The 2011 Women's World Cup Final

On national tactical identities, American mentality, and what the world thinks of Japan

“A nation’s footballing style is reflected in various ways. It’s not simply about the national side’s characteristics, but about the approach of its dominant clubs, the nature of its star players and the philosophy of its coaches. It’s about how referees officiate and what the supporters cheer.”¹

What defines a national football style? Debates over the best way to play football are intrinsic to any level of the game but World Cups are the prime opportunity for nations to demonstrate their belief in the best way to win matches. That might be down to the kind of players they produce, the sort of formations they prefer, or even less tangible concepts like attitude or mentality. 

Sometimes these defining principles come from inside the nation; sometimes they come from outside it where stereotypes can often be too quickly invoked. As Ashleigh Plumptre said after Nigeria’s elimination on penalties against England: “I'm tired of people just saying that African teams are just strong and just fast, and count us out of being technical or tactical.” 

Certain countries with long footballing histories have clearly defined and accepted principles. Take, for example, the surprise at this World Cup that the Dutch are playing a 3-5-2 instead of a 4-3-3, or the feeling that the rigid 4-4-2 Pia Sundhage used with Brazil contributed to their early elimination.

Within the women’s game, these national identities can come in all shapes and sizes. For example, the US Women’s National Team rose to become the world’s most successful international side off the back of not a tactical identity but the more nebulous concept of ‘mentality’. Without a serious ‘soccer’ tradition to follow domestically, they embraced a cultural notion about what it means to be American, and applied it to football.

Their reliance on this ideal was demonstrated at the 2011 World Cup, held in Germany. For the US, they hoped that the tournament would propel women’s football back into the limelight again domestically. Despite winning Olympic Gold in 2008, interest had fallen well below the levels that had followed the 1999 World Cup win. Only 5852 people came to see their final match before they headed off to Germany.²

They made a comfortable start to the competition, winning 2-0 against North Korea and 3-0 over debutants Colombia. However a group stage loss to Sweden saw them finish second in their group, meaning they had to face Brazil in the quarter-finals. Over the past few years, Brazil had become close rivals of the US; they had been knocked out by them in the semi-finals of the 2007 World Cup but beat them in the Gold Medal match at the 2008 Olympics. 

This was to be another tight match. A Daiane own goal put the US ahead after only two minutes, but Marta equalised from the penalty spot in the second half. Hope Solo had saved Cristiane’s original penalty but due to encroachment into the area, it was retaken by Marta who scored. It was Marta again who scored in extra time to put the Brazilians ahead. But then came the moment of ‘mentality’. 

With the clock ticking down, Megan Rapinoe swung the ball into the area from more than 30 yards out for it to connect with Abby Wambach’s waiting head. Wambach scores and in the dying seconds, the US have forced the match to penalties. At that time the goal was the latest ever scored in a World Cup - 121:20.³ The US went on to win that quarter-final.

In retrospect, manager Pia Sundhage would describe the key difference between the Americans and the Swedish teams she had coached in the past as the fact that the US “just go for it”.⁴ Similarly Marta said Wambach’s goal was not about height advantage or any technical difference to Brazil, it was “mentality”.⁵ But that differs vastly from Heather O’Reilly’s analysis. 

“What sticks with me for that goal is that we trained that. It wasn’t something that was just lucky. Certainly we didn’t plan that exact play, but with Pia, when we played in a conventional 4-4-2 with Abby up top, we worked on crosses so much. Pretty much every training session was changing the point of attack and putting lethal crosses in the box.”⁶

The goal that was seen to most define the American mentality and want to win was actually something that they had worked on consistently on the training pitch. Of course, the ability to keep on going and pushing for another goal, and believing that one could be scored, is a mental aspect but that is something that sets plenty of top athletes apart, regardless of whether they are American. 

Intriguingly even that belief that they could win came from a more prosaic source. Wambach said that at extra-time, they could tell that the Brazilians were exhausted, despite having had an extra player (Rachel Buehler was sent off in the second half in the incident that led to the penalty). “I thought ‘Even with ten men, we’re still fitter, we’re still stronger.”⁷ So the physical fitness of the US (something long posited as a key factor behind their success) in combination with tactical drilling helped them win a game whose outcome was then put down to mentality.

The psychological element of understanding football outcome was also tied to the US’ opponents in the 2011 World Cup final: Japan. 

In March of that year, the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami killed close to 20,000 people in Japan. More than 200,000 lost their homes and the fallout from the incident devastated the country. Japan did not enter the World Cup as anything close to favourites. They had participated in every World Cup but only made it out of the group stages once. Even their group stage performance was not obviously an example of a team on the rise. They beat New Zealand and Mexico but lost 2-0 to England meaning their quarter-final match up was against hosts and two-time holders Germany.

Their 1-0 win in extra time was a sign of things to come in this tournament. They soaked up a huge amount of German pressure with the game going to extra time at 0-0. Then in the 108th minute Homare Sawa chipped the ball over the German defence and neatly into the path of Karina Maruyama who slotted it past Nadine Angerer. After the match, ESPN referred to it as the ‘Japanese game’ - ‘one precision pass and lightness of feet outdid two hours of grinding and pushing by the hosts’.  They went on to come from 1-0 down against Sweden to win 3-1 and reach their first ever World Cup final. 

The 2011 World Cup finalists have a clear distinction between their styles in this match. The US looked to play quick balls in behind Japan’s defence for Megan Rapinoe or Heather O’Reilly to run onto with them getting a lot of joy from crosses or cut backs. But they also looked to relentlessly shoot on sight - perhaps evidence of a lack of clear ideas if the options were not available out wide. The US finished with 27 shots to Japan’s 14 but only 5 of them were on target in comparison with 6 of Japan’s.

Japan meanwhile were a lot more technical and precise in their passing. They looked to use their midfielders to open up different angles as they played out from the back but for large portions of the match the US’ midfield duo of Carli Lloyd and Shannon Boxx held firm. Japan were willing to be patient though and a couple of the through balls that were played hinted at how dangerous they could be with their off-ball runs.

The US eventually went 1-0 up in the 69th minute as Alex Morgan finally made good on that space in behind. Morgan had come on at half-time in place of Lauren Cheney and looked much more dynamic. Sundhage said that she never gave Morgan instructions when she came on as a substitute, preferring instead to tell her “just go out there and score goals”.⁸

Despite the US being totally in control, they gave up an equaliser with Aya Miyama scoring in the 81st minute, as the American defence looked flummoxed. That sent the match to extra time. Abby Wambach put the US 2-1 up just before the end of the first half, heading in from the kind of cross that Japan had struggled to deal with all night. But a further defensive mix-up saw the US concede a corner.⁹ The resulting flick from Homare Sawa, who would go on to win the Golden Boot and Golden Ball, eluded everyone including her marker Rachel Buehler. Japan had forced the game to penalties. 

The resulting penalty shoot out was not the best selection of penalties you will ever watch. The US missed their first three with the pick of the bunch being Carli Lloyd sending their second one well over the bar. Shannon Boxx and Tobin Heath both missed too and despite Yuki Nagasato missing hers and Abby Wambach scoring the US’ fourth, when Saki Kumagai stepped up she knew if she scored Japan would win a first ever World Cup. She fired the ball into the top left hand corner and celebrations ensued.

It is notable that in reflecting on the match, Wambach said “Japan [were] meant to win that game.”¹⁰ Similarly, Boxx said “Who knows - maybe it was fate. Maybe they needed that more than we did at that time.”¹¹ Perhaps it is indicative of the US team’s fascination in the psychological aspects of the match that they clung to a narrative that emphasised a power outside their own to explain why they lost. But in the final, Japan showed a lot of the tactical hallmarks that they had throughout the tournament. In fact, they are the same building blocks that have been present at this World Cup.

That ability to sit back and soak up pressure which served them so well in 2011 against Germany and the US was evident in this year’s 4-0 group stage win against Spain. Similarly the through balls and off-ball runs to create space have bamboozled every team they have come up against. Their formation has changed - they now play with a back five - but lots of the patterns of play are reminiscent of their World Cup win twelve years ago.

That tendency to overlook the team’s ability has also been similar. Japan were not expected to win in 2011 and neither were they truly expected to do as well as they have so far in 2023. During the 2022 Men’s World Cup, Dan Orlowitz wrote about how Japan are still viewed as relative newcomers when it comes to global football, despite the game having a rich history within the country. It is hard not to feel like that also has an impact on how they are viewed in the women’s game, despite being one of only four nations to ever win the World Cup.

The desire to align or branch out from national footballing identities is obviously something that can change over time. The role of nationalism within football is a complex subject that would take many more words than this piece to discuss, but the way teams are expected to play football can reveal what both insiders and outsiders expect from those countries. It can also highlight how seriously some take certain countries as part of the footballing ecosystem. Japan have shown more than enough footballing culture in their development and re-development of two successful teams in 2011 and 2023. Perhaps if they do go on to win this year, that will become harder to ignore. 

1. Cox, M (2019) Zonal Marking: The Making of Modern European Football

2. Theivam, K and J. Kassouf (2019) The Making of the Women’s World Cup: Defining stories from a sport’s coming of age

3. Theivam, K and J. Kassouf (2019) ibid.

4. Murray, C (2019) The National Team: The Inside Story of the Women who Changed Soccer

5. Murray, C (2019) ibid.

6. Murray, C (2019) ibid.

7. Murray, C (2019) ibid.

8. Murray, C (2019) ibid.

9. It is hard to avoid thinking about the accusation from the 2007 World Cup that teammates didn’t like playing with Solo because she wouldn’t communicate with them…

10. Theivam, K and J. Kassouf (2019) ibid.

11. Murray, C (2019) ibid.