As I would expect, I see that we only disagree on the specifics of the games, but not the larger picture. I'd like to clean up a few odds and ends.
I said:
>>
>> Mia Hamm has nothing left to prove to you or me. China designed its defense
>> to stop her, she still made some terrific passes that weren't finished off,
>> and she has a long history of great performances in big games. You don't
>> judge a soccer player's performance primarily on some individual stats. Let
>> the media, which is interested mainly in making individual stars so thay can
>> sell them back to us, do that.
You said:
>
>That's exactly why I think that, based on her WC99 performance, she's
>overrated. She did not score a single goal in the games that counted; in
>fact, she had no hand in any of them, other than taking a dive in the
>box against Brazil and fooling the ref. No matter; Nike's investment
>must be protected, she must be made the hero.
I agree about the dive in the box, and unfortunately the officiating was pretty weak throughout. But you know you can't judge a player's performance on the basis of goals or even scoring chances per se. Particularly a striker like Hamm. Both strikers and goalies are to some extent dependent of circumstances to shine. And when teams concentrate so heavily one player, like they do with Hamm, its encumbent on the others to step up.
The player who I think really dominated the final from the US side was neither Hamm or Scurry, but Michelle Akers, who controlled midfield with her size and experience. Notice that when she left after regulation, China started to attack up the middle and the US was in trouble. But they rallied and in my opinion it was China who was on the ropes at the end.
>I said that the performance of the US forwards was terrible, not the
>whole team. Not just because of the result, but because of the almost
>total lack of scoring opportunities in spite of a Chinese defense that
>didn't look all that solid and gave up balls when pressured, and a
>Chinese keeper that seemed very vulnerable to high balls and headers.
You have a point here. The offense sputtered quite a bit, although I think the Chinese defense deserves more of the credit than you do.
>The competition getting tougher had little to do with it, since the US
>played its best game against Germany, which was (I thought) better than
>Brazil and at least as good as China, probably better.
I think the US's best performance was the brilliant first half against Nigeria (4 goals in 10 minutes and 6 for the half) after they got behind and were being roughed up unmercifully as the ref did nothing. Lesser opponent, of course. Your opinion than Germany might be better than China is not shared by many I think.
>Incidentally, in the
>corner kick, she was not exactly beaten; putting a player in each post
>is standard procedure in corner kicks, so one can reasonably count on
>them getting those balls (not that it wasn't a great defensive play).
I know. But the goalie is still primarily responsible, including using judgement to go get the ball herself. Scurry was beaten. And the backup came through.
> By
>the way, the header was possible thanks to a fuck-up by Hamm.
What do you mean? First I have heard this. The Chinese player beat an American to the ball for the header. Was that Hamm? Was the US playing woman to woman in the box and was the header Hamm's responsibility? I would be surprised if either were true.