That was...something. I watch CONCACAF all the time. I don't think I've ever been as mad at the general level of officiating in one tournament as I am this one, and that includes Hugh Dallas' ********up at our expense in 2002, and every terrible Nicaraguan/Bermudan/Belizan referee that has screwed us in qualifying.
A deserved PK call early, a WTF PK call late and the US hobbles into the quarterfinals. This game should be a wake-up call that Europe is starting to focus on the Women's game as well. Italy, Spain, France, Netherlands, England, Norway, Germany and Sweden are the real deal and so is Denmark who didn't make it because of the game they forfeit in search of equal pay with their Federation. Spain matched the physical play, made the tactical adjustment and had enough skill to play around the US pressure for good periods of the game. They play the counter/long ball game nicely and Garcia on the right side is the real deal. The US definitely have a weakness at left back which Dunn masks at times with her speed but a couple of times she got beat and the final pass just didn't get there. The match with France is going to be a good game to watch. France may have struggled yesterday but they have the talent to match up with the USA all over and they have a much better keeper than the USA has.
I'm most likely going to be at a bar for the game against France. It's going to be hard not to laugh too loud when the US gets embarrassed.
I actually have to fix my previous statement. Sweden is NOT the real deal and they'll join Canada, Brazil and Nigeria in the teams being left behind as women's world continues to evolve into, you know, playing soccer instead of chasing long balls behind the defense and hoping for the best.
Not sure I have ever seen a goal score line not reflect how shitty the player was in the game. Rapinoe was awful all game. Two great PKs.
The second PK was the right call. It’s soft, but it’s there. There have been two prior incidents in this tournament where a defender played the ball and cleated the opponent on the follow-through. Both went to VAR, and both overturned the original no-call and became penalties. On this play, the defender got nowhere near the ball and cleated Lavelle on the outside of the knee. I happen to think all three of those calls were soft, but based on the standard set in other games, it’s consistent.
I'd probably say that whatever the call on the field in this case, VAR couldn't over-turn it. You could theoretically make the case that anytime a group in in the penalty area, there is contact like this. Personally thought it was a very soft foul but glad we won.
Our God King has spoken. https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-states/story/3884781/trump-rapinoe-shouldnt-protest-during-anthem
I'm not sure it's there. Even the slo-mo didn't really show if there was contact or not. If it was, it might have been the slightest contact ever seen on a soccer field. Having called it on the field, she was stuck with the decision. Now, to compare this slight grazing to the other two fouls from the other games where people got cleats clearly into the thigh and the knee is probably not the best way to justify your point. There have been quite a few others that could have been reviewed that were more of a foul than this one even in this game alone. They didn't even go to VAR on the potential foul against a player in the box at the end of the game in one of the games after this one.
Italy, Italy, Italy.... Sorry, got caught with the fever going on about the way this Cinderella story is continuing. They had a crap game due to the heat today and still managed to beat China. Scheduling is a mystery. Germany was the first qualifier into the QF's and will be the last one to take the field getting a week off. Sweden gets 5 days between games, England gets 4 just like the USA.
In what way? I mean, it's hilarious that Trump steps on his own dick all the time and that Jack thinks it's good that he does, but appropriate for discussing the team and their (shitty) lawsuit? Not really.
Of course you would. Take it to the politics forum, period. Also, when I rebooted this thread, it was exclusively for on-field conversations.
I liked that he said they were getting ahead of themselves in saying they'd decline a WH invitation when they hadn't won anything yet. He then said he'd invite them win or lose and was cheering for them.
I keep seeing article headlines about how women love the dad bod. I had no clue that dads wrote so many articles.
I have to think it is less about the bod than the lifestyle. The level of obsession to have a sculpted body like a professional athlete requires you either 1. be a professional athlete or 2. live your life like one. Meaning, it's your entire life, certainly all of your free time if you have to actually do a job to make money and don't get paid to work out. Counting carbs, measuring protein shakes, steaming broccoli and tofu for every meal and fretting about getting in a double leg day all the time I would guess would be tiresome. The "workout bro" type might be nice to look at but would wear out their welcome quickly. A nice guy who rides a bike twice a week, enjoys good food and drink but skips dessert every other time out might be a more appealing long term choice.
That survey confirms everything I said. Work out obsessed people with perfect bodies live a lifestyle that isn't much fun long term. I think that "proof is in the padding" section may be misleading a touch. I'm not sure what they mean by muscular (body builder type? If so, I understand why a dad bod might be preferable). I find it hard to believe if shown a "soccer body" fit, lean, toned but not "swole" picture vs a dad bod that more women would find the lean body more attractive.