Women's Under-17 Championship 2013

Technical Report U-17 Women’s Finals Montego Bay, Jamaica 2013

2

I. Introduction II.

Award-winning Teams and Players

III. Statistics a. Game Results (Group, Semi-Finals and Finals) b. Team Ranking Per Group c. Outstanding Player By Game d. List of Top Scorers e. Team Statistics During the Tournament f. Real Playing Time by Game and Event Average g. Changes in Line-up by Team During the Games h. Best Player by Team and MVP of the Tournament Per TSG Ranking i. TSG Goalkeeper Per TSG Ranking and MV Goalkeeper of the Tournament j. Final Statistics Table (Cards, Goals, Changes in Line-up, Outstanding Players by Team) k. Timeframe During Which Goals Were Scored l. How the Goals Were Scored m. Who Scored the Goals n. Where the Goals Were Scored From o. Average Age by Team and in General IV.

General Comments about the Tournament’s Main Aspects

V.

Team Analysis

VI. Conclusions VII. Recommendations

3

FOREWORD OF PRESIDENT

4

Under – 17 Women’s Championship The CONCACAF Under- 17 Women’s Championship confirmed that football is strong in our region, not only in the men’s game but also in women’s competition. The success of this tournament can be measured by the intense play in 16 matches and the quality on show drew hundreds of excited fans to the stadium.

Mexico was crowned champion after an intense battle with Canada, which took them to over time and penalty kicks, won by Mexico 4-2 after drawing 0-0 in regular time at the Montego Bay Sports Complex. Both finalists, however, advanced to the 2014 FIFA Under -17 Women's World Cup to be staged in Costa Rica on March 15 through April 4, 2014.

I would like to recognize the excellent level of competitiveness of Jamaica and Guatemala. And I would also like to congratulate Canada’s team members for deservedly winning the Fair Play Award, as well as acknowledge the All Star Team and those talented players that received a special recognition from CONCACAF for their outstanding performances.

I am deeply proud that this championship was a great success for players, coaches, referees and spectators and that it showcased the Confederation’s football in Jamaica with our hosts providing an ideal sporting environment.

We must continue creating a culture that inspires the growth and passion for women’s football as this sport not only promotes good values and confidence, but also offers a solid platform for the economic and social advancement of communities.

We are grateful for the support of sponsors, member associations, teams, referees and volunteers for putting in the outmost dedication to ensure this tournament’s success. We now look forward to an exciting and promising 2014 FIFA Under-17 Women's World Cup in Costa Rica.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Webb President

5

6

The Technical Study Group (TSG) was integrated by:

1. Luis Hernández Herez (Cuba), member of CONCACAF, Head of TSG. 2. Keith Look Loy (Specialist). Trinidad & Tobago.

3. Elieth M. Artavia Anchía (Specialist). Costa Rica.

4. Jill Ellis (Specialist). U.S. 4. Luis Manuel Hernández Valdivia (Cuba), Coordinator of TSG.

The TSG performed the following duties:

•Prepared a technical/ tactical Analysis and a Report for each of the games.

•Interviewed each Team’s coach through a questionnaire.

•Collected game statistics.

•Selected the Fair Play Team for each game and for the Tournament.

•Selected the Most Valuable Player for each game and the MVPs in each team.

•Selected the Tournament’s Most Valuable Goalkeeper.

•Selected the All-Star Team.

•Drafted the Preliminary and Final Tournament Reports.

•Prepared a performance analysis for each of the players that participated in the event.

•Prepared a Final analysis of the technical, tactical and physical aspects of the teams that participated in the event.

I. Introduction.

CONCACAF´s U-17 Women´s Finals Tournament was recently held in Jamaica with the participation of CONCACAF´s 8 best teams, classified by regions: CFU (3 teams) UNCAF (2) and North America (3).

Montego Bay, the beautiful tourist destination, was the main venue, offering athletes, referees and officers excellent accommodations and service in all aspects.

The Montego Bay Sport Complex was the Event´s sole venue, which had the necessary conditions to make this event the football show it turned out to be.

The attendance by football fans to the final games and to all the games played by the Jamaican team contributed to the success.

The young players displayed their football talent, generating a good impression among the public and the experts.

CONCACAF´s and the Jamaican Football Federation´s Directors were present during the finals, as well as during the Awards Ceremony.

This event helped us understand our strengths and weaknesses in terms of technical development and competitive levels in each region, so that we can determine specific goals and objectives for the near future.

7

8

II. Award-winning Teams and Players

Most Valuable Player: Jessie Fleming. (# 8, Canada)

Top Scorer: (7) Marie Michelle M. (#11, Canada).

Best Goalkeeper: Rylee Foster. (#1, Canada).

9

Fair Play Award: Team (Canada).

All-Star Team: Goalkeeper: Centerback: Centerback: Left Winger: Right Winger: Central Midfielder: Central Midfielder: Left Midfielder: Right Midfielder: Forward: Forward:

10

Rylee Foster Vanessa Flores Blanca ST. Georges Rachel Jones Elisabeth Jean Jessie Fleming Marley Canales Marie michelle M. Marie Levasseur Zoe Redel Emely Borgmann

(#1, Canada) (# 3, Mexico) (# 6, Canada) (# 3, Canada) (# 10, USA) (# 8, Canada) (#4, USA) (#11, Canada) (# 7, Canada) (# 15, USA) (# 9, Canada)

III. Statistics a. GROUP PHASE RESULTS

October 30 México Jamaica

Canadá Trinidad & T.

1 -1 2-0

November 4

Haití El Salvador

Guatemala USA

October 31

Semi-Finals

8-0 Guatemala 0-8 USA

November 7 Jamaica 0-5 Canadá USA 0-0 México Penalty kicks 2 x 4

November 1 El Salvador Jamaica

7-0 Trinidad & T. 2-0 Canadá.

0-7 México 3-0 Haití

Finals

November 2 Canada USA

November 9

11-0 Trinidad & T. 7-0 Guatemala

Jamaica 0-8 USA (3rd Place) México (1st Place) 0-0 Canada (2nd Place) Penalty kicks 4 x 2

November 3 Haití Jamaica

0-1 El Salvador 1-1 México

b. RANKINGS TABLE IN THE GROUP PHASE

Group A

GP

W

L

D

GF

GA

GD

YC

RC

Points

El Salvador

3

1

2

0

1

9

/8

2

0

3

Haiti

3

0

2

1

1

5

/4

3

0

1

Jamaica

3 2 0 1 6 1 5 2 0 7

Mexico

3 1 0 2 9 2 7 2 0 5

Group B

GP

W

L

D

GF

GA

GD

YC

RC

Points

Canada

3 2 1 0 19 2 17 1 0

6

Guatemala

3

1

2

0

7

15

/8

1

0

3

Trinidad & Tobago

3

0

3

0

0

26

/26

0

0

0

USA

3 3 0 0 17 0 17 1 0

GP W L

Total Games Played Total Games Won Total Games Lost

D GF GA

Total Games Drawn Total Goals in Favor Total Goals Against

GD YC RC

Goal Difference Total Yellow Cards Total Red Cards

9

11

C. OUTSTANDING PLAYER BY GAME

Games

Name

Player #

Country

Belen de JesusCRUZ

18

Mexico

Game # 2 Jamaica vs El Salvador

Asia LEEDFATTT

9

Jamaica

Game # 3 Canada vs Guatemala

Emily BORGMANN

9

Canada

Mallory PUGH

17

USA

Belen de Jesus CRUZ

18

Mexico

Game # 6 Jamaica vs Haiti

Asia LEEDFATTT

9

Jamaica

Game # 7 Canada vs Trinidad & Tobago

Jessie FLEMING

8

Canada

Game # 8 USA vs Guatemala

Zoe REDEL

15

USA

Game # 9 Haiti vs El Salvador

Brenda DELGO

7

El Salvador

Game # 10 Jamaica vs Mexico

Janae GONZALZ

9

Mexico

Game # 11 Guatemala vs Trinidad & Tobago

Madelin Ventura

9

Guatemala

Game # 12 USA vs Canada

Zoe REDEL

15

USA

Game # 13 USA vs Mexico

Emily GONZALEZ

6

Mexico

Game # 14 Jamaica vs Canada

Jessie FLEMING

8

Canada

Game # 15 Jamaica vs USA

Marley CANALES

4

USA

Game # 16 Mexico vs Canada

Jessie FLEMING

8

Canada

Game # 1 Mexico vs Haiti

Game # 4 Trinidad & Tobago vs USA Game # 5 El Salvador vs Mexico

D. LIST OF TOP SCORERS.

12

Seven Marie Metivier (Canada)

Civana Kuhlman (USA)

Five

Emily Borgmann (Canada)

Marie Levasseur (Canada)

One Dorian Bailey (USA) / Jennifer Barrios

Zoe Redei (USA)

(Guatemala) / Gabriella Carreiro (USA) / Betzy

Four

Nadya Gill (Canada)

Cuevas (Mexico) / Belén Cruz (Mexico) / Felicia

Madison Haley (USA)

Davidson (Jamaica) / Vanessa Flores (Mexico) /

Mallory Pugh (USA)

Miriam Garcia (Mexico) / Mia Gyau (USA) / Cintia

Taylor Otto (USA)

Three Jessie Fleming (Canada)

Huerta (Mexico) / Natalie Jacobs (USA) / Sarah

Janae González (Mexico)

Kinzner (Canada) / Batcheba Louis (Haiti) / Laurent

Asia Lee-Fatt (Jamaica)

Marwith (Guatemala) / Zoe Morse (USA) / Anika

Two

Marley Canales (USA)

Rodriguez (USA) / Aisha Solórzano (Guatemala) /

Mimi Castellanos (Guatemala)

Madelyn Ventura (Guatemala) / Alejandra Wahn (El

Jaqueline Garcia (Mexico)

Salvador)

Kelcie Hedge (USA)

Jessica Johnson (Jamaica)

e- Teams Statistics during the Tournament Team Goals, Cards and Goal Difference Table Country

GP W L D GF GA GD YC RC

Canada

5 3 1 1 24 2 22 1 0

El Salvador

3

Guatemala

3 1 2 0 7 15 38 1 0

Haiti

3 0 2 1 1 5 34 3 0

Jamaica

5 2 2 1 6 14 38 4 1

Mexico

5 1 0 4 10 3 7 2 0

Trinidad & Tobago

3

USA

5 4 0 1 26 1 25 1 0

Total

32 12 12 8 75 75 0 14 1

GP W L

Total Games Played Total Games Won Total Games Lost

1

0

2

0

3

D GF GA

0

1

9

0

Total Games Drawn Total Goals in Favor Total Goals Against

38

26

2

326

GD YC RC

0

0

0

Goal Difference Total Yellow Cards Total Red Cards

f. Real Playing Time by Game and Event Average

Games

1 to 15 15 to 30 30to 45 1st Half 45 to 60 60 to 75 75 to 90 2nd Half Total T.

# 1 Mexico vs Haiti

8.57

8.06

7.36 23.99 6.30

5.05

8.40

19.75 43.74

# 2 Jamaica vs El Salvador

8.03

7.39

7.00 22.42 7.09

7.16

10.15

24.40 46.82

# 3 Canada vs Guatemala

10.36 8.27

10.32 28.95 8.00

9.00

10.11

27.11

56.06

# 4 Trinidad & Tobago vs USA 8.45

8.37

8.05 24.87 9.03

9.01

9.17

27.21 52.08

# 5 El Salvador vs Mexico

8.24

8.03

8.37 24.64 7.59

7.57

8.53

23.69 48.33

# 6 Jamaica vs Haiti

9.02

6.24

9.04 24.30 8.54

7.40

9.07

25.01 49.31

# 7 Canada vs Trinidad & Tobago 8.03 9.57

8.26 25.86 7.03

8.58

7.21

22.82 48.68

# 8 USA vs Guatemala

9.37

9.16

8.20 26.73 8.30

7.20

8.59

24.09 50.82

# 9 Haiti vs El Salvador

9.18

8.09

7.39 24.66 8.03

7.48

8.54

24.05 48.71

# 10 Jamaica vs Mexico

9.10

9.28

9.35 27.73

8.31

7.09

9.52

24.92 52.65

# 11 Guatemala vs Trinidad & T. 9.26

7.32

9.39 25.97 8.42

8.32

8.12

24.86 50.83

# 12 USA vs Canada

13.23 10.00

8.50 31.73 11.12

9.57

9.52

30.21 61.94

# 13 USA vs Mexico

8.08

7.53

8.57 24.18 8.20

7.01

8.55

23.76 47.94

# 14 Jamaica vs Canada

7.51

8.54

9.22 25.27 7.40

6.47

8.41

22.28 47.55

# 15 Mexico vs Jamaica

7.21

7.00

10.50 24.71 8.25

6.23

12.41

26.89 51.60

10.43 8.43

12.33 31.19 10.30

8.27

11.32

29.89 61.08

# 16 USA vs Canada Percent

17.6 16.05 17.338 50.99 16.12 14.84 18.0434 49.01 100.00

13

g. Number of Changes in Line-up Per Team

Team

14

2nd Play 3rd Play 4th Play 5th Play 6th Play 7th Play

Total

Average

Percent

Canada

1 0 0 0 0 0 1

El Salvador

1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0.50 12.50

Guatemala

2 2 0 0 0 0 4 0.67 16.67

Haiti 1

2

Jamaica

1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Mexico

2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0.50 12.50

Trinidad & Tobago

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0.17

USA 8

0

0

0

0

0

8

1.33

33.33

Total

16 8 0 0 0 0 24

0

0

0

0

3

0.50

0.17 4.17

12.50 0.17 4.17

Average

2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Percent

66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.17

4.00 100.00

h- Best Player by Team and MVP of the Tournament Per TSG Ranking Best Player by Team Team Canada

Name

Player Position GT

Jessie FLEMING

GF

YC

RC

NL

OP MVP

RQ

8 0 450 3 0 0 0 5 2 235.00

El Salvador

Brenda DELGADO

7

0

Guatemala

Madelin Ventura

9

0 270 3 0 0 0 3 1 110.00

Haiti

Batcheba LOUIS

7

0

Jamaica

Asia LEEDFATTT

9

0 410 3 0 0 0 3 1 155.56

Belen de Jesus CRUZ

18

0

450

1

0

0

0

5

1

170.00

Zoe Swift

9

0

272 0

0

0

0

4

0

75.22

Mexico Trinidad & Tobago USA

Mallory PUGH

213 270

0 1

0 1

0 0

0 0

2 3

1 0

78.67 95.00

17 0 344 3 0 0 0 4 1 163.22

MVP of the Tournament Team Canada

Name Jessie FLEMING

Player Position GT

GF

YC

RC

NL

OP MVP

RQ

8 FW 450 3 0 0 0 5 2 235.00

Observations about the Most Valuable Player of the Event: The TSG decided to select Jessie Fleming (Canada), Team Capitan and player with high technical level and game vision, as MVP. She displayed great physical ability and mobility throughout the field.

15

i- Most Valuable Goalkeeper of the Tournament  Tournament Goalkeeper Statistics Summary Table Country Canada

El Salvador

Guatemala

Haiti

Jamaica

Mexico

Trinidad & Tobago

USA

Goalkeeper Rylee FOSTER Devon KERR Eleonor ZELAYA Ana COREAS Angie Hidalgo Natalie Schaps Jonie GABRIEL Naphtaline CLERMEUS Lotteafa CLARKE Shanay RICKETTS Emily ALVARADO Miriam AGUIRRE Rebecca Ann Almandoz Nicolette Craig Lauren HOOD Katherine HESS

Player 1 18 1 18 1 12 1 12 1 13 1 12 1 20 1 18

Goals 2 0 9 0 15 0 3 2 0 14 3 0 7 19 1 0

Ranking 105.00 0.00 -60.00 0.00 -130.00 5.00 -17.44 -12.33 0.00 -60.003 80.00 0.00 -65.00 -170.00 20.00 15.00

Tabla del Portero de Mayor Ranking Canada

Rylee FOSTER

1

2

105.00

NOTE: This ranking is based on a combination of objective criteria: 1)-­Minutes played, 2)-­Goals Against, 3)-­Goals in Favor, 4)-­Disciplinary Measures (Yellow/ Red Cards), 5)-­ selection as Best Player of the Game, 6)-­MVP by Game and TSG experts criteria.

Rylee Foster had two outstanding performances and only allowed 2 goals to be scored. She contributed remarkably to the team’s performance during the match.

j. Final Statistics Table (Cards, Goals, Changes in Line-up, MVP per Team) Summary Table by Country (Total).

Countries Canada

16

Goals

MVPs

N. L

RC

YC

24

31

1 0 1

El Salvador

1

7

3 0 2

Guatemala

7

9

4 0 1

Haiti

1

9

3 0 3

Jamaica

6

22

1 1 4

Mexico

10

30

3 0 2

Trinidad & Tobago

0

5

1

USA

26

25

8 0 1

Total

75

138 24 1 14

0

0

k. When Were the Goals

CONCACAF’s Technical Study Group (TSG) Games

1 al 15 15 al 30 30 al 45 1er T 45 al 60 60 al 75 75 al 90

# 1 Mexico vs Haiti

1

1

# 2 Jamaica vs El Salvador

1

# 3 Canada vs Guatemala

1

2do T 90 al 115 115 al 130 T E. Total

1

1

0

2

1

1

1

0

2

1

3

2

3

5

0

8

# 4 Trinidad T. vs USA

3

3

1

4

5

0

8

# 5 El Salvadore vs Mexico

1

1

4

3

3

0

7

# 6 Jamaica vs Haiti

1

1

1

2

0

3

# 7 Canada vs Trinidad T.

2

1

4

7

2

2

4

0

11

# 8 USA vs Guatemala

1

2

3

1

3

4

0

7

# 9 Haiti vs El Salvador

0

1

1

0

1

# 10 Jamaica vs Mexico

2

0

0

2

2

2

5

0

7

1

1

0

2

1

2

1

# 11 Guatemala vs Trinidad T.

1

2

# 12 USA vs Canada

1

1

1

1

2

# 13 USA vs Mexico

1

1

2

0

0

2

# 14 Jamaica vs Canada

1

2

3

1

2

0

5

# 15 USA vs Jamaica

2

2

5

1

2

3

0

8

0

0

0

0

1

# 16 Canada vd Mexico Average

1

0.63 0.75 1.00 2.38 0.88 0.38 1.06 2.31

0 4.69

17

l. Who Scored the Goals?

Games Within the 5.50 Within the 16.50 Out of the16.50

18

Penalty kicks

Total

# 1 Mexico vs Haiti

1-0

1

# 2 Jamaica vs El Salvador

2-0

1

1

# 3 Canada vs Guatemala

8-0

3

2

# 4 Trinidad Tobago vs USA

0-8

4

2

# 5 El Salvadore vs Mexico

0-7

2

1

2

# 6 Jamaica vs Haiti

3-0

2

1

3

# 7 Canada vs Trinidad Tobago

11-0

1

7

# 8 USA vs Guatemala.

7-0

6

# 9 Haiti vs El Salvadore

0-1

1

# 10 Jamaica vs Mexico

1-1

1

# 11 Guatemala vs Trinidad Tobago

7-0

4

# 12 USA vs Canada

2-0

2

1

# 13 USA vs Mexico

1-1

2

1

# 14 Jamaica vs Canada

0-5

1

1

3

1

# 15 USA vs Jamaica

8-0

2

2

1

1

1

3

1

# 16 Canada vs Mexico

-

1

Total

75

24

17

20

2

4

1 1

3

1

7

1 2

m- ﾂｿQuieﾌ］es anotaron los goles?

Who Scored the Goals?

Games

Forwards Midfield wingers Defensive midfielder Defenders Goalkeepers Total

# 1 Mexico vs Haiti

1

1

2

# 2 Jamaica vs El Salvador

2

2

# 3 Canada vs Guatemala

8

1

8

# 4 Trinidad T. vs USA

5

1

2

8

# 6 Jamaica vs Haiti

1

2

3

# 7 Canada vs Trinidad Tobago

10

1

11

# 8 USA vs Guatemala

4

1

1

7

# 9 Haiti vs El Salvador

1

1

# 10 Jamaica vs Mexico

1

2

# 11 Guatemala vs Trinidad Tobago

4

# 12 USA vs Canada

1

# 13 USA vs Mexico

1

# 14 Jamaica v Canada

3

2

5

# 15 USA vs Jamaica

2

3

8

1

1 3

7

1 2

1

1 2

2

# 16 Canada vs Mexico Total

49

13

6

7

0 75

Average

3.06

0.81

0.38

0.44

0.00 4.69

Perent

65.33

17.33

8.00

9.33

0.00 100.00

19

n- Where Were the Goals Scored From

Games

Within the 5.50 Within the 16.50 Out of the16.50 Penalty kicks

Total

# 1 Puerto R. vs US Virgin

6

1

7

# 2 Haiti vs Antigu Barbuda

1

5

6

# 3 Dominican R. vs Bermuda

4

4

# 4 Trinidad T. vs Grenada

5

2

3

10

# 6 Antigua B. vs Puerto Rico

5

16

1

22

# 7 Grenada vs Dominican R.

4

1

5

1

1

2

1

3

2

2

# 8 Bermuda vs Trinidad T.

# 9 US Virgin I. vs Antigua B. # 10 Haiti vs Puerto Rico

# 11 Bermuda vs Grenada

2

2

# 12 Trinidad T. vs Dominican Re.

1

4

1

6

# 13 Puerto Rico vs Trinidad T.

3

1

1

5

# 14 Bermuda vs Haiti

1

1

1

1

4

2

2

1

1

# 15 Puerto Rico vs Bermuda # 16 Trinidad& Tobago vs Haiti Total Average Perent

21

46

13

2 82

1.31

2.88

0.81

0.13 5.13

25.61

56.10

15.85

2.44 100

o- Average Age by Teams and in General

Canadá 15 / El Salvador 15 / Guatemala 15 / Haití 16 / Jamaica 16 / México 15 Trinidad/Tobago 15 / United States 16 Average Age of Players: 15 ** NOTE: El Salvador had the Tournament’s youngest player, Magi Romero (12), together with Ashley

20

Montoya and Elaily Represa (13).

IV. GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE TOURNAMENT’S MAIN ASPECTS Level of the Teams that Participated in the Tournament

Group A

TECHNIQUE TACTICAL

ATTACK

DEFENSE PHYSICAL WARM-UP TEAM DIR.

GRAL EVAL

México

4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4.43

Haití

3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2.57

Jamaica

3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3.14

El3salvador

3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2.57

Group B

TECHNIQUE TACTICAL

ATTACK

DEFENSE PHYSICAL WARM-UP TEAM DIR.

GRAL EVAL

Bermuda

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.00

USA

4 3 4 4 4 5 3 3.86

Canada

4 5 4 5 4 5 4 4.43

Trinidad & Tobago

2

Guatemala

3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2.86

2

2

2

3

3

3

2.43

MB, B, R, M, MM. De 1 a 5 ptos Analysis CONCACAF’s 2013 U-17 Women’s Tournament was a victory for tactical direction, game discipline and great collective effort from all Mexican Players. The team’s performance and organization improved match by match.

They were able to beat teams with superior technical abilities and historical results, who were the pre-tournament favorites to obtain the first place in the event (USAand Canada).

In the Groups round they managed two draws and one victory. They tied against Haiti in the first match (1-1) and also against Jamaica (2-2), and then had an overwhelming victory against El Salvador (7-0). This way they classified first in Group (A). Mexico looked impressive in each new appearance with the brilliant changes in strategy and tactics according to the quality and level of each new opponent.

The Mexican team was able to beat the powerful USA national team in the Semi-finals phase in a penalty shootout (4-2), after a very close match that ended in a draw (1-1).

In the fight for the first place, the team beat the

powerful team of Canada in the final match. After a score of (0-0) in full time, the Tournament was decided by a penalty shoot-out that ended (4-2).

The Mexican players showed excellent psychological disposition and spirit of victory in both matches.

The goalkeeper, who participated in these two matches and stopped 4 penalty kicks in the shootouts, played a determining role in the final victory.

Canada and USA were the most well balanced and most dangerous teams in the Tournament (scoring 24 and 26 goals, conceding only 3 and 2 goals respectively), with quality players in all the positions and in the bench.

Both El Salvador and Guatemala had their first victories in this Tournament (against Haiti and Trinidad & Tobago, respectively), while Haiti and Jamaica tied 1-1 with the eventual champion Mexico.

Haiti lost 1-0 to El Salvador after dominating the Central American team in their last match.

The champions of the Caribbean, Trinidad & Tobago, were the worst team in the Tournament, being

21

eliminated without scoring a goal or earning a point and receiving the highest number of goals against in the Tournament (26).

By the end of the tournament it was evident that women’s soccer and soccer in general, in the F Confederation is divided into three different levels: (A) North America, (B) Central America (and maybe, Jamaica), and (C) the Caribbean. This reflects the general division of men’s soccer as well.

22

Technical Level The teams of level (A) had a more uniform technical performance in the tournament; as a matter of fact, some players of these teams, for example, Fleming and Metivier from Canada; Cruz from Mexico, and Jean and Canales from the USA, showed real capacity to play under the opponent’s pressure in close spaces with calm and effectiveness. The technical solidity of these teams allowed employing a coherent possession game to dictate the pace of the match against their opponents.

Their capacity to make long passes allowed them also to counterattack in a direct manner. However, a great deal of the loss of ball possession by these teams happened due to lack of individual concentration.

On the other hand, the general technical level in the other teams leaves much to be desired, since most players clearly had problems with playing under pressure, specially the players from El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Haiti and Trinidad & Tobago.

Together with their tactical weaknesses in the defense, which placed them under enormous pressure agains the stronger teams.

Their inability to control, deliver and play under pressure from the opponents forced them to play with a counter-attack tactic with long passes to an isolated forward, which turned out to be counterproductive due to their inability to complete quality long passes.

Canada and the USA had several very effective players in shots on goal, scoring between them 37 goals and having 8 players among the top scorers in the Tournament.

These teams used - obtaining good results-, long range shots on goal, which was a deficient aspect in the rest of the teams.

In general, the goalkeepers from the first level teams had good performances. For example Foster (Canada) and Hood (USA) showed constant quality

in the way they handled and distributed the ball.

Ricketts (Jamaica) and Alvarado (Mexico) showed great ability to make amazing saves, the latter being determining in Mexico qualifying for the World Cup by stopping 4 penalty kicks in the disputes against USA and Canada.

Physical and Psychological Condition While Canada, Mexico and the USA displayed superior levels of physical conditions, both collectively and individually, the Central America teams showed immense physical weakness in speed and agility, strength and power, and aerobic resistance. Some players also showed evident body weight problems.

The Caribbean teams, with the exception of Trinidad & Tobago, showed the expected individual athletic capacity, but also lacked the general and special aerobic capacity. As a consequence, most of the goals against them were scored in the last 15-minute period of the 1st and 2nd halves, due to the lack of or low physical capacity at the end.

However, independently from the physical difference between these teams of Central America and the Caribbean, all the teams, with the exception of Trinidad & Tobago, showed a strong mentality and desire to win, even when the score against was highly unfavorable. In this sense, the determination from Jamaica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Haiti to fight strongly for victory is something worth noticing.

Warm-up Like in other youth tournaments of the Confederation, many teams were guilty for not implementing an effective warm-up system before the matches and for their substitutes during the match. Specially, the main areas to be improved are: (1) The physical organization of the activity, especially the use of the means, space and distribution of the players was not correct. It happened too often that the substitutes were left on their own, while the starting players completed warm-up exercises.

(2) The structure of the activity, this is, the exercises employed and their functionality and specificity to the positions were not included in most of the warming up routines. Only a few level (A) teams complete the exercises with a logical order from the general to the special aspects and finish with the

exercises specific to the position.

(3) The intensity of the activity in the level (B) teams did not reach it gradually for the most part.

Basic Formations The most organized plans that worked the best were those from the level (A) teams.

Mexico: Applied tactical variations in accordance with the level of the opponent and goals to be achieved in each match. However, their basic formation was 1-4-1-4-1.

Canada: The most stable team in its system (1-4-33) throughout the tournament.

USA: Used a (1-4-2-3-1) formation with variations in the attack incorporating players from the defense and the midfield.

Jamaica was also stable in their formations (1-4-14-1).

A physically weaker Guatemala employed alternatives based on its formation (1-5-3-2) and against higher-level teams they defended with 6 players in the midfield.

El Salvador, Haiti and Trinidad & Tobago initially used formations based on a 1-4-4-2 system but against the greater level of the opponents they faced one of their Forwards had to go back to the midfield to group 5 and 6 players in that zone.

The participating teams showed tactical variations: changes in the system, the strategy and the collective tactics, collective organization on the field and the implementation of individual and group tactics. The best teams (Canada, Mexico and USA) showed great maturity in their adaptation to the tactical demands of their coaches and to the needs of the match, while other teams (Jamaica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Trinidad & Tobago and Haiti) made an effort to present in an organized manner, a coherent game, independent from the system and the tactics.

Tactical organization Independent from the system, few teams played with a coherent organization, whether on the defense or the attack.

As a matter of fact, the teams eliminated by the end of the Groups phase, as well as the semifinalist and the host (Jamaica), showed a lack of a compact game, amplified by errors in marking and covering.

The collective effort in the way to recover the ball was not organized, depending almost exclusively on the individual effort and the physical ability to interrupt attacks from the opponent.

These problems were detected since most players felt exhausted due to the deficient physical preparation and their inability to quickly recover and maintain a constant physical effort throughout the match.

These teams offer wide available spaces to counterattack.

Generally, the teams decided to defend from a line in the midfield or deeper. Only the USA chose to press high on the field and in the entire field in the match against Canada.

A central block of three or four players – 2 central defenders and one or two defensive midfielders – was a central basic structure used.

Very good coordination between the lines was shown by – Canada with the players (#12, #6 and #4), Mexico (#3, #4 and #6) and the USA (#6, #9, #2 and #4) – in marking and mutual covering.

The level (B) teams (El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago) were too narrow in their attack; they did not use the width of the field, the support from the midfielders and the side defenders.

Without the physical ability to make a quick and collective transition to attack, they chose to make long passes forward down the middle of the field, seeking for a counterattack goal.

This had little success, although El Salvador scored their only goal and achieved the victory against Haiti this way after playing for most of the match on their own field.

The level (A) teams varied their formation according to the characteristics and level of the opponent, using the entire width of the filed during the attack as well as permanent support from the midfielders and side defenders.

These teams advanced from the bottom of the field with control of the ball and generation of goal opportunities from the midfield.

Great ball possession thanks to their technical level and the constant mobility of their players.

Level (B) Eliminated Teams The four teams eliminated at the end of the Groups phase belonged to the Caribbean (CFU) and Central America (UNCAF) regions with less development: El

23

Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Trinidad & Tobago.

Collectively, they allowed 55 goals against and scored 9 in 12 matches, winning two of them, tying 1 and losing the remaining 9.

The weak performance from the CFU and UNCAF teams underlines the difference in quality between these zones of the Confederation and North America and shows the need to have a general development of women’s soccer in these areas, which includes, base soccer programs, rational youth competitions and effective programs for the development of teams at a national level.

24

Team Direction The higher the competition level is, the greater and more determining is the role of the coaches in the direction and management of the match in the final success of the team. To achieve successes they must: (1) Develop a correct competitive preparation prior to the tournament.

(2) Have a well-defined strategy and tactics in a collective sense.

(3) Manage to show the best formation in the exact moment of the competition (4) Dominate and foresee the possible variations to use in managing the match, including changing positions, making substitutions and changing the tactics during the match.

(5) Achieve growth in the performance of the team in the tournament.

These responsibilities were not correctly executed by all the technical teams participating.

The level (A) teams Mexico, Canada and USA complied with the prior requirements and participated with a very good competitive level by having developed very good preparations for this tournament.

Mexico offered a tactically team direction dissertation in each one of its matches.

The level (B) teams, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti and Trinidad & Tobago showed instability in their tactical direction and team strategy.

Some of these teams were not able to develop a preparation prior to the tournament with the necessary quality, time and level.

Haiti for example was directed by a technical collective that did not work with the team and had no knowledge of the process.

Attendance Per Match Admission was free. This sport is liked in Jamaica and despite the slow start, once the local team stepped on the field they received the support from the audience with a great soccer environment in the Montego Bay Sport Complex. The attendance average was of 1925 and the general attendance to the event was of 30800 people.

The Goals (75) Goals were scored in the Tournament, for an average of 4.6 per match.

FIFA U-17 Women’s World Cup in Azerbaijan 2012 had an average of 3.7 goals per match.

Of these 75 goals, two thirds (50) were scored by Canada and the USA, (24 and 26 respectively) – (66.6%) Halves When the Goals Were Scored Most goals were scored in the first half (38) for a 50.6%.

Histogram of the goals scored by 15-minute periods: From 1 to 15 - 10 goals. (13.3%) 15 to 30 - 12 goals. (16%) 30 to 45 - 16 goals. (21.3%) 45 to 60 - 14 goals. (18,6%) 60 to 75 - 6 goals. (8%) 75 to 90 - 17 goals. (22,6%) These numbers suggest that: (1)Most level (B) teams were not physically and/ or mentally prepared to open the match and the opponents took advantage of this weakness. For example, Mexico scored 3 of their 7 goals against El Salvador in 26 minutes. Canada scored 3 of its 11 goals against Trinidad & Tobago in 21 minutes and 3 of its 5 goals against Jamaica in 30 minutes and the USA scored 4 of its 8 goals against Jamaica in 27 minutes; (2)The teams returned from half time not concentrated and not prepared to start the second half. Mexico scored 3 goals against El Salvador in 15 minutes, Canada scored 2 more against Trinidad & Tobago and 1 against Jamaica in 15 minutes and the USA scored 1 goal against Jamaica in 15 minutes.

From the previous data we van argue that the teams that generally lack a good warming up system constantly lack the proper organization, structure, use of players and equipment and/or intensity. Also,

the physical preparation of the players in many teams has to be improved.

Only Canada, Mexico and the USA had an adequate general and special physical preparation and they completed the warm up with the correct quality and organization.

Who Scored the Goals The Forwards scored most of the goals in the Tournament (49) for a (65.3%).

This was the direct result of the power of Canada and USA’s attack lines. As a matter of fact, the six main scorers in the tournament were Forwards.

The Forwards from Canada and the USA scored a combined total of 30 goals (40% of all tournament goals), four of them playing for Canada (21 goals) and two for the USA (9 goals).

The attack midfielders were an important support for the forwards, scoring 13 goals (17.33%).

The seventh and eighth top scorers of the tournament were attack midfielders (from Canada and the USA), scoring 7 goals between them.

Where the Goals Were Scored From Almost half the goals were scored from inside the penalty area (37) (49.33%).

22 goals (29.33%) were scored from inside the goal area; this last information highlights the lack of effective marking and defensive concentration in the goal area.

It is important to underline that 13 goals (17.33%) were scored from outside the area, this despite the low quality of most of the long range shots in the tournament. The implications for the team’s preparation, defensive organization, compact game, individual marking and coverage around the penalty areas and the goal were deficient.

The attacks and opportunities from the sides, especially from the right with the support and arrival of midfielders and side defenders was a determining factor in the first level teams (Mexico, Canada and the USA).

The goals from individual plays represented a third of all goals (24) (32%).

Of these goals in individual plays, (6) were scored by the USA against Guatemala, while Guatemala scored (4) goals against Trinidad & Tobago. Several matches were defined by goals scored in individual

plays, which shows the importance of individual players in a team.

The high number of goals scored this way highlights the capacity and high technical level of many players in the tournament to take advantage of the opponent defenders.

The goals scored in set pieces were very few (7) for a (9.3%). Only three penalty kicks were signaled in the tournament in the official match time and two of these were scored.

We must notice the little use of planned set pieces in the corners and faults to fool the opponent.

Real time The average real play time in this Tournament was 51:13 minutes per match, which is way below the average play time per match in the FIFA U-17 Women’s World Cup Azerbaijan 2012 (55:29). The inadequate physical preparation and the inability of some teams to maintain ball possession influence the deficit. On average, there was a little more play time on the first half (26:08) than on the second, while the first and last 15-minute periods had more play time on average (9:00 and 9:23 respectively) The last 15-minute period had more play time due to the stoppage time of the second halves was very high since the goalkeepers asked for medical attention and most substitutions (6) were made in the second half.

It is important to notice that only three matches – Guatemala against Trinidad & Tobago, USA against Canada and USA against Jamaica exceeded 50 minutes of playtime. In the final match between Mexico and Canada it exceeded one hour, which is a very positive aspect that proves the higher level.

25

México

Canada´s U-17 team displayed great determination during its participation in the Tournament. It is worth highlighting that this team has already participated in two World Cups: the Women’s U-17 World Cup (17 of FIFA New Zealand 2008), where it reached the Quarter-finals but lost against Germany 3-1, and the Women’s U-17 World Cup (17 of FIFA Azerbaijan 2012), where it reached the Quarter-finals but lost against Korea 2-1. This is a reflection of the team’s commitment and process during international competitions.

The team won its first game of the Tournament against Guatemala 8 to 0, won its second game against Trinidad & Tobago 11-0, and lost its third game against the United States 2-0. It classified in the 2nd place of Group B, moving on to Quarterfinals, where it beat Jamaica 5 to 0; the team moved on to play in the Finals against Mexico, game that was tied and went to penalty shoot-out. The team missed 2 out of 5 Penalty kicks, losing the Finals.

During the Tournament, the team had 2 goals against and 24 in favor.

26

Player #8, Jessie Flemmings, was outstanding among its team members. Her participation was very important due to her ability to move around the center field, both as defense and as attacker. The team’s greatest strength was its collective game, with the players exhibiting great technical, tactical and strategic knowledge of their roles in the field, as well as great physical ability.

Tactical

Basic System of Play 1-4-3-3

Technical Analysis:

•Overall the team had fast and strong players with good ball control and heading.

•Good ball possession, even under opponent pressure.

•Creative midfielder# 8 (Jessie Fleming) displayed technical and tactical skills and showed leadership in all games.

•Excellent short and long distance ball passes technique.

•The coach always had a clear idea of game and maintained a stable line-up in all of the game, which was crucial to meeting the objectives.

Physical Condition Analysis:

•Tall, strong and fast players.

•Maintained a good pace and dynamic game throughout the tournament. Their physical level was focused on the tactical and technical performance, which was important for their classification.

•The team showed good fitness, strength, pace and agility.

Tactical Approach:

•Maintaned the 1-4-3-3 basic system throughout the tournament except in the Semi-finals match against Jamaica; the system converted into 4-1-32, a more offensive system and Canado defeated Jamaica 5-0.

•Maintained ball possession by grouping players in the midfield and used dangerous counter-attacks by its skilled and high-level strickers #7, #9 and #11. All the team’s attackers had great goal scoring capacity.

•The team had an organized game with compact game in both attack and defense.

•Wide range game and deep attacking play.

•The technical group always used three player substitutions in every game; the substitute players had a good playing level.

•The team showed tactical and strategic knowledge.

27

Defense Analysis:

•4-1-4-1 system.

•Defensive organization with mixed marking and compact play.

•When the team lost ball control in the attack, the whole team moved to midfield aiming to group and create narrow spaces for the opponents, creating a compact play.

•Excellent coverage and narrow spaces. Strong and secure defenders, #6 and #12, good in anticipating plays.

•Strong, agile, and secure in 1vs1 situations.

•The goalkeeper is good in anticipating plays and attentive.

Attack Analysis:

•3-5-2 system •Excellent ball recovery and possession.

•Wide range game and deep attacking play supported by wingers #3 and #2.

•Player # 8 is a destabilizing player in the attack

28

and excellent in anticipating plays.

•The forwards showed great versatility in their movements #9, #10, #7, and #11.

•Support in the attack and very food physical condition.

Deficiencies:

• Limitaciones técnicas en los golpeos a la portería contraria de corta y media distancia.

Outstanding players: #1. Rylee Foster. Goalekeeper. Great job in the defense. #6 Bianca ST. Georges. Defender. Strong in 1vs1 situations and fast #8. Jessie Fleming. Midifielder. Good technical level and destabilizing player. #11. Marie Mychele Metivier. Forward. Great technical and physical level. #9. Emily Borgmann. Forward. Great technical and physical level.

# Name 1 Rylee FOST 18 Devon KER

Position GK GK

TJ GA TjA TjR M NA D RQ

450 0 0 0 0 0 5 105.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

2 Simmrin DHALIWAL 3 Rachel JONES 4 Karima LEMIRE 5 Mika RICHARDS 6 Bianca ST. GEORGES 7 Marie LEVASSEUR 8 Jessie FLEMING 9 Emily BORGMANN 10 Sarah KINZNER 11 Marie MYCHELLEHMETIVIEF 12 Easther KITH 13 Avery LAKEMAN 14 Jenna BAXTER 15 Nadia PESTELL 16 Sarah STRATIGAKIS 17 Ibrahim KERR 19 Jessica LISI 20 Nadya GILL

DF DF MF DF DF FW MF FW FW MF DF MF FW DF MF FW FW FW

445 0 0 0 0 0 2 79.4 450 0 0 0 0 0 4 110.0 414 0 0 0 0 0 0 46.0 180 0 1 0 0 0 0 10.0 450 0 0 0 0 0 4 110.0 450 5 0 0 0 0 3 155.0 450 3 0 0 2 0 5 235.0 336 4 0 0 1 0 1 117.3 359 1 0 0 0 0 2 89.9 367 7 0 0 0 0 4 160.8 270 0 0 0 0 1 1 40.0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.0

29

Bermuda

The only previous appearance by the team from El Salvador was during the final stage of CONCACAF’s Women’s U-17 in 2008, where the team lost the three games in its Group with a combined scored of 2 goals in favor and 22 against. The team that participated in the 2013 Tournament was very young, with the players being an average age of 15 years old. The team had some of the youngest players in the event, Maggi Segovia (12), Ashley Tobar (13) and Elaily Hernåndez (13), but it also had several players who were 14 years old. El Salvador lacked physical ability and tactical organization for the defense, possession and penetration during attack. The team lost its two first games against Jamaica (2-0) and Mexico (7-0), and it seemed destined to continue down this path.

However, the team was able to recover and win its last game against Haiti 1-0. Despite the fact that the team had the highest number of goals against in its Group (9), and only had 1 in favor, the victory against Haiti allowed the team to finish in the third place of Group A with 3 points, two more than Haiti, which had tied against Mexico 1-1 in its first game.

30

Tactical

Basic System of Play 4-3-2-1

Technical Analysis:

Tactical Approach:

•Players individually technical, but most lacked technical speed under pressure and in narrow spaces.

•Destabilizing players (#7 and #8), with good ball handling and feints skills.

•Inconsistent and unorthodox but effective heading.

•Highly centralized game, sometimes with good ball passes in midfield but also many ball losses in this area.

•They played with different systems (3-5-2 in the first match; 4-5-1 in the second; and 4-3-2-1 in the third) •Their tactical strategy was to defend their side of the field and counter-attack with long distance ball passes to the center forward (# 10) who was in front of the team.

Defense Analysis: Physical Condition Analysis: •Although agile, medium height players were unable to surpass the physical strength of their opponents.

•Lack of speed and acceleration, strength and power, physical condition.

• Due to their lack of physical strength, they cannot face the opponent resulting in breaking their compact play between lines of defense to attack.

• Physically lose dynamic in the attack, in their defensive withdrawal, and when they apply defensive pressure.

•Its defense had an isolated center back (# 4) to provide coverage, but it was disorganized and had no compact play.

•It tended to defend in the mid-zone where they recovered the ball, but had many open spaces between the lines for the opponent to attack, especially in the wings. Lack of collective tactics to recover the ball.

• Slow attack to defense transition and there was no collective organization.

31

Attack Analysis:

•Very narrow in the attack. The defensive wingers and midfield wingers do not get into advanced goalscoring positions, very few or ineffective shots on goals. Lack of player movement, speed and the use of full breadth. They had ineffective direct ball passes to the center forward and one or two center midfielders.

•They do not build their attack from the back but until they reach the midfield and forward; they depend highly on individual dribling to move the advance the ball. The team attacks from the center, seeking combinations, with long passes from the defense to the Forward. They won the match against Haiti by doing this. Ganó el partido contra Haiti de esa manera.

• Some players are agile and have good control of the ball but lack speed to explore spaces within and beyond the opponent’s defense. They had effective combinations in the mid-zone but once they reach the penetration they lose the ball in the 1vs1. physically overpowered by their opponent.

32

•Few, ineffective, weak shorts on goal, with no direction.

Deficiencies:

•The players’ biotype was a weak point in the development of the game. Lack of speed, acceleration, strength and power, physical condition.

•Lack of technical speed due to opponent pressure and narrow space by many players.

•Lack of organization, compact play and collective tactics in both defense and attack.

Individual ball recovery rather than collective. Lack of movement, wide range and deep attacking play •Bad long distance ball passes, weak shots on goals.

Outstanding players: #7. Brenda Delgado. Forward, player with good technical level. # 3. Bianca Torres. Defense, strong in the 1vs1 and fast. # 4. Elaily Represa. Centerback, lagging, secure and tecnical.

# Name 1 Eleonor ZELAYA 18 Ana COREAS

Position GK GK

TJ GA TjA TjR M NA D RQ

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 -60.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

2 Ingrid MARTINEZ 3 Bianca TORRES 4 Elaily REPRESA 5 Fatima BERMUDEZ 6 Daniela BERNAL 7 Brenda DELGADO 8 Sandra MARAVILLA 9 Ashly MONTOYA 10 Maggi ROMERO 11 Evelyn PENA 14 Astrid FLORES 15 Alejandra ALVAYERO 16 Katerin CARPIO 17 Mayra AGUILAR 18 Maritza RODRIQUEZ 19 Lesly RIVERA 20 Sofia TRIPP 21 Yoselin AGUILAR

DF DF DF DF DF MF MF MF MF FW MF FW MF MF FW FW MD FW

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

270 0 0 0 0 0 2 60.0

137 0 0 0 0 1 0 10.2

270 0 1 0 0 0 0 20.0

213 0 0 0 1 0 2 78.7

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

173 0 0 0 0 1 0 14.2

73 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.1

57 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 63 1 0 0 0 0 1 42.0

113 0 1 0 0 0 1 17.6

80 0 0 0 1 0 0 3.9

136 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.1

47 0 0 0 0 0 1 20.2

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0 2995 1 2 0 1 3 7

33

Guatemala was part of a very competitive group, together with both North American teams and the Caribbean’s champion, Trinidad y Tobago. The average age of the players was 15 years old. During the first two games against Canada and the United States, the lack of experience and their lack of physical maturity was evident, having received 15 goals against and scoring none in favor. In its last game, Guatemala played with creativity and confidence, and won against Trinidad and Tobago 7-0, finishing in third place in the Group. The Forward players #9 and #10 were outstanding among their teammates.

Guatemala had 15 goals against and 7 in favor.

The team displayed high competitive spirit in the field and desire to win.

34

Tactical

Basic System of Play 1-4-4-2

Technical Analysis:

Tactical Approach:

•Some players had good technical level. They had technical difficulties with ball control from the defense.

•Ineffective long distance ball passes.

•Players #9 and #10 had very good technical level, ball handling and showed good capacity to change the direction and penetrate the opponent defense with good feints.

•They had difficulty with defensive aerial play (heading).

•Guatemala used two tactical systems in the tournament, very flexible to use them. A tradicional 4-4-2 system in the first match against Canada and more conservative 5-3-2 system against the USA and Trinidad & Tobago.

•Against an inferior opponent, Guatemala had enough space and time to take advantage of their counter-attack, but against the organized and physical teams like the USA and Canada, they had very little success in the direct play.

•Guatemala’s general technique and its physical limitation affected its tactical strategy. There were very few ball passes between the lines in both attack and defense.

•Consistent in maintaining stability with the main line-up. The substitute players did not alter the team’s performance.

Physical Condition Analysis •Most of the players had limitiations with speed and strength.

•Some attackers were agile with the ball.

•Players were physically exhausted at the end of each half of the matches, they could not maintain a steady pace.

•Inefficient warm-up. Long periods with no game actions and ball passes, and combination plays between 8 players in total. Very weak.

35

Defense Analysis: •Their attack strategy was based on counter-attack; this strategy left Guatemala with a very stretched defense. There was a slow transition from defense and midfield zones narrow spaces, leaving large free areas between the different lines of the team.

•The Guatemalan defense had difficulty 1vs1 marking of a more athletic opponent.

•Its defense was composed of 3 lines: 5 defenders at the back line (covering the zone), 3 center backs and 2 forwards.

•No pressure on the opponent in the rival area. They maintained a territorial defense.

•Deficiency in their defensive organization on opponent’s free kicks.

Attack Analysis: •Guatemala tried to have ball control from the defense, from the goalkeeper to the center backs, but due to opponent’s pressure and lack of technique, the team could not maintain this strategy. The team did not have a play building plan from the defense.

•After having ball recovery, the forwards tried long and quick counter-attacking plays with direct attacks. There was a good relationship between the two attackers in this type of play, mainly in the match against Trinidad and Tobago.

•Two forwards had difficulty in 1vs1 plays against the opponent’s organized defensive lines, but they took advantage of the lack of coverage from Trinidad

36

and Tobago.

•In summary, few ball possession and movement between lines against an organized defense, but with time and space Guatemal can effectively destabilize an opponent and execute

Deficiencies: • Play building technical knowledge from defense area.

• Resistence to maintain the pace and physicial and tactical efforts for 90 minutes.

• Tactical strategy in 1vs1 marking of a more athletic and higher level opponent.

• The team did not have competitive players substitutes.

Outstanding players. # 10 Aisha Solórzano. Forward, goal scorer against Trinidad and Tobago, skilled player. # 9 Madelyn Ventura. Forward, goal scorer, scored 3 goals against Trinidad and Tobago.

# Name 1 Angie Hidalgo 12 Natalie Schaps

Position GK GK

2 Isabella Salas 3 Sara Fetzer 4 Pamela Monterroso 5 Alison Garcia 6 Jennifer Barrios 7 Mimi Castellanos 8 Laurent Marksmith 9 Madelin Ventura 10 Aisha Solorzano 11 Andrea SOSA 13 Lesli CAL GAMARRO 14 Maria BARILLAS 15 Cindy GRANDA 16 Kellin MAYEN 17 Maria CONTRERAS 18 Hercilia CABRERA 19 Anika SCHAPS 20 BEBERLY MONTUFAR

DF DF DF MF MF FW FW FW FW FW DF DF MF DF MF FW FW FW

TJ GA TjA TjR M NA D RQ

180 0 0 0 0 0 0 -130.0

90 0 0 0 0 1 0 5.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

234 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.0

246 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.3

154 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.1 270 1 0 0 0 0 1 65.0 170 1 0 0 0 0 1 53.9 242 1 0 0 0 1 1 56.9 270 3 1 0 1 0 3 110.0 173 1 0 0 0 0 3 84.2

196 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.8

90 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

153 0 0 0 0 1 0 12.0

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

65 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3073 7 1 0 1 4 9

37

México

Haiti was the runner-up behind Trinidad and Tobago in the recent CFU Women’s U-17 Finals two weeks before the CONCACAF Championship. Just as its rival in Group B, El Salvador, Haiti had only participated once before (2010) in a CONCACAF’s Women’s U-17 Tournament, where it lost all games with a combined score of 12 goals against and none in favor. Although its regular Technical Team did not travel to Jamaica, Haiti had a good start by tying the match against Mexico (1-1), which generated good expectations. Despite this result, Haiti’s team was disorganized in its defense and lacked ball possession and depth in attacks during the whole Tournament. The team lost against Jamaica (3-0), and surprisingly, against El Salvador (1-0).

Haiti displayed a strong defensive line lead by its two center backs, but lacked offense, which together with its tactical disorganization during the last match against El Salvador, left much to be desired in terms of its performance in the Tournament.

38

Tactical

Basic System of Play 1-4-4-2

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS:

• Inconsistent technical performance. The whole team had technical problems with ball control and ball delivery under opponent pressure.

• Ineffective short and long ball passes and short combinations plays due to technical deficiencies.

• Bad shots on goal technique.

• Very strong in 1vs1 situations but they did not have enough time to obtain ball possession and control due to bad coverage. Very bad heading technique and aerial play (heading).

PHYSICAL CONDITION ANALYSIS:

• Strong and fast players.

• Bad collective anaerobic and aerobic capacity for pace and continuity in game actions. The team could not maintain an organized and compact play between the lines.

• Strong collective mindset with readiness for individual ball disputes.

TACTICAL APPROACH:

• The 1-4-4-2 basic system with no variation.

However, they had the tendency to get disorganized and used inefficient individual play.

• The team’s system was based on a central block of six (two central backs, two defensive midfielders and two forwards).

• In general, they were disorganized in both attack and defense.

• Lacked combination plays by taking advantage of the width and attacking through the center.

The team depended on the speed and inefficient individual game actions.

• Lacked compact play between the lines and collective and organized work in defense.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS:

• The system converted into 4-5-1 when defending.

• Lacked compact play, organization, and collective work.

• Depended on individual game actions and physical strengths (speed, power and strength) to obtain ball possession.

• Defensive line by center back #2, fast in coverage

39

and stopped opponent attacks.

• Good organization (territorial and individual marking) for opponent corner kicks, but lacked concentration for opponent goal opportunities. The team did not master the aerial play.

Attack Analysis:

•After having ball recovery, they could not maintain ball possession.

•They did not have ball possession in defense and the wingers did not support the attack.

•Midfield wingers were isolated and lacked taking advantage of the width in the attack as they didn’t have the ability to overcome the opponent’s pressure with ball control.

•Lacked combination plays through the center; depended on the use of long ball passes to the Forward (#7), seeking for spaces at the back of the opponent’s defense. They used unnecessary and inefficiento individual play.

organization.

•They did not take advantage of the width in attacking combination plays. They had tactical disorganization and used unnecessary and inefficient individual play.

•Bad tactical management level. The team coaches did not know the team at all as the official coaches stayed in Haiti because they had problems to travel to the tournament.

Outstanding players: # 7 Louis Batcheba. Forward. Skilled player and opportunistic in the area. # 2 Beaubrun Soveline.Centerback. Defensive axis of the Haitian team. # 20 Dorce Fathou Matha. Right Winger. Offensive and good defensive level. # 10 Destinvil Kensia. Midfield winger. She was the team’s play builder, very good technical level.

Deficiencies:

•Bad individual ball control and delivery technique under opponent pressure.

•Lacked compact play and collective defensive

40

# Name 1 Jonie GABRIEL 12 Naphtaline CLERMEUS

Position GK GF

TJ GA TjA TjR M NA D RQ

203 0 1 0 0 0 0 -17.4

69 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12.3

2 Soveline BEAUBRUN 3 Jennifer LIMAGE 5 Verlene ESTIME 22 Zila LAFLEUR 7 Batcheba LOUIS 8 Nelourde NICOLAS 9 Sherly JEUDY 10 Kensia DESTINVIL 11 Rudena PAILLERE 13 Bertha AUGUSTE& 14 Loudwige DURAND 15 Nayde MILLIEN 16 Isnada LEBRUN 17 Gertrude LERENTIL 20 Martha DORCE 21 Nerilia MONDESIR

DF DF DF MF FW FW FW MF MF DF MF MF FW MF DF MF

270 0 2 0 0 0 3 55.0

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

203 0 0 0 0 0 0 22.6

243 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.0 270 1 0 0 0 0 3 95.0

147 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.3

270 0 0 0 0 0 2 60.0

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

81 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

117 0 0 0 0 1 0 8.0

95 0 0 0 0 1 0 5.6

104 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.6

98 0 0 0 0 1 0 5.9

270 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.0

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 2992 1 3 0 0 3 9

41

The Jamaican team is a debutant in World Cups; it has only participated in CONCACAF qualifiers. The team from Jamaica had very young players with little competitive experience, who lacked deep knowledge of technical and tactical elements. The team won its first match of the Tournament against El Salvador (2-0), won the second game against Haiti (3-0) and tied the third match against Mexico (1-1).

The team classified in the first place of Group (B) to the Semi-finals, where it played against Canada and lost (50); it played against the USA for 3rd and 4th places, losing the game (4- 0). Jamaica had 9 goals against and scored 6 in favor during the Tournament, obtaining 4th place in the event. The team displayed willingness to play and be victorious, but its technical and tactical limitations proved that the team needs to double its efforts during training to be able to participate in international tournaments like this one and face teams like the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Regardless of the results, the Jamaican team put on a show for its public and was a worthy host for the event.

42

Tactical

Basic System of Play 1-4-5-1

Technical Analysis:

•Strong, fast and tall players with significant technical limitiations towards their individual and collective level.

•The goalkeeper had an excellent long field goal kick, but innacurate. She showed insecurity.

•Very little technical knowledge of the basic elements of soccer (ball passess, ball kicks, pass reception, incursions, etc).

•Powerful but ineffective long distance shots.

•Logical warm-up order but the activities are not distributed in terms of organization, time and space.

Physical Condition Analysis:

•Their fitness preparation level diminished as the tournament progressed. The first two games were conclusive in this aspect and they surpassed their opponents in speed and strength.

•The team could not maintain a compact play between the lines.

•Fast and tall players, strong in 1vs1 situations. Very good aerial play in terms of strength and power.

•Their physical level decreased in the 2nd half, lost their compact block completely, leaving spaces between the lines. This situation happened during the last matches when the other teams where

better than they were in all soccer aspects.

Tactical Approach: •The 1-4-4-2 system was the most used by this team. Sometimes converted into 1-4-1-3-2 during the same match.

•They had a defined main line-up, which was used throughout thte tournament.

•They used long counter-attacking plays with individual direct attacks, resulting in loosing many balls.

•Fast players but innefective direct attack due to their low technical level in ball passes and incursions.

•Technical limitations in the opponents’ pressure.

They could not create combination plays between players #11, #12 and #10, causing lack of ball possession, steady pace, and continuity of game actions.

•No effect on tactical chages when rotating positions between players. Lacked of combinations plays in midfield.

•The way they played was based on strength and speed rather than technical and tactical aspects.

The team maintained the same line-up throughout the Tournament.

43

Defense Analysis:

Deficiencies:

Attack Analysis:

Outstanding players. #11.Khadija Shaw. Defensive midfielder, strong, good game vision. # 9. Asia Lee – FATTT. Forward, fast and aggressive scorer.

•Defensive organization 1- 4-5-1, due to ball loss.

•Attack-Defense transition, there was no compact play between the defensive line and attacking line.

•There was no ball recovery in midfield by players #11, #12 and #19.

•Compact play but play individually and territorial, there was no tactic order.

•Individual marking rather than collective pressure, causing serious problems on ball recovery.

•Good coverage and narrow spaces with teams that have the same soccer level, but ineffective with stronger teams.

•Good and strong with ball disputing in aerial play (heading).

•Offensive organization 4-4-2.

•Direct play without using the width of the field, they bet on a defensive error of the opponent.

•No compact play between the center line and the attacking line.

•Forwards could not do effective diagonals due to intensive opponent pressure, there was anticipating plays.

•Midfielder #11 kicked many balls behind the opponents’ back, with no luck.

•Wingers #10 and #21 good in the attack.

44

•Functioning of defensive and attacking organization.

•Low individual and collective technical level as it pertains soccer’s basic principles.

•Lack of pace and continuity in game actions.

•No pressure, territorial game.

•Improve special fitnesss preparation and aerobic capacity in the 2nd halves.

•Improve ball possession, continuity and pace of game actions.

# Name 1 Lotteafa CLARKE 13 Shanay RICKETTS

Position GK GK

2 Sashine SMITH 4 Cachet LUE 5 Konya PLUMMER 6 Melissa HAMILTON 7 Petegay PLANTER 8 Asheina NELSON' 9 Asia LEEAFATTT 10 Felicia DAVIDSON 11 Khadija SHAW 12 Jorja HUGHES 14 Deneisha BLACKWOOD 15 Carlletia SAVIZON 16 Cheyenne WAKELANDAHART 17 Samantha SANFILIPPO 18 Camille NURSE 19 Robyn WHITTAKER 20 Amoya CRAWFORD 21 Jessica JOHNSON

DF DF DF DF MF MF MF MF MF MF DF DF MF MF FW MF DF MF

TJ GA TjA TjR M NA D RQ

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

450 0 0 0 0 0 2 -60.0

420 0 1 1 0 1 1 26.7

406 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.1

450 0 1 0 1 0 4 125.0

29 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2

116 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.9

27 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 410 3 0 0 1 0 3 155.6 427 1 0 0 0 0 2 97.4

450 0 1 0 0 0 2 85.0

425 0 0 0 0 0 3 92.2

450 0 0 0 0 0 1 65.0

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.7

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2

27 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0

398 0 0 0 0 0 2 74.2

51 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.7 338 2 1 0 0 0 1 62.6 4986 6 4 1 2 1 22

45

After having a slow start during its first match against Haiti, which ended up in a tied game (1-1), Mexico improved its game and continued on a solid path towards victory (7-0) against El Salvador.

The team obtained second place in its Group after tying with Jamaica (1-1). Mexico faced the winner of Group B, the USA, during the Semi-finals. With great determination and a disciplined defensive strategy, Mexico surprised its northern neighbor by tying the game (11) during the normal time and beating the USAin the penalty shootout (4-2), leading the team to the Finals and obtaining a spot in the Women’s World Cup U-17 2014. During the Finals against Canada, Mexico obtained a victory similar to that obtained against the United States. The team tied the game with Canada during regular game time (0-0) and won by penalty shoot-out (4-2). The goalkeeper, Emily Alvarado, had two great plays, which helped Mexico win its first CONCACAF U-17 Championship. It is worth highlighting that the team had good direction and excellent organizational and tactical plans when facing the USAand Canadian teams.

Mexico played on the limit of its capacities and was very efficient in its collective performance.

The team made excellent changes in line-up and substitution of players at the right time. Its’ Technical Team and Technical Director deserve special recognition.

46

Tactical

Basic System of Play 1-4-3-2-1

Technical Analysis: •Very good individual and collective technical level.

Excellent ball handing and control.

•Good short and medium distance ball passes technique. Good ball possession.

•Good technical level in aerial play in ball disputing.

•Technical weakness: long distance shots.

•The players group and create secure and efficient compact combination plays.

Physical Condition Analysis: •Good physical basis allowed the players to maintain a high performance level throughout the tournament. The players increased their performances as they played each match.

•The players displayed good agility and strength to maintain ball possession.

•Some players (# 18, # 9) showed good speed and changing direction capacity.

•Maintained compact play and unified between the lines. Very organized.

•Powerful and strong ball disputing in 1v1 situations

and arial play.

Tactical Approach: •It used 1-4-3-2-1 basic system during the group phase and converted into 1-4-5-1 and 1-5-4-1 in the Semi-finals.

•Its game improved after every match. They showed versatility in tactics and the use of players to maximize their strengths, adapt to their opponent and exploit their real strengths and possibilities of success. Efficient, rational and winners; that is how Mexico played throughout the tournament.

•They demonstrate depth in the team using several tactical alternatives according to their opponents and their level.

•Organized game and very disciplined in following tactical functions.

•Compact between the defensive and attacking lines.

•Excellent goalkeeper during the matches, she saved 4 penaties and qualified to the worldcup.

47

Defense Analysis:

goalscoring positions.

•Mexico was versatile in the attack. They were able to connect ball passes and build combination plays through the different lines, also took advantage of the counter-attack opportunities and timely change the pace in game actions.

•They used the width of the field with player (# 18) supported by the defensive wingers. They attacked through the center with players # 9 and #20 with cross-scoring options.

•The center midfielders were good with ball possession and dangerous combination plays. They also took advantage of the width and balanced the attack with both defensive wingers with accurate ball passes.

•When defensive wingers were incorportated with deep attacking plays, they got into advanced goalscoring positions.

Deficiencies:

Attack Analysis: •Mexico was versatile in the attack. They were able to connect ball passes and build combination plays through the different lines, also took advantage of the counter-attack opportunities and timely change the pace in game actions.

•They used the width of the field with player (# 18) supported by the defensive wingers. They attacked through the center with players # 9 and #20 with cross-scoring options.

•The center midfielders were good with ball possession and dangerous combination plays. They also took advantage of the width and balanced the attack with both defensive wingers with accurate ball passes.

•When defensive wingers were incorportated with deep attacking plays, they got into advanced

48

•Midfield shots.

•More deep attacking plays.

Outstanding players: #18. Belén Cruz – Left midfielder. Skilled and dangerous players. # 8. Briana Woodall -Defensive midfielder. Play builder and technical. # 9. Janae Gonzáles. – Forward. Skilled player. # 6.Emily Gonzáles. Defensive midfielder. Very technical. # 1. Emily Alvarado.- Goalkeeper. She saved 4 penalty kicks.

# Name 1 Emily ALVARADO 12 Miriam AGUIRRE

Position GK GK

TJ GA TjA TjR M NA D RQ

450 0 0 0 0 0 4 80.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

2 Miriam GARCIA 3 Vanessa FLORES 4 Rebeca BERNAL 5 Alma MARTINEZ 6 Emily GONZALEZ 7 Aylin VILLALOBOS 8 Briana WOODALL 9 Janae GONZALEZ 10 Betzy CUEVAS 11 Montserrat HERNANDEZ 13 Monica RODRIQUEZ 14 Arlett TOVAR 15 Jessica MORENO 16 Cinthia HUERTA 17 Natalia VILLARREAL 18 Belen de Jesus CRUZ 19 Marianna MALDONADO 20 Jaqueline GARCIA

DF DF DF DF MF FW MF FW FW MF DF DF DF MF MF MF MF FW

425 0 1 0 0 0 0 37.2 419 1 0 0 0 0 4 126.6

450 0 0 0 1 0 1 90.0

88 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.8

353 0 0 0 1 0 3 109.2

62 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.9 291 1 0 0 0 0 2 82.3

379 3 0 0 2 0 3 157.1 195 1 0 0 0 0 1 56.7

52 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.8

270 0 0 0 1 0 0 40.0

114 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.7

180 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 399 1 1 0 0 1 2 79.3

117 0 0 0 0 1 1 23.0 450 1 0 0 1 0 5 170.0

87 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.7 214 2 0 0 0 0 3 88.8 4995 10 2 0 5 3 30

49

Despite being Champions of the Caribbean Tournament, the team did not display a thorough preparation process in terms of its physicial, technical, tactical and psychological aspects.

The team had a disappointing performance during the event.

It lost its first match against the USA(8-0), its second match against Canada (11-0), and its third match against Guatemala (7-0), in a third and unexpected avalanche of goals. Trinidad and Tobago received a total of 26 goals against and scored 0 goals during the Tournament. EIt occupied the last place in its Group (B), being therefore left out of the Semi-finals. The team’s physical level diminished gradually during the matches and the key players were exhausted.

A disappointing overall performance for a team that occupied the first place in the Caribbean finals and that had previously displayed world-class players and high competitive level.

It showed low tactical organization, low physical level and inability to create plays under pressure. The team must do a deep analysis of how it prepared for this event.

50

Tactical

Basic System of Play 1-4-4-2

Technical Analysis:

Physical Analysis:

•The team’s technical level had many deficiencies.

Tall, fast and strong players with severe technical deficiencies in heading, control of the ball, incursions, feints, shots on goal, etc.

•Due to lack of technique the team had low ball possession during the Tournament. The mere presence of the opponents with low defensive pressure generated a high number of bad ball passes.

•In general the team had no ball possession, which resulted in no elaboration or creation of deep attacking plays. The team lacked attack combinations and had no technical relationship between the players.

•Technical deficiencies in shots on goal and midfield shots.

•Strong, fast and tall players.

•Were not able to maintain the continuity and rithm of the game during the whole Tournament since their physical condition decreased, mainly during the second halves of the two first matches and in the last game against Guatemala. The decline of their physical condition was evident.

•Coordination problems with the running technique.

Tactical Analysis: •Basic 1-4-4-2 formation system •Grouped players in the midfield zone and used dangerous counter-attacking plays thanks to the level and skills of its #10 striker.

•Lacked compact game in the defense, midfield and

51

attack.

•Team organization was weak both in the defense and in the attack; Left wide space between the lines, low effective pressure.

•No ball pressure in all of its games against its opponents in the Group: Canada, USA and Guatemala •The team played the whole match in their area waiting for its opponent in the midfield.

•Did not use mixed football.

Did not apply pressure after losing the ball, used zonal mark.

•No planning of free kick and corner kick plays.

•The technical team used line-up changes during the games but had no important variants.

Defense Analysis: •Defensive strategy was always 1-4-5-1 •Defense-attack transition was slow and without block.

•Zonal mark.

•Coverage, narrowing of space, and anticipating plays were not effective because there was no compact play or coordination.

•Scarce ball recovery due to distance between the lines, no compact game.

•Used individual pressure that did not affect the opponenets.

•Bad heading technique when regaining ball control, balls to midfield zone or short, without direction.

•The entire team was on the defense during corner kicks, lacking surprise attacking plays.

•Lack compact game between the defensive and midfield lines; Defensive midfield players are not around to recover ball possession.

Attack Analysis:

52

•Their attack formation was always 4-5-1 against its rivals Canada and the USA, unlike against Guatemala, where they bet on attack with a 3-6-1 system.

•Organization during defense-attack transition lacks tactical order, few combination plays in direct attack are lost; Lose ball possession in the attack penetration zone.

•Fast players on the attack but did not create any surprises; No support on the attack, blocks or to avoid mark from the opponents.

•The team easily lost the ball in the 1vs1 except for player #9 who had good ball control and good technique.

•Low use of long and wide attack.

•The team did not score any goals. This is a clear demonstration of their lack of effectiveness and scoring capacity.

Deficiencies:

•Lack of technique for ball possession and control of the ball, which affected their ability to have possession of the ball and create organized plays in the midfield zones in the three matches.

•Deficient tactical organization and strategy in the defense and attack. No compact game.

•Applied pressing, coverage and narrowing of space.

•Low physical level, need to improve resistance, strength and potency.

•Psychological: concentration and attitude, which had a negative impact on the three matches.

•Technical limitation in the shots to the opponent’s goal from short and long distance.

Outstanding players: #9. Zoe Swift –Forward, good technical and physical level. # 14. Cheonne John.- Midfielder, good individual technical level.

Zoe Swift # 9 Trinidad & Tobago. Capitain.

# Name 1 Rebecca Ann Almandoz 21 Nicolette Craig

Position GK GK

2 Tamara Johnson 3 Renee Mike 4 Natisha John 5 Amaya Ellis 6 Abashai Guy 7 Dennecia Prince 8 Summer Arjoon 9 Zoe Swift 10 Jahra Thomas 11 Eden Charles 12 Khaline Jacob 13 Chelsea Frederick 14 Chevonne John 15 Corel Carmichael 16 Kelsey Henry 17 Maya Matouk 18 Jasandra Joseph 19 Chelcy Ralph

Defense Defense Defense Defense Defense Midfield MF Forward Forward Midfield Midfield Defense Forward Forward Midfield Forward Midfield Forward

TJ GA TjA TjR M NA D RQ

90 0 0 0 0 1 0 -5.0

180 0 0 0 0 0 0 -170.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

241 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.8

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

241 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.8

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

255 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.3

214 0 0 0 0 0 0 23.8

272 0 0 0 0 0 3 75.2

75 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.3

270 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.0

104 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.6

46 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1

150 0 0 0 0 0 1 31.7

190 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

32 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6

2889 0 0 0 0 1 5

53

The USA has an envidiable record in these tournaments, having participated in 2008, 2010 and 2012 and being champions twice (2008, 2012), with a total of 14 wins and 1 draw in 15 matches (scored 93 goals in favor and only received 2 against).

Expectations for the USA to qualify to the next World Cup were high, and given its track record, so were an excellent preparation and highly qualified players for the Tournament. Having displayed good performance in all positions, good organization and disciplined defense, with penetration in the attack, the USA proved to be of higher quality than its opponents in Group (A) – winning against Trinidad and Tobago (8-0), Guatemala (7-0), and Canada (2-0).

54

The USA had the toughest defense of the Tournament, having received only one goal in its five games, and scoring twenty six goals, which placed the team as leader in goals for the event. The team missed several goal opportunities in the decisive match for the Semi-finals, when it faced a well-organized Mexican team that stopped it from scoring and met its tactical objectives. The USAachieved a well-deserved tie. The USA lost in the penalty shoot-out 4 to 2, which ended the team’s hopes of qualifying for th FIFA World Cup in Costa Rica.

Tactical

Basic System of Play 1-4-2-3-1

Technical Analysis:

•Excellent collective and individual technique. Very good heading techniques. Excellent ball handling and combination plays. They began having ball control from the defense.

•Some players with good anticipating plays and creative.

•They are confident with narrow spaces and opponent’s pressure.

•Competent and peaceful goalkeeper.

Physical Condition Analysis:

•Very good physical condition –High strength, speed power and resistance level.

•Ability to maintain high intensity, pace and continuity game actions. Compact play between the lines during the whole match.

•Very strong mentality and ball disputing in 1vs1 situations and aerial play (heading).

Tactical Approach:

•The 1- 4-2-3-1 basic system .

•Well organized, with central block of 4 players (2 center backs and 2 defensive midfielders).

•Its strategy was to have ball control and maintain the pace in game actions; used wide range game and played through the wings; seeked spaces behind the opponent and intensive pressing for ball recovery. They had midfield combination plays and began having ball control from its defensive line.

•Quick attack-defense transition.

•Good free kicks and corner kicks techniques.

Defense Analysis:

•Plays 1-4-5-1 system •Has a compact game with good relation between the lines, with good mixed mark and coverage on defense and midfield. The defense midfilder #4 is the balancing stone of the organized defense.

•Pressure the opponent in all zones of the field during the first half and did not allow their rivals to play.

55

•Sometimes one of the midfielders went too deep and opened spaces for rival attackers. Had a good game with aerial balls, and were strong in the 1vs1.

Attack Analysis:

56

Deficiencies:

•Lack of concentration and care by the defense during ball possession.

•Sometimes vulnerable during counter-attack.

•It was the team with the most goals scored during the event, with 26 goals.

•The team had wide attack capacity with deep plays by its wingers in the opponents’ zone.

•Used great ball possession and creation of plays in the midfield zone. Were wide and deep in the attack.

•Had two attacking players with great level, #17 and # 15.

•Good combinations in attack and goal opportunities.

•They only wasted and missed clear goal opportunities in the match against Mexico.

Outstanding Players: • Marley Canales (# 4)- Defensive midfielder, organizer, technical.

• Natalie Jacobs (# 6)- Centerback, fast and organizer.

• Elisabeth Jean (# 10)- Defensive winger, fast and dangerous during attack.

• Tegan McGrady (# 12)- Defensive winger, fast and dangerous during attack.

• Zoe Redei (# 15)- Forward, fast, timely and scorer.

• Mallory Pugh (# 17)-Forward and midfielder, technical and skillful.

# Name 1 Lauren HOOD 18 Katherine HESS

Position GK GK

TJ GA TjA TjR M NA D RQ

270 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0

180 0 0 0 0 1 0 15.0

2 Dorian BAILEY 3 Madison HALEY 4 Marley CANALES 5 Gabriella CARREIRO 6 Natalie JACOBS 7 Mia GYAU 8 Natalie JACOBS 9 Zoe MORSE 10 Elisabeth JEAN 11 Civana KUHLMANN 12 Tegan MCGRADY 13 Taylor OTTO 14 Taylor RACIOPPI 15 Zoe REDEL 17 Mallory PUGH 19 Anika RODRIQUEZ 22 Madison SHULTZI 25 Francesca TAGLIAFERRI

MF FW MF DF DF DF FW DF DF FW DF DF MF DF FW FW FW MF

382 1 0 0 0 0 1 77.4 221 4 0 0 0 0 3 129.6 360 2 0 0 0 0 4 140.0 110 1 0 0 0 1 0 27.2

450 1 0 0 0 0 0 70.0 121 2 0 0 0 1 1 43.4

290 1 0 0 0 0 0 47.2 284 1 0 0 0 0 3 96.6

360 0 0 0 0 0 3 85.0 108 2 0 0 0 1 1 47.0

360 0 0 0 0 0 1 55.7 180 2 0 0 0 1 0 50.0

204 0 1 0 0 0 0 143.6 257 5 0 0 2 1 2 143.6 344 3 0 0 1 0 4 163.2 336 1 0 0 0 0 2 87.3

58 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.4

137 0 0 0 0 1 0 10.2 5012 26 1 0 3 8 25

57

VI. Conclusions.

58

• We can state that CONCACAF’s Women’s U-17 Finals in Jamaica were a success as a result of its organization in general.

• The event was a good sports show thanks to the support of the Jamaican Football Federation, of CONCACAF, and of the government of the City of Montego Bay. • We saw a positive increase in talent and outstanding players in this final phase, which predicts growth in the women’s football level of CONCACAF. • There is an evident disparity in the competitive levels of the countries that participated: North America, Central America, and finally, the Caribbean.

• The competitive analysis done team by team varied from one match to the next as result of the performance level of the teams that were playing.

• We observed clear differences in techniques, tactics, and direction between the participant countries.

• The Caribbean teams have good physical biotypes but lack individual and group techniques, as well as tactical knowledge, game routine and international experience.

• The event was offensive, due to the amount of goals that were scored (75) and to the game strategies, and also as a result of the disparity of levels between the different teams.

• We observed a significant deficiency of technical, tactical and concentration skills in this age as strong characteristic of the countries in the Caribbean region.

• The Central American countries lacked physical training and the biotype of the Central American player.

• The deficiency of tactical and organizational knowledge, as well of the lack of game discipline to carry out each role, was a key missing aspect in

most teams.

• The use by the mayority of the teams of changes in the positions of players during the different matches generated tactical variations in the formations.

• Several teams were not able to maintain an organized game due to their weakness. (Trinidad and Tobago, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador).

• Several teams had difficulties in organization, special content, and use of media during warm-up.

VII. Recommendations •CONCACAF must have awareness about the preparation level of the participant teams prior to holding a Finals tournament in the region.

•CONCACAF must develop strategic plans for women’s football in the different regions, given the difference in levels displayed during the event. This must include specific plans with initial vision for 4 years and annual planning.

Each member Confederation must have a women’s league, together with a development plan, and must have a Work Committee specifically for women’s football.

All plans should be the result of an integral analysis done in each country.

•The plan should be to hold a women’s U-15 event in the area, but having as starting point an adequate competitive organization according to the different country levels, to avoid disproportionate results that do not contribute to the development.

•During the year that the event takes place, require each Confederation to mandatorily destine a sum of money to finance to the Win proyect from CONCACAF, for the preparation and participation of each country’s U-15 women’s team.

•Prioritize technical work in primary teaching.

Develop coordination and use games as motivation for early childhood ages.

•Develop, at a national confederation level, basic women’s football development programs in primary schools. These plans should be reviewed by the Technical and Development Director in each country and must be controlled by the technical commissions and by CONCACAF. •Prioritize and continue to develop training programs and licenses for coaches in the area in women’s football.

•Provide the necessary attention to the goalkeeper’s area when training youths and preparing specialists as teachers in a specific area.

•Develop training programs for specialists in women’s football specific physical training.

•Based on the observations made and the deficiencies that were pointed out, it is recommended that teams in these ages dedicate a much greater percentage of preparation to technical teaching and daily work with the ball.

•We observed in the responses to the technical questionnarie a higher and marked emphasis on technical teaching, but the time and the content of the preparation was really insufficient (preparation games) for several teams in this competition.

•Develop a basic preparation program for women’s football in these categories, based on the recommendations of the event. These show which are our realities, strengths and weaknesses.

•Value and study the possibility of providing training in the most significant deficiencies amd basic elements of preparation for the technical directors of the teams that participated in CONCACAF’s events, prior to the teams initiation of the preliminary preparation phase for the events. Once the event is over, evaluate and hand out a course certificate in accordance with the level showed by the technical team. In this way, continuity and follow-up will be real and productive for selfimprovement in CONCACAF. •Continue to provide significant support to the

progress and advancement of women’s football in CONCACAF in the primary school and juvenile age groups.

•Directly deliver the TSG’s reports to each confederation as a way and means for improvement and for team analysis.

•CONCACAF must integrate a medical representative in the development of the events.

•CONCACAF must consider establishing a minimum age limit for players participating in the event.

59

Members of the Technical Study Group (GET) during CONCACAF’s Women’s Under 17 Tournament 2013.