Concacaf u20 woman caiman english 030614 by Concacaf

TECHNICAL REPORT AND STATISTICS WOMEN´S U-20 CHAMPIONSHIP

Cayman Islands, January 9, 2014

INDEX

I- Introduction

PAG 6

II. Award-winning Teams and Players

PAG 8

III. Statistics

PAG 11

a- Match Results (Group Stage, Semi-finals and Final) b- Group Standings c- Most Valuable Players by Match d- List of Goalscorers e- Team Statistics f- Actual Playing Time by Match and Tournament Average g- Number of Changes in Team Line-up by Match h- Most Valuable Players by Team and ChampionshipÂ´s MVP according to TSG Ranking i- Best Goalkeeper according to TSG Ranking j- Final Statistics Table (Red cards, goals, changes in line-up, number of MVPs by Team) k- When the goals were scored l- How the goals were scored m- Who scored the goals n- Where the goals were scored from o.- Attendance p.- Average Age by Team and for the Event IV. General Comments about the Most Relevant Aspects of the Championship

Pag 22

V. Analysis by Team

Pag 28

VI. Conclusions

Pag 60

VII. Recommendations

Pag 60

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

Message from the President, Women´s U-20 Developing women´s soccer is one of CONCACAF´s top priorities for 2014. The recent CONCACAF Women’s Under 20 Championship, held in the Cayman Islands from January 9th to the 19th, is as indicator that we have committed players with potential for future development and an important level of competitiveness. The eight teams that participated displayed a high level of commitment and sportsmanship. Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago showed good skills and a level of maturity well beyond their age. The teams fought all the way to the end, making both their countries and CONCACAF proud of their performance level. We hope that they continue making progress and that they remain committed to women’s soccer, maintaining a high soccer level and desire to win. We would also like to express our recognition of the outstanding talent displayed by Costa Rica, Mexico and the United States, which qualified to the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2014, which will take place in August. All the players portrayed excellent skills, performing as unified teams in representation of their countries. Mexico and the United States qualified based on their victories in the Semi-finals. Meanwhile, Costa Rica secured its qualification by defeating Trinidad and Tobago 7-3 in the match for third place. The United States, the only CONCACAF team that has played in all versions of the Championship, won the title for the third consecutive time after defeating Mexico 4-0 in the Truman Bodden Stadium. This victory represents the fourth CONCACAF Women’s U-20 Championship title for the USA. The tournament had a total attendance of approximately 17,710 fans, with an average of about 2,214 spectators per match per day during the 8 days of the event. The first match, Cayman Islands vs. Mexico (06), which took place in the Truman Bodden Stadium, set a record attendance with 3,500 spectators, while the Final between Mexico and the United States had an attendance of more than 2,500 attendees. We are also very pleased with the amazing level of commitment displayed by the fans. Our social media pages reached 17.6 million views for the CWU-20 and 14.8 million for CONCACAF. In addition, the Championship attracted television viewers via the broadcasting of the event by Fox Sports, which reaches 50 million homes around the region. International youth events such as this one enable younger talented players to relate to other players and to educate themselves, constituting a highly valuable and enriching experience. We must continue to drive interest for women’s soccer among young women players who have a high potential. Structured programs and competitions such as this one help to expose their skills and mold them into future champions. We are very grateful for the support received from member associations, officials, teams, sponsors and volunteers, and we will continue to work to secure women’s soccer potential, which we know is essential to build a solid base for succeeding at an international level. Sincerely,

5 Jeffrey Webb President

The Technical Study Group (TSG) was formed by: 1. Luis Hernández Herez (Cuba). EXCO member and Chief (TSG) 2. Keith Look Loy (Specialist). Trinidad & Tobago 3. Elieth M. Artavia Anchía (Specialist). Costa Rica 4. Candace Chapman (Specialist). Canada 5. Carl Brown (Specialist). Jamaica 6. Heu Menzie ( Specialist). USA 7. Luis Manuel Hernández Valdivia (Cuba). TSG Coordinator.

The TSG performed the following functions: - Prepared a technical/tactical analysis and report of each match. - Surveyed team coaches through a questionnaire. - Compiled match statistics. - Selected the Fair Play team for each match and for the Tournament. - Selected the Most Valuable Player for each match and the outstanding players by team. - Selected the Tournament´s Most Valuable Goalkeeper. - Selected the All-Star Team. - Prepared the Tournament´s preliminary and final reports. - Analyzed the performance of all the players in the event. - Analyzed the technical, tactical and physical performance of all teams that participated in the event.

I. Introduction The Women’s U-20 Championship held in Cayman Islands was a colorful and well-organized event. The Truman Bodden stadium, the only venue for all matches, “dressed up” for the event and turned out to be the perfect setting for the tournament. Television and Internet broadcasting contributed to greater exposure for all of the activities. The eight participating teams, which had notable differences in regards to level and performance, provided a spectacle of determination and will power in each of the games they played, regardless of the outcome. Once again the differences in development and level of soccer among the teams from CONCACAF’s different regions was notorious, as could be seen in the results and competitive levels. North America is much better in many soccer aspects than Central American and the Caribbean. Team discipline and respect for Fair Play rules were always present, and no player was sent off the field during the event. The award ceremony was a colorful event, with the players acting as closing colophon for a tournament that had good support from the public in the Cayman Islands and from the fans from all over the region, who travelled to support their national teams.

II. Award-winning Teams and Players

Most Valuable Player: Rose Lavelle. (17, USA)

Top Goalscorer: (6 goals) Tanya Samarzich (9, Mexico), Mackenzie Meehan (11, USA)

Best Goalkeeper: Katelyn Rowland. (1, USA)

Fair Play Award: Team (Team USA)

All-Star Team

Goalkeeper: Defender: Defender: Left Winger: Right Winger: Central Midfielder: Central Midfielder: Attacker: Right Midfielder: Left Midfielder: Midfielder:

Katelyn Rowland Cari Roccaro Paulina SolĂs Mariel GutieĚ rrez Andi Sullivan Karla Nieto Stephanie Amack Rose Lavelle Melissa Herrera Savannah Jordan Tanya Samarzich

(1, USA) (3, USA) (5, Mexico) (15, Mexico) (19, USA) (6, Mexico) (16, USA) (17, USA) (7, Costa Rica) (13, USA) (9, Mexico)

III. Statistics A -GROUP STAGE RESULTS

January 9th Trinidad & T. Cayman Islands

Guatemala 0-0 Jamaica USA 6-0 Costa Rica Honduras Cayman Islands

January 10th 0-2 Trinidad & T. 0-6 Mexico

Semi-finals January 17th Mexico USA

January 11th Costa Rica Jamaica

3-1 6-0

Costa Rica Trinidad & Tobago

5-1 Guatemala 0-3 USA Final

January 12th Mexico 10-0 Honduras Cayman Islands 0-4 Trinidad & T.

January 19th Costa Rica 7-3 Third Place in extra time

January 13th Jamaica USA

January 14th 0-3 Mexico 0-3 Honduras

Trinidad & T.

Mexico 4-0 USA Second Place First Place

1-1 Costa Rica 10-0 Guatemala

B. GROUP STANDINGS

Group Summary Table (Qualifying) Group A

Points

Costa&Rica

3 1 1 1 6 8 -2 2 0 4

USA

3 3 0 0 19 0 19 2 0

Guatemala

3 0 2 1 1 15 -14 0 0

Jamaica

3 0 1 2 1 4 -3 1 0 2

Group B

Points

Honduras

3 1 2 0 4 12 -8 0 0

Cayman Islands

3 0 3 0 0 13 -13 1 0 0

Mexico

3 3 0 0 19 1 18 1 0

Trinidad & Tobago

MP W L D GF

Matches played Wins Losses Draws Goals For

2 GA GD YC RC

Goals Against Goal Difference Yellow Cards Red Cards

C - MOST VALUABLE PLAYER BY MATCH

Match

Name

Player

Country

Aisha Solorzano

Guatemala

Match 2 USA vs. Costa Rica

Lindsey Horan

USA

Match 3 Honduras vs. Trinidad & Tobago

Brianna Ryce

Trinidad & Tobago

Match 4 Cayman Islands vs. Mexico

Karla Nieto

Mexico

Match 5 Costa Rica vs. Guatemala

Viviana Chinchilla

Costa Rica

Match 6 Jamaica vs. USA

Rose Levelle

USA

Match 7 Mexico vs. Honduras

Jazmin Aguas

Mexico

Match 8 Cayman Islands vs. Trinidad & Tobago

Anique Walker

Trinidad & Tobago

Mariela Vasquez Fuentes

Costa Rica

Morgan Andrews

USA

Match 11 Trinidad & Tobago vs. Mexico

Paulina Solis

Mexico

Match 12 Cayman Islands vs. Honduras

Linda Moncada

Honduras

Karla Nieto

Mexico

Stephanie Amack 16

USA

Melissa Herrera

Costa Rica

Rose Levelle

USA

Match 1 Guatemala vs. Jamaica

Match 9 Jamaica vs. Costa Rica Match 10 USA vs. Guatemala

Match 13 Mexico vs. Costa Rica Match 14 USA vs. Trinidad & Tobago Match 15 Costa Rica vs. Trinidad & Tobago Match 16 Mexico vs. USA D - LIST OF GOALSCORERS

6 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

9 Tanya Samarzich 11 Mackenzie Meehan 13 Savannah Jordan 10 Paloma Zermeño 19 Anique Walker 20 Jazmín Aguas 16 Stephanie Amack 12 Mallory Weber 9 Lindsey Horan 2 Yesmi Rodríguez 15 Nicole Araya 16 Briana Campos 5 Paulina Solís 17 Amanda Pérez 11 Linda Moncada 17 Jazmín Elizondo 9 Michelle Montero 15 Margaret Purce 19 Andi Sullivan 5 Summer Green 4 Brianna Ryce

Mexico USA USA Mexico T. & Tobago Mexico USA USA USA Costa Rica Costa Rica Mexico Mexico Mexico Honduras Costa Rica Costa Rica USA USA USA T. & Tobago

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

20 Krista Chavarría 8 Mariana Benavidez 14 Aisha Solórzano 19 Cynthia Pineda 15 Seidy Zapata 12 Shanisa Camejo 11 Khadidra Debisette 6 Khadisha Debisette 6 Oshay Nelson Lawes 4 Brittany Basinger 14 Rachel Hill 9 Johana López 11 Fabiola Ibarra 4 Jessica Valadez 17 Melissa Herrera Katherine Arroyo

Own goals: 8 Mariana Benavidez 8 Nancy Antonio # Jetena Bodden

Costa Rica Costa Rica Guatemala Mexico Honduras T. & Tobago T. & Tobago T. & Tobago Jamaica USA USA Honduras Mexico Mexico Costa Rica Costa Rica Costa Rica Mexico Cayman Islands

E- Team Statistics for the Tournament Table of Goals, Cards and Goal Difference by Team Country

Costa Rica

5 2 2 1 14 14 0 3 0

USA

5 5 0 0 29 0 29 2 0

Guatemala

3 0 2 1 1 15 -14 0 0

Honduras

3 1 2 0 4 12 -8 0 0

Cayman Islands

Jamaica

3 0 1 2 1 4 -3 1 0

Mexico

5 4 1 0 22 6 16 3 0

Trinidad & Tobago

Total

32 14 14 4 80 79 1 13 0

MP W L

Matches played Wins Losses

D GS GA

-13

Draws Goals For Goals Against

-6

GD YC RC

Goal Difference Yellow Cards Red Cards

F - ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH

Actual playing time by match and Tournament Average Match 1 to 5 15 to 30 30 to 45 1st H 45 to 60 60 to 75 75 to 90 2nd H. Total T. 1 Guatemala vs Jamaica

9.41

9.17

8.49 27.07 8.03

7.53

10.13

25.69 52.76

2 USA vs Costa Rica

8.48

7.30

8.36 24.14 7.05

7.29

8.34

22.68 46.82

3 Honduras vs T. & Tobago

8.43

7.03

7.23 22.69 8.28

8.44

8.02

24.74 47.43

4 Cayman Islands vs Mexico 6.20

7.25

9.25 22.70 8.20

6.41

7.38

21.99 44.69

5 Costa Rica vs Guatemala 10.39 7.28

9.33 27.00 9.04

8.03

10.50

27.57

6 Jamaica vs USA

9.58

8.11

9.35 27.04 9.58

7.45

12.06 29.09 56.13

7 Meﾌ』ico vs Honduras

8.55

8.50

9.05 26.10 9.23

7.54

8.32

25.09

8 Cayman Islands vs Trinidad T. 8.23 7.30

8.10 23.63 6.29

6.04

8.07

20.40 44.03

9 Jamaica vs Costa Rica

8.07

7.00

8.37 23.44 7.56

8.10

6.39

22.05 45.49

10 USA vs Guatemala

9.27

8.54

7.17

9.30

10.12

27.91

11 T.&Tobago vs Mexico

9.01

8.28

8.10

8.30

24.71 52.02

7.23

8.54 22.81 47.43

12 Cayman Islands vs Honduras 8.20 7.40

24.98 8.49

10.02 27.31

8.31

9.02 24.62 7.04

54.57 51.19

52.89

13 Meﾌ』ico vs Costa Rica

8.43 8.55 9.03 26.01 7.20 7.45 8.55 23.20 49.21

14 USA vs T. & Tobago

8.41

8.50

8.47 25.38 58.50

9.00

10.23

27.73

15 Costa Rical vs T. &Tobago 9.24

7.40

8.08 24.72

8.47

9.33

24.99 49.71

9.01

11.18

30.60 60.44

16 Meﾌ』ico vs USA

11.08 10.33

7.19

8.43 29.84 10.41

53.11

Average

8.81 8.00 8.61 25.42 8.15

7.84 9.09 25.08 50.50

Percentage

17.45 15.84 17.05 50.34 16.14 15.52 18.00 49.66 100.00

G - Number of Changes in Team Line-up by Match Changes in Team Line-up by Team

Teams

F/2

F/3

F/4

F/5 Total Aver. Percent

Costa Rica

0.50

8.11

USA

1.17

18.92

Guatemala

0 5 0.83 13.51

Honduras

0 0 3 0.50 8.11

Cayman Islands

Jamaica

0 5 0.83 13.51

Mexico

0 8 0.50 21.62

Trinidad & Tobago

Total

21 12 4 0 37

0.50

Average

2.63 1.50 0.50 0.00 6.17

Percent

56.76 32.43 10.81 0.00

8.11

100

H - Most Valuable Players by Team According to TSG Ranking Most Valuable Players by Team Team

Name

No Position TP GF YC RC

NL OP

Costa Rica

Melissa Herrera

386

USA

Savannah Jordan

342 5

0 203.00

Guatemala

Aisha Solorzano

14 FW 270 1 0 0 0 3 1 120.00

Honduras

Linda Moncada

11 FW 270 2 0 0 0 1 1 90.00

Cayman Islands

Jetena Boddenn

270 0

75.00

Oshay Nelson Lawes

255

78.33

Jamaica Mexico Trinidad & Tobago

Karla Nieto Anique Walker

122.89

6 MF 360 0 0 0 0 4 2 150.00 19

409 4

175.44

Player with the Highest Ranking Team USA

Name Savannah'Jordan

No Position TP GF YC RC 13

NL OP

FW 342 5 1 0 0 5 0 203.00

Observations about the EventÂ´s MVP: *The TSG settled on player Rose Lavelle 17, Central Midfielder, USA: a player with high technical level and vision, great physical capacity and mobility throughout the field; an organizer. She played one match less than Savannah Jordan, the player with the highest ranking, since the USA had already qualified and decided to reserve its figure players during the third game and during a second half, which affected Rose Lavelleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ranking.

i- Best Goalkeeper of the Tournament According to TSGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Ranking ďżź Goalkeeper Ranking Table Country Costa Rica USA Guatemala Honduras Cayman Islands Jamaica Mexico Trinidad & Tobago

Goalkeeper Noelia Bermudez Valverde Mariela Vasquez Fuentes Katelyn Rowland Jane Campbell Yoselin Franco Estefani Rosales Kelin Palma Jackeline Velasquez Kristina Seymour Vania Cornwall Taylor Grant Chris Ann Chanbers Cecilia Santiago Esthefanny Barreras Keri myers Tenesha Palmer

Player No. 1 13 1 18 1 12 1 12 1 23 1 13 1 12 1 20

Pers. Goals 0 14 0 0 15 0 12 0 13 0 1 3 5 1 13 2

Ranking 0.00 -20.00 90.00 5.00 -105.00 0.00 -75.00 0.00 7.11 -6.67 26.56 -6.67 26.56 -6.33 -112.22 7.67

90.00

Goalkeeper with the Highest Ranking USA

Katelyn Rowland

NOTE: This ranking is based on a combination of objective criteria: 1)- Minutes played, 2)- Goals against, 2- Saves. 3Goal kick (with hands and feet) 4- Team direction, command 5- Personality within the Goal and technical control of the position. Katelyn Rowland, USA, was named MVG as result of all of the above.

J - Final Statistics Table (Red cards, goals, changes in line-up, number of MVPs by Team) Summary by Country (Total) Country

T. Goals

T. MVPs

T. de N. A

T. RC

T. YC

Costa Rica

3 0 3

USA

7 0 2

Guatemala

5 0 0

Honduras

3 0 0

Cayman Islands

Jamaica

5 0 1

Mexico

8 0 3

Trinidad & Tobago

Total

152

37 0 13

NOTE: *USA was the team with the highest number of outstanding players in each match, with a total aggregate of (35), and the one with the least yellow cards (2), therefore being awarded the Fair Play Team Award.

K - When the goals were scored

CONCACAF* Technical Study Group (TSG). When the goals were scored. Match

1 to 15 15 to 30 30 to 45 1st H 45 to 60 60 to 75 75 to 90 2nd H 90 to 115 115 to 130

ET Total

1 Guatemala vs Jamaica

2 USA vs Costa Rica

3 Honduras vs T. & Tobago

4 Cayman Islands vs México

5 Costa Rica vs Guatemala

6 Jamaica vs USA

7 México vs Honduras

8 Caimán vs T. & Tobago

9 &Jamaica vs Costa Rica

10 USA vs Guatemala

11 T. & Tobago vs México

12 Cayman Islands vs Honduras

13 Mexico vs Costa Rica

14 USA vs T. & Tobago

15 Costa Rica vs T. & Tobago

16 Mexico vs USA

Totales

11 12 16 39 11 13 13 37 2

Average

0.69 0.75 1.00 2.44 0.69 0.81 0.81 2.31 0.13

Percentage

13.75 15.00 48.75 13.75 16.25

2 4 80 0.13 0.25 5.00

46.25 2.50 2.50 5.00 100

* En el tercer 4to fue donde más goles se anotaron del minuto 30 al 45 con 16.

l. How the goals were scored

How the goals were scored

Match

Results Center WP.R. WP.L.

D.S

Ind.S Penalty Own Goal

1 Guatemala vs Jamaica

0-0

2 USA vs Costa Rica

6-0

3 Honduras vs Trinidad. &Tobago

0-2

4 Cayman Islands vs México

0-6

5 Costa Rica vs Guatemala

1-5

6 Jamaica vs USA

0-3

7 México vs Honduras

10-1

8 Cayman Islands vs T. & Tobago

0-4

9 Jamaica vs Costa Rica

1-1

10 USA vs Guatemala

10-0

11 Trinidad & Tobago vs Mexico

0-3

12 Cayman Islands vs Honduras

0-3

13 Mexico vs Costa Rica

3-1

14 USA vs Trinidad & Tobago

6-0

1 1

16 México vs USA

0-4

TOTALES

80 16 10 19 11 11 8 4 4 0 6 2

Centro: Penetraciones por el Centro E.D. Jugadas Extremo Derecho E. I. Jugadas Extremo Izquierdo C: Combinaciones JI: Jugadas Individuales ED: Después de tiro de esquina derecha EI: Después de tiro de esquina izquierda T.D: Tiros libres directo T.I: Tiros libres indirecto Penal AutoGol

15 Costa Rica vs Trinidad & Tobago 7-3

*Wing play on the sides (left) was the most common way of scoring goals.

m- Quiénes anotaron los goles

M- Who scored the goals Match

Forwards

Midfielders

Strikers

Defenders Goalkeepers Total

1 Guatemala vs Jamaica

2 USA vs Costa Rica

3 Honduras vs Trinidad & Tobago

4 Cayman Islands vs México

6 Costa Rica vs Guatemala

7 Jamaica vs USA

8 México vs Honduras

9 &Cayman Islands vs T. & Tobago

10 Jamaica vs Costa&Rica

11 USA vs Guatemala

12 Trinidad &Tobago vs México

2 4

13 Cayman Islands vs Honduras

14 México vs Costa Rica

15 Costa Rica vs Trinidad & Tobago

16 México vs USA

Totales

0 80

Average

2.38

0.88

1.06

0.06

0.69 5.00

Percent

47.50

17.50

21.25

13.75

0.00 100

*Forwards, with 38 goals, were the highest scorers, followed by the central midfielders with 17, who used midfield ball kicks effectively.

N - Where the goals were scored from

Where the goals were scored from Match

Inside 5.50

Inside 16.50

1 Guatemala vs Jamaica 2 USA vs Costa Rica 3 Honduras vs Trinidad & Tobago 4 Cayman Islands vs México 5 Costa Rica vs Guatemala

Outside 16.50

Penalties

Total

6 Jamaica vs USA

7 México vs Honduras

8 Cayman Islands vs Trinidad & Tobago

9 Jamaica vs Costa Rica

10 USA vs Guatemala

11 Trinidad &Tobago vs México

12 Cayman Islands vs Honduras

13 México vs Costa Rica

14 USA vs Trinidad &Tobago

15 Costa Rica vs Trinidad & Tobago

16 México vs USA

Totales

6 80

Average

1.56

2.25

0.81

0.38 5.00

Percentage

31.25

45.00

16.25

7.50 100.00

*The majority of goals were scored from inside the penalty area (36), followed by (25) inside the goal area, which demonstrates the lack of defense and organization of some teams in the tournament.

Ñ- Attendance

Average Attendance per Match and for the Event Match

Attendance

Percentage

Group

Total

1 Guatemala vs Jamaica

1252

4.79

2782

2 USA vs Costa Rica

1530

5.86

3 Honduras vs Trinidad & Tobago

1550

5.93

4 Cayman Islands vs Mexico

3500

13.40

1131

4.33

6 Jamaica vs USA

2500

9.57

7 Mexico vs Honduras

1641

6.28

5 Costa Rica vs Guatemala

B A

3631

8 Cayman Islands vs Trinidad & Tobago

2700

9 Jamaica vs Costa Rica

1161

4.44

10 USA vs Guatemala

1479

5.66

11 Trinidad &Tobago vs Mexico

1167

4.47

12 Cayman Islands vs Honduras

507

1.94

13 Mexico vs Costa Rica

507

1.94

14 USA vs Trinidad &Tobago

1230

4.71

15 Costa Rica vs Trinidad & Tobago

1700

6.51

16 Mexico vs USA

2571

9.84

Totales

26126

10.33

5050

A B

4341

2640 1674

100.00

Average 1633 GROUP A TOTAL 9053 | AVERAGE 1509 | PERCENTAGE 45.000 GROUP B TOTAL 11065 | AVERAGE 1844 | PERCENTAGE 55.000 *A total of 26,126 people attended the tournament, with a per match average of 1,633 fans, who with their enthusiasm and cheerfulness provided a festive atmosphere and support for their respective national teams. O- Average Age by Team Costa Rica 18 | USA 18 | Guatemala 17 | Honduras 17 | Cayman Islands 16 Jamaica 17 | Mexico 18 | Trinidad & T. 18 ** NOTE: Cayman Islands and Honduras had the tournament’s youngest players - Lauren Scott and Mirna Chávez, respectively (13). Costa Rica and Honduras also had one player each who was fourteen years old, while Guatemala had two fourteen year olds, and Cayman Islands had three.

IV. General Comments about the Most Relevant Aspects of the Championship Level of the Teams that Participated in the Event

Group A

Technical Tactical Attack Defense Physical Warm-up Team Dir General Assesm

USA

4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4.71

Costa Rica

3.71

Jamaica

3.14

Guatemala

4 3 2 2 3 3 3 2.86

Group A

Technical Tactical Attack Defense Physical Warm-up Team Dir General Assesm

Mexico

4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4.29

Trinidad & Tobago

Honduras

3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2.57

Cayman Islands

3 2

3 1

3 2

4 3

3 3

4 3

3.29 2.14

Key MB-, B-4, R-3, M-2, MM-1

General Analysis

A general analysis of the Women’s U-20 Championship ratifies once again that there is still difference in the development of women’s soccer among the different CONCACAF regions. The USA demonstrated, starting with its first match, that it had the highest competitive level in the event. It won all 5 matches, with 29 goals in favor and none against, due to its overall performance in all basic soccer aspects. The USA received the Fair Play Team Award, the Championship’s MVP Award, the Championship’s Top GoalScorer Award, the Most Valuable Goalkeeper Award, and 6 of its players were selected to be part of the All-Star Team. Mexico’s team won an honorable second place with a talented group of players, but had a lower performance than the USA. The team scored 19 goals and conceded only 1. The other Semi-finalists, Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago, had a lower level than the teams from USA and Mexico, but they also had merit during qualifying leading to the Semi-finals. Costa Rica, with higher technical and tactical level, prevailed over Trinidad and Tobago in the match for third place. The team from Trinidad and Tobago showed

great mentality and winning spirit. The rookie teams in the tournament, Cayman Islands, Honduras and Guatemala, had the lowest level, presenting many deficiencies in many basic aspects. On the other hand Jamaica, champions of the Caribbean final, had a team with good physical preparation but an average technical and tactical level, although its main deficiency was that it did not have a stable line-up during matches, leading to the impression that they wanted to achieve during the tournament what they should have done in training prior to the event.

Technical Analysis The technical level of the event was average in quality, except for the teams from the USA and Mexico. Both teams had talented players on a technical level in all positions. The USA had players whose talent was well above the average, lead by 17, Rose Lavalle, midfielder with great vision, game capacity and physical preparation and strength. USA was able to impose its rhythm both in the attack

as in the defense, developing a stable game in all its presentations. The technical level of the other national teams was limited since the majority of players lacked in some basic aspects of soccer, such as ball control and passing under pressure from the opponent. Aerial play, both in the defense and in the attack, was another area where some teams had difficulties, including Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago, due to tactical deficiencies and inadequate physical preparation for an event of this stature and for rivals with higher capacities. Many teams with a lower level used a sole forward among 3 or 4 defenders, and had too many long passes and striking attacks that ended mostly in lost opportunities to organize an attack. USA and Mexico had the best goalscorers of the tournament: Mackenzie Meehan (USA) and Tanya Samarzich (Mexico), who scored 6 goals each. USA scored 32.6 % of all the goals in the tournament (29). Mexico scored (22), or 27.5%. Both teams scored a total of (51) goals, for a total of 63.7% of all goals scored during the event. In terms of goalkeepers, level was more balanced, with outstanding goalkeepers from the USA team -Rowland and Mexico -Santiago, as well as from Costa Rica -VaĚ zquez.

Physical and Psychological Condition Physical fitness was a decisive aspect during the tournament and can be used as criteria to evaluate prior physical preparation for the event. Only two teams had a high level of physical training that can be graded as very good (USA and Mexico). Physical preparation and fitness was the determining factor for the three levels. The teams that had the top level of physical fitness were USA and Mexico. Costa Rica, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago had second level physical fitness, and Guatemala, Honduras and Cayman Islands had third level of physical fitness. Physical preparation had an impact on the main tactical and organizational problems presented within some of the teams. The teams with least preparation were the ones that conceded the highest number of goals during the second half of the match, when their physical capacity was reduced. However, all teams, despite of their limitations, had a strong, winning mentality, even when they faced the favorite

teams- USA and Mexico-; an attitude that made all players feel proud of themselves. Observations about the Warm-ups Most teams did not have an effective warm-up routine, repeating some of the mistakes exhibited by their masculine counterparts in other CONCACAF tournaments, in terms of: 1- Warm-up structure 2- Content 3- Use of players and use of space 4- Intensity of the activity 5- Attention paid to substitute players. USA and Mexico had good warm-up routines before and during the match. Deficiencies presented by some teams: 1- Did not pay much attention to the warm-ups by substitute players during half time 2- Used reduced spaces for tactical plays when they were in possession of the ball. Mark for speed plays in reduced spaces. 3- Did not include a specific preparation phase for players in their game positions. 4- USA was the role model of good physical preparation and a good warm-up routine before, during, and after the match. We must acknowledge that as the event progressed, the other teams tried to correct their weaknesses in this aspect and were able to improve.

Formations All teams, regardless of their level and formation, tried to develop the game using a central block formed by two or three central defenders and one or two central midfielders, who divided their functions between defense and attack and who are basically responsible for the teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s organization. The organized functioning of the defensive midfielders did not provide much stability to the teams, except for the USA and Mexico (although they too were disorganized at times). The other teams were unstable and disorganized, as was the case of Jamaica, with its central formation. USA and Mexico (but mainly the USA team) had a consistent technique in terms of organization and good tactic in each match.

These teams: Played using a strong man-marking policy and reduced the opponent’s space. Relied on their physical fitness to the maximum. Used the wide range of the pitch and depth on the attack. Other teams responded to this tactic by using 1-45-1 and 1-5-4-1 formations to close the spaces in the defense area. From these positions the teams relied mostly on long counter-attacking plays and striking attacks that the majority of times were unsuccessful and ended in lost balls. Initial formations serve as a platform to determine new ways in which the players can work the field. In past years, the formation was 1-4-4-2, showing the general positioning of the players. Today, formations are usually 1-4-2-3-1 or 1-4-1-3-2 or 1-4-1-3-1, which reflect the performance and functioning of each of the positions within the field and the tactics used. (See team analysis.)

Teams that Failed to Qualify for the Next Stage Cayman Islands, the host of the event and the youngest and most inexperienced team, failed to negotiate the first group stage, together with the national teams of Guatemala, Honduras and Jamaica. Jointly, these four teams were able to win only one match of the 9 played. They scored 5 goals and conceded 40, half of all the goals of the tournament. These teams did not work enough on physical preparation prior to the event, which affected their physical, technical and tactic level. The teams will only be able to solve these issues in the medium and long term by applying development programs, which are consistent with those of different federations. Observations about the Head Coach

The Head Coach and assistant coaches and staff are ultimately responsible for the performance and results of the team. Therefore, they must: 1- Prepare the team for the tournament 2- Define the team’s strategy and tactics 3- Select the team 4- Prepare for the match in advance, including possible changes in line-up, time when the substitutions should be implemented, and changes

in tactic in accordance with the way the match is developing 5- Improve the team’s performance during the tournament. The tournament was characterized by multiple changes in formation and line-up, but very few changes in strategy and tactics. Teams experiencing tactical difficulties used substitutions from one position to another within the same match. Mexico and the USA, two teams that had good knowledge of the fitness of their substitutes, made changes in line-up while maintaining their tactical structure, yielding good results. A source of concern was the trend shown by the weakest teams which consistent in using players in different positions during the tournament (Cayman Islands, Guatemala, Honduras and Jamaica). This lack of stability proved to be uncertainty within the technical personnel in regards to which was the best position for a player and for the team. This is an indication of an inadequate level of preparation prior to the event, including not playing enough preparatory matches and lacking competitive experience. The use of substitutes by the teams with the highest results was generally adequate, effective, and done in the precise moment. Attendance to the Matches Attendance to the stadium by the public was free of charge for every single game. The response from the public was positive, particularly in a country where soccer is not the national sport. The average attendance per match was 1,633 spectators. Many fans from different countries travelled to the Cayman Islands to support their national teams. Local attendance also contributed to making this a colorful event. The awards ceremony, organized by the local committee, was a beautiful spectacle that included fireworks. .

Observations about the Goals When the goals were scored. The majority of the goals were scored during the first half (39), for a total of (49 %). 37 goals were scored during the second half, for a total of 46%, and 4 were scored during extra time for a total of 5%. Breakdown per 15 minute periods: From minute 1st to 15th - (11) goals. 14% 15th to 30th - (12) goals. 15% 30th to 45th - (16) goals. 20% 45th to 60th - (11) goals. 14% 60th to 75th - (13) goals. 16% 75th to 90th - (13) goals. 16% Extra time (4) goals 5% Total: (80) goals. The amount of goals scored suggest that: (1) The teams that best prepared for the match outmatched the opponents who were less prepared, and won the match during the first minutes of the game. For example, the USA team won four of its five matches by scoring a goal during the first 15 minutes, while Mexico won two matches in a similar fashion. (2) The teams that were best prepared for the match outmatched the opponents during the last minutes of the first half, time during which the majority of the goals were scored. Similarly, the majority of goals scored during the second half were conceded between minutes 60-90, for a total of 26 goals. We should highlight that three of the four goals scored during extra time in the match for third place between Costa Rica and Trinidad & Tobago were scored by substitute players who joined the match during the second half. Physical preparation played a key role in the tournament. This also suggests that the teams that had inadequate warm-up often lacked proper organization, structure, use of players, means and stamina. The physical performance displayed by several of the teams was unstable. Only the teams from Mexico and the USA had proper warm-up routines and the physical fitness to compete at an international level. Forwards scored almost half of the total amount of goals of the tournament (38). Mexico, with (10) goals, and the USA with (17) for a combined total of (27) goals, had the most effective attack lines.

The midfielders also scored (17) goals. - Defenders scored 11 goals, mainly in standard situations and penalties, having a notable enhancement in performance in recent CONCACAF youth tournaments. Almost half of the goals were scored from inside the penalty area (36), and (25) were scored from inside the goal area, for a total of (61) goals scored from within the penalty area. This statistic demonstrates lack of effective man-marking and defensive tactics inside the penalty area. It is worth mentioning that (13) goals were scored from outside the penalty area, which shows effective use of midfield shots. - Attacks using the wings were also effective for scoring goals (29). Of all the goals scored, the majority (19) were the result of wing plays on the left. Attacks from the midfield were also effective. - Solo efforts resulted in (11) goals. - Standard situations (corner kicks, free-kicks, and penalties) also contributed to the score, with (16) goals. Five penalties were granted, four of which yielded goals. Actual Playing Time The average actual playing time per match in this tournament was 50.50. This number is below the average actual playing time per match of the FIFA Women’s U-20 World Cup in Japan (54.40); below FIFA 2010 Women’s U-20 World Cup in Germany (55.3); and even below FIFA 2012 Women’s U-17 World Cup in Azerbaijan (55.29). Inadequate physical preparation and the incapacity of some teams to maintain possession of the ball, rhythm, and continuity of actions, are to some degree accountable for the deficit. The match with the highest actual playing time was the Final between Mexico and the USA with 60.44, and the lowest average was the match between Cayman Islands vs. Trinidad & Tobago, with 44.03.

Average Time Played per Team Country Av. Actual PT. Costa Rica 50.51 USA 5.23 Guatemala 51.69 Honduras 48.68 Cayman Islands 45.52 Jamaica 49.61 Mexico 51.59 Trinidad & Tobago 49.34 *This table shows the average actual playing time per team based on all of a teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s matches, with USA having the highest average with 55.23. The teams that played in the same Group as the USA increased the actual playing time with regards to the other Groups and Mexico, which faced Costa Rica in the Semi-finals and USA in the Final. USA had the highest average due to the continuity of its game and higher possession of the ball as result of its good technique.

General Observations About Defense

Only one team (USA) received a rating of very good, due to its excellent defensive organization, compact play between lines and strong mental focus in the danger zones. The USA team did not concede goals during the tournament and the opponents had limited opportunities to make incursions into its area. Two teams (Mexico and Jamaica) received a rating of good, since overall both had good defense, pressured the opponents, and were strong on the defense. However, they sometimes lost concentration and allowed their opponents to make incursions. Jamaica relied on its physical strength and speed. Mexico relied on its organization and good collective play. Two teams (Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago) received a rating of fair. Costa Ricaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s weak physical fitness impacted its ability to maintain an organized game and a compact defense block during the 2nd halves, leaving opponents unmarked. Trinidad and Tobago lacked in one-on-one situations and in defensive block. In the match against Costa Rica, the team had poor physical fitness during the 2nd half and extra time, resulting in a very disorganized defense.

Three teams received a rating of poor (Honduras, Guatemala and Cayman Islands). All three teams had the same deficiencies, although in different levels: weak in one-on-one situations, lack of focus in the defense, poor aerial play, lack of compact play between the lines, leaving ample space for the opponents, few anticipating plays, and coverage. These teams conceded the highest number of goals. The following are some critical aspects generally observed: 1- Lack of focus during defensive plays within the penalty area. 2- Technical limitations and limited physical capacity in aerial play (heading). 3- Limited reduction of spaces between lines (compact block); no proper organization planning 4- Marking was not tight enough, granting excessive freedom to opposing forwards during striking attacks; Lacked tight man-marking. 5- Poor physical fitness levels of some teams contributed to disorganized defense. General Observations About the Attack The national teams of (USA, Mexico and Costa Rica) were rated as good. USA had an outstanding goalscoring capacity, having scored (29) goals in 5 matches. But it also lost many balls due to missed passes in combination plays during the attack. Mexico scored the second highest number of goals thanks to the individual capacity of some of its players and the support from the midfielders. However, many ball passes where lost during sticking attacks originating in the midfield. Costa Rica was the third highest goalscorer, but lacked forcefulness and depth in the attack. The team scored 7 goals during the 2nd half and extra time in the match against Trinidad and Tobago. Trinidad and Tobago received a rating of fair. It relied on its individual strengths and strong physical preparation and fitness, but had problems with organization and shots on the opponentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; goal. Three teams received a poor rating for attack (Jamaica, Honduras and Guatemala). These teams lacked depth and forcefulness in the attack. They lacked support from defense and midfield lines. The teams lacked combination plays in the attack due to limitations with technique and conservative defensive formations, as well as limited technique

for shots on goal, a constant trend for these three teams. The team from the Cayman Islands received a rating of very poor. The team did not score a single goal during the tournament, and not once did it create any danger or opportunities for goal on the opponentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goal. Cayman Islands showed a strong defensive game, with serious technical limitations that prevented the team from creating combination plays or attacks. The team had no possession of the ball. The team lacks at least two players with an average level who are able to create dangerous situations for the opponent.

General observations about the attack: 1- Most teams tend to play with a target striker (depth). 2- Midfielders and defensive wingers provide support on the attack. 3- Teams use one deep-lying striker (link) between midfielders and striker. This player has good technique and work capacity. 4- Teams use wide range play, in many cases using depth. 5- Unproductive use of long counter-attacking plays and striking attacks that lead mostly to lost balls, even in those teams with higher levels. ďżźďżź

Mexico

V. Team Analysis

COSTA RICA

Costa Rica has had an ample participation in CONCACAF Women’s U-20 championships. Costa Rica is UNCAF’s main representative in these tournaments, and has obtained the third place in two occasions (2004 and 2010). In its first match against the USA, the team lost by 6 goals to 0. USA played with a line-up formed by all its main players, who displayed their superiority over the Central Americans. In the second match against Guatemala, the team showed a good level of soccer during the 1st half, scoring 5 goals, but had a substantial decrease in its physical condition and level during the 2nd half, conceding a goal to the Guatemalans. The final score was 5 goals for and 1 against. Its last and decisive match against Jamaica for qualification to Semi-finals ended in a draw. The Costa Rican team had to rely on all of its technical and competitive resources to face the determined Jamaican team. Costa Rica’s qualification stage concluded with one victory, one draw and one defeat, and 8 goals for and 6 against. In the Semi-finals, it faced Mexico, a strong team. The Costa Rican team had a good 1st half, displaying excellent tactical organization in the midfield and defensive compact play. Its physical condition decreased during the 2nd half, conceding 3 goals that led to Mexico’s victory. In the match for third place against Trinidad and Tobago, the Costa Rican team started the 1st half losing 3 goals to 1. During the 2nd half, the team increased its level, contraire to what had happened in previous matches, narrowed the mark and pushed in the attack (excellent substitutions at the right time), obtaining an emotional draw in the last minutes of the game, with a score of 3 goals even. Trinidad and Tobago failed to make good changes to its line-up, and its worn-out team was not able to stop the Costa Rican team from scoring 4 goals during extra time, for a final victory of 7 goals in favor and 3 against, and Costa Rica’s qualification to the upcoming World Cup.

TACTICAL Formation: 1-4-4-2

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Overall, the team has good technique when in control of the ball without pressure from the opponent. When tightly marked, the team is irregular while in possession of the ball. • Many talented players (10), 7 of which can influence the team’s performance. • Lacks technique in deep long ball passing that results in lost balls. • Presents limitations in aerial play (heading) in the defense zone. • Good handling and control of the ball in the defense and midfield.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Strong, fast and powerful players. • During the first 4 matches, the team’s physical performance decreased in the 2nd halves, both in terms of rhythm and compact play. This, however, did not occur in the extra time during the match for

third place against Trinidad and Tobago, where the team was forceful. • Player No. 7 had strong will power and good physical fitness and performance during the final match.

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • The team used a 1-4-4-2 formation with variables in the attack and defense of 1-4-4-1-1 and 1-4-3-3, depending on the level of the opponents and the manner in which the match developed. • It built-up plays from the back with good ball control in the defense line and had continuity of actions. Players made mistakes when pressured by the opponents (USA) and (Mex.) • Wide in the attack and dangerous down the wings. Players 7 and 20 are skillful and tireless. • Compact play between lines that allows the team use pressure zonal marking all around the field. • Tend to be disorganized in the defense during the 2nd halves due to a decrease in physical capacity.

Conceded many goals (14 goals) due to diminished compact play between lines, opening spaces for the opponents. • Good and efficient changes in line-up during its final match against Trinidad and Tobago.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • The team uses a1-4-5-1 formation when one of the forwards joins the midfield by moving back from its position. • It was disorganized in the defense zone, giving advantage in the one-on-one and making coverage difficult. The team conceded 8 goals during qualifying and 6 in the Semi-final and Final. It conceded a total of 14 goals in 5 matches. • Central midfielders sometimes leave their positions at the same time, leaving big open spaces and breaking the compact block. • Midfielder No. 20 leaves open spaces in the defense after an attacking play. • Good heading in response to the opponent’s aerial play. • Excellent goalkeeper who had good saves and participation in the game.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • Good organization during attack play with variables that allow 3 and 4 attackers into the opponent’s area. Support from midfielders and defensive wingers. • Good use of the wide range of the pitch with dangerous players in the zone. • Good possession of the ball and creation of plays in the midfield with player No. 10, who has good mobility. • Occasionally use long passing during attack, which most of the time end in lost balls. • Combination play near the opponent’s area with short passes sometimes lack technique

DEFICIENCIES • Lack control of the ball when under pressure from the opponents in reduced spaces. • Deficient technique in long passes. • The team’s physical condition average during the 2nd halves for a tournament of high level. • Lost balls in combination attack plays due to lack of precision in technique while moving. • Disorganized defense and errors in defense. Conceded 14 goals in 5 matches despite of having an excellent goalkeeper.

Outstanding Players 7 Melissa Herrera. Right midfielder. Fast, agile and very dangerous 10 Gloriana Villalobos. Midfielder. Organizer, mobile, with good technique 17 Jazmín Elizondo. Forward. Mobile, with good technique 8 Mariana Benavidez. Defense. Strong and reliable. Good aerial one-on-one play 4 Viviana Chichilla. Central midfielder. Good defensive level 13 Mariela Fuentes. Goalkeeper. Excellent saves and participation # 7 Melissa Herrera Only Costa Rican player who was a perfect 11 during the event

# Name 1 Noelia ermudez Valverde 13 Mariela Vasquez Fuentes 2 Yesmi Rodriguez 3 Noelle Sanz 4 Viviana Chinchilla 5 Paula Coto 6 Michelle Rodriguez 7 Melissa Herrera 8 Mariana Benavidez Arguedas 9 Michelle Montero 10 Gloriana villalobos Vega 11 Katheryn Arroyo 12 Kimberly Lazaro Perez 14 Raquel Matarrita 15 Nicole Pamela Araya Muñoz 16 Maria Jose Brenes 17 Jazmin Elizondo 18 Mauren Arroyo Agüero 19 Lauren Alpizar Mora 20 Krista Chavarria Hernández

GF Actual PT: GA. G Diff.

Position GK GK DF DF MF DF MF MF DF FW MF FW FW MF FW MF FW FW FW MF

TP GF TYC TRC M NL O RK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 450 0 0 0 1 0 13 -20.0 450 3 0 0 0 0 0 90.0 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.0 436 0 0 0 1 0 3 118.4 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 135 0 0 0 0 1 0 10.0 386 1 1 0 1 0 3 122.9 450 1 0 0 0 0 3 115.0 211 2 0 0 0 0 2 93.4 418 0 0 0 0 0 4 106.4 216 1 0 0 0 0 0 44.0 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.2 348 0 0 0 0 0 0 38.7 244 3 1 0 0 1 2 89.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 309 2 1 0 0 1 2 89.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 332 1 0 0 0 0 0 56.9 5134 14 3 0 3 3 22

G.PERM 3

22 51.59 6 16

TP Total time played per player GF Total goals for TYC Total yellow cards TRC Total red cards M Total for MVP per match

NL Total number of changes in line-up O Total number of outstanding players per match RK Ranking among team players GG Total goals conceded by Goalkeeper

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Bermuda

The USA Women’s U-20 team had great determination throughout its participation in the Women’s U-20 Championship, a reflection of its preparation prior to the event that included 8 pre-game meetings and 7 preparation matches (against Norway, Germany, Sweden and Japan). In addition to this, the team had excellent physical, tactical, technical and psychological preparation, leaving no room for doubt on a CONCACAF level of why it successfully qualified for Women’s World Cups. It is worth highlighting the process that the USA U-20 team has undergone in the past. It has participated in 6 FIFA Women’s U-20 World Cups, obtaining great results such as: Champions in Canada 2002, Chile 2008 and Japan 2012, 3rd place in Germany 2004, and 4th place in Russia 2006. This proves the level of commitment and structure of women’s soccer in the USA throughout the years, which has yielded great success on a worldwide level. The team, which was part of Group (A) together with Costa Rica, Guatemala and Jamaica, won its first match against Costa Rica (6-0), its second match against Jamaica (3-0) and its third match against Guatemala (10-0), qualifying in the first place of Group A. During the Semi-finals it played against Trinidad & Tobago, defeating it by (6-0) and advancing to the Final against Mexico, which it defeated 4 goals to none. The USA team had an impressive record for this tournament, with 5 consecutive victories and a total of 28 goals for and none against. It also received the Fair Play Award and the Best Goalkeeper Award, the tournament’s Most Valuable Player Award, Top Goalscorer Award and had 6 players selected to be part of the All-Star Team. The team’s great strength came from its collective game and portrayed an elaborate soccer, both in wide range as in depth, showing great tactical, technical and strategic knowledge of its functions within the field, in addition to great physical capacity. It is worth mentioning that the USA was amazingly professional and had excellent technical direction.

TACTICAL Formation: 1-4-2-3-1

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Excellent individual and collective technique in ball possession and control. Capable of playing in reduced spaces and under pressure from the opponents. • Good combination plays with short passes and good possession of the ball. • Long passes are not as precise as short passes. • Good technique in aerial play when disputing balls with the opponents. • Skillful and strong players in one-on-one. • Good technique in shot on goal opportunities in short and medium distance, which led to scoring many goals.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Tall, powerful, fast, agile and skillful players who had excellent technique, control of the ball, and excellent fitness level. • Capable of maintaining rhythm and game continuity even under pressure from the opponent, both in the defense as in the attack.

• Able to have a compact play in the defense as well as in the attack due to the high level of fitness. • Players with good agility and ability to be strong on the ball. • Players #13, #9 and #11 had good speed and ability to change direction. • Powerful and strong in one-to-one ball disputes and in aerial plays. • World-class actual playing times in each of the matches that demonstrate constant rhythm, continuity of actions, high technical level and great possession of the ball.

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Basic 1- 4-2-3-1 formation during Group Stage and Final. • Elaborate soccer using wide range and depth after combination plays. • Rotation of players’ positions in the midfield and in the attack. • Used planned plays during free kicks and compact play between midfield attacking and defensive lines. This created a constant rhythm and dynamic game.

• Possession of the ball with organized build-up plays from the back. Creation of dangerous plays from the midfield and forceful, in depth attack on the opponent’s goal; and attacks using the width. • Great discipline and tactical knowledge of the game by all players. • Clear dominance in planned plays with set piece: throw-ins, free-kicks and corner kicks, many of which ended in goals.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • Used 1-4-4-2 formation in the first 2 matches, which changed to 1-4-3-2-1 during the third and fourth matches. • Used mixed man-marking in attack-defense after lost balls, creating a numerical advantage, often of 2x1 or 3x1. • Compact play in the defense line, which leads to regaining in depth balls or striking attack balls from the opponents. • Players #3 and #20 showed great leadership skills, organizing the team and providing direction. • Effective use of pressing, good compact play after lost possession of the ball. • Excellent coverage and blocking, particularly in the opponent’s midfield where the majority of the games occurred. • Good technique and strong man-marking in oneon-ones, often forcing opponents to play down the wings, where the team easily regained control of the ball. • Good in aerial play during defensive heading, although the players often sent the ball to the center when under pressure from the opponents. • Defenders usually start playing from the back with the support from defensive midfielders, striker and wingers.

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• Basic 1- 4-2-3-1 formation. • Fast defense-attack transition, using an elaborate soccer. • Compact play in defense-attack transitions with crucial plays, using the wide range of the field, with centers to the penalty area by players #4, #11, #19 and # 5. • Combination in depth plays looking for players #9,

#11 and #13, with around 57 plays in the 5 matches. • It based its attack mostly on the right area with approximately 65 incursions in 5 matches. • Constant position rotations in the attack zone by players #9, #13 and # 6. • Excellent combination plays between players #17, #7 and #16 in the midfield to build attacking plays. • Great agility in the one-on-one, using many triangulations and plays with maximum 1 or 2 passes. • Many successful shots on goals. • Many players with good individual skills in the midfield area: #16, #17 and 7, with excellent combination plays to build an attack, having good control of the ball that allowed the team to come out. • Shots on goal aimed at the second goalpost and at the goal area always created surprise. • In corner kicks, a player stays with the goalkeeper and 5 players attack jointly.

DEFICIENCIES • Striking attack plays generate many lost balls. Had about 120 bad passes in its 5 matches. • Lose tactic concentration when under constant pressure from the opponent. • Strong in aerial play but when defending often send the balls towards the center and rarely to the sides, leading to lost balls. • Limited technique in shots to goal from short and medium distance. Sus jugadoras más destacadas: 1 Katelyn Rowland. Goalkeeper. Good in aerial play and team direction 3 Cari Roccaro. Center back. Good on the mark, leader and fast 19Andi Sullivan. Defensive right-back. Dangerous attacker, agile 17 Rose Lavelle. Midfielder. Creative, agile, dynamic and excellent technique 7 Morgan Andrews. Defensive midfielder. Good technique, organizer 16 Stephanie Amack. Defensive midfielder. Good technique, organizer 13 Savannah Jordan. Forward. Good technique in front of goal, fast and strong 9 Linsey Horan. Forward. Skillful and effective, very

fast. Goalscorer 11 Mackenzie Meehan. Forward. Agile, with good technique, dangerous and fast #17 (USA) Rose Lavelle received the tournamentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Most Valuable Player award.

# Name 1 Katelyn Rowland 18 Jane Campbell 2 Madeline Bauer 3 Cari Roccaro 4 Brittany Basinger 5 Summer Green 6 Makenzy Doniak 7 Morgan Andrews 8 Lauren Kaskie 9 Lindsey Horan 10 Laura Liedle 11 McKenzie Meehan 12 Mallory Weber 13 Savannah Jordan 14 Rachel Hill 15 Margaret Purce 16 Stephanie Amack 17 Rose Levelle 19 Andi Sullivan 20 Katie Naughton ON GOL TOTALES

Position GK GK DF DF\MF DF FW FW MF MF FW DF FW FW FW MF FW DF\MF MF DF DF

TP GF TYC TRC M NL O RK 360 0 1 0 0 0 4 90.0 90 0 0 0 0 1 0 5.0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.8 450 0 0 0 0 0 5 125.0 241 1 0 0 0 0 1 61.8 246 1 0 0 0 0 1 42.8 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 305 0 0 0 1 0 3 103.9 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 180 3 0 0 1 0 2 95.0 270 0 0 0 0 1 0 25.0 262 6 0 0 0 1 2 114.1 111 3 0 0 0 0 1 67.3 342 5 1 0 0 0 5 203.0 364 1 0 0 0 1 0 55.4 174 2 0 0 0 1 1 69.3 351 3 0 0 1 1 3 144.0 309 0 0 0 2 0 4 144.3 360 2 0 0 0 0 3 125.0 410 0 0 0 0 0 1 60.6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 40.0 5000 29 2 0 5 7 35

GF 22 Actual PT: 51.59 GA. 6 G Diff. 16 TP Total time played per player GF Total goals for TYC Total yellow cards TRC Total red cards M Total for MVP per match

NL Total number of changes in line-up O Total number of outstanding players per match RK Ranking among team players GG Total goals conceded by Goalkeeper

GUATEMALA The Guatemala national team, UNCAFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s representative, was part of Group (A), together with Jamaica, Costa Rica and the USA. The team had many technical and physical limitations, which impacted its final results. The match against Jamaica ended in a draw (1-1). The team lost the second match against Costa Rica by (5 goals to 1), as well as the third match against the USA, which it lost (10-0). Guatemala held the last place of its Group after 2 defeats and 1 draw, and a balance of 2 goals for and 16 against. Guatemala, a young team with big age gaps between its players and other teams, used a conservative tactic with a broad defensive block and counter-attacking plays.

TACTICAL Formation: 1-5-3-2

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

TACTICAL ANALYSIS

• Good individual and collective technique when not under pressure from the opponent. Limited technique when faced with strong man-marking. • Good control of the ball in the defensive area, unlike of what happened during attacking plays were players were isolated. • Technique deficiencies in use of long passes. • Technical limitations in shots on goals from short and medium distance. • Limitations in aerial play (headers) during corner kicks and inside their own penalty area.

• Initial formation 1-5-4-1 with 1-5-3-2 variation. • Use of counter-attacks with a sole striker #14 positioned in the opponent’s defensive zone. • Numerically high defensive formation in the midfield and defense area. • Scarce support from midfielders and defenders in attack plays. No compact play during attack plays. • Slow to build-up from the back using short passes. • Player #14 was a dangerous and effective striker with great fitness level. • Its attacking plays did not create danger situations for the opponents, who knew that striking attacks would be carried out by player #14.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Short players who lacked power for high jumps. • The team lacked fast players. • Not able to maintain a compact play between the lines. • Lacked game stability and continuity. • Had good will power and winning spirit in all of its matches, regardless of the score.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • Initial 1-5-4-1 formation. Grouped players in the defensive area, who were usually disorganized and slow. • The team was not able to have a compact play between line formations, opening spaces for its opponents. • Deficient in one-on-one situations and aerial play (headers) in corner kicks, center-kicks and inside the penalty area. • Difficulties in coverage and anticipations. • In the match against the USA, the team made many defensive mistakes and displayed limitations in all the aspects previously mentioned.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • Basic attack formation was 1-5-4-1, using only one striker. • This player was very agile and hard-working during the match. • Scored only one goal during the tournament and lacked forceful incursions on the opponent’s area. • Its attack strategy was based on long plays and

striking attacks from the defense and midfield towards the lone striker. • Very limited and scarce support from attack lines. • Slow from the back and when controlling the ball in the midfield, allowing the opponent’s defense to organize.

DEFICIENCIES • Poor physical fitness for speed and jump strength • Lack of support and compact play between lines the attack and in defense • Slow transition for creating defensive plays to respond to opponent’s attack • Limited technique for applying pressure on opponents using man-marking in reduced spaces Jugadoras destacadas. 14 Aisha Solórzano. Forward. Skillful, hard-working and dangerous 6 Jennifer Barrios. Central midfielder. Organizer 1 Jocelyn Franco. Goalkeeper. Good technique 10 Vivian Herrera. Midfielder. Good technique. Organizer

# Name 1 Yoselin Franco 12 Estefani Rosales 2 Libeth Mazariegos 3 Darlin Serme単o 4 Megly Ordo単es 5 Sara Fetzer 6 Jeniffer Barrios 7 Alida argueta 8 Yoselin Sanchez 9 Mia Espino 10 Vivian Herrera 11 Leslie Rosales 13 Barbara Ramirez 14 Aisha Solorzano 15 Lauren Markwith 16 Yuritza Mayen 17 Madelyn Ventura 18 Gabriela Rodriguez 19 Celeste Gatica 20 Stephanie Rodriguez TOTALES GF Actual PT: GA. G Diff.

Position GK GK DF DF DF DF MF DF\MF FW MF MF MF MF FW MF DF FW MF DF\MF MF

TP GF TYC TRC M NL O RK G.PERM 15 270 0 0 0 0 0 1 -105.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 88 0 0 0 0 1 0 4.8 270 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.0 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 90 0 0 0 0 1 0 5.0 270 0 0 0 0 0 2 60.0 267 0 0 0 0 0 1 44.7 139 0 0 0 0 1 0 10.4 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 152 0 0 0 0 0 2 46.9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 45 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.0 270 1 0 0 1 0 3 120.0 122 0 0 0 0 1 0 8.6 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 57 0 0 0 0 0 1 21.3 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.8 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 3008 1 0 0 1 5 11

22 51.59 6 16

TP Total time played per player GF Total goals for TYC Total yellow cards TRC Total red cards M Total for MVP per match

NL Total number of changes in line-up O Total number of outstanding players per match RK Ranking among team players GG Total goals conceded by Goalkeeper

Honduras The Honduran national women’s U-20 team had never qualified for a CONCACAF final. It was one of the youngest squads in the tournament with an average age of 17 years. The team included one 13-year-old player and one 14-year-old player. Honduras debuted in this event as part of group (B), together with Mexico, Cayman Islands, and Trinidad and Tobago. The team’s level of preparation prior to the event was not adequate for the level of the opponents it had to face. It lost its first match against Trinidad and Tobago (2-0). It also lost its second match against Mexico, which played with all of its substitutes, by (10-0). Its participation in the tournament ended with the match against the weak and inexperienced Cayman Islands, which it defeated by (3- 0). The team concluded its participation in the tournament with two defeats and one victory. It had 12 goals against and 3 in favor. Honduras showed great spirit and determination in all of its matches, but its poor physical condition and technical limitations were its most negative aspects. Together with the Cayman Islands it was the team with the lowest actual playing time (45.28 average in its 3 matches), which proves the team’s low ball possession, rhythm and continuity in its plays.

TACTICAL Formation: 1-5-4-1

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Inconsistent technical level- it has good handling of the ball without pressure from the opponent, but when it is under pressure and close coverage, the players have very limited skills. • Technical deficiencies in the execution of long passes and in moving combinations. • Deficient technique in quick plays to attack. • Technical limitations in shots on goal from close and medium distance. • Deficiencies in the aerial play (headers) when facing corners, lobs and shots from the opponents. • Low ball possession against higher-level opponents.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • 1-4-4-2 was the initial formation, but with quick variations to 1-4-5-1. • The players tried to have high ball possession in the midfield but were limited when facing the coverage of the opponents.

• Low ball possession and few plays as a block in the opponents’ area. Limited attack combinations. • The team grouped players in the midfield and tried executing organized plays, but in a slow manner, to convert them into attacks. • Its best zone to organize attacks was the right wing with the very young players 3 and 2.

• At times during the match against the weak Cayman Islands, 4 defensive players from Honduras covered only one isolated forward of the opponent, leaving large empty spaces in the midfield. • The team lacks in close coverage of the opponent’s forwards. The players allowed freedom in the coverage of the strikers.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • Honduras began the event with a defensive formation of 1-4-4-2, with 1-4-5-1 and 1-5-4-1 variations. • It grouped two lines of 4 players in the defense against the higher-level teams but in a disorganized manner. • It was not able to develop a compact play between the lines given the players’ physical level and lack of organization. • The players were weak in one-on-one air confrontations (headers) in the corners, lobs and attacks from the opponents. • The transition from attack to defense was slow and left a lot of space between the lines. • At times during the match against the weak Cayman Islands, 4 defensive players from Honduras covered only one isolated forward of the opponent, leaving large empty spaces in the midfield. • The team lacks in close coverage of the opponent’s forwards. The players allowed freedom in the coverage of the strikers.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • It began the tournament with a 1-4-3-3 formation but the level of the opponents and their own limitations led them to use a 1-4-5-1 formation, strengthening the midfield in their defensive functions. • Low ball possession when under pressure from the

opponents. Slow start of plays that lacked surprise in the attack. • Scarce compact plays in the attack with the collaboration of the defensive players to create numerical superiority. • Their physical level, speed with the ball and dribbling was very limited and did not create danger with these actions. • Limited use of effective combinations in the attack caused by the loss of possession due to wrong passes and lack of support and relation between the players.

DEFICIENCIES • The team had very poor level of physical preparation for the tournament. Players lack speed, jumping power and height. • Limited technical skills when under pressure and opponents’ coverage. • Deficient in the aerial play (headers) with the corners, lobs and shots. • Low rhythm, ball possession and continuity in the plays. • In the warm-up prior to the matches the team had difficulties with the size of the spaces in the tactical games, which were very small. • Few incursions into the opponents’ area using combination plays. Outstanding Players 3 Dania Reyes – Attacking side-back. Good technical level 11 Linda Moncada – Forward. Scored two goals against Cayman Islands 2 Yeimi Estrada – Attacking Midfielder. Skilled, quick and dangerous

# Name 1 Kelin Palma 12 Jackeline Velasquez 2 Yeimy Estrada 3 Dania Reyes 4 Ruth Pe単a 5 Katia Sorto 6 Cherry Velasquez 7 Katherine Amador 8 Ony Andrade 9 Johana Lopez 10 Maribiz Guevara 11 Linda Moncada 13 Kenia Salazar 14 Lisbeth Murillo 15 Seidy Zapata 16 Nancy Antunez 17 Lauren Hall 18 Rebecca Breve 19 Claudio Perdomo 20 Mirna Chavez TOTALES

Position GK GK MF DF DF DF DF MF DF\MF MF MF FW MF DF MF DF FW MF FW MF

TP GF TYC TRC M NL O RK G.PERM 12 270 0 0 0 0 0 1 -75.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 195 0 0 0 0 1 2 46.7 270 0 0 0 0 0 2 60.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 149 0 0 0 0 1 0 11.6 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0 270 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.0 267 0 0 0 0 0 1 44.7 62 1 0 0 0 0 0 26.9 136 0 0 0 0 0 2 45.1 270 2 0 0 1 0 1 90.0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 101 1 0 0 0 1 0 26.2 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.8 270 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2993 4 0 0 1 3 11

G.Anot. 4 X Treal Juego: 48.68 G. Permit. 12 Dif. G -8 TP Total time played per player GF Total goals for TYC Total yellow cards TRC Total red cards M Total for MVP per match

NL Total number of changes in line-up O Total number of outstanding players per match RK Ranking among team players GG Total goals conceded by Goalkeeper

Cayman Islands The team from the Cayman Islands (host of the event) faced a very difficult challenge with its participation in this CONCACAF final, having to face teams with greater competitive experience and game level. It was truly a great team in terms of will power and winning spirit in all of its matches since, regardless of the results, the team displayed great courage and morale. Cayman Islands was the team with the lowest technical and competitive level of the tournament. Its level of preparation prior to the event was not up to the level of its opponents. It did not play enough international preparation matches with different adversaries that could challenge the young players and allow the coaches to know the human potential the team had in relation to the technical and tactical aspects. In its first match the team lost by a landslide (6-0) against the tournamentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s runner-up, Mexico. In the second match against Trinidad and Tobago it lost again (4-0), and finished its participation in the tournament with a match against Honduras that once again ended in defeat (3- 0). Cayman Islandsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; participation in the tournament yielded 3 defeats with 13 goals against and 0 in favor.

TÁCTICO Formation: 1-4-5-1

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Low individual and team technical level. • Lacked in basic soccer technical principles (passes, lobs, receptions, dribbling, running with the ball, etc.) • Its low technical level did not allow the creation of combination plays and continuity in the plays generated. • The team had no possession of the ball and game rhythm.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • The players had a consistent aerobic and anaerobic level, which allowed them to face the adversaries up until the end of the matches. • They had limited technique for disputing ball possession due to lack of strength. • Players were not able to maintain a game rhythm due to their limited technique, which made it difficult for them to physically maintain a compact play. • The players’ low technical and tactical level resulted in great physical fatigue due to excessive effort. • Cayman Islands had the lowest actual playing

time of all teams (its average was 45.52 for its three matches).

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Initial formation: 1-4-5-1 with an isolated striker (#11). • It did not have a stable line-up throughout the event, making constant changes in line-up and changes in players’ positions during the match. • Clear and defined strategy (as only option) of disorganized counter-attacks with a great amount of failed passes. • Lacked two players for the attack that could combine and create dangerous goal options in the opponent’s area. • Due to great limitations in technique, mobility, and support, the team had no ball possession and game rhythm, and lacked continuity in the different actions. • Clearly showed competitive inexperience which led the players to naïve actions. • Lacked in the offensive and defensive plays due to its great technical flaws.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS

• 1-5-4-1 formation. In a disorganized manner the team transformed its initial formation into 9 players defending their own area. • Not able to carry out a compact play between the defensive lines. • Lack of organization in the defensive individual and collective functions. • Weak in one-on-one confrontations and aerial plays (headers) with lobs, corners and shots. • Lacked support in the coverage and anticipation. • Very inexperienced and naïve in the different defensive situations. • Conceded 13 goals. • The goalkeeper had outstanding performances, although she still lacks experience and sometimes made amateur mistakes.

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• The team’s attack plays throughout the tournament were based on an isolated striker at the front (#11), acting alone among the opponent’s defense. • The team attempted incursions into the opponent’s area using long runs, counter-attacks, and clearing spaces without direction. All options were inefficient due to its low technical shooting level. • Examples of the technical deficiencies against Mexico include completed passes (52), missed passes (44) and against Honduras, completed passes completed (47) and wrong passes (42). These statistics, together with a lack of ball possession, made it very difficult to have an organized attack.

• The team never stepped into the opponent’s area and was not able to score a single goal. • The Coaches were not able to understand that the team lacked a midfielder with adequate technique who could partner with player #11 to build an attack play. Maybe the team did not have such a player. The team could have improved ball possession in attacking plays.

DEFICIENCIES

• The level of preparation for the event was deficient and was not up to the challenge presented by its opponents. • The team did not have adequate competitive experience. Some players had no international experience. • It was the youngest team in the tournament, with an age average of 16 years, participating in a U-20 tournament. One player was 13-years-old and 3 of them were 14-years-old. • It displayed a very low technical level in all of the basic aspects of soccer (reception, dribbling, shooting, running with the ball, etc.) • It lacked organization in the attack and defense. Outstanding Players 1 Kristina Seymour. Goalkeeper. Improved with each match played 15 Jetena Bodden. Defender. Confident and with good technical level 9 Brianna Hydes. Defender. Good technical level

# Name 1 Kristina Seymour 23 Vania Cornwall 2 Amanda Frederick 3 Chelsea Greene 4 Shanai Allen 5 Brittany Bodden 6 Heidi Ramoon 7 Neesah Godet 8 Nicole Whitaker 9 Brianna Hydes 11 Shanelle Frederick 13 Lauren Scott 15 Jetena Boddenn 16 Amy Mobley 17 Tatiana Ramoon 18 Deondra Kelly 19 Amanda Nelson 20 Kaela Ebanks 24 Chelsea Green 25 Tyra McField TOTALES GF Actual PT: GA. G Diff.

Position GK GK DF DF\MF MF MF MF MF DF\MF FW MF DF MF MF MF DF MF MF DF/MF

TP GF TYC TRC M NL O RK 270 0 0 0 0 0 2 -70.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 85 0 0 0 0 1 0 4.4 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 270 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 215 0 1 0 0 0 0 13.9 259 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.8 270 0 0 0 0 0 2 60.0 270 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270 0 0 0 0 0 3 75.0 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.3 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0 229 0 0 0 0 1 0 20.4 156 0 0 0 0 1 0 12.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3007 0 1 0 0 3 9

G.PERM 13

22 51.59 6 16

TP Total time played per player GF Total goals for TYC Total yellow cards TRC Total red cards M Total for MVP per match

NL Total number of changes in line-up O Total number of outstanding players per match RK Ranking among team players GG Total goals conceded by Goalkeeper

Jamaica

The Jamaican national women’s U-20 team won this category’s event in the CFU for the first time in the history of the tournament, when it defeated Trinidad and Tobago (1- 0) last year. The Reggae Girlz have qualified to all of CONCACAF’s Women’s U-20 final tournaments since its creation in 2002. Jamaica opened the tournament with a draw against Guatemala (00) in a disorganized match, which was also its weakest performance. In the second match the team suffered a hard-fought defeat against the USA (3-0). In its last match, the Reggae Girlz needed a victory against Costa Rica; however, they only managed a draw (1-1). The Jamaican team showed dramatic improvement as the tournament developed. This was due to the fact that it organized its line-up in the pitch, which gave the impression that it arrived to the competition without a stable line-up. The team made changes to the position of some of its players from the moment it won the Caribbean final to its participation in this tournament. Jamaica made 5 changes in line-up from its first match against Guatemala to its second match, or the changes in the position of the players in the midfield and the organizational functioning of the midfielders made it look as it had. The team’s game style, which is based on its physical strength, was especially visible against the Americans, and its will to compete was present when it faced Costa Rica. However, due to its technical and tactical limitations, its physical condition and growing competitive spirit did not suffice to obtain a favorable result or to qualify to Semi-finals. The Reggae Girlz conceded four goals and scored only one goal in three matches, which emphasizes its technical and tactical limitations and its lack of effectiveness in the attack. The team concluded the tournament with two points and the third place in its group’s ranking.

TACTICAL Formation: 1-4-4-2

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

• Overall, the team had fundamental technical limitations in passing and receiving the ball. This was more noticeable when the players were under man-marking pressure from the opponent. It had players with good technical level (#9, #10 and #11). • Technical limitations in attack combination plays. • Short and long passes of inconsistent quality causing dependency on long and direct passes in the attack, many of which ended in losing possession of the ball. • Shots on goal were powerful but mostly of very bad quality, both inside the penalty area and especially from outside the penalty area. • Strong technique in defensive headers. Very good aerial play (headers). • Individual creativity was present, offering attack variations to the team. • First and second phases of the warm-up were coherent but were affected by the spacing, lack of movement and low intensity. There was no progression in the shots or game intensity.

• Very strong and powerful players. • Great height and aerial play. • Very fast; specially the strikers. • The collective aerobic and anaerobic conditioning seemed to improve with each match. • Fighting spirit and complete physical effort up to the last minute.

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Tactically inconsistent- the team presented a new formation in each match. 1st match: 1-4-4-2; 2nd match: 1-4-1-4-1; 3rd match: 1-4-3-3. • The players change positions frequently showing an unstable formation. • Attacks were based on long direct passes. This frequently ended in loss of ball possession due to technical deficiencies. • The team generally lacked organization in the attack and in the defense. Organized in the midfield, but the central midfielders lacked defined roles and responsibilities.

• Used the width of the pitch well down the wings, displaying confidence in the speed and in the individual game. • Tactics based on speed and physical strength, not on technical and tactical aspects. • Instability of roles of the central midfielders; changes in line-up (#9, #10, #11).

and used the width of the pitch to attack. • Attack formations: 1-3-3-4 and 1-4-3-3. • The team had very little depth and effectiveness in the attacks. It only scored one goal in three matches.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS

• Team organization (defensive and offensive) in relation to the tactical roles and responsibilities. • Lacked stability in the line-up and the organization of the central midfielders in their offensive and defensive roles and responsibilities. • Lacked balance. • Lacked collective technical capacity to win possession of the ball when experiencing pressure from the opponents. • Need to work on speed, rhythm and continuity with ball possession and creation of plays. • Need to work on shots on goal from inside or outside the box.

• Made efforts to maintain a compact defensive play. • Experienced problems with the organization of the defensive line and in the midfield, leaving the team disconnected at times and not as a block, offering large spaces to the opponents. • Team based its game on the individual skills and physical capacities of its players (speed, power, and strength) to win battles instead of the relying on compact and collective pressure. • Dominated the aerial play with good defensive headers. • Organized in plays with set piece, but had problems in the second and third ball after the rebound. • Strong and effective in one on one battles for the ball. • Good anticipations and coverage.

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• The team used long direct passes to open areas as basis for the attack, to later cross the ball. Striking attacks and long transitions often ended up in missed passes and lost balls. • The team took advantage of the speed of the strikers for the counterattacks. • It had capacity to maintain the possession and combine in the midfield. • In the final attack zone the combinations were very limited and ineffective. • The defenders consistently looked for the option of the long pass to start the attack, attempting to play behind the opponent’s defensive line. • Most of the shots were from outside the opponent’s penalty area, powerful but inconsistent in quality. • The side backs and midfielders had a good level,

DEFICIENCIES

Outstanding Players 9 Trudi Carter. Midfielder. Organizing, skilled technical. 6 Oshay Nelson Lawes. Forward. Very quick and dangerous in the attack. 10 Marlo Sweatman. Midfielder. Captain. Organized and technical. 4 Cachet Lúe. Central defender. Confident and technical.

# Name

Position

1 Taylor Grant 13 Chris Ann Chanbers 2 Toriana Patterson 3 Mackenzie Marsh 4 Cachet Lue 5 Konya Plummer 6 Oshay Nelson Lawes 8 Courtney Douglas 9 Trudi Carter 10 Marlo Sweatman 11 Khadija Shaw 12 Keona Simmons 14 Alexa Allen 15 Myjnairii Perkins 16 Nicole Harris 17 Simone Wark 18 Kayla Gray 19 Jorja Hughes 20 Alika Keene 21 Imanie Richards

GK GK DF DF DF DF FW MF MF MF MF MF MF DF MF MF FW MF DF MF

GF Actual PT: GA. G Diff.

TP GF TYC TRC M NL O RK 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.1 120 0 0 0 0 1 1 -6.7 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.4 270 0 0 0 0 0 2 60.0 270 0 0 0 0 0 1 45.0 255 1 0 0 0 0 1 78.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 270 0 0 0 0 0 3 75.0 259 0 0 0 0 0 3 73.8 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 37.0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.1 163 0 0 0 0 1 0 13.1 180 0 1 0 0 1 0 5.0 144 0 0 0 0 0 1 31.0 68 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.6 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.6 90 0 0 0 0 1 0 5.0 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3090 1 1 0 0 5 14

G.PERM 1 3

22 51.59 6 16

TP Total time played per player GF Total goals for TYC Total yellow cards TRC Total red cards M Total for MVP per match

NL Total number of changes in line-up O Total number of outstanding players per match RK Ranking among team players GG Total goals conceded by Goalkeeper

MExico

The Mexican national team has participated in all finals of CONCACAFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s U-20 category since the inauguration of these events. It presented a very stable and solid team in all its lines, with great technical level and tactical discipline. The team was part of Group (B), where it defeated the team from the Cayman Islands (6-0) in the first match, the weak Honduran team in the second match (10-1), and concluded the Group stage with yet another victory against Trinidad and Tobago (3- 0). Mexico the scored 19 goals and conceded 1. In the Semi-finals it faced Costa Rica, and after a confusing first half, the team displayed its technical level and organization in the second half, defeating the opponents (3-1). The final match against the USA showed a courageous Mexican team with great fighting spirit, despite the fact that it had to face a great team with very high level. Mexico played an excellent first half, but in the second half the USA applied pressure and dominated the game, leading to a defeat (4-0). The result is not a clear reflection of the closely fought match. Mexico concluded its participation with 4 victories and only one defeat. It scored 22 goals in favor and conceded six. The team left the tournament with an excellent reputation thanks to its competitive level and winning spirit.

TACTICAL Formation: 1-4-4-2

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The Mexican team had good individual and collective technical level. It had skilled players in the attack and individual players with technical resources. • Players were able to play under the opponent’s pressure and in closed spaces. • The team had good ball possession and generation of plays in the midfield and defense. • It lost ball possession during offensive attacks due to inaccurate passes or interceptions from the opponent. • Good technical level in shots on goal, both from short and medium range. • The goalkeeper had very good technical level; the team had very good defensive aerial play technique. • The team’s good technical level enabled it to maintain rhythm and continuity in the matches.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • World-class physical condition. This allowed the team to maintain a high rhythm and continuity in all

of its matches. It also had compact play between the lines in attack and defense modes. • Quick players with explosive speed and strong in one-on-one battles for the ball. • Very good physical condition in the aerobic and anaerobic resistance. • Impressive winning mentality and fighting spirit in all of the matches. The team even surpassed USA in these aspects.

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • 1-4-4-2 basic formation, with noticeable 1-4-5-1 variations and 1-4-3-3 in some occasions. • The team showed stability in the location of the different positions of the players throughout the tournament. • Its game is based on a central block of two defenders (#4 and #5) and two central midfielders (#6 and #19) who were in charge of generating the attack plays and maintaining the ball’s possession thanks to their mobility. However, the central midfielders sometimes were disorganized and abandoned

their position, offering wide-open spaces to the opponents. • The team applied pressure coverage throughout the pitch thanks to its excellent physical condition and compact organization. • The team became known for its high rhythm and continuity in the actions, and quick transition from attack to defense and vice-versa. • It used the width and depth of the pitch in the attack. The team lost many balls due to long passes to the strikers that were intercepted by the opponents.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • Basic defense formation is 1-4-5-1, very well organized and compact. • Thanks to the team’s excellent physical condition and compact tactical game, the players were able to apply pressure on the opponents in all parts of the pitch. • The midfield, despite the few occasions when the players were disorganized, supported the defensive work of the defensive line. • Quick transition from attack to compact defense by closing the gaps between the lines. • Sometimes vulnerable to the attack from the opponents when the side backs joined the attack, leaving open spaces in the defense. • Very good goalkeeper, who displayed leadership skills and excellent saves. • Player #5 stood out with her coverage and anticipations, as well as the left side back (#15) due to her handling of the ball and technique.

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• The team had variations in the attack, according to the level of the opponent. It used a 1-4-4-2 and a 1-4-5-1 formation and sometimes 1-3-4-3. The team sometimes used even 4 forwards. • It used the width of the pitch in the attack with the constant support from the side backs. • The strikers moved all over the attack line with intelligence, creating spaces for the midfielders to exploit. • Played with short and long-pass combinations, although the team lost many balls in the long passes. It also won many rebounds in the opponent’s area, which quickly transformed into new attacks. • In the midfield and with the support from player

#10 who supported the midfielders, the team always created numerical superiority, which in hand allowed it to have good ball possession and generate plays from the midfield. • Also used the skills from several of the strikers to break the defensive lines of the adversaries.

DEFICIENCIES • Many bad long attack passes. The team provoked unnecessary ball losses. • Sometimes the team overused the individual skills, resulting in many ball losses. • At times, the team was disorganized and the central defensive midfielders were in the wrong positions. Outstanding Players 10 Paloma Cerdeño. Forward. Very skilled and top scorer. 9 Tanya Cerdeño. Forward. Leading top scorer in the event. 6 Karla Nieto. Midfielder. Excellent technique and vision of the game. 11. Fabiola Ibarra. Midfielder. Very skilled. Dangerous in the attack. 5 Paulina Solís. Central defender. Very good in the defense and the aerial play. 15 Mariel Gutiérrez. Left side back. Very good in defense and attack. 1 Cecilia Santiago. Goalkeeper. Very good saves and direction of the team. 20 Jazmín Aguas. Forward. Explosive. Skilled and top scorer. 6 Karla Nieto. One of the most outstanding players of the Mexican team and the event.

# Name Position TP GF TYC TRC M NL O RK 1 Cecilia santiago GK 419 0 0 0 0 0 2 26.6 12 Esthefanny Barreras GK 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6.3 2 Jaqueline Rodriguez DF 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.9 3 Greta Espinoza DF 196 0 0 0 0 1 0 16.8 4 Jessica Valadez DF 270 1 0 0 0 0 0 50.0 5 Paulina Solis DF 450 2 0 0 1 0 3 140.0 6 Karla Nieto MF 360 0 0 0 2 0 4 150.0 7 Carolina Jaramillo MF 176 0 1 0 0 0 1 24.6 8 Nancy Antonio MF 236 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.2 9 Tanya Samarzich FW 377 6 0 0 0 0 4 141.9 10 Paloma Zerme単o FW 336 4 0 0 0 0 3 142.3 11 Fabiola Ibarra MF 314 1 0 0 0 0 2 84.9 13 Estefania Fuentes del Razo DF 180 0 0 0 0 1 1 15.0 14 Taylor Alvarado DF 159 0 0 0 0 1 0 12.7 15 Mariel Gutierrez DF 366 0 0 0 0 0 2 70.7 16 Briana Campos FW 143 2 0 0 0 1 1 45.9 17 Amanda Perez MF 180 2 1 0 0 1 1 60.0 18 Mariana Cadena calvillo MF 86 0 0 0 0 1 1 19.6 19 Cynthia Pineda MF 138 1 0 0 0 1 0 30.3 20 Jazmin Aguas MF 280 3 1 0 1 1 3 106.1 TOTALES 5004 22 3 0 4 8 27 GF Actual PT: GA. G Diff.

G.PERM 5 1

22 51.59 6 16

TP Total time played per player GF Total goals for TYC Total yellow cards TRC Total red cards M Total for MVP per match

NL Total number of changes in line-up O Total number of outstanding players per match RK Ranking among team players GG Total goals conceded by Goalkeeper

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

Trinidad and Tobago displayed great competitive spirit and will power throughout the Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s U-20 Tournament. Its preparation prior to this event showed consistent levels of physical, technical and tactical preparation. The results obtained in the Group Stage (B) gave the team the possibility to qualify for the Semi-finals. It defeated Honduras in the first match (2-0), won the second match against Cayman Islands (4- 0), but lost the third match against Mexico (3-0). The team qualified in second place in the Group. Trinidad & Tobago faced the strong team from USA in the Semi-finals, where it was defeated (6-0). Before arriving at the tournament, the team played 5 matches in Trinidad and Tobago and Miami, Florida (against young male clubs, the National Team and an American team). In the match for the third place against Costa Rica the team lost (7 to 3), after ending the regulatory time limit with a 3-goal draw and conceding 4 goals in extra time. The team concluded its participation with 16 goals in favor and 5 against. It is worth highlighting the high level of sportsmanship of the Trinidadian team that fought for victory until the last minute. This was the first time that this team fought for the third spot to go to the World Cup.

TACTICAL Formation: 1-4-4-2

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The team had deficiencies in its techniques. The players are very quick, tall and strong, but lack skills for aerial play, handling of the ball, reception, moving combinations, etc. • Due to the technical limitations, it had low ball possession throughout the tournament. It was not able to generate continuous dangerous plays for the opponents. • In general terms, the team had deficiencies in the ball possession. It had a very skilled, strong player with high level, the center striker (#4), who determined the team’s results and always kept a high combatant spirit. • The team had technical deficiencies in the short and medium-range shots. • Against superior teams, the team suffered a lot of pressure, which prevented it from achieving combinations in the game and generating plays.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Strong, quick and tall players. Good in the battle

for ball possession thanks to their physical strength. • Not able to maintain continuity and rhythm in the game throughout the tournament as the players’ physical level decreased, especially in the second halves. The team’s technical deficiencies were critical in the extra time in the match against Costa Rica, contributing to greater physical exhaustion. • Coordination problems when running with the ball.

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Basic 1-4-4-2 formation. The team used this formation in all of the matches, and had great stability in the line-up. • The game style was based on attack with direct plays and long passes, but ended up in many lost balls; approximately 64 passes were deficient in the 5 matches. The team’s organization was weak both in the defense and the attack- the players left lots of space between the lines, did not manage to display sustained compact play, and applied little effective pressure. • Lacked effectiveness in ball possession and generated scarce plays from the midfield. The

team employed direct plays too often, which mostly ended in losing the ball. • The team played in a zonal manner, waiting for the opponent in the midfield. • Lost many balls in one-on-one battles due to poor technique and scarce compact structure. • No planning with set piece: free kicks, throw-ins and corner kicks.

• In most cases the defenders made long passes to the attacking lines, which generated around 79 bad passes in the 5 matches. • The team had quick players in the attacking positions; players #19, #9, #4 and #15 created surprises thanks to their individual skills. • Good lobs, always aimed at the penalty point or the second post.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS

DEFICIENCIES

• The formation used in defensive mode was 1-45-1, and due to the team’s physical condition, it sometimes used a 1-4-4-2 formation. • The attack-defense organization is slow; it lacked a compact structure between the defensive and middle line. The defensive midfielders were not present to recover the ball. • Players #17 and #6 are confident; they displayed effective coverage and challenges. They tried to start the plays from the wings. The defensive players are individually very quick. • Player #8 is slow and has many individual technique problems. • Strong in the aerial play, but the direction of the ball after the headers was not precise. • In the corner kicks from the opponents, the entire team goes back to defend its area. • Strong and confident in one-on-one battles for the ball. • Strong winning spirit in the defensive roles.

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• When the team was in attack mode, the formation used was 1-3-5-2. • The organization in the transition from defense to attack lacked more elaborate plays. The team mostly used direct attacks and often lost the ball in the penetration-attack zone. • The defensive players offered weak support to the penetration zone, there was no compact strategy. Deficient support from the defensive lines. • Good use of the width of the pitch, looking for players #15 and #9, but mostly attacked from the right wing.

• Players do not have good technique when handling and controlling the ball, which affected the possession in the 5 matches. • Lack tactical and strategic organization in the defense and the attack; there was no compact structure. • Disorganized use of pressing, coverage and challenges. • The team’s physical condition was fair; need to improve resistance to be able to maintain the rhythm throughout the match. • Psychological: lacked concentration when under pressure from the opponent. • Experienced technical limitations when shooting on goal, both from short and medium ranges. The team must improve the warm-up: space, dynamic of the exercises (there is no order in the activities, for example: from articular movements, to very passive closed spaces and then to articular movement) and real game situations (in this case each player must carry out specific exercises according to her position in the match, not necessarily practicing shots on goal). Outstanding Players 17 Jonelle Warrick. Central Defender. Good coverage, leader, quick. 11 Khadidra Debesette. Defensive midfielder. Good in coverage, quick. 19 Anique Walker. Forward. Quick dynamic and good technique. 4 Brianna Ryce. Forward. Quick, agile and strong in the attack.

# Name Position TP GF TYC TRC M NL O RK 1 Keri myers GK 205 0 0 0 0 1 0 -112.2 20 Tenesha Palmer GK 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.7 2 Tkeyah Phillips MF 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 8 Liana Hinds DF 450 0 0 0 0 0 2 80.0 4 Brianna Ryce FW 426 1 0 0 1 0 4 152.3 5 Adeka Spence DF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 6 Khadisha Debesette DF 314 1 0 0 0 0 0 54.9 7 Akilah Sparks MF 93 0 0 0 0 0 1 25.3 8 Daniella Findley DF 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.0 9 Patrice Campbell MF 323 0 0 0 0 0 1 50.9 10 Tsaianne Leander FW 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.7 11 Khadidra Debesette MF 441 1 0 0 0 0 3 114.0 12 Shanisa Camejo MF 314 1 0 0 0 0 2 84.9 13 Shenelle Henry MF 355 0 1 0 0 0 0 29.4 14 Otisha David DF\MF 196 0 0 0 0 1 0 16.8 15 Donika Murray MF 273 0 0 0 0 1 1 40.3 16 Summer Arjoon MF 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 17 Jonelle Warrick DF 450 0 2 0 0 0 5 105.0 3 Emma Abdul MF 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.4 19 Anique Walke FW 409 4 0 0 1 0 3 175.4 AUTO GOL 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 TOTALES 5101 9 3 0 2 3 22 GF Actual PT: GA. G Diff.

G.PERM 13 2

22 51.59 6 16

TP Total time played per player GF Total goals for TYC Total yellow cards TRC Total red cards M Total for MVP per match

NL Total number of changes in line-up O Total number of outstanding players per match RK Ranking among team players GG Total goals conceded by Goalkeeper

VI. Conclusions General. • CONCACAF Women’s U-20 tournament in the Cayman Islands was a success in all aspects. The local organizing committee, together with CONCACAF, created all the logistical and technical conditions to ensure a positive development of the event. • Very good sport spectacle thanks to the support of the Caymanian Soccer Federation, CONCACAF and the government of the Cayman Islands. The tournament had good participation from the public, particularly in a country where soccer is not the national sport. • All of the matches were broadcasted on TV and were transmitted by CONCACAF. Technical. • It was positive to observe the performance of outstanding talents and players in this final phase. This predicts growth in the women’s soccer level in CONCACAF, especially in the teams from the USA, Mexico and Costa Rica. • The three teams that qualified to the World Cup, USA, Mexico and Costa Rica, showed good competitive and technical levels that combined with good and planned preparation will probably translate in good representation of CONCACAF, together with Canada, host of the World Cup. • Once again there is a marked difference between the competitive levels between the different participating regions (North America, Central America and the Caribbean). • The technical, tactical and coaching differences between the participating countries were clearly observed and demonstrated.

• The Caribbean teams have a good physical biotype, but their main deficiency is the technical aspect, both individually and as a group. Also, the tactical knowledge, game routine, and the international experience proved to be a weakness. Their preparation prior to their participation in a CONCACAF final was deficient.

• The tournament was an offensive event due to the amount of goals scored (80) and to the game strategies. This was also the result of the competitive differences between some of the squads. • The main deficiency of the participants from Central America was the level of physical preparation and biotype of the standard Central American player. There was also deficient prior preparation for a CONCACAF final. • Many teams implemented changes in the positions of the players from one match to another and within the match itself, which motivated tactical variations in the line-ups in relation to the initial line-up. • There were many deficiencies in warm-ups by several teams in terms of organization, content, special part and use of means. • There was a marked age difference between the participating teams; the teams that qualified had an average age of 18 years and many players in that agerange. The less developed teams in the event had large age differences between their players, including the participation of 13-year-old and 14-year-old players.

VII. Recommendations • CONCACAF must have prior knowledge of the preparation done by the participating teams through the (TSG) for the final events of the region. • CONCACAF final championships should not be held in January due to the difficulties in preparation presented by the holidays. • Given the difference in the levels shown in the event, CONCACAF must develop a strategic planning for women’s soccer in the different regions, fundamentally for Central America and the Caribbean, with specific plans that include an initial vision of 4 years and yearly planning. A starting point must be establishing the controls that each federation must have of their own women’s league, together with a development plan. Each member

federation must have a work committee specific for women’s soccer. All this planning must be the result of a comprehensive diagnostics done in each country by the Technical Study Group (TSG). • CONCACAF should try hold a women’s U-15 event in the region, based on an adequate competitive organization that acknowledges the level of the countries involved to avoid disproportionate results that do not contribute to the development of women’s soccer. • CONCACAF should require each federation to set aside a specific amount of money to finance the preparation and participation of their respective women’s U-15 teams during the year that the event is held. • Each federation must make technical work a priority in primary teaching. It must develop coordination and use games as motivation in the early stages of development.

and basic fundamentals as prior preparation for the teams. Once the tournament has ended, a course certificate will be delivered to the coaches based on an assessment of the level shown by them. This guarantees the continuity and effectiveness of follow-up of the progress in CONCACAF. • Significant support to the development and progress of women’s soccer in CONCACAF should continue to be offered during the school years. • The Technical Study Group reports should be directly delivered to each of the federations as a way to analyze and boost the progress of their teams. • CONCACAF must include medical representation into the development of the events. • CONCACAF must consider and analyze whether it should set a minimum age limit for players to participate in women´s U-20 events.

• National federations should develop a basic development program for women’s soccer in primary schools. These plans must be supervised by the Technical and Development Director of each country and should be controlled by the technical commissions. • CONCACAF needs to prioritize and continue to develop training and license programs for the trainers of women´s soccer. • More attention should be focused on developing young female goalkeepers and in preparing trainers who are specialists in that position. • There is a need to develop training programs for specialists in the area of physical preparation specifically for women’s soccer. • A basic training program for women’s soccer should be designed in these categories, based on the observations made about the event. These are our realities, strengths and weaknesses. • There is a need to evaluate and study the possibility of training the coaches and technical directors of the teams participating in the CONCACAF events, prior to the event, on the most significant deficiencies

Members of the Technical Study Group (GET) in the Women’s CONCACAF U-20 Tournament, Cayman Islands 2014.

From left to right: Carl Brown (Jamaica), Heu Menzie (USA), Luis Manuel Hernández (Cuba), Candace Chapman (Canada), Keith Look (Trinidad & Tobago), Elia Artavia (Costa Rica), and Luis Hernández (Cuba).