Japan 2-2 United States (AET): Japan win their first ever Women’s World Cup
The starting line-ups
Japan came back from 1-0 and 2-1 down to triumph on penalties.
Norio Sasaki kept an unchanged team from the side which overcame Sweden in the semi-final.
Pia Sundhage made a couple of changes. Rachel Buehler replaced Becky Sauerbrunn at centre-back, and Megan Rapinoe came in for Amy Rodriguez, with Lauren Cheney moving upfront.
This was an entertaining game that took a strange pattern – Japan dominated possession (53%) but had significantly fewer attempts on goal (14 to 27), and the US are the side who will feel they should have won the game in normal time.
Overall framework
The tactical battle here was, on paper, very simple. Two 4-4-2s – with some modifications – lined up against each other, and that was broadly how the formations remained for the entire game. This not inherently a very tactical battle.
However, this produced a very open game, even if the scoreline at the end of normal time doesn’t reflect the number of chances. The key factor was the positioning of the wide players – although they sometimes picked each other up when the ball was dead, as attacks formed the battles were more frequently wingers v full-backs than wingers v wingers, and with neither side having a spare man at the back, any quick passing combinations that bypassed an opponent, or any runs on the ball that beat a single player, often resulted in chances.
Different approaches
Japan’s wide players came inside and tried to move into the ‘red zone’ in the centre between the US lines of midfield and defence, and in that respect they played a little like Villarreal. They also benefited from the movement into deep areas of Kozue Ando, who was involved in more good link-up play than either of the US forwards.
That showed the contrast in styles in this match. Japan were much more patient, favouring slow build-up play and clever through-balls towards the forwards. The US were more direct, and had a more obvious and successful gameplan, to hit Japan with pace and power. They had a decent chance in the opening minute through Cheyney, who exploited the lack of pace in the Japanese backline (in particular, Izusa Iwashimizu), which was a dangerous tactic when playing so high up the pitch.
Morgan introduction
Cheney’s intelligent runs into the channels were very dangerous, and it was a slight surprise when she was replaced by perennial supersub Alex Morgan at half time, especially when Sundhage had the option of pushing Cheney to the left of midfield to accommodate Morgan upfront.*
It turned out to be an inspired move, however, because Morgan was the game’s best player for the final 75 minutes of the match. Just as Cheney had threatened from balls over the top early on, Morgan’s goal was another simple situation with sheer pace getting past a high line, only this time with an emphatic finish.
Midfield battle
The presence of only four central midfielders meant that this area of the pitch was open for forward runs. Carli Lloyd broke forward to have numerous (generally inaccurate) shots from the edge of the box early on, whilst Japanese captain Homare Sawa grew in stature as the game went on – she drove the side forward, with Mizuho Sakaguchi playing a more disciplined holding role alongside her.
For a side so intent to play pretty football, it was something of a surprise that Japan got their equaliser purely through sheer panic in the US defence, and a scrappy finish from Aya Miyama, who had come inside into a goalscoring position. Sasaki deserves credit for encouraging his wide players into the middle of the pitch – the knock-on effect was that the full-backs had space to motor into, and were more of a force in the game than the US full-backs, who remained more conservative. In fact, the way Japan shuffled across the pitch to create space for their overlapping full-backs was very similar to the way their men’s side shifted to create space for Atsuto Uchida and Yuto Nagatomo at this year’s Asian Cup, which they also won.
Extra time
Extra time was more balanced than normal time, with the US’ dominance less obvious. Fitness levels started to come into the equation, and with Japan much better at retaining the ball and tiring the US players, they looked more confident.
The key player was still Morgan, however. She produced two good crosses from the left flank in succession, the second of which was headed in by Wambach. This was another dimension Morgan provided – she is left-footed and could move across to that flank and deliver good balls into the box, something that had happened relatively rarely considering the wingers were coming inside.
Japan’s second equaliser came from a corner, converted by Sawa – but that corner was won by another great forward run from right-back Yukari Kinga, demonstrating the importance of bringing full-backs into play.
Morgan still could have been the hero – an excellent run from the right channel put her through on goal, and but for Iwashimizu denying her a clear goalscoring opportunity with a foul, it could have been 3-2. That was in the 120th minute, fully 120 minutes after Iwashimizu had first looked troubled by pace. It went to penalties, where Japan were much more composed.
Conclusion
Overall this game was relatively uninteresting tactically – two 4-4-2s. The more specific aspects of the game provided more excitement – particularly the introduction of Morgan (the only brave decision either manager took in the 120 minutes), which changed the game and should have been enough for the US to take victory.
*edit: Cheney was actually injured, thanks Bill
Japan 2-2 United States (AET): Japan win their first ever Women’s World Cup
womens football is light years behind in tactics and formation. this though has lead to a lot of open games and many shots, which is not bad for entertainment.
It is, agreed, but not too much more than, let’s say, England ten years ago.
Arguably, three of the better sides of the tournament — France, Brazil, Germany — played a 4-2-3-1, 3-4-3, and 4-2-3-1, respectively. Of course, all of these squads were knocked out, since power and pace still prevail more than in the top flight of the men’s game, but I’d wager that it will change at some point.
For me, the US’s problem was that they didn’t go for a 4-5-1 either time they took the lead. Morgan’s introduction was brave and useful, but neither she nor Wambach were ever much help at stabilizing the midfield as both like to play high up (Morgan has pace that wants to thread a high line; Wambach has height that requires proximity to the box). Introducing another midfielder, might have helped in tracking Sawa’s bombing runs, plus allowing the holders to shuttle for help on the outside. This never happened, and, consequently, the United States looked to be stuck in an identity crisis after scoring both goals (were they to defend? keep attacking?).
A comment on Germany, having watched all their matches (and many other of the WWC, too). On paper they played a 4-2-3-1, but in reality it was still a 4-4-2.
In the first two matches they had Prinz and da’Mbabi as the central forward players, later Grings and da’Mbabi. The problem was, neither of them was working well in link-up with the midfield, although at least one of them was supposed to. In that sense, Germany were a doubly broken team: no proper connection between defence and midfield, neither between midfield and forwards – lightyears of space usually between each respective section. Germany women were (still are) lacking a decent number 10.
Noted.
It seems many teams are clearly lacking a player like Louisa Necib, who seems to be a rarity in the women’s game.
For Germany there might have been Djenifer Maroszan, hadn’t she been injured (cruciate knee ligament… i think).
Germany’s da Mbabi used to be a midfield playmaker in the Fabregas mold actually, but for some reason was converted to a striker. Unbelievable waste of talent.
Really? That I did not know about da Mbabi, sounds sad indeed. Was that Silvia Neid’s idea? I generally found it weird, that the Germany squad had so many strikers (Prinz, Grings, Mbabi, Popp, and Mueller). Central strikers, to emphasise the suggested stone-age-ness of the squad selection. Plus a ship load of offensive wingers. But hardly any central midfielders… In a squad of only 21 players! What the heck was Neid thinking? Maybe of the good old 4-2-4?
Not sure who’s idea it was to use da Mbabi as a striker, she plays that position at club level as well these days. Maybe the idea was to create a second Birgit Prinz, physically and football wise da Mbabi is as much ahead of the curve as Prinz was at her age – as a central mid anyway. Up front it just didn’t work out.
Popp plays as a left back at her club by the way and for the central midfield positions there were Kulig, Laudehr, Goessling, Hingst and Bresonik on the squad. Bresonik can serve as the much needed deep lying playmaker but suffered from a stomach flew at the tournament.
“since power and pace still prevail more than in the top flight of the men’s game”:
Germany, for example, was as powerful and physical as the USA (maybe even more), still lost to Japan in a very similar kind of game: Wasted chances early on, later got tired and nervous.
But they could not pass, think, nor combine in the way Japan did/does.
It is curious, that with Japan a not very pacey and physical team won. In fact, they were the only team that played, passed, and combined in a fluid and clever way.
Yes, and it’s not unimaginable that USA and Germany would have ended up together had several woodworks not have been hit, chances wasted. (Germany and USA outshot Japan something like 40-21).
Don’t get me wrong: Japan winning the World Cup is a great thing for women’s soccer (even if it might not be fully absorbed and appreciated just yet), but the women’s game still can be won because of the disparity of power and pace (at least more than the men’s)…it just didn’t happen here.
Agreed. And finally, although being German, I am quite glad with Japan winning it. I liked their football much better than Germanys or the USAs
I think Diverinho has a very valid point though. Even if the US were superior to France and arguably superior to Japan, I don’t think it proves that it’s easy to dominate the women’s game through shear physicality against more technical sides. In fact, I would say that all it proves is that when you have a pool of players that is orders of magnitude larger than your opponent’s (not to mention having the only fully professional women’s football league in the world), it’s far easier to have the better team, regardless of your style of play… And I don’t think that is any different from the men’s game: if you pit England against a nation of the size of the Faroe Islands, you would also expect the physical difference to be enough to win, regardless of playing styles.
France played as pretty as Japan, perhaps even better, probably the best movement and technical team in the tourney.
Lauren Cheney seems to be the sole USA player with vision and patience.
Abby Wambach was incredibly gracious and sportsmanlike in her post-match interview. Kudos. Hope Solo is a good player, but I was happy to see her lose; she bugs me, too much USA-gung-ho arrogance (same goes for the damn announcers, who were clearly rooting for USA the entire game).
FYI – The introduction of Morgan was actually (more or less) required – Cheney rolled an ankle at some point during the first half, and couldn’t continue.
Ah thanks, will edit
ZM, I think Cheney was subbed at half because she looked an injury worry after the first half. Also Sasaki a “he” not a “she.” Thanks for the post-match recap.
What does AET stand for?
After extra time.
After Extra Time
Edit: ooops, Adrian was faster
“with neither side having a spare man at the back, any quick passing combinations that bypassed an opponent, or any runs on the ball that beat a single player, often resulted in chances.”
Very important point, and I think it was true for many teams of the Women’s World Cup, like France for example.
No side the women’s world cup had a spare man at the back….some of them may have had a spare woman at the back, however
Oops, just realized somebody else had already made the same point (although I like to think mine was funnier).
is it appropriate to use the term “spare man” in a women’s game? just wondering..:P
Good point – probably not
“man” is still the English neutral so yes it is fair.
it is still the english neutral, but i would not agree that it is “fair”. the reason it is considered neutral is that our language for sports developed when it could safely be assumed that participants were male. obviously that is no longer the case, and we should make an effort to update the way we speak accordingly. but it will take time.
of course, it is hard to do. “man” has the tremendous advantage of being one syllable. “woman” is harder to say and also sounds awkward, like you are drawing specific attention to the gender of the player. i guess “player” is right, but that’s also not as easy to say. the hardest term to replace is going to be “man-to-man” (used in almost every team sport).
You could say they had a spare body at the back, but then I guess some cliche-feminist internet warrior would come along and say we’re objectifying the players by thinking of them as just a “body”.
Yeah, after one of the games I heard a WWC player talking about how her team had to play “down a man” after a red card in the game… still sounds strange to me.
Thx. Interesting points on the runs of Japan’s wide players into the center.
Seems that tactics obviously differ for the women’s game, as the speed/space/time formula is altered. Positioning, especially defensive position, may even be more critical, as the players can’t quickly make-up or fill-in gaps that develop.
The main difference between the mens and womens game is the degree of professionalism and the extent to which the mens game has developed in the past 20 years or so. ZM’s point about about the midfielders not tracking their opposite number frequently is more likely to be a deliberate tactical ploy based on fitness levels.
The main problem with the womens game is that it bases too much of the tactical considerations on the mens game, the manner in which England went about their game was extraordinarily similar to the tactics employed by the mens team (mixture of direct balls combined with midfielders getting forward to win the second ball & neat passing in their own half to find space for the full-backs to run with the ball), and although England were slightly unlucky against France (although I am aware that France were deserved winners) they didn’t necessarily play to their strengths.
If fitness is an issue for the wingers or wide midfielders (which seemed to be the case for every team in the tournament) a more reliable formation would have been to use wing-backs in a 532 or 352 that would allow one of the 3 central defenders to double up on the advancing midfielder. This would allow the central forwards and midfielders to drift wide whenever the opportunity allowed it, although it would remove an automatic outlet for a ball out wide it would create a much more sound defensive footing from which to win the ball back and keep possession. The 352/532 is seldom used in the mens game for several reasons which I won’t go into, but this doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work in the womens game, particularly a physically draining tournament.
Tactically the womens game would be much more interesting if it didn’t try to emulate the mens game and instead went about developing a relevant set of tactics unique to thier own format.
“If fitness is an issue for the wingers or wide midfielders (which seemed to be the case for every team in the tournament) a more reliable formation would have been to use wing-backs in a 532 or 352″
So if the wingers are having a hard time covering half the field with a fullback behind them, your solution is to use wingbacks, who are responsible for covering an *entire flank* on their own, to address the fitness mate. Indeed.
“The main difference between the mens and womens game is the degree of professionalism”
yeah, with the exception of Brazil the women seem far more professional in their conduct, refraining from the diving and whinging that is sadly so common in the men’s game.
Yeah, I can’t agree on the wing-backs point. A wing-back will generally cover greater distance than a wide midfielder or a full-back in a 4-4-2.
The wing backs will generally have to be the fittest players on the park in 5-3-2/3-5-2, so im struggling to understand your logic. Please elaborate??
ZM, thank you for covering this match. One thing that I noted from the US in prior games and was curious to see if you would mention was a focus on the kind of “vertical” play that Batista noted and decried in Argentina’s early games.
Players would pass the ball parallel to the touchline to a teammate ahead of them; that teammate would have to receive the ball while not just facing away from goal but actually running away from it, with a defender on their back. The lack of angles created was odd to watch. Was that evident in this game as well?
To a certain extent, although I think here it was more just direct play, and because neither side had a spare (wo)man at the back, it seemed to be successful – whereas Argentina were often 4 v 8 in the attacking phase, if I remember correctly
Thanks for doing this one.
Prior to watching the tournament, I had seen very little women’s football, but was optimistic about seeing a technical game rather than the physical game much of the world cup became. (Spain aside) In theory, women should be equally technical and intelligent but lack the pace and power of men. Apply this to an identical pitch and it should be easier to possess the ball because passing speed would only be marginally slower compared to the speed of the players attempting to win the ball back.
Unfortunately this wasn’t the case as the women had less ball control and intelligent movement. I’m guessing this comes down to coaching. One would assume that most quality male coaches would prefer to stay in the men’s game given the chance and quality women coaches would be hard to come by because the sport is relatively young at the highest level and most women coaches would have learned from those same comparatively poor men.
Given these factors, a lot of teams relied on the fact that, although slower and weaker than their male counterparts, they still had pace and power compared to their female opponents and looked to use this to their advantage at every opportunity. While some teams put an emphasis on possession, many looked to get the ball forward at every opportunity through balls over the top or to wingers in wide positions. For most male teams, it usually is about how much emphasis they put on possession versus chance creation, but for the women it seemed to be whether they valued possession as part of their strategy or they didn’t.
One of my questions prior to the tournament was how teams would line up regarding formation and overall shape. Their male counterparts have many roles that I feared might require more stamina than the women were capable of over 90 minutes. (ie. attacking fullbacks) For the most part, this was true as many teams came out in 4-4-2’s with natural wide men looking to cross into the box rather than allow a fullback to overlap. Some teams such as France (Bompastor in particular) and North Korea (and Japan in part) were able to get their fullbacks forward and provide real danger to their opposition which allowed them to compete on equal terms with far more physical teams. Most wingers were far more comfortable forming a bank of four with their central midfielders and dealing with possession oriented fullbacks that rarely looked to get forward and this lead to vulnerabilities when isolated against fullbacks looking to get down the line.
One key trend of the tournament was how successful teams could be who looked to cross often. Along with corners, crosses seemed to create the majority of chances for most teams. One reason is obviously the lack of a spare player at the back but it also comes down to the height difference between keeper and centre forward. The USA, for instance, had a 5′ 11” forward in Abby Wambach compared to a 5′9” Keeper in Solo. Naturally the keepers will be smaller than their male counterparts, but male keepers are generally the tallest players on the pitch which lends itself to a dominating presence in the box. For the women, every well it cross seemed to create a decent chance because of the keepers inability to deal with them.
For the benefit of the women’s game, it was good to see teams like France who relied on technical ability and creative players in the final third rather than physical dominance. Had their coach chosen to stick to his 4-2-3-1 rather than changing things up at the end of their semi final against the USA, they could certainly have won against another technical side in Japan. Unfortunately at 1-1 he withdrew a holding midfielder for a second striker and the US quickly scored two goals. Perhaps the Germans and Americans will rethink their strategy going forward with technical teams performing higher than pre tournament predictions suggested.
The US reminds me of Stoke City.
With Abby Wambach, you have a forward that is not only taller but stronger and more mobile than most central defenders and goalkeepers. Who wouldn’t be tempted to just keeping lobbing balls at her?
Stoke aren’t one of the favorites though. When they went up in games, Wambach dropped into the hole and was used similar to Tim Cahill, with the other forward looking to stretch play behind the defence. This seemed far more effective for them. Their main problem however was how foreign the idea of getting their fullbacks forward seemed to them. Krieger did it on occasion which probably has something to do with playing club in Germany
As for LePeilbet not getting forward, she is a center back playing out of position. She was exposed a few times in group play.
This is a great post. I have a little experience with the women’s game–my sister played for three years at a small college here in the US, and not having watched much top level women’s stuff, I was intrigued and wondered how things would work out tactically. In my sister’s high school games (admittedly poor level of play) she could almost always score on freekicks inside 30 yds, only by placing the ball high. One thing I was eager to discover was whether or not the elite women’s GKs could cover enough goal area to discourage the all to common strategy of shooting from ridiculous distances. Watching several of the goals, eg. the early one by Mexico, made me realize that this is still a compelling tactic. Some might find the suggestion offensive, and I realize that even in the men’s game keepers like Campos have been successful, but I almost think that the goal is too large for the women’s game. Hard, high shots have a great chance of going in, and this leads to situations like France v USA, where the French took a huge number of shots from distance, although the US probably had in Solo the keeper most capable of covering the goal.
I could not agree with your analysis of France’s substitution more. As soon as I saw the switch Bini (?) was making, I remarked to a friend that France would give up another goal, and sure enough, without their numerical advantage in CMs, they were vulnerable to the US’s quick counterattacks.
With regard to the wingback issue mentioned by others, it has some issues. Due to the reduced player speed, attacks involving less advanced players take longer to develop, and require judicious maintenance of possession–you’d want to make sure your CM’s were good at retaining possession for WB’s to be a consistent attacking option. And the distance they would have to make up when possession was lost would be difficult, judging by the speed of the players I saw.
“Unfortunately this wasn’t the case as the women had less ball control and intelligent movement. I’m guessing this comes down to coaching. One would assume that most quality male coaches…”
=> Even before thinking of the quality of the coaches, there is also simply the issue of the much smaller pool of players to draw from (at least in most countries), the lack of professionalism (even in countries where there is some professional women’s football, it’s far less developed than the men’s game), the usually inferior training infrastructure (like for the professionalism issue, because of the lack of money), the lack of regular high level games in some cases (for instance, the top French players only really meet quality oppositions in a handful of their league games and in some champion’s league games each season, and even the national team rarely plays against the like of the USA or Germany)…
“Had their coach chosen to stick to his 4-2-3-1 rather than changing things up at the end of their semi final against the USA, they could certainly have won against another technical side in Japan.”
=> Frankly, Bini’s substitutions weren’t his only choices that raised questions. Going to the World Cup without Bouhaddi (Lyon’s goalkeeper, who had been a first choice for the national team for some time, and rightly so), preferring the 37 years old Soubeyrand to Henry as a holding midfielder, taking Franco (usually the first choice at right back, but just coming back from a long injury) in the team to finally not use her until the game for the 3rd place against Sweden… And don’t get me started on the” constantly changing centre backs pairing. Those were all rather strange decisions.
But there are also a number of problems that appeared quite clearly regardless of the formation and of the exact team selection, like the positioning and communication issues in defence, or the lack of efficiency in the final third in attack – and, frankly, I don’t think it was possible to win against a team like the US without either solving those problems first or getting very lucky.
That being said, France’s results (and progress over the past few years) are still very promising, especially considering the small number of female players, and the lack of investments in the French women’s championship (with the exception of the Olympique Lyonnais) – and it’s definitely good to see some rather more technical and possession-oriented sides over-performing against more physical and direct-playing oppositions.
Wambach is like Drogba of mens football. Pure class. Though her missed shots were costly.
Sawa was MAJESTIC. Box-to-box player and the commander of the team. Well deserved Golden Ball and Fair Play awards.
Japan played like Barcelona, with another outstanding player being their keeper, Kaihori. Calm and composed facing the big US forwards. I believe she was given the POTM award?
Special mention to the match referee. She did a great job!
Barca ? No, more like Spain at the World Cup with the possession game primarily a defensive means to deny the opponent time on the ball. They played the same way against Germany, when they had two scoring opportunities in 120 minutes.
Yes, agree, more like Spain instead
Barça get 70% possession and create 5 times as many scoring opportunities as their opponents. Japan had 53% possession and half the scoring opportunities.
Perhaps more like Spain. My bad.
Sawa was indeed fantastic. Great view of the game, always knowing were here team mates (female equivalent for mate?) were, well timed passes.
The referee was Bibiana Steinhaus. She is doing matches in the men’s (!) 2nd Bundesliga in Germany. She’s seen and heard it all, I guess.
Thanks for the commentary, really enjoyed it! Also, sad US lost. My GF and I were screaming at the top of our lungs at the TV during various points. Exciting game for sure.
Did anyone else notice the lack of injury time in both halves, even in the final? The women might not be as athletic or technically skilled, but they sure as hell don’t dive and flop as much either, even if they are in the lead in an important game.
Can you imagine the amount of time wasting a men’s team would have done 1-0 up in a world cup final with 10 minutes to play? For shame!
The women certainly play with raw passion for the game because the other incentives such as money, and fame are not as predominant as they are in the men’s game. This is one aspect that is truly enjoyable to watch. ie. The USA vs. Brazil game. Diving does happen in the women’s game as well though.
I watched each of the last 3 USA games and found them entertaining.
That being said, there is a reason that women’s soccer is not taken seriously in Brazil. The technical ability of the elite woman player is far inferior to that of even a 3rd division men’s team. Couple that with the lack of strength and power, and you get some very ragged soccer.
This story is true — I have it on good authority from a witness who was there.
Back in December 1998, the USA women’s team — with Mia, Brandy, Michele Akers — were training in Florida at the time of the Nike Cup, a tournament that brings in the best USA youth teams (Dallas Cup, in the Spring, is the USA’s elite international youth tournament). Tony DiCicco was coaching them, and thought it might be a good idea for the the gals to get a game against some men, so they arranged a closed door scrimmage with a U18 club. It was a typical high level youth club — most of the boys were headed for college play and that’s about it.
Final score 10-0, boys. And the gals hardly ever touched the ball.
What was frustrating to me in the USA Japan final were the youth soccer level mistakes of the girls. Failure to send the ball across the face of goal on near post carries (Megan Rapinoe did this twice!!) Foolish ambitious shots from way outside the area. The failure to hit driving shots with a downward instep touch. Floating crosses. Dribbling into pressure is dangerous areas of the field.
Despite all that, it was fun to watch and, yes, Abby Wambach is quite admirable — there are professional forwards who could learn something about workrate and determination from watching her.
But we should have no illusions. Women’s soccer is far far behind the men’s game, and they are likely never to catch up, remaining, alas, as a very minor factor in the game.
One serious point showing the standing of women’s football in Brazil: Anyone besides me noticed that the women play in the men’s shirts? Meaning, they were wearing the badge with those 5 stars from the male worldcup wins? For fog’s sake, how must a Brazilian female football player feel being clad in male decoration? They don’t even have an own shirt…
That’s an interesting point. If Brazil’s women had won the WWC, do you think Brazilian FA would have added a sixth star to represent the victory (even to the males’ shirts)? Or perhaps just a pink star or something to denote a victory in the WWC?
I wonder if other countries who follow the star convention, and have pretty much identical kits for men and women (eg England, maybe France?), also display their mens’ stars on the womens’ shirts?
No idea, did not check that yet. Germany for sure not – the girls have their own 2 stars
For France, they do have their own kit, with no star. That being said, that’s only for the actual game jerseys – everything else I’ve seen them wear (in training for instance) did feature a star.
I think it’s mostly that Brazil gets almost zero support from their FA (unsurprising since it women’s soccer was banned there until recently). So they just stick them in leftover men’s jerseys. I think if they actually won it, brought home the trophy they might get legit kits. The US and Germany both do wear the stars for their 2 World Titles each, and I think I spotted Norway with one too. So it’s not about combined titles, just Brazilian sexism/cheapness.
“Women’s soccer is far far behind the men’s game, and they are likely never to catch up, remaining, alas, as a very minor factor in the game.”
It’s the same in every sport.
Red, White and Blue It. Fox Soccer’s headline sums up this match perfectly.
Who cares?
Just note that the first name of Iwashimizu is *A*zusa. Which is pretty common in Japan AFAIK.
@Zonal Marking
You said Japan “dominated possesion (53%)”. I know this is a subjective matter, but do you really think having 53% of possession counts as dominating? To my mind, having 53% of possession means having slightly more of the ball than the other team. I think you have to start getting to 60% before you can start saying anyone has dominated possession.
Well, it fits in terms that Japan dictated the game after the U.S. team outpowered themselves. It is only a 3% difference, however I think the way how Japanese team played it was more effective and game directing.
Thanks for the coverage of the match! I was wondering if you would do it. I’ve been following the WWC since the inception and regularly attended the local club team matches here in Washington DC until they moved the team. The big thing that struck me was the poor play in the midfield by both teams in terms of possession. There was a lack of field sense on the part of the US players other than Rapinoe (in this respect it was the poorest performance of a US NT that I can remember). I don’t expect Barca like football but there were too many errant passes. Your evaluation of Japan was spot on. I wonder if they would have been more successful at creating chances had they kept the wing play wider than they did. Given this, it was surprising that the US fullbacks didn’t push up more to create mismatches.