Martin Sjogren, Norway’s coach, would later recommend that it was England’s first objective, a somewhat delicate penalty, that had unsettled his staff. “We started to crack slightly and made some poor choices,” he mentioned. There may be some reality in that. Thorisdottir, having conceded the penalty, appeared to freeze, not sure of her each contact, her each transfer, as if haunted by her error.
Sjogren’s declare just isn’t, although, the entire reality. To attribute Norway’s collapse solely to particular person errors is, at coronary heart, to confuse symptom with trigger. The issue, the one which brought about Sjogren’s aspect to bend and break so spectacularly, was not an remoted sequence of unrelated incidents however a systemic shortcoming. England confirmed its hand, and its opponent failed miserably to adapt.
A part of the accountability for that lies with the gamers, in fact. Mjelde and Thorisdottir, definitely, are skilled sufficient to have recognized their staff’s weak level and reacted accordingly: sitting just a bit deeper, maybe, or refusing to be coaxed out of their line by White’s motion, or drawing Blakstad in nearer for better safety.
However a overwhelming majority of it falls on the shoulders of Sjogren himself. A sequence of particular person errors could possibly be proof of some nice psychological failing, however it’s distinctly extra prone to be proof of a flaw in a staff’s technique. Excessive-caliber gamers make persistently poor decisions solely when they’re confronted with restricted choices. And that, in the end, is right down to the coach.
The caliber of participant in ladies’s soccer, notably in Europe, has risen steeply lately. The slick, technical fashion that has proliferated at this summer season’s European Championship has provided ample proof of that. It’s laborious to make the argument, although, that the standard of coach has tracked fairly the identical trajectory.
Supply: NY Times