++A neuroscientist explains how history, mood, and surprise can make life feel like a slog — or go by in a blur. +
++It’s tempting to imagine memory as a videotape that stores and plays back the past just as it happened. But the workings of the mind are not so simple. Memory is more of a creative act, reconstructing the past under the often hasty and biased influences of the present. +
++The “creation” of memory doesn’t only influence what we remember, it influences our sense of time’s duration too. Having more memories available for recall can stretch our sense of how much time has passed, while our moods and emotions can tune the richness of what we remember up or down. +
++This all means news, current events, and the technologies that convey them (like the internet) can influence our perception of time passing slowly or quickly, by influencing how strongly we remember things. +
++But exactly how this interaction plays out, scientists still know very little about. +
++2020’s seemingly endless brigade of big stories might’ve stretched time to feel like a decade passed. But that stream of news was delivered to populations on lockdown, where every day looked the same and time became something of an undifferentiated blurry lump. How did this all influence our perception of how much time passed? +
++Enter a new paper by cognitive neuroscientist Nina Rouhani and colleagues, who analyzed Americans’ reported memories of 2020, leveraging the dual turbulences in news events and individual memories to learn more about how each shapes the other. +
++They found that the pandemic scrunched the distance between remembered events, like compressing a slinky. Everything seemed closer together. In our memories, if not in real life, time shrank. But as with most memories, there’s plenty more to unpack. +
++How the pandemic gave researchers a treasure trove of memory +
++Well before the pandemic, Rouhani was busy studying how we remember surprising events. But a lot of this work was in computer models, where modeling the depths and complexities of human memory isn’t a perfect science. Then, as her PhD dissertation defense began approaching, the pandemic hit, and she decided to study memory formation in near-real time. +
++Timelines of major events in 2020 are almost comically overflowing — the headline frenzy, the tragedies, the uncertainty. It was a perfect time to study how current events impact memory. +
++Rouhani drew from a large study that was underway, which was collecting people’s psychological and social experiences during the pandemic. It was a trove of memories. A few times a month from April 2020 through January 2021, over 1,000 Americans were prompted by an online survey platform to report on their lives during the pandemic. +
++In addition to these monthly reports, Rouhani and colleagues collected three memory dumps from participants across three years: 2020, 2021, and 2023. These were prompts to tell the researchers everything they could possibly remember during a certain time period (with approximate dates) until no more came to mind. +
++These methods filled in the individual’s side of things, but Rouhani was also interested in the relationship between surprising collective events and personal memories. The literature on “flashbulb memories” — as these events are called by scientists — finds that we vividly remember the moments we first learn of surprising events. We remember where we were, how we felt, and maybe some other oddly particular detail or two. +
++The question, then, was how to collect “collective memories,” which presents a few challenges. +
++“The challenge we face here is: Whose collective memory?” Rouhani says. “Many different kinds of collective histories are formed, especially nowadays when people have access to their own local ways of defining what’s happening.” +
++They approximated collective memory by taking the two highest Google Trends for each month of 2020 — from Kobe Bryant’s fatal helicopter crash to the killing of George Floyd (the negative news bias is on full display here). Participants were asked questions about each, from how vividly they could recall them to how far apart they remember them being. +
++So with a trove of memory data in hand, Rouhani could start to ask questions about how all these events altered the perception of time. +
++Which impacted our pandemic memories more, monotony or surprise? +
++Going into the study, Rouhani and colleagues had a few sets of questions. The first centered on duration. +
++Past memory research found that surprising events create “event boundaries” in memory. Think of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., or 9/11. These events divide our pools of memory into sections. We categorize memories as happening pre-9/11 or post, for example. Carving more boundaries into a given passage of time can ‘stretch’ our memory of duration. According to this hypothesis, our memory during the period of lockdowns would inflate — spreading events to seem farther away from each other. +
++But then, there was the monotony. Lockdowns imposed a sameness on our daily activities, where the lack of changing context could muddle everything into a compressed memory of time. “If you think about the processes you’re using when thinking about subjective time perception,” Rouhani said, “one of them is the number of memories. When you go on vacation and come back it feels like a century has passed.” That’s because changing scenery leads to more memories. “So it feels longer,” she said, “and lockdowns did the opposite of that.” +
++Just as astronomers measure cosmic expansion by tracking the growing distance between galaxies, Rouhani and colleagues looked at the subjectively reported distances between big news events, and found evidence that the compression hypothesis wins out. When recalling events during Covid, participants remembered them as being closer together than when they recalled events of similar distance before or after the pandemic. The sense of time, in other words, shrank. +
++A separate set of hypotheses focused on emotion. Especially charged events, whether positive or negative, tend to be easier to recall. But during negative times, chronic stress tends to block memory formation. Rouhani explained that in clinical disorders like depression or PTSD, memory is often blunted. While you may have plenty of flashbacks or ruminations, the details blur, and your ability to reconstruct the particulars fades. +
++The study analyzed the reported memories to find any links between emotional states and memory. Their results confirmed that bad moods lead to a greater volume of memory recall, especially for those who scored high on markers of depression or PTSD. But the blurring effect was also confirmed — while they recalled more memories, the actual quality of memory was worse. +
++“Having strong negative emotions can improve your memory,” Rouhani said. “But if you enter into this chronic state of trauma or depression, it removes the specificity of those memories.” +
++There’s also a wrinkle here: Despite the higher volume of memory recall among those most emotionally impacted by the pandemic, the fabric of memory still grew closer together across all participants, and perceived time compressed in memory. +
++Using the past to heal the future +
++If the pandemic feels like a blur, or if details don’t readily come to mind, the study helps explain why. Learning more about these flourishes of memory gives us a fuller perspective on the relationship between the worlds our minds conjure and the experiences they reflect. +
++But the research has more to offer. How we remember the past can provide clues as to the ways stressful or anxious memories may continue to distort our present, or even how we envision the future. +
++It’s tempting to let stressful memories, like low points from the lockdowns, remain as Rouhani found them: blurred, compressed, and behind us. But “not having specific markers of your past can lead to many external events that trigger trauma-related emotions, generating repetitive, crippling memory,” she said. +
++In other words, lack of detail in remembering one’s stressful past raises the odds that it may show up and haunt the present. But the good news is that you can flip this all around. Since memory is always recreated on the fly, it’s always open to reinterpretation. Intentionally remembering the past in more vivid detail — called episodic memory induction — can untangle its hold on the present, and even expand our ability to imagine alternative, brighter futures. All that’s required is a focus on recalling specific details from stressful memories in the past, meaning you can take your pick of journaling, talking with a friend or therapist, or just remembering on your own. +
++While the study of emotion’s effects on memory is already well established, we’re still in the very early days of understanding how time perceptions can get distorted. This study suggested that monotony may have a greater impact than surprising news stories (i.e. flashbulb memories), but do some forms of monotony carry more weight than others? +
++For example, the study suggests that the extended sameness of our lockdown days compressed how we remember the time. But sameness can come in a variety of forms — physical environments, activities, moods. “If we go through 10 different emotions during a day versus 10 different geographic locations,” Rouhani mused, “how do those two contribute to my time perceptions? Do they affect it the same or differently?” +
++She’s not yet sure. “Memory is biased in such unintuitive but consistent ways,” she says. It will take further research to figure out. +
++The stakes of understanding memory may be on the rise. We’re on the brink of a new era of brain-machine interfaces that will likely throw a new set of questions, functions, and biases around memory into the mix. +
++“There’s a lot of really exciting new work that’s applying collective memory to cognitive science, but it’s rather new still,” Rouhani said. “In terms of open questions, I could go on forever. There’s so much more that’s unanswered.” +
++And what’s changed now. +
++At the very end of July, Ukrainian forces liberated Staromaiorske, a tiny village in southeastern Ukraine. It wasn’t a full breakthrough — at least not yet. But it was a real victory in Ukraine’s otherwise lackluster weeks-old counteroffensive. +
++Ukraine had tried to tamp down expectations about the counteroffensive long before it had begun. But Kyiv’s past successes and Moscow’s past failures, the deliveries of new advanced Western weapons, and a fresh crop of Western-trained Ukrainian recruits all had a lot of folks very hyped — maybe overly so — about what Kyiv could achieve. +
++This, despite sober analysis from plenty of observers who said this counteroffensive would more likely be a slog, especially given the impressive, heavily mined Russian fortifications along a vast front line. Experts were also uncertain how well Ukrainian troops would be able to maneuver with advanced weapons, like main battle tanks, and whether they could overcome supply and logistics challenges. +
++The good news is that, weeks into a counteroffensive, we have some clearer answers to those questions. The bad news is those answers were not great, if you’re Ukraine or its backers. Russian fortifications are as formidable as advertised. Western equipment can withstand a lot, but vast minefields are vast minefields, and Kyiv and its newly trained forces have largely failed at conducting combined arms operations on a large scale — that is, coordinating troops and all this different weaponry, like armored vehicles and artillery, to blitz through Russian lines. Kyiv has also suffered high casualties in its attempts to do so. +
++Ukraine knows this, and has now shifted strategies to a much more attritional approach, trying to degrade Russian forces and logistics as it focuses its operation on three axes of attack. “It’s not so much about killing Russian troops at the front line, but more weakening some critical enablers like artillery — but also things like command posts, ammunition supplies, electronic warfare systems, air defense systems, these sorts of things,” said Niklas Masuhr, a military analyst at the Center for Security Studies at the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. +
++It is a cautious and methodical approach, said Federico Borsari, who focuses on defense and transatlantic security at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). It helps reduce the number of casualties Ukrainian troops suffer, but it forces Kyiv to rely more heavily on artillery. It is slow going, by design. +
++This model has favored Ukraine’s military in the past. That does not make this a surefire strategy. Russia, again, has learned from past mistakes, and the battlefield dynamics have changed since Ukraine retook parts of the Kharkiv region and forced a Russian retreat in Kherson last year. +
++That makes this next phase of the counteroffensive far from certain. “Phase 1 probably failed, but doesn’t mean they can’t win,” said Patrick Bury, a senior lecturer in security at the University of Bath. “They can still win in Phase 4 or 3 or 5, even, this summer. What it means is that there’s less time in which to do that.” +
++Russian defenses have made things very, very difficult for Ukraine +
++Ukraine’s progress in its counteroffensive is being measured in hundreds of meters, as a Pentagon official characterized it to Politico last week. Russian defenses are a big reason why. +
++Russian fortifications in Ukraine are some of the most extensive in Europe since World War II, stretching across the front lines, from Kherson in the south all the way to the north. The Russian military spent months in advance of the counteroffensive digging in, building layers and layers of complex anti-tank defenses. +
++The minefields, most of all, have stymied Ukraine. The Ukrainian front line is carpeted with mines, miles deep. They are trip-wired or booby-trapped. Even if Ukraine’s Western armored vehicles can withstand the blasts, the layers of anti-tank mines hinder forward movement, leaving them vulnerable. “As soon as Ukrainian units become stuck in an area, they are immediately targeted by artillery, drones, and attack helicopters,” Borsari said. Russia has built trenches that are filled with explosives, so when Ukraine approaches, prepared to clear a Russian position, Russian forces can detonate them remotely. +
++All of this is making Ukraine’s progress incremental and slow, which gives Russia time to re-fortify and re-mine, further impeding Ukrainian movement. “The whole dilemma for Ukraine is actually one of maneuver, because to overcome prepared Russian defensive lines, you need to force Russian movement,” said Oscar Jonsson, founder of Phronesis Analysis and researcher at Swedish Defence University. +
++Russia has had other advantages in artillery and aviation — particularly its use of attack helicopters, which have been able to pick off Ukrainian targets beyond the protection of Ukraine’s air defenses. On the whole, Russia has managed to make adjustments and compensate for some of its weaknesses. It has done things like trying to keep its artillery launchers and ammunition dumps farther out of range of Ukrainian fire. “It would be really stupid to not grant the Russians the ability to learn from their mistakes and to adapt constantly — and they’ve done that,” said Simon Schlegel, senior Ukraine analyst at the International Crisis Group. +
++Still, Russia has not solved all of its logistical and equipment constraints, especially when it comes to artillery. Troops are plagued by low morale, and some are poorly trained. Ukraine can still exploit all of these. But as a Western intelligence official said at a briefing in late July, “The ability of the Russians just to grit it out should not be underestimated.” +
++Ukraine hasn’t been able to master combined arms warfare at scale +
++Billions in Western military donations have helped transform Ukraine into a formidable military. It has advanced battle tanks and a cadres of NATO-trained troops. All of this was supposed to give Ukraine an edge in its counteroffensive. +
++And in some ways, it has. But it’s complicated. +
++Ukraine’s newly trained troops were also untested and inexperienced in battle when the counteroffensive began. And even with all this Western equipment and training, Ukraine has struggled to conduct combined arms operations – that is, using all of its military systems and platforms together on a large scale. +
++In the early days of the counteroffensive, Ukrainian forces attempted to break through Russian lines with mechanized combined arms formations, but these were largely repulsed by Russia because of its deep defenses. Ukraine suffered heavy casualties as a result. American and European officials said some 20 percent of Western equipment was destroyed or damaged in battle in the opening weeks of the counteroffensive. +
++Not a lot of armies can successfully pull off a fluid, mechanized offense — let alone one compiled and trained in a matter of months, and against an army like Russia’s. This is a big reason why Ukraine has shifted its battlefield tactics, focused instead on wearing Russia down rather than trying to blitz through enemy lines. +
++Kyiv faces additional logistical and supply challenges. It needs advanced weapons, but it also needs tools like de-mining and engineering equipment. Ukrainian troops have said they need more of these tools, and Russia is reportedly targeting such equipment in strikes. +
++Ukraine is burning through a lot of ammunition, and it is relying on a lot of different munitions from a lot of different countries. These systems work together, but imperfectly; artillery may fire, but it might not travel as far or be as accurate. But Ukraine often has no choice but to use what’s available, when it’s available — even if it complicates offensive operations. These are not necessarily new difficulties for Ukrainian forces, but they’re amplified given Ukraine’s ambition for this counteroffensive. +
++Ukraine enters the next phase of its counteroffensive. What now? +
++Ukraine is currently fighting on three axes — two in the south and one in the east, near Bakhmut. The retaking of Staromaiorske represented progress along one very critical axis in the Ukrainian push south, where Kyiv seeks to reach the Sea of Azov, with the goal of slicing up Russian-controlled territory. The military balance of power has yet not shifted in this region. But Staromaiorsk was a sign, at least, that Ukraine could turn things around in this next phase of the counteroffensive. +
++“We may reach a point where Ukraine really can start to attack first the first line of defenses, and the strongest one, built by Russia,” Borsari said. “So far, most of the clashes and most of the attacks have been in an area that is like a gray zone; it’s not even the first line of defense by Russia.” +
++To achieve this, Ukraine is pursuing a more creeping advance, seeking to weaken and wear down Russian troops. It is doing this by targeting critical Russian components, like artillery and supply lines and transportation infrastructure. This helps Ukraine preserve manpower and equipment, but it costs a lot more in artillery and in time, without a lot of change in territory. “To some extent, I would say that is the trade-off that Ukraine is plagued with,” Masuhr said. +
++Manpower is one of the big questions around Ukraine’s capabilities right now. Kyiv kept thousands of newly trained troops in reserves, but in recent weeks it has started at least sending some of those into battle. This may signal a more intense push by Ukraine, but it carries risks, too: The more reserves Ukraine commits, the fewer fresh troops it will have available to rotate out, or to respond to any shifts on the battlefield. +
++Artillery and ammunition are also key to Ukraine’s current strategy, and Ukraine will need a lot of it. Last month, the United States made the controversial decision to send cluster munitions, which was at least partially an attempt to help over tide the Ukrainians as the US and Europe ramp up artillery production. Those efforts are already underway. +
++And then there’s the time factor. Ukraine’s strategy of attrition may be effective, but after the counteroffensive’s early stumbles, it has a lot less time to wear Russia down. +
++Autumn 2023 is not an official deadline, exactly, but it is likely going to be the time frame by which a lot of Western governments will judge Ukraine’s success or failure. The front lines haven’t changed substantially since Ukraine forced a Russian retreat in Kherson in November 2022. If the boundaries remain largely frozen for more than a year, a decisive victory for either side will start looking less and less likely. +
++That is not a foregone conclusion, and Ukraine can still succeed. And if it does, the slow, grinding counteroffensive may all of a sudden look very, very different. “It’s like bankruptcy — very slowly, and then all at once,” Bury said. “There could come a point where they wear down the Russians enough for them to break through somewhere, and then, out in the open, drive those Western tanks. But so far, we’ve not really seen it getting to that point.” +
++
++
++The real reason why the US women’s national soccer team lost. +
++Headed into the Women’s World Cup, the US women’s national soccer team (USWNT) was aiming to make history and become the first team — men or women — to win three consecutive world cups. That all came crashing down this weekend when the top-ranked US lost in penalty kicks to Sweden in the round of 16, the first of the competition’s four knockout rounds. The final will take place on August 20. +
++Given the expectations of excellence that the USWNT has set since the sport started to flourish on the international stage — four World Cup wins, four Olympic gold medals, and medaling in every major international competition except for the 2016 Olympics — it was no doubt a disappointment. This was the best team in the world trying to accomplish a feat that takes 12 years to achieve, as World Cups only happen every four years. +
++The US women’s loss was international news. +
++If you ask soccer experts, the loss wasn’t too surprising given the injuries key players sustained and questionable coaching decisions that were made. It was a transitional year for the US, with the team trying to find its identity among a mix of old-guard stars like 38-year-old Megan Rapinoe and new talent like 22-year-old Sophia Smith. Sports media and fans alike have already begun examining what went wrong, what little went right, and what the future of US women’s soccer is going to look like. +
++But the defeat has also become a talking point among a group of people who usually don’t have much to say about the sport: right-wingers, like former president Donald Trump and pundit Benny Johnson. In the wake of their defeat, USWNT has become subject to the claim that the US women lost because they were too woke and too progressive. +
++That couldn’t be further from the truth. +
++The right-wing concern about the women’s soccer team isn’t really about winning or losing or soccer +
++The game against Sweden kicked off at 5 am ET on Sunday, and the USWNT had lost on penalty kicks before most in their country had their first cup of coffee. The US team held even with Sweden during regulation, arguably playing one of the better matches of their tournament, while repeatedly being stymied by the Swedish goalkeeper. But they lost 5–4 on penalty shots after Rapinoe, Smith, and Kelly O’Hara missed their opportunities. As the day went on, a specific type of criticism began to circulate among right-wing personalities: The US women’s national team lost because they had gone “woke.” +
++In a politicized and misleading tweet, Benny Johnson wrote, “BREAKING: Woke US Women’s Soccer Humiliation … After winning back-to-back World Cups the heavily favored Team USA has been ELIMINATED by Sweden in the 16th round. Team USA’s downfall was delivered by anti-America, anti-woman activist Megan Rapinoe’s EMBARRASSING free kick …” +
++Leaving aside the several technical errors in Johnson’s tweet (the US lost in the Round of 16, not the 16th round — there is no 16th round of the World Cup; and the video Johnson attached showed Rapinoe missing a crucial penalty kick, not a “free kick”), its tone didn’t capture what actually happened Sunday. The US is the top-ranked women’s soccer team in the world, and Sweden is ranked third — a margin that’s slimmer than Johnson suggests. Based on how poorly the US played in its group stage (the round-robin format that precedes the one-and-done matches), Sweden was always going to be a tough match for the US. +
++Later in the day, freshly indicted former president Donald Trump weighed in on Truth Social, warning that the loss was a signal of the United States’s fiery descent into the underworld: “Many of our players were openly hostile to America - No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. WOKE EQUALS FAILURE. Nice shot Megan, the USA is going to Hell!!! MAGA” +
++The same kind of “woke = failure” rhetoric was implied in Fox commentator Alexi Lalas’s tweet about the game. (Fox happened to be the network broadcasting the Women’s World Cup.) Lalas wrote, “This USWNT is polarizing. Politics, causes, stances, & behavior have made this team unlikeable to a portion of America. This team has built its brand and has derived its power from being the best/winning. If that goes away they risk becoming irrelevant.” +
++Despite playing on the US men’s national soccer team, Lalas never came close to winning a World Cup. As his critics point out, in his own terms, this would make Lalas irrelevant. (Lalas has also previously tweeted support for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose politics run diametrically opposed to that of some prominent US women’s players.) +
++But what are these guys, however inaccurately, trying to talk about? The US women’s national team has supported a number of progressive causes, mainly LGBTQ rights and equal pay for women. +
++In 2016, the US women’s players began a legal battle demanding equal pay. They argued that despite winning major competitions and being the best team in the world, they did not receive the same pay and treatment (charter flights, hotels, facilities, etc.) as their male counterparts. The US men’s national soccer team hasn’t ever come close to winning any major international soccer competition, but still reaps much heartier financial rewards. The fight ended with a $24 million settlement in 2022, and a pledge from US Soccer to equalize pay. +
+/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24836616/1257647530.jpg)
Brad Smith/ISI Photos/Getty Images
++Prominent members of the US women’s national team have also been staunch supporters of LGBTQ rights, a stance that puts them at odds with right-wing politicians and pundits who have embraced hostile viewpoints toward the queer and trans community. The team did not accept an invitation to visit the White House when it won the World Cup in 2019. “Your message is excluding people. You’re excluding me, you’re excluding people that look like me, you’re excluding people of color, you’re excluding Americans that maybe support you,” Rapinoe said in a 2019 televised interview, speaking to then-President Donald Trump. +
++In a competition earlier this year in Florida, where LGTBQ rights are under legislative attack, the team wore light blue, pink, and white wristbands in support of trans rights. +
++The political criticism the US women’s national team is facing isn’t unlike the rhetoric used in conservative boycotts against Budweiser following trans content creator Dylan Mulvaney’s sponsored content. That boycott isn’t unlike the Starbucks boycott that pops up year after year, or that time Tucker Carlson was mad at the gender expression of M&Ms. It’s also similar to the recent and extremely erroneous pronouncement that Greta Gerwig’s Barbie would make no money because it championed feminism and criticized the patriarchy. (Barbie is now poised to surpass $1 billion at the box office.) In the world of sports, stars like Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James have previously faced right-wing villainization for speaking out against police brutality. +
++The ideology is simple: if you show progressive values, you are destined to lose. Go woke, go broke. But it’s a crooked connection and has very little to do with how sports works. +
++This point of view fails to take into account that the women’s soccer team has been winning for a very long time, going back to the 2015 Women’s World Cup and even before then (the team has won four Women’s World Cups since 1991 and four Olympic gold medals since 1996). They’ve been fighting for equal pay and equal rights during their most impressive stretches of dominance in the sport. The US women have also been at the forefront of equal pay and treatment not just for US players, but for women’s soccer players across the globe. Spain and England, who are now considered favorites in the tournament, have equal pay structures among their men and women players. +
++Scapegoating the US women in this moment feels less like criticism of how they played and more like a political opportunity for right-wing politicians and politically adjacent figures to play to their base. Figures on the right who have been championing things like anti-trans legislation paint these women as political opponents, advance their own agendas, and grab some spotlight on what is an international news story. +
++Why the US women’s national soccer team really lost +
++The USWNT’s loss against Sweden wasn’t a huge surprise to anyone who’s been following the team over the last few months. This 2023 World Cup was always going to be a dogfight. +
++Headed into the tournament, the US team lost several key players to injuries, including talented scorer Mallory Swanson, defensive stalwart Becky Sauerbrunn, and star midfielders Sam Mewis and Catarina Macario. Those players are part of the reason the US is the top-ranked team in the world, but they were unable to start. +
++The US roster also included players who were injured and making their comebacks. Rose LaVelle, a standout in the midfield, injured her knee in April. The World Cup was her first tournament back. Similarly, Julie Ertz and Rapinoe were easing their way into competition after suffering injuries. While talented, these players weren’t playing at their peak. +
++The biggest criticism of the US team was against coach Vlatko Andonovski. Soccer insiders and experts posited that Andonovski didn’t pick a balanced roster, and further, his in-game decisions left many puzzled. As Kim McCauley pointed out in the Athletic, Andonovski’s tactics left the midfield vulnerable and disconnected, which in turn made the US offense a portrait of pure ugliness. “He wants to create overloads in wide areas and get numbers into the box so badly that he is willing to sacrifice having a midfield to do so. Personally, I think this sucks and leads to very bad soccer,” McCauley wrote. +
+/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24836631/1596240460.jpg)
Robin Alam/USSF/Getty Images for USSF
++At the same time, it’s important to note that teams and players around the world are getting better and better. Teams that are great on paper — like second-ranked Germany, seventh-ranked Canada, and eighth-ranked Brazil — failed to make it out of the group stage of the World Cup. The most impressive team of the tournament so far has been Japan, currently ranked 11th in the world. Women’s soccer is getting more competitive, and the US was never going to dominate the game as it once did. +
++While the US lost in an unfortunate way to third-ranked Sweden — literal millimeters on a partially saved penalty kick — a surging Japanese team would’ve been their next opponent. Based on how good Japan has been playing and how poorly the US has played, that would’ve been another tough match and likely would’ve ended in a loss too. If that had been the case, we’d likely have had the same kind of discussions about what went wrong for the team that we’re subjected to now. A depleted US roster, puzzling coaching decisions, and a gummy offense are all extremely valid criticisms of the best women’s soccer team in the world, but they’re far less exciting options if you’re trying to make a hollow political point. +