The United States placed a respectable third in the Women’s World Cup. But some changes may have to be made for the U.S. to have a better showing in next year’s Olympics in Atlanta.
There’s no other way of looking at it: The United States was a disappointment in the Women’s World Cup.
Sure, not too many other countries could effectively lose their top two players — Michelle Akers and Carin Gabarra for the U.S. — and still take third place.
But the fact is, the U.S. never really looked like the team that most people expected to defend its world title. No one could have figured a second-half collapse against China in the opener — the U.S. was lucky to settle for a 3-3 tie — or a flat performance in the semifinals against Norway when everything was on the line against its chief rival.
The ineffectiveness of the U.S. frontline was not lost on Norway.
“Akers, Mia Hamm and Jennings [Gabarra], they’re not the best players anymore,” said Norway forward Linda Medalen. “In China, they were the best players.”
Sure, the U.S. flexed its muscles when Japan fell by the wayside in a 4-0 route in the quarterfinals, but that was the only really easy game for DiCicco’s squad. Even a 4-1 victory over Australia proved to be a struggle.
The injuries to Akers and Gabarra obviously put a lot more pressure on the other players to pick up the slack. Still, one expected to see the likes of Kristine Lilly, Julie Foudy and, especially, Hamm to be able to dominate games. That didn’t happen. The three youngsters from the 1991 team played well for the most part, but they couldn’t deliver without the help of their elder teammates.
What can be done to improve? Well, the U.S. won’t have much time to do much before hosting a tournament later this summer with Chinese Taipei, Australia and new world champion Norway. The aim now for the U.S. national team is to win the Olympics next summer in Atlanta.
“We talked about it in the huddle after the [semifinal],” said Foudy. “We have a goal at the Olympics right there. I think most of us have to remember that feeling that we just felt against [Norway]. You hate it so much that you don’t want it to happen in 1996.”
Getting Akers — hurt in a freak collision against China — and Gabarra —
bothered by back spasms the whole tournament — healthy would be the first step on the road to gold in Atlanta. The U.S. has always had to prepare for the eventuality that Akers, who will be 30 at Atlanta ’96, and Gabarra, who will be 31, will one day retire, but it now has consider that they may no longer be the dominant players they were in China.
Reserves could push for starting jobs
Several U.S. reserves — notably Tiffeny Milbrett and Debbie Keller up front and Thori Staples on defense — showed their strength when they had to here. Each of those three merits more playing time in the future, especially Milbrett, who tied Lilly and Venturini by scoring three goals in the World Cup.
If Milbrett becomes a starter, then Keller — who came out of nowhere to distinguish herself in Sweden — would become a top reserve.
It may be about time that even more players get involved with the main team.
When University of Portland forward Shannon MacMillan finally gets healthy, she should be considered a lock to make future national teams. William & Mary’s Natalie Neaton — who could give the U.S. another big, physical presence up front when Akers is out — could be another option. She’s still young and inexperienced but worth another look.
Only the midfield is relatively secure for four more years in Foudy, Lilly, Tisha Venturini and Tiffany Roberts.
On defense, the U.S. may also benefit from more appearances by Staples or tenacious defender Staci Wilson, who trained with the national team in Florida before getting cut from the World Cup squad.
Not everything can be solved by bringing in new players, though. The national team’s coaching staff may want to take a look at how the rest of the world plays — mostly with four defenders — and consider tinkering with the formation.
An aging team can only cover so much ground with three players in the back, even though two of the three — Carla Overbeck and Joy Fawcett — are still on top of their game. Making Staples a permanent starter in place of Linda Hamilton, whose lack of speed was exploited in the World Cup, or adding a fourth defender, a marking back of some sort, could be a solution to all the breakaways the U.S. was faced with in Sweden.
That may clash with the U.S. style of attacking soccer, but the national team may have to sacrifice some of that style in order to improve.
Last hurrah in ’96?
With the possible exception of backup goalie Mary Harvey, all of the ’91 U.S. veterans on this year’s team should return to the fold and try to win the gold at the Atlanta Olympics next summer.
The lure of playing at home — in an event that typical American fans appreciates more than they would the World Cup — should provide extra motivation — if the desire to beat Norway isn’t enough.
Next year will also be the last time many of the current players will be together. While Akers insists she wants to play until the year 2000, Overbeck, virtually irreplaceable at sweeper, has said she will hang up her boots after Atlanta. Foudy wants to become a doctor. After that, it’s anybody’s guess as to how many players retire.
The U.S. winning the Olympics may popularize the women’s game in the States more than even winning the World Cup. But the U.S. players sure would have liked to have won both.
by Soccer America Associate Editor Dean Caparaz