April Heinrichs switched personnel and tactics after taking charge of the U.S. women’s team last winter. Has the reigning world and Olympic champion evolved enough to contend with China and Norway in a brutal first-round group at the Sydney Games?

The names are the same, for the most part, and so is the aim, but don’t mistake the U.S. women’s soccer team defending its Olympic crown this month in Australia with that which claimed its second Women’s World Cup title 14 months ago. There have been some fundamental changes since April Heinrichs took charge in February, and the hope is that it’s enough to prod the American women to their fourth triumph in five major championships since 1991. It will be unquestionably the most difficult assignment the U.S. women have ever faced. Forget the gold medal, qualifying for the semifinals from their first-round group will prove grueling enough. “It’s the single most difficult and challenging draw FIFA has ever put out to a team ranked No. 1 in the world,” Heinrichs said after the Americans were placed with China (lost to the U.S. in the ’96 Olympic and ’99 WWC finals) and Norway (only team other than the U.S. to win a major title) in Group F for the Sydney Games. “It’s the semifinals and the finals. … It’s provided us with the greatest challenge, the most hurdles, and you know what? We love it.” The Americans’ attitude? Some things never change. They’re brimming with faith that seven months of preparation has provided whatever will be needed to get them through. “Every time we step into a tournament, we expect to win it,” says midfielder Julie Foudy, one of 10 returning gold medalists. “It’s not an overconfidence, but a confidence knowing we’ve prepared, that we’ve worked our butts off and we’re ready. We definitely go into the tournament thinking, ‘I want that gold medal around my neck.'”

A new spine in U.S. team

To get it, Heinrichs has shifted personnel and switched from Tony DiCicco’s 4-3-3 alignment to a 4-4-2 in order to buttress the team’s defensive organization and get more time to Shannon MacMillan on the right flank. “We don’t want to be the same team we were last summer,” says Heinrichs, captain of the ’91 team and assistant to DiCicco at the ’95 WWC, when the Americans finished third, and the Atlanta Games. “If we were, certainly one of the other seven teams would grow. We didn’t want to stand still.” Injury forced Heinrichs’ hand on most of the personnel issues. The defensive spine of the ’99 team was gone early in the buildup, but every loss seemed to turn into blessing: ò Michelle Akers’ absence to a shoulder injury (which ultimately led to her retirement) led to Foudy’s role as a holding midfielder, which spawned the best soccer of her career. ò Carla Overbeck’s prompted a switch to a sleeker, more supple back line, with Joy Fawcett joining Kate Sobrero in the middle and Christie Pearce moving to right back. ò Briana Scurry’s enabled Siri Mullinix to make the goalkeeper job hers; Mullinix’s superior foot skills have had much to do with how well the defense blossomed. The Fawcett-Sobrero pairing took particularly well, and the Americans’ triumphs in five tournaments, including the Algarve Cup and the DFB Jubilee – both featuring Norway and China – were largely the product of the maneuvers in the back. The American defense has rarely been so strict, and when foes did break through, the defenders’ speed enabled them to recover. Replacing Akers’ physical presence will be difficult. She intimidated foes, and nobody on the U.S. roster can do anything similar. “You don’t replace Michelle Akers with one person,” Heinrichs says. “We’re not going to try to do that. We’re really going to try to step up and say every player has to play with the kind of physical presence she had, the kind of courage and heart she had. “You’re going to see some hard tackles, some Michelle Akers-like tackles and heading and physical battles. You’re just not going to see them all coming from Michelle in the center of midfield.” There have been problems with attack, and lopsided advantages in shots (31-5, 19-4, 19-2) meant little in ties with Canada, Iceland and Russia. Nor in losses to Norway and China. The Americans were shut out three times – by China and Brazil, but also by Iceland – and scored their lone goal on a penalty kick on four other occasions. “I attribute that to teams being better … more sophisticated,” said Mia Hamm, who had scored just three goals in 10 games this year against Olympic opposition before firing in two in the Americans’ final warmup, a 4-0 romp over Brazil. Prior to that victory, the U.S. team had scored just one goal in eight of its nine previous matches. The Americans still won a great majority of their games, but the four 2000 losses came against Norway and China. They are 2-4-2 this year against their biggest rivals, averaging just one goal per game, and have won just half of 16 games against Olympic qualifiers.

The reality of the Olympics

“That’s the reality of what the Olympics are going to be like,” says Heinrichs, whose team faces Norway on Sept. 14, China on Sept. 17 and Nigeria on Sept. 20, all in Melbourne. “It’s going to be 1-0, 2-1 – the way the game was intended to be played. “Would I like to see the forwards with greater focus getting more shots off? Yes. Would I like to see forwards with greater commitment when they shoot it? Yes. … We’re great at dominating opponents, but we have to have that great killer instinct and focus.” The Americans worked extensively on finishing when they returned from their final pre-Olympic break in late August, and they had no trouble scoring against the Brazilians in San Jose. “Sometimes the game’s generous, and sometimes it’s not,” says Foudy. “I don’t think it’s a concern. I think we’ve had a lot of focus on the defensive side, and the last month we’ve been gearing up the offensive side, doing a lot more in training, shooting and so forth.” Norway and China also are evolving. The Norwegians are becoming more possession-oriented, and the Chinese – known for a poetic possession game – have adopted a physical style that depends heavily on long balls. “China is more direct than Norway,” Foudy reports. “We’ve been astonished. I don’t know if it’s them thinking they can’t win a major championship with the style they were playing before, but they’re more direct, more physical than Norway.” The competition promises to be something special. Is there anything that suggests the United States should have an advantage? “I think I have to say no,” Tiffeny Milbrett answers after several seconds’ thought. “We’ve seen both teams a tremendous number of times, and as you know, the record is up and down, 50-50 either way. When you go against such quality teams, world-class teams, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. “You just don’t know until the day.” History hints otherwise. The Americans’ record in crucial matches is unrivaled; that they’ve won every tournament in which they’ve competed this year – defeating Norway in the Algarve final and the DFB Jubilee – could prove telling. “I think you can never underestimate the success this team has had in the last year,” Heinrichs says. “We know how to win, we find ways to win, and we are a very confident team. We understand the gap is narrowing, but we know when we step onto the field, we know we can find ways to win.” by Soccer America senior editor Scott French.