Some extra build up seems merited for the Final. I'll admit to not being au fait with Germany's selection options and choices, so this opening post will focus on England... but if anyone has stuff they want to say on what Voss-Tecklenberg might be pondering over, or surprises she might spring (she will probably ignore my brilliant wheeze of moving Alex Popp to fourth choice goalkeeper...), feel free to add those here as well. Unless a dedicated thread for Germany team team selection discussions feels a better fit? Your call.
Anyway, for England one of the two most obvious issues is about centre-forward. One player, Ellen White, has started every game in the position... and she has only scored twice in a team that is far and away the tournament's leading scorers (20 to Germany's next best of 13). Alessia Russo, her replacement off the bench in every game has managed double that (4 goals) in not much more than half the playing time, as the change usually happens around the hour mark. The argument in favour of the alteration is the team seems more effective once Russo comes on. the counter-argument is actually stemming from the same thing - this pattern, White starts and plays an hour before giving way to Russo, is working damn well. Why on earth change it?
The thought experiment here is what happens if Weigman did make the alteration, and Russo went through 60 goalless minutes in the final. Then she has a replacement (White) who is smarting and very disappointed and slightly publicly humiliated at being dropped coming off the bench. That doesn't sound ideal. She might end up trying too hard, even.
The other personnel one is the same it has been all tournament - Rachel Daly at left-back. She is a forward for her club, playing out of position. However natural left-backs are somewhat thin on the ground in the squad - Alex Greenwood was once, but she has been more of a left-sided centre-back this season for her club. Whether she has the pace for full-back is questionable. Without an obvious alternative I think Daly plays.
And the final issue is shape, and defending the full-back spaces. Lucy Bronze bombing forward down the right worked in the end, as she set up the first goal from doing that. But on another day it might have cost England the game, as they could easily have been two down in the first ten minutes from Sweden clearly targeting Bronze's side to take advantage of her high starting position. In particular if Stine Blackstenius had been, erm, more 'professional' when a completely caught out and beaten Bronze shoved her in the back as she was racing through to shoot (if Blackstenius had pulled an 'Ellen White vs Norway' let's call it) then England could easily have found themselves down to 10 and facing a penalty kick with 80 minutes still to play. The reward of Bronze playing that way was high, but so was the risk. On another day... or against another, more ruthless opponent...
With all of this we come back to the coach, though. Everyone says that Weigman is tough, unsentimental, and knows her own mind so is not likely to be influenced by outside pressures. She has picked the same starting XI for all five games, and made most of the same substitutions as well. The seems to back up the 'knows her own mind' thing - she has what she believes is a best team and she is playing it at all times. That would suggest there is little to no chance of England approaching the final with a tweaked starting line up or initial tactically set. The unsentimental part goes the other way though - if Weigman has been won over by what she is seeing from Russo and now believes a starting front three of Mead, Russo, Hemp gives her side the best chance of winning, then the potential fall out of dropping a regular starter for the biggest game is not a decision she is likely to duck.
In conclusion - baring injury or illness we know the England team and tactics already, don't we?
Anyway, for England one of the two most obvious issues is about centre-forward. One player, Ellen White, has started every game in the position... and she has only scored twice in a team that is far and away the tournament's leading scorers (20 to Germany's next best of 13). Alessia Russo, her replacement off the bench in every game has managed double that (4 goals) in not much more than half the playing time, as the change usually happens around the hour mark. The argument in favour of the alteration is the team seems more effective once Russo comes on. the counter-argument is actually stemming from the same thing - this pattern, White starts and plays an hour before giving way to Russo, is working damn well. Why on earth change it?
The thought experiment here is what happens if Weigman did make the alteration, and Russo went through 60 goalless minutes in the final. Then she has a replacement (White) who is smarting and very disappointed and slightly publicly humiliated at being dropped coming off the bench. That doesn't sound ideal. She might end up trying too hard, even.
The other personnel one is the same it has been all tournament - Rachel Daly at left-back. She is a forward for her club, playing out of position. However natural left-backs are somewhat thin on the ground in the squad - Alex Greenwood was once, but she has been more of a left-sided centre-back this season for her club. Whether she has the pace for full-back is questionable. Without an obvious alternative I think Daly plays.
And the final issue is shape, and defending the full-back spaces. Lucy Bronze bombing forward down the right worked in the end, as she set up the first goal from doing that. But on another day it might have cost England the game, as they could easily have been two down in the first ten minutes from Sweden clearly targeting Bronze's side to take advantage of her high starting position. In particular if Stine Blackstenius had been, erm, more 'professional' when a completely caught out and beaten Bronze shoved her in the back as she was racing through to shoot (if Blackstenius had pulled an 'Ellen White vs Norway' let's call it) then England could easily have found themselves down to 10 and facing a penalty kick with 80 minutes still to play. The reward of Bronze playing that way was high, but so was the risk. On another day... or against another, more ruthless opponent...
With all of this we come back to the coach, though. Everyone says that Weigman is tough, unsentimental, and knows her own mind so is not likely to be influenced by outside pressures. She has picked the same starting XI for all five games, and made most of the same substitutions as well. The seems to back up the 'knows her own mind' thing - she has what she believes is a best team and she is playing it at all times. That would suggest there is little to no chance of England approaching the final with a tweaked starting line up or initial tactically set. The unsentimental part goes the other way though - if Weigman has been won over by what she is seeing from Russo and now believes a starting front three of Mead, Russo, Hemp gives her side the best chance of winning, then the potential fall out of dropping a regular starter for the biggest game is not a decision she is likely to duck.
In conclusion - baring injury or illness we know the England team and tactics already, don't we?
Comment