I think playing each game 90 minutes all out, while it sounds like the winners' way, is actually not. So while I tend to disdain the "teach kids morals through sports" sort of response to conduct, I think there is a practical argument in a 7 game tournament where leaving it all on the field for yet another and yet another goal in a 13-0 game is overkill and may show up in games 3 and beyond as fatigue. The USMNT put 6 past Honduras home and 4 past Panama four days before they had a game in TnT. Panama then came back, freshened their lineup, and got the late goal they needed. The USMNT showed up for TnT looking tired, didn't rotate the lineup. Got beat. Does 4-0 Panama give you anything then? Way it worked out the loss meant that goal difference was not a factor. So we were +4 with our blowout wins finishing behind teams with negative goal difference, when the other key games on the day came down to who had it left in their teams to score a couple second half goals. I get that in such tournaments it's all about winning, and goals can matter. But there are also other valid considerations like energy management, avoiding injuries, resting key players when you can now so they are strong in some knockout when you need a goal. I would gladly trade the energy to pound in two goals on France in a knockout for the same two goals on Thailand. Priorities.
A good coaching staff already thought about these implications and pros and cons. And decided "this is how we are going to go". They beat Thailand 8-0 last time they played. I'm pretty sure they had an idea of the outcome. Your approach can be construed as taking things for granted which is NOT an attitude you want a top seed team to make. I'm sure you read the Ellis quote about their desired attitude and mindset.
No, sorry, my approach is actually follow the flow of the game and react accordingly. In tournament soccer you should be looking for results and also for outcome-indifferent ways of getting players rest. Once I am up 3-0 at half time to Thailand, and seeing how that game is going, I can begin to make moves accordingly. Or even 4-0 or 6-0 if you are so insecure you really thought Thailand would somehow come back (I mean, really?????). I am actually taking nothing for granted. If the way the game is going is 0-0 at 75' and no assurance of points, different calculus. You do what you have to do, weighing risk and reward, to pursue a result. That may include playing for the tie, since you're pretending you always go all out for wins. Not at the risk of a loss against a dangerous team. You keep it tight and look for that one opening and hope for 1-0. But in this case, counter factual. By half no one thought we were losing that game. Knowing the last game went 8-0 why are you even worried. Make moves to lock the victory down and rest your key players, as well as limit the toll on the players on the field. Beyond 3-0 that was piling on and the value of that has to be weighed against what is gained and risked to get the next 10 goals that don't give you any more points in the standings. As someone who played three sports, often two at a time, rest is an underrated virtue. When you get to the semis or the final it matters how hard you worked to get there. Are you fresh and ready to run circles? Or are you beat up and tired but telling yourself you are proud of your work ethic? People have also lost the value of controlling a game as opposed to risk-taking. That if I have the lead and I am playing keepaway, I am likely to keep it. Like Jamaica and Venezuela did to the men.
Just for heck of it, here's the estimated 2018/19 performance ratings of teams including World Cup games (through AUS/BRZ and CHN/RSA) followed by performance ratings leading into the Cup and official FIFA ratings (in parentheses) 1. Germany 2108 / 2090 pre-WC (2072 official FIFA rating) 2. France 2098 / 2085 (2043 FIFA) 3. USA 2075 / 2075 (2101 FIFA) 4. England 2000 / 1993 (2049 FIFA) 5. Netherlands 1982 / 1969 (1967 FIFA) 6. Sweden 1976 / 1976 (1962 FIFA) 7. Canada 1970 / 1980 (2006 FIFA) 8. Japan 1959 / 1989 (1991 FIFA) 9. Spain 1948 / 1983 (1913 FIFA) 10. Italy 1930 / 1877 (1868 FIFA) 11. Norway 1925 / 1934 (1915 FIFA) 12. Australia 1914/ 1916 (2003 FIFA) 13 Brazil 1883 / 1897 (1944 FIFA) 14. Scotland 1865 / 1874 (1812 FIFA) 15. China 1845 / 1852 (1866 FIFA) 16. South Korea 1798 / 1879 (1883 FIFA) Including World Cup games into performance ratings can make the ratings rather volatile as, using FIFA's ranking method, World Cup games count 4 times as much as ordinary friendlies. Still, it's interesting to note a few things: • Germany/France/USA are closely bunched together at the top. • England leads a tight bunch in the next tier of teams, who are certainly within striking distance of the top and can definitely upset one of the top teams on any given day. • Brazil and Australia have fallen rather noticeably and wouldn't, on the basis of the performance ratings, be considered leading candidates to challenge for a semi-final berth. Going into the Cup, their Group was the closest between the top three, suggesting anything could happen (AUS 1916 / BRZ 1897 / ITA 1877). Between AUS (1916) and ITA (1877), there was only a 40 point rating difference, which corresponds to only about a 56% expected win pct for the higher-rated team.
So is it time for people to revise their lists of players to watch for? (Of course, as of this very moment, some teams have only played one game) From Group A - • have Caroline Graham Hansen and Guro Reiten been all that special for Norway? • Nigeria's Asisat Oshaola came through with a nice goal against South Korea but has she been a "must-watch" player? • Ji Soyun for South Korea has seemed pretty quiet to me • I think almost anyone picked out for France has been worth watching - from Wendi Renard to Delphine Cascarino to Amandine Henry, Amel Majri, Kadi Diani, Eugenie Le Sommer Group B - • Germany's starting to chug along but I haven't been able to single out anyone in particular to watch, except Dzsenifer Marozsan who was injured early in the China game and may not play again in the tournament. But they're winning and they just may be one of those "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" type teams • Patri Guijarro didn't shine in her 30 minutes against Germany but Jenni Hermoso puts her wonderful ball skills to good use • I'm disgusted with China and their dirty, unsportsmanlike play. I really hope they're out of the Cup before the knockout stage Group C - • Italy's played only one game, but those who said to keep an eye on Barbara Bonasea are looking good • Australia has yet to sparkle individually although you had to figure their "never say die" attitude would show up • Brazil - I haven't seen enough of. Obviously Cristiane has re-emerged big-time. Among NWSL players, Camila and Andressinha haven't seen the pitch yet but how is Debinha doing? • Jamaica's only played one game and Khadija "Bunny" Shaw is formidable out there. The young GK Sydney Schneider was spectacular against Brazil, even stopping a PK by Andressa Alves.
Despite Brazil losing the game, I dare to say Debinha was superb yesterday. The wonderful cross that assisted Cristiane's goal would be already worth a big thumbs up, but in general she was a danger for Australia throughout the whole game and she showcased speed, technique and vision of the game. My opinion is that you can blame anyone but Debinha for Brazil's loss.
Goals per match conceded average depending on goalkeeper height. Just to add to this, I have split the goalkeepers up into 3 groups with the same number of matches (and excluded Thailand's keeper v USA from the sample):Goals per match conceded:1.78m or taller: 0.501.73m - 1.77m: 1.361.72m or smaller: 1.50#FIFAWWC https://t.co/8BBACE4voN— Simon Gleave (@SimonGleave) June 14, 2019 Emma Hayes has raised the issue of the size of the goals being reduced - https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/201...als-in-womens-football-a-debate-worth-having/
Didn't see the first match, but Plummer was very impressive today v. Italy. Very good tackling, very good positing. To my eyes, she kept Italy form making it 4 or 5 nil by halftime. And for as good as Shaw may have been v. Brasil, her first touch today was not that great. Granted, her passing accuracy and her vision were quite good.
Four teams already through all Europeans. But there is no space in the calendar for an oly qualifier with the euro 2021 qualifiers as well
There was actually a separate UEFA Olympic qualifying tournament before Rio 2016. Because Sweden, Norway, Netherlands and Switzerland were eliminated in the same round in the 2015 WC, there had to be an extra tournament to decide which team to follow Germany and France to Rio. It was held in the Netherlands over a week or so and Sweden won. If I recall correctly, it replaced going to Algarve for all those teams.
The only right thing to do would be expand the women's Olympic Tournament, but Olympic Committee doesn't want to hear about that.
Don't forget that the larger calendar and other organizational issues also at play here... The women only get one year between a World Cup and the Olympics, while the men get two years - plus, then women send full senior squads while the men can only send augmented u23 squads. The calendar can't really be helped, but since there men now no longer have the Confederations Cup as a smaller senior tournament, I wonder if it would simplify things to just make the women's Olympics an augmented-u23 tournament as well...
I am ok with having two major world-level competitions for women's senior NTs, no need to swith to U-23. I would just like to see a little more teams: I am not saying a second WWC with as many teams, but as it is Olympic Tournament is too much compressed. Also, I don't see the need to follow what men do: women's football have completely different needs.
I can't get excited about the Olympics anymore. Too much corruption--of course a serious problem with FIFA as well--and too much concern with keeping it relevant with young people by adding silly X-game-type sports. If you watch the summer Olympics these days, they barely cover the field track events anymore--not enough flash for TV! The winter Olympics are mostly about sports that have skiiers in the air--acrobatic ski jumping and snow-boarding. Pfff. Beyond that, the Olympics, as big an event as it is, will never top the major events in particular sports like soccer or tennis, for example. You can't top the World Cup.
I don't want to top it at all: I just think women's football needs a second major event for its growth.
There's a reason why no WWC winner ever has followed up with an Olympics win. Olympics futbol, on the women's side, should be changed to the same as for the men.
Well, don't forget that UEFA has the Euro Championship--scheduled in a middle year between World Cups--and that is a very big event.
Well, there are dueling difficulties. Time and expense (meaning more venues). Unlike any other cup, both men and women are played during the same time frame, limitations how many game can be played, as well as how far before the opening ceremony will matches start to be played, and how many venues might be built to expand the field. Agreed - too much corruption, not just with FIFA and IOC, but also with the athletes themselves. As a runner, ticks me off how many dope. That's trivial, really. If you don't like them, don't pay attention. For the winter, I ignore most newer additions, but I know others like them. But as a runner, I remember when the women's marathon was added in 1984 to much outcry. Yet, it is now just another event. I don't know how the coverage is for you, but who ever covers it in the US, has every event covered online. Otherwise it is about the major events (100m, swimming, etc) and when ever a US person does very well. Hey, we get to see curling once every 4 years. Nope, that cannot be done in the fooballing world.
I am all for replacing the UEFA Olympic qualification with a qualifying tournament of Sweden, Norway, Netherlands and Switzerland but I think Germany and France may object. Which four teams did you plan to get a chance to qualify? or don't you get the difference between a four team qualifying tournament and a 48 team or even 16 team qualifying tournament? Anyway the big problem for UEFA is that with three spots most of the good team will be left at home anyway so using a qualification that selects the team that are best on getting the right opponents and go far against any teams not just UEFA ones do make some since that is also needed to do well in the Olympics.
[ Simple. Just have a mini-tournament with only the teams that qualified for the WC. Anything is an improvement on just basing it on WC results. At least this way all 9 (normally 8) WC teams are eligible. Something like this: Seed teams according to FIFA rankings. Then, either as home-and-away aggregate ties or, if time is a constraint, on neutral ground play the following two rounds: Round 1: Top three teams get a bye to Round 2. The remaining six teams playoff for three spots in Round 2. Round 2: The three Round 1 winners playoff against the teams that got byes for the three Olympic spots.