|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Sports Illustrated senior writer Grant Wahl checked in by telephone with SI.com to answer the following questions about the Women's World Cup, where the United States will play Germany in the semifinals on Sunday, and underdog Canada will play Sweden. In the quarterfinals, the U.S. beat Norway 1-0 and Sweden beat Brazil 2-1 on Wednesday; Germany routed Russia 7-1 and Canada upset China 1-0 on Thursday.
How do you think the U.S. and Germany match up in the semifinals?
Great match. Obviously you wish it were a final because they're the two best teams in the tournament. Germany has been killing people. They haven't really faced as stiff a competition as the U.S. has, so there's a little bit of a question mark there. How will Germany fare when they have to face a defense that's only given up one goal the entire tournament? Ticketmaster
It's going to be a really interesting match because you've got two teams that are very complete, very deep. There's a lot of talent on both sides -- and I don't think any fear on this German side of what the U.S. represents and how they've played over the years.
ADVERTISEMENT
You've got players on the German team like Birgit Prinz and Maren Meinert, among
others, who are very comfortable playing in America, playing in the WUSA. I'm
hoping and also thinking that we're going to see some really good soccer, which
we haven't really seen in a U.S. game in the Cup for a while.
These are easily the two best teams in the tournament, which is a little bit of a shame.
The NCAA basketball tournament is looking into switching it up so that the final four pairing would be able to be reseeded. I kind of wish that could happen here, because when you look at the other semifinal, with Canada and Sweden, those are two teams that have already lost once in this tournament, and one of them is going to make the World Cup final. There's something not right about that. You don't want to have a semifinal be the best match of the tournament, because that's anticlimactic. Ticketmaster
Prediction: U.S. 1, Germany 1; U.S. wins on penalty kicks.
And how do Canada and Sweden match up in the other semifinal?
It's pretty wide open. Sweden has been playing very well of late. They had their backs against the wall in Game 2 of this tournament and got a win that they needed and have rebounded from there. Victoria Svennson has been very good at finishing in a way that people weren't expecting.
Canada had a huge win Thursday night. I never could figure out what happened with China; they just weren't playing with the kind of precision and speed that they did four years ago -- speed especially. They just were playing slow, slow soccer, and it really hurt them. China really missed having Liu Ailing this time around in the midfield. Ticketmaster
Canada has really switched up things. They have a coach in Even Pellerud who has won a World Cup with Norway in 1995 and knows how to beat the U.S. and knows how to get a team ready for elimination-round matches. Charmaine Hooper was playing central defense and yet she scored the winning goal against China, so Pellerud has really mixed things up. Canada is a tough team, probably a little bit tougher than Sweden.
It's going to be a decent chance for Canada to get to a World Cup final. I think it's going to be a pretty even matchup, too; it's just not going to be played at as high a level as the other one, which should be the World Cup final.
Prediction: Sweden 2, Canada 0
How would you grade the United States' performance up to this point?
They are, along with Germany, the dominant two teams in the tournament. They've had to play tougher opponents, so I would probably say you've got to give them an A or an A-minus so far. Ticketmaster
They've done everything they need to do at this point to get where they need to go, but they also realize that their success or failure in this tournament is dependent on what happens from here on out, in that they have ridiculously high expectations and standards to follow. But they've put themselves in that position at least, and, except for Wednesday night, they won every game by at least three goals. And against Norway, they dominated as much as they did those other games.
Ten of their 12 goals now have come off set pieces, and that shows that they've made a huge improvement over even the last couple years. It's not something that happened by accident. It came through a lot of work; they devoted entire practices to set pieces in training for the tournament.
It's also reflective of how much better this team is in the air than it used to be, that putting the ball on the head of somebody -- whether it's Abby Wambach or Cindy Parlow or Shannon Boxx -- it's a lot easier now than it used to be. They know what to do with it once they get to it, and it's why the U.S. has been so dominant. This is a team that used to be [known for] athleticism and running past people.
What did we learn about the U.S. against Norway?
They can play so-so and still win, which is good to know. Do the games have style points attached to them? If they do, the last two games haven't been that high on the style factor for the U.S. But in a tournament like this, you really just want to win -- that's the most important thing, and that's what they've been doing. Ticketmaster
Are there areas where they can improve? Yeah. They themselves would say that their offensive rhythm hasn't really been up to speed for the entire tournament, even when they were beating Nigeria 5-0. That's what Julie Foudy told me. And they're hoping that improves. But when you score this much off set pieces, though, that makes up for any lack of beauty on buildups and scoring goals out of the run of play.
The best goal they've scored is probably the first one against Sweden, by Kristine Lilly.
What can we expect from Mia Hamm from now on, after her missed PK?
I'm sure that bothers her, but it didn't end up hurting them really at the end.
There's a lot of people who point out that even when Mia doesn't score she does all these other things on the field. She plays defense, she draws defenders to leave other teammates open -- stuff like that. And a lot of that's true. If you look at the Norway game, she did defend very well, came back and dispossessed a number of Norway players late in the game. So she did bring something to the table. At the same time, I think she does want to score; she knows that's her main function.
And she knows her history in the knockout rounds, having only two goals in the Olympics and World Cup. But if she could come out with a win the rest of the games and play like she did last night, she'd probably take it.
What are the chances of Brandi Chastain regaining her place in the team given the way that Cat Reddick has played as her replacement? Ticketmaster
I think it's highly unlikely Brandi Chastain will play in this tournament, even if the U.S. goes to the final, for a couple of reasons.
Based on what the trainer has said, it seems very unlikely from a recovery standpoint. And even if somehow miraculously she were to get fit -- which I don't think will happen -- then do you really want to insert her back in for the first time in the final, say, after you have some sort of chemistry develop and things seem to be going quite well with Cat Reddick?
Reddick has scored two goals and she had the assist against Norway. She hasn't had any real defensive lapses; she's very flexible as well, playing on the left and in the center. Brandi Chastain has been a solid player for this team, but [there are] speed concerns about her when she's healthy.
What does it say about the U.S. team's depth that they've done this well with the diminished roles of Chastain, Tiffeny Milbrett and Shannon MacMillan?
There's more depth than there used to be, clearly. Coach April Heinrichs only used 13 different players at the 2000 Olympics [where the U.S. lost to Norway], and in this tournament, everyone has been used except midfielder Angela Hucles and backup goalkeeper Siri Mullinix.
So clearly there are more options that Heinrichs feels comfortable using, and it's also a good sign for the future in the sense that once the golden generation of Hamm, Foudy, Chastiain, Lilly and Joy Fawcett retires -- which isn't that far away but probably a year away or maybe sooner in some cases -- you have people who can perform.
Abby Wambach has been a revelation in this tournament. It isn't that surprising, I guess, when you see what she did in the WUSA, but not many people saw it. Now to see it at this level has got be encouraging for people looking down the road. Wambach is only 23, and she's got a great approach to the game.
Speaking of not many people seeing the WUSA -- even if the U.S. wins this tournament, can they accomplish what they set out to do and help revive the professional game?
Maybe the days of hoping that a World Cup will provide lightning in a bottle -- whether it's the men or the women -- those days have passed. You've got real business experience out there with folks who have lost a lot of money on [professional] soccer believing that it will have the same kind of appeal -- particularly in women's soccer -- that a World Cup would, selling out the Rose Bowl and all that. People who are in the soccer business know that's not the case. But it sounds like there may be a chance to revive some form of the league, whether it's a barnstorming tour or a tournament next year, or what have you, but it's tough.
If you look at the interest level in this tournament, it's maybe a little more realistic in the sense that they're competing against other American sports, and that's something that never really happened in '99. And that means you're seeing 25,000 people come to Foxboro for a World Cup quarterfinal involving the U.S. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? It depends; you've got all sorts of reasons why that crowd isn't as big this time, but it's the result of competing against other sports.
Who has been the MVP of the U.S. team so far?
I'm going to still go with Mia Hamm, but that could change. Abby Wambach has been really, really impressive up front. But Hamm's first two games were bordering on transcendent. She sat out the third game, and in the fourth game, by her admission, she didn't have one of her best games; but if you look at the little things, she did pretty well. She still had a huge impact on the game. We'll just have to wait and see with two more games to go.