I think this debate boils down to style of play as opposed to gender. Soccer snobs often sniff at "direct" play as if its some sort of sign of barbarism.
Yet I've seen very skillful players playing very attractive soccer that happens to be very attacking oriented. A lot of quick 1 touch / 2 touch passing....movement off the ball, combination play, etc. I love that!!!!
Have also see traditional "possession without purpose" teams who build their attacks....yet never pull the trigger to attack. Far more comfortable playing in the middle third of the field, unwilling to take a chance on playing the ball forward to a player making a great run in tight space, they hold and play back. Yaawwwn.....oops.
I think the writer of the article was saying.....that too often in American soccer and I guess specifically American womans soccer, the style of play is geared mostly towards, big, strong, fast, athletic players....and the style of play that supports this....playing from back to front. Big backs knocking the ball long to big/fast forwards.
What happened to creative midfield play? To me....thats the critical (and missing) element. If the ball is played in the air instead of on the ground.....you aren't likely to find attractive soccer, male or female.
So all this time is spent in small sided play with kids when they're young.....and the ultimate destination in American women's soccer (UNC Chapel Hill) just blasts the ball long to their forwards. Why waste 4 players in a 4-4-2?
I think this is the authors point. Not gender....but lack of midfield play.
