Anything less than the title will be considered a failure for the Americans. And though they have the talent, experience and home-field edge to deserve favorite status, no one’s saying it’ll be easy.

They don’t need a World Cup to determine the planet’s best women’s soccer team. The evidence, as it were, is overwhelming, and there exist no voices raised in dissent. They’ll play it anyway, and good thing, for in this sport being best and being winners no longer means the same thing. On paper, it is clear that the United States ù fielding what just might be its finest team ever ù has too much skill, too much speed, too much experience, too much everything for the rest of the 1999 Women’s World Cup field. The Americans know how good they are, and they know how little that might mean. There are at least four teams, maybe more, capable of upsetting the host Yanks sometime from June 19, when they meet Denmark in the tournament opener at Giants Stadium, to July 10, when before a packed Rose Bowl they hope to regain the crown they lost four years ago. They are prohibitive favorites, to be sure, but they refuse to consider that kind of logic. “When we’re playing our best soccer,” says Tony DiCicco, the U.S. head coach, “I like our chances against anyone in the world. I think we can get to the highest level of soccer, but it has to be that. It has to be our best soccer of the year. We have to go out, play very well. And we’ll need a break or two, like any team that wins it does. “We have a good chance of winning if we get all that. But there are other teams that are also very capable.” The usual suspects ù defending champion Norway and China, which has beaten the United States in two of three meetings this year ù will provide their usual challenge, and Germany and upstart Brazil are capable of much damage. And, DiCicco warns, watch out for Italy and Sweden. “There are a lot of dangerous teams in this event,” he says. “There will be some lopsided scores, but there will be some upsets, too.”

Loads of experience

The Americans are the least likely of candidates to fall. They are a special group, a virtual Who’s Who of international women’s soccer, with six players who starred in the first two WWCs ù forward Mia Hamm, midfielders Michelle Akers, Julie Foudy and Kristine Lilly, and defenders Joy Fawcett and Carla Overbeck ù and another seven who were part of the roster in 1991 or ’95. Eight have made at least 100 international appearances, two others are within 10 games of the century mark, and six have scored at least 30 goals, led by Hamm’s 109 and Akers’ 102. “This is a great team,” says Anson Dorrance, who guided the Yanks to the 1991 WWC title. “I really feel this is going to be a great showcase for them this summer. … They have a blend of everything, of experience and youth; they’re a team with a lot of weapons offensively and defensively. This is a consummate team.” It is, he argues, the finest U.S. team yet, better than that which won the ’91 title in China, greater than the gold medalists from the Atlanta Olympics three years ago. The U.S. players won’t argue. “This is the most talented team we’ve had by far,” says defender-midfielder Brandi Chastain, a veteran of the ’91 WWC and ’96 Olympic teams. “In some ways it’s from common experience for many years now,” says midfielder Michelle Akers. “Walking side by side over many miles, through many different circumstances, over tough terrain, it brings you closer. Part of it is an appreciation for each other, a respect, an admiration, a shared vision about who we are and for the game.” Adds Chastain: “As individuals, we’re much more skilled, much more technical, much more tactical than we have ever been. And we’ve been together such a long time.” Chastain’s return to the squad following its semifinal loss to Norway in the 1995 WWC triggered changes that enabled the Americans, at the Olympics in ’96 and in the years following, to reposition themselves at the top of the pyramid. The evolution of the U.S. game following their ’95 disappointment has been swift, with DiCicco and his assistants ù now Lauren Gregg and Jay Hoffman, and formerly April Heinrichs ù placing an emphasis on possession and defensive acuity while trying not to surrender any offensive firepower. A chief concern was building depth. “In ’95, we weren’t a very good possession team,” DiCicco says. “We were a dynamic team, had exciting players all over the field. But we hadn’t done a lot after ’91. [In] ’92 there was no activity, just two games, and ’93 and ’94 were catch-up years. When we hit ’95, we had some outstanding players but not a lot of depth.”

Changing the system

He started bringing young players, including then-high schoolers Tiffany Roberts and Cindy Parlow, into the team’s residency camp, and changed his defensive system from a three-back alignment to a flat four. The key was moving Akers, a forward, into a defensive midfield slot, a maneuver that improved U.S. midfield possession while giving the ailing star a respite from the wars up front. “We became more of a probing team, looking for openings and then the quick strike,” DiCicco says. “We spent a lot more time on defense. We learned to play other systems so we could adjust to other teams, either to take advantage of what they’re doing or stop what’s working for them. “Our evolution to a 4-3-3 was basically because of developments around the world. The center of the field ù in midfield and defense ù was a concern of mine; teams had started to expose us in that part of the field. We wanted to keep three players up front, but we needed to get more personalities into the center of the field.” Akers was a perfect fit, and the emergence of Parlow ù whose height and skill nicely complement the speedy Hamm and Tiffeny Milbrett up front ù allowed Lilly to move into midfield, next to Foudy in front of Akers, and Chastain onto the backline, alongside Fawcett, Overbeck and 22-year-old Kate Sobrero. An improved Briana Scurry in the nets could prove crucial ù “No one can win this tournament with an average goalkeeper,” DiCicco warns ù and there are plenty of options on the bench. There is much, DiCicco says, to like. “I like the fact that a lot of players want the responsibility to make the key play,” he says. “I love the athleticism of the team, love the fact that they have a mentality that is a catalyst to their talent ù they’re going to outwork teams, going to make sacrifices and the investment physically to get it done. “There are so many things I like about this team: the versatility, the leadership. … We just need to put it together, put it all together. But it’s no easy task to win at this level.” by Soccer America Senior Editor Scott French