifts her leg and allows the shot through. If she just stands there it clangs off her leg. To have Sullivan totally get skinned in midfield and Dunn slip and still be in position to shut down the attack is arguably a much better position than the men frequently found themselves in against the Dutch. My concern is the lack of rotation may hinder our ability to cover for mistakes in the knockout rounds, like the men experienced.
the key was dropping Morgan underneath to receive aerial service and flick on to runners crashing into the space created when she dropped under fort he headers
that’s how to beat a back 3…draw the central defender into higher space and then run into it. took too long
the no subbing thing totally backfired, and Lynn Williams, the player Vlatko called the best 15 minute player in the world, sat on the bench while others visibly tired (all front 3 players, for example), or pull Sullivan. How about Rapinoe the last 10 minutes? world class set piece and ball server vs. tired legs, yet only the pine
every team will leave Sullivan open because she doesn’t even show for the ball so no need to mark her; the build out is like 10 v 11, this is old news, but Vlatko made no move to address it.
now all of these players have stacked 90+ minute games, with each game now more important than the last. hope it works but besides for defenders, that’s a bad recipe imo.
I’d say he’s in the hot seat
I thought the US defense was playing too deep in the first half, surrendering space when they did not have to and stayed so deep that the other 6 players were playing 6 v 10 for most of the first half. The Netherlands used that numerical advantage to apply high pressure to the US and cut off passing lanes. No wonder the US lost the midfield battle. There was even a point when a single Dutch attacker dribbled the ball into the US half and all 4 defenders retreated and gave her 30+ yards with no effort to challenge her. That kind of deep defending is Okish when the US can play 6v10 and still score goals against weak teams who want to pack the penalty area with 10 defenders, it does prevent the opposition getting behind the defense, but really no pressure at all!
The second half saw the US defense more engaged and it showed, no longer did the Dutch have so much space to operate and the US was able to apply pressure of their own. When they did that it looked like the US suddenly had better players , most of that was not Lavelle though she was good, but simply playing equal numbers and not having 4 players being almost total spectators like in the first half.
Rodman was a force. She repeatedly won the ball and beat Dutch defenders.
If the US comes out with a passive back 4 again like in the first half of this game, I will go hoarse screaming at the TV.
i see next to no value in the 433 now adopted as the standard US formation men and women. the exploits (video game term) are already figured out and in abundant use in qatar (and again now). panama made the B team look bad 343 and holland made us work 352 it looked like. you swamp the MF and it defeats the narrow press. heck, i remember playing a 433 one select year coming up as a kid and while fun it was impossible to control a game. the normal idea to tactics is not just to rotely adopt something popular and european, but that it’s an advantage. people can view the way bradley used to play as negative but it was a counter-tactic and not a fashion choice.
anyhow if a 352 team pushes the wings up every back of ours is spoken for. i assume that’s why we’re staying home. but then i should have the opposing backs 3v3 and a lot of wide green space — if i am willing to play over the top or long. save that we should still be able to get after their backs wide.
i prefer the women being more direct to goal and they are more talented relative to their opposition, but the silly formation both teams are chained to is an anvil. the world was moving past this like 5-10 years ago. and when the english version of this was popular maybe 30-odd years ago the shift was to 442 and 352. unless you’re real aggressive with the 433 attacking and willing to play to dutch/barca scores i am lost why we have landed here. it’s a crap defensive formation vulnerable down the wings.
I’ve been wondering if I was the only one thinking, This looks a lot like Berhalter Ball…
Something is just “off” with this team, I don’t see anyone with the “it” factor… I don’t think they repeat
I am less concerned about the starting points for players and more concerned about how they change depending on the game situation. The starting points, I think, are used mostly as a shorthand for the players’ roles in the team are to be, not a spatial distribution for the players to stick to.
When choosing a lineup the coach’s starting arrangement will influence who he starts and his history of rigidity or lack of it will empower players t to make good on-field decisions, or no.
My criticism of GB is not the starting formation he uses, but that it appears that the players seem like they are limited to the roles that implies. Under the two recent coaches who employed the same starting formation, the players seem less restricted and more likely to make good on-field decisions. I think that relative freedom made for more effective play by the US, at least in those times the players were able to make good decisions.
As for how the US women played, it looked to me like the back 4 of the US was told to stay deep and not venture forward and that is what they did in the first half, In the second half, it looked as if they were told to step up and press the Dutch and win balls early and that is how they played.
I am not a fan of a coach having such a tight grip on how the players can do their jobs. Telling a few players to make sure the opponents can’t play in behind us and having all 4 backs drop deep all the time are different. I do not like the implications of what I saw.
There is no perfect formation every one has benefits and weaknesses. That’s why popular formations come and go and comeback and go away again. Your personal preference is not a 4-3-3. I’m just going throw out there though that professional managers might have some ideas and tactics related to how to make those formations effective that your club coach didn’t know or understand.
JR: sorry, no. if you’ve ever played ball having just 3 mids with no wing help is nuts on defense.
you are already in most concepts supposed to be running up trying to create. now you’re supposed to have 3 guys try and get sideline to sideline and mop up attacks. you’re asking too much of too few and this is true whether it’s age group ball or UCL. you end up with either a swiss cheese middle (too spread) or what panama did to us the other day. (too compact). there’s also if a MF gets caught up there’s next to no one left in the MF to stop a jailbreak. there is a reason dutch games are high scoring.
people theorize correctives like shifting to other formations on defense (442, 451, track wingbacks) — EFFECTIVELY ADMITTING MY POINT. if you have ever played those correctives,, they sound clever in theory but begin to undermine the value of the 433. if you push the 10 up to defend he has to run way back to show to ball which is backwards. conversely if you track the wing forwards backwards, they are no longer in an aggressive starting position when the ball is won — they are as far back as the wingbacks, and don’t provide as decisive of outlets. they can of course run forward but it takes seconds to get back to 433, and perhaps allows the defense back, which costs your window of surprise. and all the shifting around
is exhausting, and maybe your legs go, and you quit shifting, and it’s back to vulnerable 433.
NSTAFL.
i was part of that MF. we all went on to win 2 state titles though we played other positions by that point. that whole MF was future NCAA, 1 of whom played pro. everyone could defend. we all ran track. if we found the formation to be swiss cheese and hard to defend, sorry, dude, it’s swiss cheese. if there is one thing we understood it was defense. sheeesh.
i don’t think snobs have it figured out yet that it helps pep a lot to be handed an insane payroll. and even he has decided, it seems, that rather than sending the wingbacks forward like barca and ajax — who usually go out of the UCL by some high scoring loss — that he’s going to shift the wingbacks inward to give the defense some depth and heft. again, you cannot just let the 433 be, it requires help. a formation that has given us few GF (3 G in 4 world cup games in case you forgot) and needs cutesy help to keep GA down sounds kind of dumb.
why not play something more fundamentally sound with better passing angles? i mean to me half the problem with 433 is it’s a passing angle nightmare. if the mids stay compact your immediate angle is back to the interior which is risky. we can push up the wingbacks but that’s risky. coaches have to tell the forwards to pinch or something or everyone is in a line up the field which is a bad passing idea. give me something with immediate angles . guys both on the chalk and inside. diagonals and not straight balls. and a better attacking idea than keepaway followed by whacking a lofted ball in. you get snooty about stuff well whacking crosses in is like junior high soccer.
so, yeah, your patronization is not well received.
Dennis: we are actually very “positional” in our little spots as opposed to total footballing it. i wish we like shifted around and combined and covered for each other. this is some of the theory behind a dutch 433. but we stand very statically in channels. we barely show to the ball. being rigid, the formation is what it is, warts and all.
re liberating, i played wing in a 352 in select and college where you run endline to endline. it is only in theory liberating. in reality if i let that wing opponent get behind me it’s the fastest goal allowed in history. this has to temper how often i push forward, and the risks i take in terms of the ball.
i think what it boils down to is i come at this exactly opposite. play a fundamentally sound formation. then improvise out of it. and the soundness is not overly fascist, it’s like, if you want to push up someone pushes back.
beyond formations i just feel like we take dumb risks with low payoff and routine downside. steffen used to be an opposing goal machine passing from the back. the really good teams seem to get after our wingbacks a lot. for what? when’s the last time we scored starting off a short little keeper dink to the backs? or how often a year do we score wingback crossing?
personally i believe in division of labor. the 6 and backs are out there to destroy, the keeper to catch shots. simple balls to real attackers as opposed to 2-way types, people who can pinpoint danger and finish shots. attackers not picked to chase. now, to be fair to me, i expect my backs to be sufficiently skilled to hand the ball off successfully and occasionally contribute. and for the forwards to at least play passing lanes. but i think the offense goes to heck when it’s picked to press and the defense goes to seed when it’s picked for passing and crossing. my issue on the goal and their good chances was not so much them being deep as the gap to the MF, the lack of 6s tracking back, and the sense that the backs were like in a deep zone on no one in particular. there is nothing more annoying to me than watching 4 guys back deep in a zone watching a goal from the penalty spot that no one marks. everyone in position; no one actually defending.
get down to it i am practical, half my deal is neither of the teams look very good or get dominant results. y’all keep coming back, “well, in theory…” in practice it is overrated.
the pressing goes against what i was taught as a kid, which was not because we were wusses but because chasing your mistakes is exhausting over a game and can pull the team out of shape. the offense then feels like how one plays sitting on a lead as opposed to trying to create chances. it said a lot to me we perked up at NL playing less keepaway and being more direct.
So IV your argument is because your teenage team wasn’t good using a 4-3-3 that guys like Klopp and Pep are idiots that use an inferior system. Here’s a description from Sam Tigre’s article on what type of players fit the 4-3-3. “The 4-3-3 is a major step toward that, as each player is involved in multiple phases of play. The full-backs and midfielders, in particular, need to be physically superior, multi-talented and possess the desire to win.“ Maybe that formation just didn’t fit you and your teammates no matter how good you where, your skill sets just fit better in another formation.
re lavelle, the discussion she should start is misguided fanboy stuff. it’s a calculated bet we can keep getting results while she heals and her minutes are limited. you can ask more minutes but you risk she gets hurt and is completely done. you then have her when it matters in the knockouts, assuming we can get the portugal result. fanboys couldn’t have played much youth tournament soccer because it’s the final that matters and not the first games in the group round. for all the talk about improving the soccer players in this country basic ideas of coaching and game management seems to have regressed. you rotate. you manage injuries. you use more than the fanboy approved XI to get to the end, if you want the XI ready in the final.
i thought morgan had a good first half and rodman a good second. rodman’s second half was so good it’s like did you watch that part? rodman had 2 good shots, a dangerous cross, and an assist called back. if i could shuffle them around i’d push morgan wide and horan as 9. horan is a little technical but it’s so slow and deliberate which is predictable.
personally based on what i saw i’d be more concerned with the defense and the DM play.
Could you send that message to Vlatko because besides having Rose on minutes restrictions he’s done no rotation.
and used one sub today, lavelle at the half. which is almost more like monitored minute-sharing than like someone was tired.
If you don’t advance you don’t make it to the final, so start Lavelle, then sub her at half. You subbing her on for 45 mins, is the same as starting her for 45 mins. Fanboy nothing it’s common sense TIV
Striker, I suppose it’s personal preference but if you start Lavelle and your down or tied you aren’t going to feel confident taking her off for DeMelo or Sanchez. Yes you could score a goal but if you don’t…
————————
Don’t stress about IV’s insults, he doesn’t come here for debate he just wants people to agree with his opinions, so by painting people with a differing opinion as “snobs” or “fanboys” he’s trying to scare you away from voicing your opinion. He wants you to think “I’m not a “fanboy”, so I guess I don’t think that.” Same with his “If you’ve ever played before” comment classic propaganda techniques.
I can’t remember the last time the team played as sloppy as during the first half. And they lost at least 2/3 of the 50/50 balls. I agree with johnnyr about the ref; she let the game get way out of hand. Horan got the best revenge with the goal, but the foul on her right before was so clearly a yellow card, yet it didn’t appear the ref even considered it. The Dutch player made a great block, if she had been playing American football. No attempt at the ball at all and a cross body block. At least the US dominated the 2nd half, but they seem to have slept through the first. The only good thing is that a lot of top teams have struggled so far.
Bump injuries Lavelle, Cook, and O’Hara should have started. I know Lavelle is injury concerned, but we needed her this game. Sullivan and Demelo are a no. Morgan played like Bricks were attached to her feet.
I’m not sure what you do at the 6, Sullivan hasn’t been good but I’m not sold Ertz has the fitness to play there against a team like the Dutch.
———————
I didn’t think Demelo was that bad last night but the Dutch clearly just planned to hack down any MF whenever they got the ball. The ref was clearly unaware she could give a card for persistent fouling. Honestly should have been 4 or 5 yellows on the Dutch and 1 or 2 more on US. She was also apparently unaware that tackling from behind is something she’s supposed to watch for.
——————-
No minutes for Williams or Sanchez so far?
—————-
Fox hasn’t been bad but I’d be ok with O’Hara.
Demelo was awful, she was hacking people down too. Notice when Demelo came off and Lavelle stepped on, we were a lot better and actually scored from her service off the corner.
Well yes, obviously Rose is better but she hasn’t played since April. Generally DeMelo was fouling after they’d tug her shirt even her pony tail at one point and then hack her from behind while the ref was apparently checking her Instagram and making dinner reservations (Concacaf level of ignoring obvious infractions).
I don’t like to agree with IV in principle but we need Rose for the final not the group stage. Vlatko has no apparent plan other than let’s put out better players and see what happens. This everyone go one on one and hope we either pull off a moment of brilliance or get fouled/earn corner and score off set pieces is naive given the current level of WC teams.
Definitely something missing in attack. For me, Rodman looks like a supersub to come on and run at tired defenders, but doesn’t have the touch to combine with the other skilled forwards as well. If our bench has such talent, why hasn’t the manager tried using it? Really surprised there wasn’t more rotation and subbing in this one.
Might be time to get more Dynamism with the front three. Personally a front three of Williams, Smith, Rodman should be getting a look against Portugal.