Women's World Cup

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:46 pm

No gloves when treating her nose. My wife was pissed.

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:49 pm

howard wrote:Sherzer through five, time to open up a second screen, gentlemen.

*click*

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:00 pm

Kiss paid off that time.

howard · Post by **howard** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:01 pm

It would pay off on the pole I have for her, too.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:16 pm

Press is gorgeous (and sweaty)

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:20 pm

degenerasian wrote:Press is gorgeous (and sweaty)

Yeah, she's not not cute.

Post by **brian** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:16 am

My fantasy of a French-US semifinal is dead. I would have had a two-hour boner for the first time since I was 18 if that had happened.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:21 pm

I thought the US played much much better against China than they did against Colombia.

- The roster changes paid off. All of the subs played well.

-Rodriguez was a beast. When the US switched to their "high pressure at the top" D (I'm sure its got a fancy soccer term....similiar to "forecheck" in hockey), she was all over it, and China was just trying to hang on.

-I don't know....but Morgan doesn't look "right". Still seems a bit off from her injury. I'd like to see more LeRoux and Press in the game.

-The US back four is awesome. Solo hasn't even really been tested since the Aussie game. As The Men In Blazers called them "The Watchers On The Wall".

-I'd much rather see Abby come in as the Super Sub in the last 15 minutes when the opponents D is running on fumes. She just doesn't have the fitness/speed to play full 90's anymore.

Excited to see them against the Germans. Mostly so I break out this Simpsons clip:

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:05 pm

Why are England and Canada even allowed to have separate teams?

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:06 am

Rex wrote:Why are England and Canada even allowed to have separate teams?

That French Guy · Post by **That French Guy** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:20 am

Fuck Gary Lineker and his stupid theories (no matter how True they are)

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Lauren Sesselmann (Canada's center back) was absolutely brutal in that game. Just awful.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:01 pm

She was terrible all tournament.

Pretty poor Canadian team. Only got this far because of a bogus penalty in the opening game.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:04 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:Lauren Sesselmann (Canada's center back) was absolutely brutal in that game. Just awful.

It was very aggravating to see her out there - one of the knocks on Herdman is that he is too loyal to his veterans.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:05 pm

Pruitt wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:Lauren Sesselmann (Canada's center back) was absolutely brutal in that game. Just awful.
It was very aggravating to see her out there - one of the knocks on Herdman is that he is too loyal to his veterans.

Yeah Tancredi too. Herdman got outcoached yesterday for sure.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:16 pm

degenerasian wrote:She was terrible all tournament.

Pretty poor Canadian team. Only got this far because of a bogus penalty in the opening game.

I couldn't believe it when she came back out for the second half.

Canada sucked. They couldn't even challenge the backup GK for England.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:49 pm

rass wrote:
degenerasian wrote:Press is gorgeous (and sweaty)
Yeah, she's not not cute.

She's in a sunscreen commercial. I saw it last week and was like "wait, Christen Press is endorsing sunscreen?"

After seeing Kelley O'Hara in person in February, I had a new favorite player.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:15 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:
degenerasian wrote:She was terrible all tournament.

Pretty poor Canadian team. Only got this far because of a bogus penalty in the opening game.
I couldn't believe it when she came back out for the second half.

Canada sucked. They couldn't even challenge the backup GK for England.

And Fifa did everything possible to get them into the Semis too.

Oh well. At least Americans won't have trouble getting tickets to the finals now.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:37 pm

Pruitt wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:
degenerasian wrote:She was terrible all tournament.

Pretty poor Canadian team. Only got this far because of a bogus penalty in the opening game.
I couldn't believe it when she came back out for the second half.

Canada sucked. They couldn't even challenge the backup GK for England.
And Fifa did everything possible to get them into the Semis too.

Oh well. At least Americans won't have trouble getting tickets to the finals now.

Any predictions for the attendance in Edmonton on Wednesday night for the England-Japan semi? Sure seems like that's the venue with the most empty seats.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:48 pm

I was hoping for a France - China final. That might offer some decent soccer.

They are unique among the top level teams. The other teams want to win with variations of kick-and-chase and an extreme emphasis on defense. It's just not that interesting to me anymore. I lament that women's soccer, both at the international level and the higher levels of USA youth soccer, has not evolved to a greater emphasis on offense and possession. If this never happens, then to me women's soccer will be just like watching the usual bad men's soccer game, played by inferior athletes.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:20 am

DC47 wrote:I was hoping for a France - China final. That might offer some decent soccer.

They are unique among the top level teams. The other teams want to win with variations of kick-and-chase and an extreme emphasis on defense. It's just not that interesting to me anymore. I lament that women's soccer, both at the international level and the higher levels of USA youth soccer, has not evolved to a greater emphasis on offense and possession. If this never happens, then to me women's soccer will be just like watching the usual bad men's soccer game, played by inferior athletes.

Japanese play a really nice possession game.

I think the artificial turf has been awful forcing the States to play kick and chase.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:47 am

Why do you think a turf field leads to this?

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:30 am

On turf the ball rolls too fast and is hard to control. Easier to boot it downfield. Maybe the opposition will make the mistake in these types of games.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:14 am

Turf on some of the fields is like playing on concrete. Ball bounces way too much

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:21 am

Why has FIFA/Nike/Etc invested in some technology in the ball to make it play better on the turf?

I remember playing with these giant tennis balls on hard courts to improve the play a bit.

I mean every world cup we here about how the new innovate ball gives a better blah blah blah (like the goalies complaining about the super movement a few world cups ago). It seems like tennis has figured out how to have different balls for different surfaces, figure they could do something to take the super bounce on turf fields.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:23 am

wlu_lax6 wrote:Why has FIFA/Nike/Etc invested in some technology in the ball to make it play better on the turf?

I remember playing with these giant tennis balls on hard courts to improve the play a bit.

I mean every world cup we here about how the new innovate ball gives a better blah blah blah (like the goalies complaining about the super movement a few world cups ago). It seems like tennis has figured out how to have different balls for different surfaces, figure they could do something to take the super bounce on turf fields.

I would think making the ball heavier, like a futsal ball, would help with the bounce.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:40 pm

Gonna have to disagree on a couple of things I've read while catching up here:

1) The type of turf they are playing on is not like playing on concrete. The newer variation of turf, with all the rubber pellets and the softer "grass" is actually very nice to play on. It' not like Saprissa or some of the shit I played on in college. Yes, it tends to give you more rug burns than grass... and if you slide over the painted lines? That shit is like sandpaper. But overall, the surface is not that big of an issue. It's different, you need to adjust... But not that much and those making that claim are overstating things. I'm sure a lot (all) of these women have played on grass fields that are either rutted or not cut short and they'd take a turf field over that 100/100. Or when it's raining, and you're trying to navigate puddles and mud and all that nonsense.

2) Just going to strongly disagree that a turf field forces a kick-and-chase, Rt. 1 approach. It is MUCH easier to play small-sided/triangle ball on a turf field. There's never a bad bounce, and if you are a crisp, short passing team it plays to your advantage. In FACT, Rt. 1 is much harder on turf for the very reason that has been mentioned... Long balls roll either right to the GK or out of bounds. I tell my girls, whenever we're on turf, if you hoof it up-field, you're going to find yourself sitting next to me.

3) The game against China was, by far, the best I've seen this team play in a very long time. Addition by subtraction, and I'll include Rapinoe in that, as much as I like her as a player. They stopped hoofing it up to a target striker or out to their left flank, and instead used combination through the midfield (center-out) to generate their offense. They absolutely dominated that game, which isn't fully reflected in the scoreline, because they weren't forcing their play, but rather taking the opportunities as presented. It's just a completely different mindset that is liberating and it showed.

4) Dave in SEA, you were absolutely dead on with your assessment of the style we employed. It's called the "high press" and it has become the dominate style employed around the world. As you said, it requires the FWDs to begin the defense by channeling them to one side of the field, where a sort of trap is sprung as all players are marked up and passing channels are occupied. The way to beat it is either to spring someone on a second level run (behind the trap, up the middle or out wide), to play it long (low odds), or to switch the ball to the opposite flank (also low odds). The other way to beat it is to beat a player or two off the dribble, which causes the trap to kind of collapse, and things get scrambly... Again, though, this requires a low odds play to pull off... China doesn't have the skill to do that, which is why the very rarely had any offense.

-==-=-=-=-=-=

I posted something on Facebook and may have mentioned here earlier, the seeding and group set up for this tournament is a traveshamockery and if this were the men's tournament, it would've caused a massive uproar. I can't say I've never seen anything like it, because it's quite common for the host club of tournaments to set up the groups in a way that ensures their team makes the playoffs... I'm talking about youth soccer, just to be clear.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:07 pm

wlu_lax6 wrote:Why has FIFA/Nike/Etc invested in some technology in the ball to make it play better on the turf?

I remember playing with these giant tennis balls on hard courts to improve the play a bit.

I mean every world cup we here about how the new innovate ball gives a better blah blah blah (like the goalies complaining about the super movement a few world cups ago). It seems like tennis has figured out how to have different balls for different surfaces, figure they could do something to take the super bounce on turf fields.

FIFA won't invest that kind of money or effort in the Women's WC. When they make a new ball for the WC, they make a fuckton of money. They sell for $100+. FIFA didn't give a fuck that players hated the 2010 ball and it hurt the integrity of the game. Adidas(?) paid shitod for the rights, and they werent going to change it.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:13 pm

Does the turf affect running with the ball?

In this tournament, compared to 2011 and 2012, the girls just seem slower running with the ball. Are they afraid it will roll away?

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:16 pm

What's with all the hate for France getting screwed?

I understand the tournament draw is different and they basically ensured these teams would play for the best ratings possible, but the fact is they still lost? Were they planning on putting up a banner like the Colts to indicate they were a semi-finalist instead of a finalist or what? Is it that big of a deal to play a round deeper than what you did? Doesn't this happen every year in the NCAA MBB tournament? If you want to play farther in the tournament, don't lose.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:23 pm

BSF21 wrote:What's with all the hate for France getting screwed?

I understand the tournament draw is different and they basically ensured these teams would play for the best ratings possible, but the fact is they still lost? Were they planning on putting up a banner like the Colts to indicate they were a semi-finalist instead of a finalist or what? Is it that big of a deal to play a round deeper than what you did? Doesn't this happen every year in the NCAA MBB tournament? If you want to play farther in the tournament, don't lose.

I think it's more a women vs men thing. The men would have a proper draw (although in USA 94, teams were also put in groups geographically, USA - Pasadena, Brazil - Detroit, Germany - Chicago, Argentina - Boston, Italy - New York, Belgium - Orlando) and the men would not play on turf. It's another beef that women are adding to their list.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:26 pm

BSF21 wrote:What's with all the hate for France getting screwed?

I understand the tournament draw is different and they basically ensured these teams would play for the best ratings possible, but the fact is they still lost? Were they planning on putting up a banner like the Colts to indicate they were a semi-finalist instead of a finalist or what? Is it that big of a deal to play a round deeper than what you did? Doesn't this happen every year in the NCAA MBB tournament? If you want to play farther in the tournament, don't lose.

Germany v. France in the quarters was a joke. Never should have happend that early. I promise you that is Brazil and Germany on the men's side were slated to hit in the quarters, that the screaming would still be on-going.

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:29 pm

BSF21 wrote:What's with all the hate for France getting screwed?

I understand the tournament draw is different and they basically ensured these teams would play for the best ratings possible, but the fact is they still lost? Were they planning on putting up a banner like the Colts to indicate they were a semi-finalist instead of a finalist or what? Is it that big of a deal to play a round deeper than what you did? Doesn't this happen every year in the NCAA MBB tournament? If you want to play farther in the tournament, don't lose.

Deadspin had a piece on this today.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:30 pm

tennbengal wrote:
BSF21 wrote:What's with all the hate for France getting screwed?

I understand the tournament draw is different and they basically ensured these teams would play for the best ratings possible, but the fact is they still lost? Were they planning on putting up a banner like the Colts to indicate they were a semi-finalist instead of a finalist or what? Is it that big of a deal to play a round deeper than what you did? Doesn't this happen every year in the NCAA MBB tournament? If you want to play farther in the tournament, don't lose.
Germany v. France in the quarters was a joke. Never should have happend that early. I promise you that is Brazil and Germany on the men's side were slated to hit in the quarters, that the screaming would still be on-going.

Germany could have been drawn into Group B and France into Group F, it just would have been fairer. Men's World Cup have had some amazing quarterfinals between seeded teams. Like Argentina-Germany in both 2006 and 2010 or Netherlands-Brazil in 2010.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:35 pm

tennbengal wrote:
BSF21 wrote:What's with all the hate for France getting screwed?

I understand the tournament draw is different and they basically ensured these teams would play for the best ratings possible, but the fact is they still lost? Were they planning on putting up a banner like the Colts to indicate they were a semi-finalist instead of a finalist or what? Is it that big of a deal to play a round deeper than what you did? Doesn't this happen every year in the NCAA MBB tournament? If you want to play farther in the tournament, don't lose.
Germany v. France in the quarters was a joke. Never should have happend that early. I promise you that is Brazil and Germany on the men's side were slated to hit in the quarters, that the screaming would still be on-going.

But again, why do they care? Isn't the argument that they would have met in the semis instead? Where they still would have gotten bounced by a superior German team? If you can't be the best, who cares if you come in 2nd or 5th or 13th. They only give out one cup right?

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:43 pm

rass wrote:
BSF21 wrote:What's with all the hate for France getting screwed?

I understand the tournament draw is different and they basically ensured these teams would play for the best ratings possible, but the fact is they still lost? Were they planning on putting up a banner like the Colts to indicate they were a semi-finalist instead of a finalist or what? Is it that big of a deal to play a round deeper than what you did? Doesn't this happen every year in the NCAA MBB tournament? If you want to play farther in the tournament, don't lose.

Deadspin had a piece on this today.

Heh, was just about to link that.

BSF - I commend the deadspin piece to you. If you still hold to that view after reading that, we agree to disagree.

joeyclams · Post by **joeyclams** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:59 pm

BSF21 wrote:
tennbengal wrote:
BSF21 wrote:What's with all the hate for France getting screwed?

I understand the tournament draw is different and they basically ensured these teams would play for the best ratings possible, but the fact is they still lost? Were they planning on putting up a banner like the Colts to indicate they were a semi-finalist instead of a finalist or what? Is it that big of a deal to play a round deeper than what you did? Doesn't this happen every year in the NCAA MBB tournament? If you want to play farther in the tournament, don't lose.
Germany v. France in the quarters was a joke. Never should have happend that early. I promise you that is Brazil and Germany on the men's side were slated to hit in the quarters, that the screaming would still be on-going.

But again, why do they care? Isn't the argument that they would have met in the semis instead? Where they still would have gotten bounced by a superior German team? If you can't be the best, who cares if you come in 2nd or 5th or 13th. They only give out one cup right?

In a sport that is growing every year, it does matter how far a team goes in the tourney. The farther they go, the more exposure they get, the more girls want to play soccer. Colombia and Mexico are the next big women's hotspots for increased participation. It's part of the reason that Colombia was talking shit prior to the US game: they wanted media exposure, even if it was a bit negative. They are looking for investment and the better they do or the more attention they draw, the more they get.

Look at Spain and Mexico. They both called for their coaches to be fired because they don't do anything to promote the sport or work hard to improve the players. This shit matters at this stage of the women's game.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:37 pm

And in case anyone is too busy/lazy/whatever to hit that Deadspin article... There's a lot of money at stake, too. And it matters to these players a LOT more than it does to (most) of the men's teams, for obvious financial reasons.

There was a rather touching article posted upthread about two of our US players living with the Van Gundy's while playing for their professional side in Houston. How sweet... And very illustrative of the type of salary the women are pulling in. (To be fair, a lot of the younger, less heralded guys in MLS are in pretty much the same boat... Difference is that these are women on the national team, not fringe guys fresh out of college.)

That French Guy · Post by **That French Guy** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:53 pm

Deadspin article is quite good. I’d add that with the ranking system being used for seeding, losing in semis gets you more points, thus giving you an "easier" table next time, so it does matter.
And why even bother with seeding if the #1 and 3 end up meeting in quarters, after both won their stage group.

joeyclams wrote:In a sport that is growing every year, it does matter how far a team goes in the tourney. The farther they go, the more exposure they get, the more girls want to play soccer. Colombia and Mexico are the next big women's hotspots for increased participation. It's part of the reason that Colombia was talking shit prior to the US game: they wanted media exposure, even if it was a bit negative. They are looking for investment and the better they do or the more attention they draw, the more they get.

Look at Spain and Mexico. They both called for their coaches to be fired because they don't do anything to promote the sport or work hard to improve the players. This shit matters at this stage of the women's game.

That’s another great point. The girls shattered viewership records for basic cable (26% of total audience ! Twice more viewers than round 16), on a friday night during a heat wave no less. They’re on front page of most newspapers now. So a semi would have been à bigger boost to the game.

Be ready for the debate to come up again if Japan repeats, thanks in part to an easier schedule.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:00 pm

Well, we lost the national anthem. But that always happens against Germany, France, UK, Canada or Russia.